A system on the ground is easy. A system in the air is very hard. And a system in the air is not reliable. To fire a laser takes a huge amount of electricity if its to bring down a missile or fighter. And, while the laser may be fast to get to a target, it needs time to relay enough energy to destroy the target.
Actually a laser in space is easier too. Weight is less of an issue. The sun provides lots of energy. And there is no rain or pollution to degrade the ray.
Fighters with lasers capable of taking down another fighter is science fiction, not science.
You haven’t been paying attention.
Iron Beam systems are already road mobile, and they are a half generation behind USA HEL systems.
So mobility isn’t the problem.
HEL and Iron Beam systems take out missiles and artillery shells already today, which is different from knocking out a fighter jet (mass, profile, maneuverability, beam detection, etc.).
So pointing out that current airborne lasers are unlikely to take out another fighter jet means either that you aren’t paying attention, or that you are being deliberately deceptive. Your choice.
NOW...for those paying attention, getting a road-mobile laser system from today (hint: they are already deployed in the field, i.e. “they exist”) into the air by 2030 is a manageable challenge...and something that would probably be for defensive measures such as knocking out anti-aircraft missiles and ack-ack shells.
Noteworthy is that everyone keeps saying that such fighter jets would have to carry other munitions. Perhaps air to air missiles. Perhaps small smart-bombs.
Regardless, mounting *existing* mobile weapons systems onto aircraft has been done ever since the first Browning was loaded onto a Wright Flyer over a century ago.
Prepping an aircraft design today for such a feat by 2030 hardly seems like “science fiction” ... unless you haven’t been paying attention.