Good question, probably depends a lot on how much energy actually makes it to the target some distance away. And then how much is actually absorbed. Probably depends more on the power density then, rather than total power?

Can't imagine they get a very small spot at multiple km unless they use gigantic lenses or multiple independent laser focused on the same spot

▲

JumpCrisscross 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe it involves multiple converging beams to reduce transmission losses?

	▲	tguvot 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		yes it does

▲

condensedcrab 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Even small divergence angles add up if they’re trying to intercept at visual ranges outside of traditional munitions.

That being said, probably ~10kW/m^2 is enough to overheat or disable a UAV

	▲	chmod775 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It'll get a lot of time to react at that energy as it's not going to "instantly" fry anything. That's probably less energy/m2 than consumer heat guns, especially if consider that these drones are likely going to get sprayed in reflective paint. Easy defense for the drone would be just: get into a spin to get roasted evenly -> shut off -> fall for a few hundred meters, cooling using air that rushes by to counteract the laser further -> catch itself once it lost the laser. That would force these laser systems to point each drone until it either visibly goes up in flames or impacts the ground (which means you also need to be able to track them all the way down), otherwise you can't be sure it won't just snap back to life once you started engaging the next drone. I don't feel like 10kw/m2 would be anywhere near useful. It's gotta be more than that. Stadium floodlights aren't going to instantly grill any bird that flies in front of them either, and they reach that ballpark.