15th February 2026
The rapid proliferation of military and commercial drones has forced armed forces around the world to rethink how air defence works. Cheap, expendable, and increasingly autonomous drones often deployed in swarms have exposed the limits of traditional missile-based air defence systems that are expensive, finite, and ill-suited to dealing with large numbers of small aerial targets.
Against this backdrop, two seemingly competing approaches have attracted attention: high-energy laser weapons, now being pursued by the UK, and non-kinetic counter-drone systems, such as those developed by Raytheon. The question increasingly being asked is whether one of these technologies will make the other redundant — or whether both are necessary in an era of rapidly evolving threats.
Raytheon and the Rise of Non-Kinetic Counter-Drone Weapons
Raytheon's work on non-kinetic drone interception is real, tested, and increasingly mature. Often referred to informally as "Raytheon 3," the technology most commonly associated with this label is the Coyote Block 3 Non-Kinetic interceptor, developed as part of the U.S. Army's counter-UAS programme.
Unlike conventional interceptors, the non-kinetic Coyote does not destroy drones by collision or explosive force. Instead, it neutralises them by interfering with their electronics, guidance systems, or communications. While Raytheon has deliberately avoided disclosing precise technical details, defence analysts widely assess that the system relies on electromagnetic or electronic warfare effects, potentially including high-power microwave disruption.
What makes this approach attractive is its suitability for modern drone threats:
It can engage swarms, not just individual targets.
It avoids falling debris and explosions, reducing risk in urban or sensitive environments.
Some variants are designed to be recoverable and reusable, lowering long-term costs.
In U.S. Army trials, the system has demonstrated the ability to defeat multiple drones in a single engagement without kinetic impact. That alone marks a significant shift away from the "one missile per drone" model that has proven unsustainable in recent conflicts.
The UK's Bet on Laser Weapons
At the same time, the UK is pursuing a different but equally transformative technology: directed-energy laser weapons. The flagship programme is DragonFire, being developed for the UK armed forces with the backing of the UK Ministry of Defence.
Laser weapons work by focusing intense energy on a target at the speed of light, physically damaging or destroying it. The appeal is obvious:
Extremely low cost per shot compared with missiles
Virtually unlimited ammunition, constrained mainly by power supply
High precision, reducing collateral damage
Instantaneous engagement once locked on
UK trials have already demonstrated the ability of laser systems to track and destroy small drones at operationally relevant ranges. The Royal Navy plans to deploy DragonFire on frontline warships later this decade, while the British Army continues vehicle-mounted laser trials for land-based air defence.
Lasers are particularly effective against individual drones, loitering munitions, and slow-moving aerial threats, offering a clean and efficient method of physical destruction.
Do Non-Kinetic Weapons Make Lasers Obsolete or Vice Versa?
Despite surface similarities, these two technologies solve different parts of the same problem. Rather than competing, they reflect a broader shift towards layered air defence.
Laser weapons excel at:
Precision destruction of specific targets
Defending fixed sites such as ships, bases, and infrastructure
Providing a cheap alternative to missiles for repeated engagements
Non-kinetic systems excel at:
Disrupting drone swarms
Neutralising drones without debris
Operating where physical destruction is undesirable or risky
Lasers require clear atmospheric conditions and sustained line-of-sight on a target. Non-kinetic systems may be less affected by weather but depend on the electronic vulnerability of the drone. Neither is universally effective against all threats which is precisely why militaries are investing in both.
Modern defence doctrine increasingly accepts that no single technology can dominate the drone battlefield. Instead, resilience comes from redundancy: if one layer fails or is countered, another remains effective.
A Broader Strategic Shift
What unites Raytheon’s non-kinetic systems and the UK’s laser weapons is not competition, but a shared recognition that traditional air defence is no longer sufficient. Conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and the Caucasus have shown that drones are now a permanent feature of warfare — cheap, adaptable, and tactically decisive.
Missiles alone are too expensive. Guns alone are too short-ranged. Electronic warfare alone can be overcome. Directed-energy and non-kinetic systems represent the next stage in adapting to this reality.
For the UK, this means laser weapons will almost certainly become a core component of future air defence — but not the only one. Systems like Raytheon’s non-kinetic interceptor point toward a future in which electromagnetic effects, cyber disruption, and physical destruction are all used together.
Complementary, Not Redundant
The idea that Raytheon’s non-kinetic technology could render UK laser weapons obsolete — or that lasers will make non-kinetic systems unnecessary — misunderstands how modern defence planning works.
Both technologies are responses to different dimensions of the same threat. Lasers provide precision and economy. Non-kinetic weapons provide scale and disruption. Together, they reflect a future in which air defence is layered, adaptive, and far more complex than the missile-centric systems of the past.
Rather than asking which will win, the more accurate question is how quickly militaries can integrate both — before drone technology evolves yet again.