Britain’s DragonFire laser has destroyed high speed drones during recent trials at the MOD Hebrides range, with the Ministry of Defence announcing a 316 million pound contract for MBDA UK to deliver the first ship fitted systems from 2027, the organisation stated.
According to the MOD, the trials involved targets travelling at speeds up to 650 kilometres per hour and included what it describes as a UK first in above the horizon tracking, targeting and engagement.
🇬🇧 The UK’s DragonFire laser has shot down high-speed drones in new trials, with above-the-horizon tracking and pinpoint accuracy at a kilometre. A £316m contract now pushes the system toward a Type 45 destroyer by 2027. pic.twitter.com/6sjHq1aYzH
— UK Defence Journal (@UKDefJournal) November 20, 2025
The department highlights the system’s low cost per shot and its claimed precision at long range. It says DragonFire will be installed on a Type 45 destroyer on a timeline the government describes as significantly accelerated.
Defence Readiness and Industry Minister Luke Pollard MP said in the release “This high power laser will see our Royal Navy at the leading edge of innovation in NATO, delivering a cutting edge capability to help defend the UK and our allies in this new era of threat.”
Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander said in the release “This new 316 million pound contract award and news that DragonFire has successfully taken down high speed drones in the latest trials at the MoD’s Hebrides range shows just how vital Scottish expertise is to the UK’s national security.”
Senior industry partners also spoke on the programme’s momentum. Chris Allam, Managing Director of MBDA UK, stated in the release “This latest contract for DragonFire is another significant milestone. It allows us to continue with the next phase of the programme and re affirms the UK’s intent to be at the forefront of laser directed energy weapons.”
QinetiQ Group CEO Steve Wadey said in the release “The DragonFire programme is delivering the ambition of the Strategic Defence Review, with industry experts working in collaboration with government to get disruptive, next generation technology into the hands of our warfighters at pace.”
Mark Stead, Senior Vice President for Radar and Advanced Targeting at Leonardo UK, said in the release “Leonardo has channelled its decades of experience developing world leading lasers to produce DragonFire’s beam director, which harnesses and directs the powerful laser energy on target.”
DragonFire is the first high-power laser system entering service from a European nation; it is one of NATO’s most advanced directed energy programmes.
Are the T45s the most vulnerable of our assets to be fitted first?
Shouldn’t high value KPs in the UK get them instead to defend against a truck launching dozens of Drones to take out our few larger assets that are often neatly lined up in rows? So P8, Atlas, C17, Voyager.
I think the key question about this system is whether it is a laboratory-made prototype or engineered for mass production. We desperately need something to protect key infrastructure and valuable military assets so it had better be the latter.
The problem with that though, is that anyone attacking with drones launched from a truck would just avoid whichever targets have a DF outside. Too many targets to equip them all with DF, and even if the DF locations were kept secret, the cheapness of drones from the back of a van would make it cost effective to conduct multiple attacks at once to spread the odds. We need a simple/cheap local system to role out for this homeland defence we keep hearing about, like a SR version of a Bofors 40mm with 3P airburst platform.
I’ve also wondered whether all military bases should be covered with a ‘circus tent’ style drone net, with a central hexagon of tall supports holding up ‘the middle’, and the edge secured to the perimetre fence. Could even have the netting around the edge made of conductive material and electrified to stop mugs climbing in.
Agreed, it would need to be in conjunction with other assets! There must be an effective AA gun out there that can ge bought in bulk? Can they be operated remotely or wouod they need people, as crewing them on the scale needed would be problematic to say the least.
If this is the most effective defence, placing them at the two dozen or so KPs militarily, intelligence wise and industrial wise would be at least something.
I’d also visualised, for the curiosity of it, great nets to hinder Drones. A bit difficult at airfields!!!
But certain sites smaller in size might be feasible .
We seem to be able to provide Ukraine with AD systems! They along with Jordan are fielding the Terrahawk Palladian mounted on a MAN 8 wheeler and is demountable for ground use as well! Of course they have Raven as well but we don’t seem to be interested at all.
Taking a risk vs spending on other priorities.
Chagos. Afghan. Ukraine. No shortage there.
If the unthinkable happened, “lessons will be learned.”
As always, I loathe the lot of them.
Absolutely, where there’s *a will* there’s a way, as they say… (‘Somnambulate’ is a good word!).
Some command HQ for a squad of remote AA operators who would provide 24/7 guard duty for all national strategic assets. Perhaps with a contingency for individual base personnel to be trained on the guns in case of cyber-attack breaking down the sat-link. Would also give MoD the chance to announce ‘new capabilities’ and aquire new talent.
Skyranger seems to be a ‘cheapish’ version of what we’re talking about – somewhere between £8M for a single gun and £40M full unit with radar etc. Imagine a bulk purchase could bring the price down, but would this foreign purchase fit into ‘the industrial strategy’?
For the airfields – I reckon a large part of the essential infrastructure could be covered in nets, particularly around the central buildings, tower and parked planes. As long as the obvious sections were open for daily operations, it would shave off ~90% of the approaches, and leave the remaining corridor down which you could train your AA guns!
I’m sure all of these considerations will be in the DIP, no need to worry.
Australian company EOS’s Apollo HEL is similar to Dragonfire’s 50kw laser but scaleable to 150kw. Its is containerised and easily transportable but focused more on land based targets (although it could potentially be repackaged for shipboard use). EOS Titanis system combines radar, C2 and hard kill options of EOS’s Slinger anti drone gun system (exported to Ukraine) with the Apollo laser.
This is very significant and positive news. We are talking about a highly effective means of self defence, costing a fraction of the amount. The aim now must be to move from the prototype/testing phase to full production and integration onboard RN Ships and the Carriers.
The destroyers are going to be such a hodge-podge of equipment come the late-2020s, what with the Sea Ceptor additions, the NSM additions, the PIP additions, the Sea Viper Evolution and now the Dragon Fire addition.
How is Sea Ceptor more of a hodge podge than Mk41?
You misunderstand me; I was referring more to the various states of completion each destroyer will be in. There’ll be some that have Sea Ceptor and NSM, but lack DragonFire, whilst others will have SVE but lack others things. It won’t be until the mid-2030s that each ship has everything planned.
Sea Ceptor is a little more hodge-podge than Mk41 would have been, given the ships were always intended to take extra deep-penetration VL-cells rather than the shorter Sea Ceptor.
We are getting a good way towards the end of PiP
First Sea Ceptor should be tested soon.
Likewise first NSM.
It has always been like that upgrading groups of ships.
In this case made slower by how few ships we have and how many upgrades and enhancements are required.
Can we test it on a Spy Ship’s bridge deck…
This tech is going to move fast over the coming years. I wonder how upgradeable this installation will be. 50kw today, competitors can offer more. Can they upgrade it in situ as the tech moves on?
It’s not just about power. It’s about power density and dwell time. The more tightly a beam is focused the less overall power is needed to achieve the same effect.
so are those upgradeable in situ or will the whole system need replacing?
I suspect that it will be upgradable in situ up to a certain point, like most tech upgrades can be. It is already in the process of having the power being upped. I suspect the installation itself will be able to handle that to some considerable degree as assumptions will be built into the initial design and how its on that basis integrated into the ship. The major limitations will likely be beyond the actual laser installation as physical size isn’t likely to be greatly altered in the foreseeable future and the likely envisaged upgrades. Limitations will probably be set by the power available beneath decks and how it’s stored and delivered. As has been said, the effectiveness is a balance between power and how effectively that power is used.
Again before people go all Star Wars turbo laser Pew! Pew! Pew! … A reality check.
Engagement range is said to be a kilometer… Its probably around 3-5 times that in reality but we will stick with a single Km
At 650km/h a single drone would be overhead in 5-6 seconds.
What was the dwell time for the beam at 1km? It appeared to be 2-3 seconds
What is the time to switch target, aquire and re-engage anew?
If the time is more than a few seconds per target then you can engage only 2 or 3 targets before getting swamped…
Again…
Physics…
Its a B**ch!! 🤔
Is 650km/h a realistic speed for most drones? That seems awfully fast
Most drones, maybe not, but the target traveling at that speed would have been a drone. Banshee 80+ target drones can travel even faster than that and can even launch supersonic targets. Strike drones will go the same way. For example the RN is looking for high subsonic drones to work off the carriers.
The contract by RN with QiniteQ was for £6.88 million for four drones (and launch services presumably) which brings the unit cost of a high subsonic drone of that size to around a million quid. That kind of cost exchange ratio (and approach speed) makes it a justifiable conventional target for Sea Ceptor. Unlikely any adversary is going to be launching large swarms of this type and cost. Dragon Fire and other HEL weapons are for a different target set of smaller, slower low cost drones. Also would be useful for high speed ‘leakers’ as an adjunct to conventional CWIS.
It isn’t, they are pushing the parameters to test limits. Most drones it will be dealing with would be half or one third of that speed but you need to know what it can and can’t handle to build into your combat systems and train your crew.obviously at the same time you have to be prepared for all manner of hybrid drone/missile developments that may materialise. For the forseeable future however I think it’s going to be the preferred take down solution for surveillance and relatively unsophisticated attack drones and a back up for other weaponry especially as a last ditch defence for other threats. It will no doubt beyond that be further developed and feed into following generations of no doubt more capable platforms further into the future. Reliability and Perfecting it is going to be the shorter term ambitions mind I’m sure as it’s a brand new system.
What is the £316 million for? I know what the article says but I don’t have any details eg is it for all the 45’s or more . If the cost is £20/30/40 million per ship it’s never worth it surely.
That is 2 x 40mm and a pile of 3P money?
You’re looking at costs into the millions for some individual missiles (different intended target of course), or if firing several smaller/cheaper missiles, you can get into the millions just taking out 3 drones. Over the course of a ships life, it’ll more than break even on cost grounds surely (assuming it actually engages any targets of course).
Navy Lookout says £79M per T45 – and they’re only fitting it to 4 of them.
I’m not sure how you can compare weapon oranges with weapon bananas mind, especially when a completely new platform type is being introduced compared with a more mature type. But even more so when going beyond initial costs and consider cost of operation which in peacetime is totally different to conflict and even type of conflict too. A whole new technology has serious upfront costs while performance may not match mature weapons potential but it’s also an investment in the future and one has to judge where that future takes the technology. In the first few years of jet aircraft they were a poor cost/effectiveness balance but it was clear where technology was going. I think the big question is how laser and microwave weaponry competes in this sector, I think there is room for both but without investment you don’t find out where the technology goes.
2027….. which will probably slip to 28/29. Sigh.
Utterly pointless boondoggle that will only kill one drone over swarm before being overwhelmed.
We don’t have anything that won’t be overwhelmed by swarms currently, if we want a full answer missiles are not that, guns aren’t maybe microwave weapons but in reality it’s going to be a mix of them all and lasers too I suspect. But in reality swarm threats at sea are something of an unknown threat so far it’s been small numbers and surveillance types and missiles can have mixed results against them if what I have read is true. With threats short of swarm attacks lasers may well be the best weapon to exploit. Thing is there will be a wide range of drone threats and so you need a wide range of defensive options.
Yeah just look at the number of Ukranian and Russian ships that are now at the bottom of the Black Sea as a result of drone swarms…
Hope £316 million equips more than one T45.
Excellent, it would be nice to see them in Ukraine sooner rather than later.