Dragonfire, the UK’s Laser Directed Energy Programme (LDEW) led by MBDA, has successfully begun a series of trials to prove the accuracy and power of the novel laser weapon.

MBDA say here that the first of these trials recently conducted by the Dragonfire consortium – a joint industry and Ministry of Defence collaboration between MBDA, Leonardo, QinetiQ and Dstl – at low power proved the system “can successfully track air and sea targets with exceptionally high accuracy”.

“This success has paved the way for the next phase of the trials that will deliver a first for UK industry when carrying out a static high power laser trial, while maintaining aimpoint accuracy. The next step would then look to combine the outcomes of these two trials, pairing the recently proven tracking accuracy and the high power laser, by engaging targets in operationally representative scenarios.”

Chris Allam, Managing Director of MBDA UK, was quoted as saying, “The success of these trials is a key step in the development of sovereign laser directed energy weapons. It is the culmination of a lot of hard work from both the industry and Dstl teams, overcoming disruption due to COVID and technical challenges from the use of unique innovations in Dragonfire that are testing the very limits of what is physically possible in the laser weapons domain.”

MBDA say that the essential challenge of an LDEW system is “safely controlling and focusing high laser power onto an extremely precise point, at long range”, adding, “The tracking trial was an excellent test of the component parts of the Dragonfire tracking system working together to do this”.

The firm says that the recent trial used a low power QinetiQ laser, Leonardo’s beam director and MBDAs Image Processing and Control technology to facilitate the “ultra-precise fine pointing and tracking accuracy, which will be required to generate the damage effect when a high-powered laser will be used”.

Other sub systems including the C2, Effector Management System (EMS) and “coarse” tracking – turning the laser towards the target – were also proved in the trial.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

78 COMMENTS

  1. Lets hope the tests are successful and the RN gets these on all its surface fleet in short order.

    • This is still a test and demo program. There is no possibility of operational use by the fleet in “short order”. 5 to 10 years is a realistic timeframe for a deployed fully worked up system. That if this approach actually works out.

      • The war has started no more waiting 10 or 15 years we will have to fight with what we have
        Or better still give it all to the Ukrainians

        • With any luck we will be free from the Ukraine/Russia/Biden family business squabble very soon.
          That said, NATO should be cranking up weapons development and number of armed forces personnel. A strict reminder to Russia that if one Russian boot is placed on NATO soil, it’s war.

          • in peace prepare for war all kit that has gone to the ukraine should be on inventory and priority given to its return or replacement without uneccary delay

          • Agreed. Not only replaced but doubled. Every weapons manufacturer within our sphere of influence. Should be tasked with full production as a matter of urgency. Everything from naval vessels to fighter jets. Missiles to bullets! MBT’s to IFVs. Logistic support wins wars. NATO must prepare for what comes after Ukraine, the lost cause.

            We do not have a factory in GB that can build main battle tanks. It is a shocking state of affairs that needs to be a addressed immediately. Churn out more Challengers. Another priority would be small arms production facilities. BEA Systems instructed to build CV90 MkIV and everything else in their catalogue at full capacity. With plans to build other production lines. The quicker we start the better.

          • Sorry who are we fighting? Current NATO would crush Russian military with ease. Russia will find it difficult to replace its lost kit or develop/build new kit. So while I agree we should build up are military and spend more on it – we are not at war.

          • Rob, who are we fighting you ask. Nobody, yet. Who are we likely to fight?
            A Russian, ChiCom, Iranian, N. Korean alliance. That could also include Laos, Venezuela, Cuba and India. As strange as that last one may seem. With a real chance of escalation through unconventional, conventional and nuclear war. That is the situation we must prepare to deter.

          • Although a lot of the supplies are modern (hence allowing the donor country to assess its capabilities) there is also a lot of obsolescent stuff or munitions getting close to their sell-by date, thereby getting rid them without significant disposal costs.

    • Ramp up the AMPS we needed 2 Amplifiers just for 1 Argon Dazzler and that was in the Eighties if Dragon Fire is a Damage effect Laser then it’s going to draw a lot of AMPS

      • Yes beyond potentially a test bed vessel, I don’t see any show of this on warships certainly operationally prior to a T26 even as an initial proof of concept role in representative conditions as the Americans have done on the odd warship in the gulf to test how it fits in with sensor and weapon fits with an enemy just doing enough to give you worthwhile feedback. The laser will need to backed up by not only high generation power generally but one presumes the Williams/RR technology ( or something similar) that has been previously successfully demonstrated, exploited to feed that extra pulse of energy to the laser though not heard specific on that front recently, but then we hadn’t on dragonfire itself. Good to see progress has been made was getting worried about it as it’s around 2 years late..

        • Quite right there SITS would hate too see Dragon Fire fail because of AMP surge the Backroom boys embarked with all the gear it was just running the very heavy duty cables that was the pain they wanted them as straight as possible through 4 Decks when it was all wired up and tested was rather underwhelming but that was 40 yrs ago At the time The UK lead the way just hope we can pick up the slack and have Dragon Fire ready for the T26

          • If the cables have to be straight use large diameter solid copper bar with isolator blocks. Generally available 10 years ago.

  2. That’s funny. I only mentioned a couple of days ago that Dragonfire seemed to have faded away. Some good news then.

    The high power test will be the interesting one. I read a rumour a year or so back that they were having problems with melting mirrors. A high power test, even a static one, should lay that to rest. I hope they publicise the results of the upcoming tests too.

  3. I was only asking thinking about this the other day when the Type 26 armament article was published. I’m glad it’s still ongoing. In other news, BAE systems has shown mock-ups of two UCAV concepts. Although, one looks like the cancelled Mosquito.

  4. Good to see this is still making progress.

    I would be surprised if it gets onto a ship anytime soon as I suspect there will be considerable work to do even if these trials are successful. For starters they will have to integrate the weapon into the ship’s combat information system. However, before that happens I suspect they will need to undertake trials against a range of targets to determine potential effectiveness.

    Having said that with MBDA involved I’m sure something will come of it.

    Cheers CR

    • I’m sure we could buy some cheap Chinese laser modules, I bought one for my rifle, the splash is about the size of a dustbin lid at 30m. 😂

    • There’s supposed to be a laser going on a ship next year, from Raytheon or Thales, so even if Dragonfire doesn’t make it onto a ship, at least we’ll see something lower powered to get us used to DEW on ships.

      • If I remember rightly the RN deployed laser dazzle weapons in the 1990’s, but they were withdrawn because of some treaty or other. Not helped that a Spanish journo spotted them fitted on a RN frigate and rightly guessed what they were…

        Cheers CR

  5. Hopefully the design is sufficiently modular to permit a laser upgrade path as the technology matures. Personally I’d like to see ships fitted with a couple of Star Wars style plasma cannons. Gonna need to tow a mini nuclear reactor behind. WAIT. Aren’t Rolls Royce developing mini reactors!! Now there’s an interesting thought.

    • if they are we might have same probllem getting rid of broken ones as we do getting rid of ex submarine bits that glow in the dark.

    • Yes they are trying to cut through red tape to get them into operation for electricity generation but it has been suggested that one of the primary aims is to exploit them in Space, potentially feasible if and when Starship gets off the ground. But hey you have got me thinking. 🤔🤨💭

  6. finally some real news. i’ve been annoyed by the silence surrounding this subject it seems forever. it could be the biggest leap forward in arms technology since the torpedo in 1914

  10. Very interesting indeed. I wonder what electrical power supply is needed and subsequently which vessels it can be mounted on. Any ideas?

    • It’s a 50KW class, so unless it’s very inefficient, I wouldn’t have thought that an issue. It might even come with its own generator.

      • 50kW would easily come off ships power.

        Bear in mind the prime electrical movers are in the MW range on QEC, Albion and T45 etc so loads of power margin.

        Might that not be the interest that relatively low maintenance weapons that don’t need reloads can be added to a wide range of ships? No issues over protecting/handling explosive ordnance etc.

          • Indeed they were.

            I think the RR solution is more likely as it is what will go into Tempest etc.

          • Aah yes that’s what I was referring to above. This looks like a new release though ( my recollection was from a few years back covering proof of concept tests) that’s good to see. I am assuming totally off the top of my head that a high power laser combined with even higher pulses beyond what would otherwise be sustainable would increase their lethality.

        • Yes. I was wondering about a rough and ready Navy PODS solution that could be dropped onto a GP frigate or an OPV in times of hightened tension. I don’t know whether there are particular limits on individual PODS station’s power/cooling. It’s going to be a short range thing, so how much integration will it need?

          • RR, as DaveyB alludes to below, are developing a containerised power solution with cooling in place specifically for laser weapons.

            How is links to CMS is an issue but as everything RN has BAE CMS (except T31) then it should be a a singular solution.

    • As a general rule of thumb, a laser uses twice as much input power to generate its output power. So as this is a 50kW laser, you’d being looking at 100kW of input power needed to power it.

        • Yes, especially if they can also include Rolls Royce’s dedicated containerised power unit. Which means they could seriously up the power output, without downgrading the ship’s needs.

          • OK, thanks for clarification. 100 kW is roughly equivalent to a car engine so should be feasible on smaller vessels if needed. Perhaps doesn’t need deep integration either.

    • I did mention above about the work that RR exploiting Williams work on high power Electric generation tech exploited in Formula E currently and I think F1 too which was being especially developed for high power lasers and were announced in initial testing as successful. This was in the States mind but one would hope applicable to our needs too. It enables the high power required in laser pulses without over working the power generators in a ship or other application or obstructing their overall ability to generate for other purposes which would otherwise be a bit of a disaster. Works a bit like a dynamo I believe builds up a charge gradually holds it, then releases it as required but I’m sure rather more complex than that.

      • Thank you. It will be interesting to see what levels of sustained “fire” can be maintained, if the efficiency is as low as suggested above (50%), especially if the system will be air cooled.

  12. Reality check.
    They proved that an optical tracking system can slew onto a bearing and track a target. It can illuminate a target with a low power laser.
    So pretty much what an optical director on 4.5 Guns already does. GSA 8 can track air and surface targets using some clever optical tracking algorithms .

    The fun will begin when the high power laser is turned on. Maintaining target tracking and beam focus whilst allowing for atmospherics is the interesting part. Don’t expect anything star wars like. If they are lucky they will be able to hit targets such as speed boats and slow low UAVs at a few Km at most.

    You need a shed load more power than 50kw to go after missiles at a decent range ….For that kind of capability you need Gig W class free electron lasers and anything that big Is going to need something the size of an LPD to house it.

    Physics is unfortunately, a bi’atch!

    • The way these should work is using pulsed laser to punch a hole in the target. The issue then is not so much the generation capacity but the energy storage and transmission to the laser. There are all sorts of EM effects that occur that can interfere with ship systems when you generate a high power electrical pulse.
      Still need to keep the optics clean and clear otherwise……bang goes your laser.

      • Yes and at a guess I think that is why the RR/Williams tech is so vital it can generate a punch (or series thereof) far greater than the ships systems can provide once the object has been initially targeted and it can supply it instantly which would be a real test for the ships systems I suspect and risks overload which so often cause trouble in SciFi movies. I guess they can always reverse polarity to instantly solve the issue. 🫡

      • The optics are housed in a sealed cavity…..yes it’s clean. It’s been my job for 3 years to make sure of it.

    • Isn’t the idea to screw up the sensors (optical/IR)? How much power is needed for that?

      I would guess much lower power levels could be possible because all sensors have a fixed dynamic range, and sensitivity is directly proportional to damage threshold. Lasers do also have the huge advantage over guns of high accuracy independent of ballistic considerations

      If it could be made to work like this at lower power levels I guess it could still be very useful in combination with EW.

      • That’s more along the line of directed infrared countermeasures (DIRM) that are use to either blind or damage an IR seeker. The Dragonfire could also do this if required. But its main function is to destroy a target by burning through the outer skin and destroying a circuit board, warhead or propellent/fuel within the missile.

        In previous tests Dragonfire has shown that it can burn through the outer skin of some small UAV and target drones. Which were likely using a composite skin. Burning through a light alloy skin will take longer, hence why you need a lot more concentrated power.

        Dragonfire is a fibre laser. This means it uses a multitude of laser sources that are feed to a collimator through fibre optics. The collimator merges the individual lasers into a single focused source. Which means the Dragonfire’s output power is scalable. To be useful as a close in weapon system (CIWS) you need at least 100kW. But this will only give you a similar range to Phalanx.

        • Interesting, thanks. 100Kw isn’t much power load for a warship, and I guess since it’s an LOS system the range would be limited by that (and the elevation on the ship) anyway.

          • Ideally you want to be looking at lasers over 200kW for a CIWS role. This is still very much within visual range engagements. To destroy an object quickly by a laser you need it to operate in the pulse mode. But to ensure there is enough energy to drive it, capacitor banks with very quick charge and discharge rates are required. You can make a relatively low powered laser operate in continuous wave mode, bounce its beam off the reflector on the Moon. But it won’t have the spot intensity to burn through an alloy skin of a missile body. There is why you need a series of high intensity pulses, that doesn’t give the material the time to dissipate the localised heat.

            The main real world problem that affects lasers used for military destructive purposes is precipitation. Which in particular, affects the range of a laser. Water droplets will absorb the laser and disperse it, causing beam divergence and reducing the spot’s intensity. Intensity is the measure of power, contained in the cross sectional area of the beam’s spot. It is true that when a high powered laser passes through rain, it will vaporize the droplets and can split water molecules into their constituent parts. But in doing so work is done, which reduces the beam’s energy.

            Efficient laser generation and focusing are also other problems. But by throwing money at the problem, it can be mitigated. This is where having a higher powered and scalable laser really helps.

            The Dragonfire will have an adjustable focus. Where it can focus the beam’s spot on to a target to maximize its spot’s intensity. This will help reduce the burn through time. But to maintain the focus you will need very detailed real time measurements when tracking the target. Reading between the lines, this is what the report lays out. By using the tracking laser it can then work out what the focus of the main laser should be on the target.

            Very narrow single beam lasers have the ability of mapping rain. Due to their very fast sweep and scan speeds, they have the ability of almost freezing time. So it appears that a raindrop is frozen in time. Using mapping software you can build a picture of a rain shower, but also objects hidden in it. It’s a similar technique that is used to see below forest canopies.

  13. Wouldn’t it be couldn’t if they could create a blanket, net , out of multiple lasers that would cover the whole ship , destroying any missiles from any angle without worrying about accuracy

    • Wouldn’t that be amazing true sci fi capabilities, ‘the shields canna take much more Captain’. Give em a century or so I guess

    • No, that would be carnage. It’s the accuracy and more importantly stopping it that makes it useful.
      You’re comparing a sniper with a shotgun.

      • Only if your thinking in one dimension, a blanket net as a secondary safety measures added to the precise laser…

      • So if you’re taking down incoming projectiles but one gets through the laser security shield/net could be the last defensive shield, yes there would be superficial damage but it should save the ship. Fantasy for now but the technology is leaping forward at some pace

  17. Things have come a long way since the early days. I recall a tripod mounted laser being used to blind Soviet photo recon Bears. If memory serves that was in the late 1970’s and even warranted a brief mention in Janes.

    The tripod used belonged to the ships photographer.

  18. Israel already has a land based laser system, the “Iron Beam.”
    It uses a 100kw laser capable of shooting down rockets, drones, and mortars amongst other airborne threats. It’s effective range is 12km.
    The Americans are testing a 300kw laser system with an approximate range of 25km.

  20. It is good to see a UK DEW, however the US already have systems at see. Why is this taking so long? Should we just save our money and buy the US system?

  22. Should work very well when fully developed apart from unless it is very foggy or heavy mist, then back to the drawing board. Think headlights on a car,in fog?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here