High-energy laser weapons are often portrayed as a glimpse into the future of warfare. They promise lightning-fast engagements, deep magazines limited only by power supply, and a dramatically lower cost per shot compared with traditional interceptors. These advantages have made directed-energy weapons (DEWs) an attractive addition to modern arsenals, particularly for countering drones, rockets and other low-cost aerial threats.
Yet despite the hype, neither militaries nor defence manufacturers view lasers as a replacement for missiles. Instead, lasers are being developed as a supplement to existing systems. The reasons are rooted in physics, operational reality and the changing nature of modern combat.
A new capability, not a replacement
Defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin are clear that laser weapons are intended to complement traditional weapons rather than replace them. Lasers excel at rapid, precise engagements and can neutralise targets at a fraction of the cost of firing a missile. This makes them ideal for dealing with swarms of inexpensive drones or short-range threats that would otherwise force defenders to expend costly interceptors.
Missiles, however, retain a level of mission flexibility that lasers simply cannot match. They are capable of long-range strikes, area defence and delivering large amounts of destructive energy far beyond the immediate battlefield. Kinetic and explosive payloads ensure that missiles remain effective across a wide spectrum of missions, from air defence to deep strike operations.
Limits of power and performance
One of the most significant constraints on laser weapons is their dependence on environmental conditions. Current systems are most effective at relatively short ranges and against specific types of targets, such as drones, small boats or lightly protected aircraft.
Rain, fog, dust, smoke and battlefield obscurants can degrade a laser beam, reducing its accuracy and range. In contrast, missiles are largely unaffected by weather and can operate across vast distances regardless of atmospheric conditions. These physical limitations mean lasers are best suited to point defence rather than broad, long-range combat roles.
Line-of-sight dependence
Laser weapons require a direct, unobstructed line of sight between the emitter and the target. This restriction severely limits their usefulness in complex environments where terrain, buildings or the curvature of the Earth can block engagement.
Missiles do not face this problem. Modern guidance systems allow them to track and engage targets beyond the visual horizon, manoeuvre around obstacles and strike from unexpected angles. For long-range defence, strategic deterrence and offensive operations, this capability remains indispensable.
Energy and integration challenges
High-energy lasers demand enormous and sustained power, as well as advanced cooling systems to prevent overheating. These requirements make them difficult to integrate onto smaller platforms such as fighter aircraft or lightly equipped vehicles.
While large ships and ground-based systems can support the necessary infrastructure, missiles are far easier to deploy across a wide range of platforms. From submarines and aircraft to mobile launchers, missiles offer flexibility that laser systems cannot yet replicate.
Adapting to countermeasures
As laser technology matures, so too will countermeasures. Missile designers are already exploring improved heat shielding, reflective coatings and manoeuvring tactics that reduce vulnerability to laser engagement. This ongoing cycle of adaptation further reinforces the idea that lasers and missiles will evolve together, rather than one eliminating the other.
Early assessments from defence planners suggest that lasers will be integrated into layered defence systems, working alongside missiles to handle different types of threats at different ranges.
A mixed arsenal for the future
Laser weapons represent a significant technological advancement, but their limitations in range, environmental sensitivity and platform integration ensure that they will not supplant missiles in the foreseeable future. Instead, modern militaries are building mixed arsenals in which lasers provide cost-effective, rapid-fire defence against close-range threats, while missiles remain the backbone of long-range strike and air defence.
On the modern battlefield, the future is not about choosing between lasers and missiles — it is about using both, each where they work best.