Chinese UAV/UCAV development
- Thread starter AssassinsMace
- Start date
- Status
Shooting down UAV is easy. Iran shoot down American drone. American shoot down Iranian drone. Drones are slow moving aircraft with very low maneuverability. Anyone can shoot down a drone. That's not a worry at all.
The real question is why were Turks in Lybia.
Because Erdogan nurses delusions of a neo-Ottoman caliphate.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I don't know why people make a big deal about shooting down any drone. No, I actually do know why. It's because they want to make it look how horrible Chinese products are because they can be shot down which they don't make that conclusion when US drones get shot down. Remember Iran shot down a Global Hawk so don't be surprised this slam on Chinese drones is solely to deflect from that. Where does it say that drones have something more special where they get shot down less than a manned fighter? Countries don't buy drones for their stealth capabilities.
foxmulder_ms
Junior Member
That article is written like an advertisement, don't believe it for a second.
Not questioning that they downed the drone but the claim that they used a laser to do it is highly dubious.
Mobile anti-drone lasers currently don't have the hard-kill range to bring down something like a Wing-long II from its operational height. A SAM is a far more likely culprit.
Well many are loving this idea and think of Turkish military industry as laser weapon experts now. Looking at the damage and it doesn't seem to be a hard kill laser. Such a weapon is barely ready in the military of China or USA, even Russia. All of them with demonstrably more abilities, experience, and funding in laser technologies and research. It would be foolish to say this is outside the capabilities of Turkey but let's get real as well. Will be interesting to take a close look at publicly disclosed Turkish laser weapons. How do they acquire and track targets? What ranges can they do what damage? Most other forums are filled with the usual chauvinists wanking each other off and making huge assumptions on their abilities. Apparently China's entire military power is worthy of doubt now that a drone manufactured there is alleged shot down by a laser weapon
I guess the Americans should also pack it in as soon as Japan lost an F-35.Laser kill or not, the really troubling claim/consequence out of this is the performance of the FLIR on the drone not having enough range or resolution to allow for higher flight altitudes, forcing the operator to fly the drone low and get exposed to all sorts of unfriendly attention.
Last edited:
Actually it is unlikely to be a missile that did the damage since it landed mostly intact and the centre fuselage burned away. There are indications this is done by anti-air artillery or the alleged laser means. See shrapnel damage in the undetonated missile. Could be laser burn marks but this is highly unlikely as scorch marks will not look like a bullet entry point. The claims on Turkish sources re their 5kW or 20kW lasers (single and multi modes?) claim it can burn through 3mm of steel at 1.5km in about 3 seconds. This is a static target no doubt and the visuals sure resemble that on a piece of the undetonated missile. Problem with this is a drone is flying pretty fast and probably accelerating around and being subjected to turbulent air. There's simply no way that nice laser beam kept on the same coin sized area for more than 3 seconds.
Above is claimed static test targets yielding supposed 3mm thick at 1.5km in 3secs. Below is supposed laser damage. Note this is done on a undetonated missile. Presumably burned through it and damaged the UAV. Possibly not only area fried by the beam. But this proves the point above. And it almost certainly is a zoom in of the missile - see red rectangular marking and the diagonal streak between the red rectangle and the shrapnel/ round entrance. That would have to be one FINE gimbal and turret steering that beam. In reality such a laser beam's damage should scorch in a pattern and "trace" around the target a little. This looks more like a round or shrapnel that punctured the missile in less than a fraction of a second.
Now this merely goes towards showing the evidence presented by some isn't likely to indicate the laser's damage. It doesn't mean no laser weapon was used to shoot down this UAV. It's just claims still. If anything that horizontal streak looks more like laser weapon damage but it's barely got through the paint.
Above is claimed static test targets yielding supposed 3mm thick at 1.5km in 3secs. Below is supposed laser damage. Note this is done on a undetonated missile. Presumably burned through it and damaged the UAV. Possibly not only area fried by the beam. But this proves the point above. And it almost certainly is a zoom in of the missile - see red rectangular marking and the diagonal streak between the red rectangle and the shrapnel/ round entrance. That would have to be one FINE gimbal and turret steering that beam. In reality such a laser beam's damage should scorch in a pattern and "trace" around the target a little. This looks more like a round or shrapnel that punctured the missile in less than a fraction of a second.
Now this merely goes towards showing the evidence presented by some isn't likely to indicate the laser's damage. It doesn't mean no laser weapon was used to shoot down this UAV. It's just claims still. If anything that horizontal streak looks more like laser weapon damage but it's barely got through the paint.
Last edited:
IF the laser claim is true, the shooting range would have been within 1.5km (according to your post 3469). I really don't think the FLIR is so bad that the UAV had to fly below 2000 meters while its service ceiling is at 5000 meters.
I think the real reason of a possible "low altitude" flight (if it is indeed shot at that that altitude) is data link. For a long range (and high altitude) patrol, the operator need satellite data link, and I don't think any ME countries are close enough to China that China is willing to lend satellite channels to them. So that left them using ground stations to control, that limit both altitude and range. If it goes
- Status