The U.S. Navy’s acquisition chief announced the establishment of the London Tech Bridge—the U.S. Navy’s first such innovation centre outside the United States.
According to the U.S. Navy here, the initial focus areas of the London Tech Bridge will be artificial intelligence, unmanned and autonomy, biotechnology, space, and lasers/directed energy.
“London Tech Bridge makes 13 overall and our first overseas location,” said James Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for Research Development and Acquisition.
“This location emphasises and builds on our unique partnership with the U.K. and Royal Navy and will better enable us to accelerate solutions to support our defense strategies.”
The London Tech Bridge will connect UK technology solutions to the U.S Department of the Navy and will also partner U.S. companies with UK industry and the Ministry of Defence. In London, the Tech Bridge will be working with the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy, combining the innovation of the two nations’ defense experts.
“The London Tech Bridge will serve as the DON gateway to connect with international leading-edge tech companies and innovation partners to accelerate solutions,” said Whitney Tallarico, NavalX Tech Bridge program director.
“While national security is our goal, we are keenly aware that it takes an international team to provide stability for our world. Part of that stability is based on offering global citizens meaningful jobs, opportunities to work on complex problems, and providing a platform to remind us that we have friends at home and abroad who want to see our people and our economies flourish,” Tallarico said.
I guess the UK must be doing something right on this stuff if the USN is looking to get into bed at an early stage.
well…..ours is called dragonfire….so its got a much better name than their stupid acronyms if nothing else! 😛
Let’s hope we are bringing more than just a name to the party! Need to get what’s her name from game of thrones so that people can visualise the brand …
I really hope someone puts a sticker on the firing button saying “Dracarys!”
Remember they now have the storm breaker missile ?
Can someone explain this to me? Now clearly a directed energy weapon (a lazer as I understand it) is highly desirable because it travels at the speed of light, is directionally very accurate (light travels in straight lines) and some what awe inspiring (we have a Star Wars weapon). However to produce one requires a huge amount of energy. Now either they will need to hugely upgrade the energy output of the engines or used stored energy. Both have serious weight issues for warships; batteries for stored energy or much larger energy generating engines. How can this work? I’m not against it but unsure of the science.
“Lazer”? A laser is coherent light of the same frequency. Great as long as it is not raining/foggy or the target is no too far away. Now EMP tech much more fun!.
Chrisjs
Excuse my ignorance. EMP (electro magnetic pulse?), would probably destroy the guidance system in an incoming missile but not destroy the warhead as it isn’t a heat weapon like a proper lazer. How does this work?
Yes, it’s an Electromagnetic Pulse. And it will wipe out all the electronics in a missile which will make the missile fall out of the sky. Oh, and its LASER, not LAZER, and it stands for
Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation”
Andy…
You are so superior…I bet you have an EMP right now and your laser like intelligence doesn’t extend to any social skills.
You are probably a compulsive cleaner too. Have fun.
I think this is the fundamental problem that no one seems to have solved so far. Its all well and good a laser working in a desert or ideal sea scenario, but any CIWS needs to work no matter the weather and work every time or its pretty pointless.
This is why laser homing artillery was virtually useless in Europe.
I think that the US Army had something called Copperhead, not much for the reasons that you said.
Well my knowledge is limited as its all rather restricted and I am not technical, but as I understand it, one of the aspects of Dragonfire that the US is interested in is the electrical generation/storage mechanism that was originally designed by Williams for F1/Fe that Rolls Royce are now exploiting to be able to develop, store (short term) and release great waves of electrical energy as and when you need it. Last I read a few months back this has been successfully tested in the US and is being taken forward to the next stage of ‘real world’ testing. It certainly reduces the strain on the ships electrical systems to supply such enormous amounts of electrical energy instantly while supplying the ships other needs too. I would presume that this move suggests that the US is rather keen to collaborate on this and no doubt other technologies more directly, cost effectively and timely than might otherwise be the case. While hopefully adding their own input and technology at an earlier developmental stage to help improve the abilities, development and speed of any such technology which one hopes will be to the benefit of both parties.
While there may be no link here I could imagine that what with potential enemies ahead in Hypersonic missiles Reaction Engines technology might be the sort of thing again that both parties would think worth collaborating on in part or full. Hey we might actually get access to such missiles ourselves in the future when otherwise I cannot possibly see how that happens. Lets just hope it doesn’t just give them cheap access to our development like in the war/post war period with offers of breadcrumbs in return.
Exactly, I’d be interested to know what exactly the Americans bring to this table.
Add to that that they’ve not exactly been there most reliable partner these last 4 years.
It would be nice to see if they can right their ship and join the grown up table again.
There is a huge amount of research and development going on in states around micro nuclear reactors I believe. One that would fit i to something the size of a shipping container and be used to power something the size of camp bastion by itself. Many other applications, and could be the holy grail for power generation to things like lasers and open the doors for larger power classes.
There’s a huge amount of research going on here in the UK too.
Jet engines produce a lot of energy. If we look at the F-35B for example It outputs just over 180kn of thrust on afterburner, its capable of diverting 89kn of that mechanically to the lift fan via an axel. Thats about 20kw if converted to electricity. The lasers they are fitting to ships are in the 30-60kw range. The batteries to hold 20kw are around 520kg but you would likely do it with capacitors rather than batteries as you only need to hold the energy for a few seconds. So by sacrificing the carrying capacity of a medium sized bomb you could probably trickle charge a laser that could fire every few seconds.
Lockheed have been contracted that for the next version of the F135 engine (block 4 I think) they increase its electrical generation and heat dissipation capability by about 10-20% to enable these kind of applications. Its actually pretty easy to generate electricity from a jet turbine as it is mechanically identical to a electrical turbine, you just have to be careful not to increase the amount your taking so much that you stall the engine.
The main issue on adapting the F35 wont be electrical generation it will be heat dissipation.
Good point. Surely energy = Heat??
The stored energy is in flywheels and capacitors not batteries. You can therefore build the energy when required and keep topping up.
Targeted EMP and microwaves is the future.
I was talking ships BTW.
Sometimes what we are interested is not energy but power. The ability to transmit energy in a short period of time. Lasers have the ability to switch at unprecedented speeds. So, even if the energy is reasonably small, the power can massively exceed that of a nuclear power plant. I don’t know what dragon fly etc rely on but if it’s power then there’s your answer.
I wonder what happened to Dragonfire?
Is there a danger of “brain drain” ? Could the UK be reduced to a consumer of US made systems that UK expertise helped create ?
It sounds like a major outflow of hard earned knowledge lies ahead and for what benefit to the UK.
Lasers at sea…
The UK had them at sea in the very early 80s. CHEAVAGE was a rather Heath Robinson set up but it did the job of “dazzling” a target. The Geneva convention however is a little bit grey on the subject as a weapon designed only to maim and not kill so it was one of the reasons it was discontinued with.
Current efforts use solid state not gas lasers and have a higher power density. Power supplies are not really an issue on a vessel . DG and GT alternators produce mega watts of power onboard. What you do need Capacitor banks and flywheel tech to store the energy and allow it to be used in instantaneous high power bursts.
With lasers Physics is the issue. Current systems have a range measured in Kms against slow moving airborne drone targets or surface craft. The tech does not exist to allow you to shoot down missile targets at hundreds or even multiples of 10s of Kms away. Thermal management, blooming due to atmospherics and absorbtion windows in the atmosphere all cause issues. Unless there is a major breakthrough or the laws of physics change long range (100 km) lasers hitting multiple targets are not going to happen anytime soon at sea level.
Dazzlers, the ability to burn out optics (mechanical and human!), and to cause damage to close in targets at 10s of Km are going to be the design limit and capability for the future years at sea level.
That said efforts aimed atvdeploying lasers onboard aircraft that fly in clean clear thin atmospheric conditions are another thing altogether.
The fact that ethically it’s more appropriate design a weapon kill someone over maiming them is a very interesting discussion point all by itself.
To dazzle does not necessarily mean damage. The laser involved, I thought, merely dazzled and did no actual harm (in itself of course).
I’ve known a few women who can dazzle to the point of damage.
I suppose that most of us end up marrying one (or more than one). Luckily my bank account is safe, I have always kept my own.
If you put a filter on it and use low power it will dazzle…However, up the watts and remove the eye safe filters and it will do a lot more than that.
Even small hand held lasers such as those ones you can buy in the far east off cocky market stalls to use when out clubbing ( Not that i ever have!!!) can cause retinal damage and they are only rated at mWs and powered with a couple of watch batteries.
Imagine what a 10-50kw laser can do.
As long as there are agreements in place that alloow us to utilise the outcomes of any of this US-funded research I’m OK with this.
That said, could they not have “levelled up” a bit and put the centre somewhere other than London…?
I may be wrong, but I took the meaning to be a virtual “centre” as in liaison between our DSTL bods and theirs at the MoD itself.
If I’m wrong, I’d like to know the location.
OK if we just concentrate on the ships then most modern ships are having additional capacity growth built into them to supply additional power but lets not confuse continuous power with pulse power. DEW use pulse power from a storage bank (laser, Rail Gun, EMP) so the continuous power you require on a ship is set by how quickly you want to reload and fire again. You can achieve MW of pulsed power and only need kW of continuous power as the pulse is very small.
The difficult part is the storage and the release of the energy which is why Mercedes do so well in Formula 1 as theirs is better than Ferrari and Red Bull. The benefits of DEW is that you need no explosives on the ship so logistics and safety are better, it’s the range that’s the problem. Lasers are affected by the weather but not all frequencies are affected the same. The classic picture of a read beam hitting a target is just marketing crap, these will be weapons not operating in the visible spectrum because they are affected more by the weather (rainbows are a good hint). These weapons will be at different frequencies, the key part is delivering enough energy to either produce a rapid heating effect (explosion) or a disruptive effect to the electronics.
The issue with EMP (and we already use something very similar with EW on ships) is that the energy fall off is rapid over distance so only any good for close up without using a full sized Radar.
Rail guns are big and heavy and will replace normal guns once they work out how to keep the barrels from wearing out after a few rounds. The issue is still the energy delivery to the round is pretty difficult to repeat at the rate and reliability required.
Lasers will be the first for use on close up targets, think of small drones and ships. Why use £100k missiles (minimum) to hit small drones and boats when you can use a laser for a fraction of the cost.
It will be interesting to see how this develops over the next 10 years.
Ramble over 🙂
A laser by definition, is a method of creating a spot of coherent light (all travelling in the same direction) from a body that has been externally excited. Traditionally the bodies were things like ruby crystals or pressurized carbon dioxide. But over 20 years ago the laser diode was invented. These solid-state devices were not all that powerful; however, they could be scaled up and brought together in a collective. Today, a diode laser can reliably generate a lot more power. The UK’s Dragonfire is a so called fibre laser. This is a misnomer, as it is a collective of diode lasers whose outputs are fed together by fibre optics onto a moveable and focusable lens array. This means the laser’s power output can be easily controlled. In 2017 Dragonfire was pumping out around 50kW of intensity, the goal is to reach 100kW However, lasers are inherently inefficient, whose output is at best 33% of the input. So, the assumption is Dragonfire requires 150kW of energy to generate a spot intensity of 50kW. With Qinetiq’s goal of 100kW of spot intensity, we would be looking for at least 300kW required to power it.
Dragonfire is an ongoing science project that includes Qinetiq, MBDA, Leonardo, BAe, Arke, Marshall ADG and Rolls Royce, with the aim to produce a laser based close in weapon system (CIWS). It has already shown that it can take out target drones at around 5km distance. But missiles are in a different league. Some of the problems with lasers are how the environment affects the beam. Lasers, just like radar are governed by the inverse square law when transmitting within the atmosphere. They are heavily affected by water, but also by airborne debris (dust etc). Another issue for lasers, is beam divergence, which is where the diameter of the spot increases linearly over distance. The actual divergence is quite small and measured in milliradians, but has repercussions when trying to focus on a target over a significant distance. The cause of divergence is generally broken down to four areas: Diffraction, Beam Quality, Atmospheric turbulence and Thermal blooming. One method of reducing a beam’s divergence is by firing the beam through a type of telescope.
Lasers destroy targets by burning through the outer skin to get at the juicy bits inside, such as guidance systems, sensors, initiating explosives or ramping up a fuels temperature past its flash point. Even if you covered the target with a highly reflective coating, a significant portion of heat is transferred to the target. As the laser spot is kept in the same area it will dull the reflectivity. Therefore, steadily increasing the amount of heat that is absorbed, until the material fails. This is a problem with mirrors that are used for mechanical beam steering, as they have a reflective operational life, whereby they require replacing when they go below a certain tolerance level.
A cruise missile or especially a hypersonic missile will be a lot tougher to destroy than a drone. This is because of speed, range and toughness. As the speed of the target gets faster there is less time for the beam’s spot to be focused on one area. The target is now travelling much faster, so you want to attack it a lot earlier. However, the environment, beam dispersion and the available power must be considered. Compared to a cruise missile, a hypersonic one will be a lot tougher, literally, as it needs to cope with the heat generated by air friction. Therefore, its skin, particularly around the nose, will be a lot thicker, thus increasing the laser’s burn through time. Even though the beam is travelling at the speed of light in the atmosphere, it will still take time to burn through the target’s skin and then effect the inners. Which is why there is a steady desire to keep increasing the spot intensity of the laser past 100kW, as it may not be enough to defeat a hypersonic missile target at relatively long distance away from the ship.
Just like a radar, a laser can transmit two basic waveforms, i.e. pulse or continuous wave. A continuous wave laser will deliver a set amount of energy over time, whereas a pulse will deliver a maximal amount of energy in a short amount of time. It would be beneficial for a CIWS laser to use continuous wave as it can build up the temperature even if the target is moving around. However, it is impractical for two reasons. You would have to be constantly generating a lot of power to run the laser in this mode. But more significantly is the amount heat being generated by the laser that will need cooling. It is for these reasons a CIWS laser will need to be operated in a pulse mode. A pulsed laser also delivers a benefit by causing a target’s material to fail through pulse resonance. This causes the material to vibrate increasing the heat damage and speeding up the burn through process. However, rapid very short duration pulses also generate issues on power management, such as making sure you have a method to very quickly dump a load of energy into the laser, but also do this repeatedly. Multibank capacitors are used to act as the energy store for the rapid laser pulse operation. But quite recently flywheel technology as used in Formula 1, has taken over from batteries, as they can store more energy for less weight. As other’s have mentioned, the Williams race team have been highly involved with both Rolls Royce, DSTl and Qinetiq on energy storage and management solutions.
A UK Type 26 Frigate will be using a combined diesel electric or gas engine configuration (CODLOG). Made up of one Rolls Royce MT30 gas turbine with a max rating of 40MW and four MTU Type 20V 4000 53B high speed diesel generators with a max rating of 2.9MW each. This gives a combined ship’s power of 51.6MW that is shared between, propulsion, the ship’s systems and its hotel ring. Will there be enough surplus to power a laser based CIWS? Possibly, however, the ship has space for mission modules that are based around standard ISO container sizes. Rolls Royce have successfully made and demonstrated a laser power generation unit that is contained within a standard iso container. The unit is an integrated power and thermal management system capable of powering a 100kW class laser. They have said that they can scale the power requirement.
A 100kW laser based CIWS is feasible and could be installed in as little as a few years’ time. Qinetiq and their partners have been steadily growing the Dragonfire’s spot intensity and Rolls Royce have a solution in place that could power one Dragonfire unit. So, could the first Type 26 frigate, HMS Glasgow, be the first UK ship fitted with a laser based CIWS? Why not? It remains to be seen, if a 100kW laser is enough to destroy a hypersonic target at a suitable distance away from a ship, as there have yet to be any trials!
Its not just melting through a targets skin, lasers can also produce a kinetic punch by flash heating a small section of the target, this can be enough to induce a deviation in the missile/aircraft trajectory and the air resistance from no longer being in an aerodynamic orientation can cause the target to break up. In particular this is what the big US airborne laser experiments were doing.
“Lasers, just like radar are governed by the inverse square law when transmitting within the atmosphere”
Incorrect.
Try again. Perhaps with a bit of knowledge and data to back up your statement.
Inverse square law applies to emitters that broadcast equally in multiple directions like a radar. While radar beam may be described as being a “pencil” beam, it is not. Such a beam is formed as a result of patterns formed by multiple nodes broadcasting in all directions.
Lasers on the other hand, do broadcast in one direction. There is a slight divergence of the beam at distance but not enough to make a difference.
The easiest way to imagine it is if a radar was operated in outer space. It would be like the sun broadcasting light and visible to all onlookers. The further away the onlooker, the less bright the sun would appear.
While a laser in outer space would broadcast in just one direction and would be invisible to anyone not directly in its path. And its brightness would not diminish with distance.
The inverse square law applies to all forms of radiated energy where it is propagated through a medium. It is a measurement along the beam’s path length irrespective if the beam is narrow or wide. The cross section area of the beam is taken into account, as the energy is shared across the cross sectional area of the beams face. How the law affects the propagated energy is also partially determined by the properties of the medium.
A laser can be viewed as something special though! Because is does not obey the classical laws of physics, but instead obeys the quantum laws. As such, just like radar, they have two forms of propagation where you have to use different maths to work out a beam’s properties, i.e. near field and far field. Within the near field the laser does not respect the inverse square law, as the light waves are travelling almost parallel to each other. However, the point where the beam transitions from the near field to the far field is determined by the beam’s collimation (focusing). It is from this point onwards that the beam will follow the inverse square law. What will make the dispersion happen quicker is the type of medium that the beam is fired through. In space, the dispersion will take longer as there is less matter to absorb, reflect the beam etc. The angle of dispersion will be measured in the micro-radians over a distance of thousands of kilometres. In the atmosphere the dispersion will be a lot wider and closer to the focal point. In water wider and closer still.
There are two major measurements with a laser, the power and intensity. Power is the measurement of the eradiated output power, i.e. what comes out of the laser source, for example Dragonfire was quoted to have an output power of 50kW back in 2017. This was the combined total of all the individual beams. Intensity however, is the the Watts per metre squared per second that the beam’s spot contains. This is what counts when looking at a laser’s ability to burn through an object, as it is a measurement of the beams ability to transfer energy to a target object. If a laser is fired in an ideal vacuum, the beam’s power and intensity at a distant target should be the same as the source power and intensity. However, if the spot was measured at a target some several thousand kilometres away, its diameter will be larger than the beam’s focal point and this has more to do with the quality of the lenses.
When a laser is fired through space say from the international space station (ISS) to one of the mirrors on the moon. The dispersion will be quite small as the ISS is outside the majority of the Earth’s atmosphere. The spot’s intensity on the moon mirror will be only a few watts difference from when it left the laser. Within the atmosphere this will be a significantly different. Because water molecules have a very high bandwidth compared to other molecules at absorbing and reflecting light they have a significant affect on a laser’s dispersion angle. This means that the spot’s intensity will be reduced. There are a number of methods you can use to mitigate this. Changing the frequency of the laser to one that is less effected by water molecules is one, making the diameter of the spot larger is another. The larger the spot diameter, there is a greater chance that more energy will pass around the molecule, rather than into it. However, that has a knock on affect as the spot on the target will be larger, so the intensity will be spread over a greater area, thus taking longer to burn through.