The United Kingdom recently committed hundreds of millions of pounds to a directed-energy weapon designed to shoot down fast-moving drones, and a separate line of physics research suggests that the biggest technical obstacle to such weapons, atmospheric turbulence, may be solvable. Together, these developments raise a pointed question: are laser-based defenses on the verge of displacing traditional missile interceptors as the primary counter-drone tool?
Britain Bets Big on DragonFire
Governments have tested laser weapons for decades, but most programs stalled at the prototype stage because of cost overruns, power-supply limits, or poor performance in real weather. The latest signal that institutional confidence is shifting came when a contract was signed to fund the DragonFire laser system. According to reporting from the BBC, £316m will be used to develop the weapon at MBDA’s UK headquarters in Stevenage, Hertfordshire. That figure represents one of the largest single investments any European nation has made in a directed-energy counter-drone platform.
The appeal is straightforward. A conventional surface-to-air missile can cost tens of thousands of dollars per shot, while a laser draws its energy from an electrical power source, making each engagement far cheaper once the hardware is fielded. Against swarms of small, inexpensive drones, the math favors a weapon that can fire repeatedly without reloading. DragonFire is being designed to engage high-speed aerial threats, which suggests the UK Ministry of Defence sees drone swarms and fast cruise-style unmanned vehicles as near-term battlefield realities rather than distant hypotheticals. If the system performs as intended, it could shift the cost calculus of air defense in Britain’s favor.
Atmospheric Turbulence Remains the Core Physics Problem
Any honest assessment of laser weapons has to confront the atmosphere itself. Heat shimmer, wind, humidity, and dust all scatter a laser beam over distance, reducing the energy that actually reaches a target. This is the same phenomenon that makes stars twinkle, and it has historically been the single largest barrier to fielding reliable directed-energy weapons outdoors. Military planners can build a laser powerful enough to melt steel in a lab, but keeping that beam focused on a moving drone several kilometers away through turbulent air is a fundamentally different engineering challenge.
A research preprint on high peak-power lasers presents experimental results on mitigating turbulence-induced beam degradation through self-channeling concepts. In simplified terms, self-channeling occurs when a sufficiently intense laser pulse modifies the refractive index of the air it passes through, effectively carving its own low-turbulence corridor. Think of it as a beam that clears its own path rather than fighting through whatever the atmosphere throws at it. The paper’s experimental data suggest this approach can reduce the beam-wander and spot-size problems that have plagued earlier directed-energy prototypes.
I want to be clear about what this research does and does not prove. The preprint demonstrates a viable physics mechanism under controlled conditions. It does not demonstrate a fieldable weapon system. The gap between a laboratory self-channeling experiment and a truck-mounted laser that works reliably in sandstorms, rain, or maritime fog is enormous. Still, the fact that researchers are producing experimental evidence, not just theoretical models, for turbulence mitigation marks genuine technical progress.
Why Cost-Per-Shot Economics Could Tip the Balance
The strongest argument for laser anti-drone systems is economic, not technological. Modern conflicts have shown that cheap commercial drones can overwhelm expensive missile-based defenses simply by outnumbering them. A defending force that spends a six-figure sum to intercept a drone costing a few hundred dollars is losing the resource war regardless of whether the intercept succeeds. Lasers flip that equation. Once the capital cost of the system is absorbed, each shot draws only electrical power, which costs a fraction of a missile round.
This cost advantage matters most in sustained engagements. A missile launcher carries a finite number of rounds and requires a logistics chain to reload. A laser weapon, paired with a sufficient generator or shipboard power plant, can fire as long as it has electricity and its optics remain undamaged. For naval vessels defending against drone boats or aerial swarms, or for forward operating bases facing persistent small-drone harassment, the ability to keep shooting without resupply is a genuine operational advantage. The £316m DragonFire investment suggests that UK defense planners have reached a similar conclusion and are willing to commit serious funding to test whether the economics hold up in practice.
What Could Still Go Wrong
Skepticism is warranted. Previous directed-energy programs, including the U.S. Airborne Laser and several ground-based prototypes, consumed large sums before being scaled back or canceled. The reasons varied, but a recurring theme was that laboratory performance did not translate to battlefield reliability. Power supplies were too heavy or too fragile. Optics degraded faster than expected. Beam quality dropped in adverse weather. None of these problems has been definitively solved, even if self-channeling research offers a promising path for the turbulence piece of the puzzle.
There is also the question of countermeasures. Reflective coatings, smoke screens, and rapid evasive maneuvering can all reduce a laser’s effectiveness. A drone swarm operator who knows the defender has a laser weapon can design cheap countermeasures, such as spinning the drone to distribute heat or coating it in reflective material, that force the laser to dwell on target longer. Longer dwell times mean fewer engagements per minute, which erodes the very cost and speed advantages that make lasers attractive. The arms race between beam and target is far from settled.
Power dependency introduces another vulnerability. A missile system that runs out of rounds is inert but intact. A laser system that loses its generator or suffers an electrical fault is both weaponless and potentially a liability, since the sophisticated optics and electronics represent a high-value target in their own right. Designers will need to harden these systems against battle damage and ensure redundancy in power and cooling. If a single well-placed artillery shell or drone strike can knock out a laser battery’s generator, the supposed advantage of inexhaustible ammunition evaporates in an instant.
Are Lasers Really Ready to Replace Missiles?
Given these trade-offs, it is premature to say that lasers are about to replace missiles as the primary counter-drone tool. A more realistic near-term picture is one of layered defenses, where directed-energy weapons complement, rather than supplant, conventional interceptors. Lasers could handle the bulk of low-cost, short-range threats (such as quadcopters or small fixed-wing drones), freeing up missiles for higher-value or more distant targets. In this model, the DragonFire-type systems become the workhorses of day-to-day air defense, while missile batteries serve as the backstop when weather, range, or target characteristics exceed what a laser can handle.
That layered approach also hedges against the uncertainties of the underlying physics and engineering. If self-channeling techniques prove robust in real-world conditions, they could dramatically extend the effective range and reliability of laser weapons, making them viable even in less-than-ideal weather. If they fall short, or if countermeasures advance faster than beam control, militaries will still have their missile systems to fall back on. The UK’s substantial investment signals that at least one major power is willing to pay to find out which way the balance tips.
Ultimately, the race between drones and defenses is not a one-time contest but a continuing cycle of measure and countermeasure. Lasers, backed by advances in high-peak-power physics and large-scale funding commitments, now have a credible shot at becoming a central part of that cycle rather than a perpetual technology of the future. Whether they end up displacing missiles or simply sharing the stage will depend on how quickly researchers can turn promising lab results into rugged hardware, and how creatively adversaries respond once the beams begin to fire in anger.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
