MBDA and its partners in the DragonFire consortium say that they have successfully carried out the first static high-power laser firing of a sovereign UK capability at the range in Porton Down.

The test was carried out on the 17th October 2022.

Using QinetiQ’s phase-combined laser demonstrator, generating in the order of 50kW of power, focused by Leonardo’s Beam Director and delivered using MBDA’s advanced image processing and command and control (C2) system, the trials showed that DragonFire could safely control and focus a high power laser onto an extremely precise point at long range.

The firing was part of a second set of tests in a series of trials to prove the accuracy and power of the novel DragonFire laser weapon. The earlier set of trials, announced in July 2022, proved DragonFire can successfully track, and hit, air and sea targets with exceptionally high accuracy.

British ‘Dragonfire’ laser weapon passes early trials

Chris Allam, Managing Director of MBDA UK, said,

“These successful trials are the latest step in accelerating delivery of a UK sovereign laser directed energy weapon (LDEW) capability. MBDA, Leonardo, QinetiQ and Dstl working together are putting the UK at the forefront of research & technology in this field. The results from these trials have verified analysis and given the team confidence that DragonFire will offer a near term and unique capability.”

The next step will be to combine the outcomes of these first two trials, pairing the proven tracking accuracy and the high power laser, by engaging targets in operationally representative scenarios.

Avatar photo
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
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

89 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Coll
Coll
1 year ago

Just waiting for the demonstration videos to come out.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 year ago
Reply to  Coll

Theres an accompanying video, they dont show any firing they also say the range is classified.

Coll
Coll
1 year ago
Reply to  Watcherzero
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Lots of “classified” things on the range at Porton though they are all viewable on GE, unless they’re underground.

Interesting where they set up, at 2.01 on Colls film you can pinpoint easily where on the Porton range.

Jules
Jules
1 year ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

The range really depends on the weather

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 year ago
Reply to  Jules

Testing did indeed occur during heavy rain.

Ian
Ian
1 year ago
Reply to  Coll

Story in the paper today said it shot down a drone 2 miles away.

Britain’s first LASER death ray shoots down drone from two miles away https://mol.im/a/11416413 via https://dailym.ai/android

Nicholas
Nicholas
1 year ago

More power generated that for a rail gun? Properly focused that is quite something.

Andy
Andy
1 year ago
Reply to  Nicholas

Nothing like. Railguns need power in the MegaWatt range. This is 50Kw.

Coll
Coll
1 year ago

It’s being tested in the UK. so I think we can say it has passed that testing. lol

tdoc
tdoc
1 year ago
Reply to  Coll

XD

Jon
Jon
1 year ago

I’m impressed. I can’t wait for the third set of tests, high power in motion.

Tom
Tom
1 year ago

So no more need for all manner of current military assets then, as this laser could potentially take out anything?

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom

50 kW isn’t enough to take out “anything”, just some things. The first issue is dwell time on target. The less the power, the longer the beam has to dwell on the target. As the range is also limited by the power as well as the environment, the beam has to interact over a number of seconds between its limited range and before a missile or drone reaches a position to do damage. Cheap ISTAR drones are fair game at 50kW. Fast attack craft, helicopters and so on are going to be inconvenienced. The US is looking at testing 300… Read more »

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

US system in development for their ships is 60kw, its a successor to an earlier 40kw prototype system. The 300kw is a truck mounted AA weapon for ground forces and like with Dragonfire’s growth plan its a composite beam weapon taking several smaller lasers and combining them into one beam. Most agree the 1MW airborne laser was a bit of an evolutionary dead end due to its size, filling an entire 747 (That was a successor to a 1980’s prototype that put a 100kw laser on a 707 and shot down some Ballistic missiles). Israel has also fielded a truck… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Watcherzero
Jim
Jim
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

Remember though we are only developing Dragon Fire to make it look like we are doing something while just waiting to see what we can buy off of an over priced US defence contractor.

We are not trying to develop a weapon, the UK a has given up on such things merely keep design teams going for no reason that to keep design teams going.

ETH
ETH
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim

That’s not at all correct.

Tom
Tom
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

Oh, I appreciate the fact that it is only a low power weapon right now, but in due course it would knock out anything.

However, the more relevant issue is the fact that other than the ‘design/theory’ stage these things are going through, I don’t suppose the defence industry will take too kindly to them.

Maybe when the US launches the USS Enterprise into low earth orbit, it will be better suited.

IanbUK
IanbUK
1 year ago

Line the coast of the UK and gunwales of Royal Navy ships with those hand-held lasers that have been made illegal. I mean, they say they can ground aircraft 😂

Last edited 1 year ago by IanbUK
Lee
Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  IanbUK

Well they can ground aircraft… And are dangerous. Civilian pilots do not have helmet visors or ejector seats and are responsible for the safety of hundreds of passengers. Military aircraft not so much…

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 year ago
Reply to  IanbUK
Tommo
Tommo
1 year ago
Reply to  IanbUK

Ianbuk we had an Argon Laser fitted in 82 during Corporate lots of money and Wattsge involved probably had the same effect as s B+Q laser aligned spirit level that you can pick up safely hold in your hand instead of 6ft long casing mounted on the gunwhale as we had and all it was capable of was Dazzling not frying We all thought at the time we’d be Battlestar Galatica and that was 40yrs ago

Rudeboy
Rudeboy
1 year ago
Reply to  Tommo

An interesting thing on the ‘dazzlers’ were that they were not designed to ‘dazzle’ the pilots eyes as that would have been illegal under the Geneva Convention. What they did was react with the tiny scratches that are on any aircrafts canopy. The reaction of the laser light on all these thousands of tiny, near invisible scratches, was to fluoresce. Essentially the pilot lost vision throught the canopy completely, the effect was apparently like the canopy becoming opaque with light. THe pilot with no vision would have the choice of crashing or pulling up and aborting an attack run on… Read more »

Tommo
Tommo
1 year ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

Thanks rudeboy , all I cam remember about it was running the cables throughout the ship hoofing great things too take the Ampage and when connected up to the Amplifiers and switch too run watching the greenbeam emitted from the Laser and everyone going ” ooh wheres the whooshing sound like in the movies” other than that only those in the know knew it’s possible capabilities

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago

Pew pew pew

Darren hall
Darren hall
1 year ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Due to cut backs, just Pew pew…

DP
DP
1 year ago
Reply to  Darren hall

😆

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 year ago
Reply to  Darren hall

Jury Highly Commended Prize.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  Darren hall

😂😆

Bob
Bob
1 year ago

Could be quite effective against optical/IR sensors on aircraft and AShM’s.

dp
dp
1 year ago

Lasers in this power range provide two capabilities. The first is as a supplement to anti-missile and anti-drone point defense that seems to be more accurate than a gun CIWS but doesn’t exhaust limited and costly missile magazines. The second is the ability to deploy precision fire in non-war situations where spraying bullets or shells or missiles may be overkill, e.g., to stop a small boat. Also, any laser demands high-quality optics, which can be used without firing the laser; having an extra trainable mount of this sort is always welcome on a ship. Laser weaponry will truly come of… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  dp

Believe Laser/Directed Energy Weapon collaborative research is one of the specific areas covered under auspices of AUKUS treaty. UK is home to two of the top ten universities in the world; presumably each has a very credible applied physics department. Strictly guesswork, but would not be surprised if pace of combined research program accelerates substantially, w/ a pacing requirement of anti-hypersonics defense. Not certain what proportion of program would surface in open press. 🤔

dp
dp
1 year ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Hypersonics vs. lasers are an interesting match, and certainly will drive the programs to higher power levels as very little else can reliably and affordably deal with the threat. Still, something like Dragonfire is not ont he table; you’d need 250+ kW (to reduce dwell time) to stop a hypersonic threat with a conventional high energy laser, a power level that is indeed emerging with current research. The future of hypersonic defense is probably multiple networked laser weapons (e.g., several ships or stations fitted with a laser). The relatively high cost of hypersonics means that lasers may not face overwhelming… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  dp

Understood. Sorry, should have made my point more explicitly, concur w/ your analysis w/ exception of timeline…”much later this century”…Believe development will be much faster; Uncle Sugar will be willing to expend copious amounts of coin of the realm on this venture.

dp
dp
1 year ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

I think that is quite possible. Certainly, conventional weapons in the 100 kW to MW range will be deployed over the next decade. I’m somewhat optimistic about pulse lasers, but then again, I thought railguns were going to move ahead, and we saw that come to a crashing halt. High-energy pulse lasers seem to be further behind them, though don’t seem to have the baggage the former do. On the other hand, 10 years ago I was seeing almost nothing about the tech outside of sci-fi speculation, and in the last few years, I’ve noticed an upsurge in serious mention… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by dp
Steve
Steve
1 year ago
Reply to  dp

It will be interesting to hear what these can actually do in practice. Laser light is fast, but its effectiveness relies on a burning action, which takes time. The question is can the laser keep a lock on the missile long enough to burn through the casing and do some damage. Guess we will probably never know, as a major naval war seems highly unlikely.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

Uhh…hope those don’t prove to be (in)famous last words…🤔😳🤞

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

These aren’t just naval weapons. The first real kill I’m aware of was a Turkish 50 kW laser in Libya fired from a ground vehicle, taking out a Chinese drone. Not a ship in sight.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

Yes, that was one of the purposes of the previous test. To see if could maintain the laser”spot” on a moving target within a given area. As has been stated, Dragonfire has proven that it can maintain its track and focus on a target by specifically illuminating a designated area at distance. In layman’s terms, this means it can maintain and focus on a specific part of a target. Thereby increasing the relative dwell time and speeding up the burn through process. According to Qinetiq, producing a high intensity fibre laser has not been the problem. The problem has been… Read more »

Steve
Steve
1 year ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Do we know what it was able to target on? How fast a moving target it was? I am thinking back to the US cold war days where they had to use static drones with radar enlarging wraps to get their stupid expensive anti air tank to hit it. It managed but couldn’t achieve the same thing under more realsitic test and so was eventually canned.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

Unfortunately they haven’t given out any specifics about the target or targets. For all we know it could have been a dude driving a Landy with a target on the side, though that’s very doubtful.

Reading between he lines, Qinetiq did say one of the targets was moving very rapidly. So it could be “assumed” that the target was one of their target drones, such as a Banshee. This would have been ideal, as they can be fitted within various sensors along with telemetry feedback.

dp
dp
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

It’s an interesting fact that for all that anti-missile missiles have been deployed for many years, very few examples of even a missile shooting down an anti-ship missile have happened. I suppose the main risk of a naval war against a power likely to have lasers deployed is a Taiwan invasion situation, and hopefully that will never happen. On the other hand, Israel’s iron beam is supposed to be operational in 2-3 years. It’s a 100-kW laser, and claims about 3-5 seconds to destroy a missile or rocket. With Hamas likely to continue shooting rockets into Israel, barring any developments… Read more »

Rudeboy
Rudeboy
1 year ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

3 in the top ten. Imperial are currently rated 10th. 4 in the top 25. Which is actually a decline…a few years ago it was 4 in the top 10.

In other lists its 4 in the top 10 and 5 in the top 25. Still a decline in the top 25…but thats what 10 years of a Conservative government gives you…

Derek
Derek
1 year ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

Nothing to do with Conservatives. University’s are autonomous and over the last 10 years have been almost entirely extreme left leaning – selling useless degrees by the thousand for pots of cash with very little eye on quality.

Luke Rogers
Luke Rogers
1 year ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Imperial college is probably more up on the engineering/hardware side. Oxbridge will sort the theoretical physics out.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  Luke Rogers

I wouldn’t be too sure about that.

In some science areas Imperial or UCL are in front of Oxbridge. Same with Edinburgh.

Thing is that you are talking about getting 3-5 really good profs together in one department for a protracted period. Sure departments go up and down all the time as senior staff cycle through.

Research money follows the people and their ideas, networks and connections.

So there will be real excellence is some very out of the way university departments in very specific areas.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago

In reality, believe there will be a research consortium w/ everyone becoming a subcontractor to DARPA/ONR/AFOSR (may/may not be current titles), which all will have the proverbial deep pockets. Entrepreneurs, please take note.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Additionally, AFRL (dasn’t forget my old compadres). 🙄

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago

I see weapons-grade laser development as being in the province of engineers, rather than scientists.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 year ago

Nice to see this is still moving forward… I quick search of the internet suggests that laser cutters are typically in the 3 to 6kW range. Of course these don’t have to work over any kind of range, but it gives an idea of the power on target required to physically damage something. Should also note that laser cutters have plenty of time to get the job done… Much of the power Dragonfire generates is likely lost in transmittion, hence the need for high power lasers. Oh yeh, and the target might do something unsporting like maneuvre to change the… Read more »

Ian
Ian
1 year ago

Seems like an aweful lot of money for something that I have only ever seen take out a small dinghy.

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian

Is £30m really an awful lot of money in defence terms? Also given that they haven’t released videos of the high energy tests, why do you talk about only ever seeing it taking out a dinghy?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

Jon, I note that the system was supposed to be delivered in 2019 so 3 years delay?

Last edited 1 year ago by Graham Moore
Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Maybe more. It’s not fully demoed yet. Contract was in 2017 for testing in 2018 and delivery in 2019 — a tad optimistic. There were a couple of years when it went deathly quiet and everyone was worrying they’d cancelled it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jon
Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

Just thinking about what I wrote there, the Thales/Raytheon contracts in 2021 were for integration/delivery next year, so the same short two-year timescale as the Dragonfire contract.

The Thales consortium’s integration on the Type 23 is supposed to help in figuring out RN operation and maintenance requirements, so I’m guessing it won’t be as powerful as Dragonfire. Ditto Raytheon’s for the Army.

dp
dp
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian

Small boats (especially drones) can sink big ships…

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian

I finally found the £30m figure from Georges 5 Jun 2017 article.
Of course that is not the cost of 1 x Dragonfire – most of that is R&D and Non-Recurring Engineering costs.

Last edited 1 year ago by Graham Moore
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago

Ahh, Porton, wondered where this asset was….

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 year ago

Bursting the clouds for better communicationNew tech can bore a hole in clouds to pave the way for laser-transmitted data from a satellite
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181017111033.htm#:~:text=Lasers%20can%20also%20be%20used,cannot%20penetrate%20clouds%20and%20fog.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 year ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Also study by Sandia from the 80’s which was looking at satellite power stations, they found a 10-50MW laser would bore a 1m wide hole through clouds from orbit, now modern lasers your only needing a 1cm hole potentially one hundredth the power, which would be about… 50kw. Now the reason all the laser projects are in the 40-60kw range makes sense.

Last edited 1 year ago by Watcherzero
ETH
ETH
1 year ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

A 1cm wide hole is 10,000 smaller than a 1m wide one and one hundredth of 50MW would be 500kW but yes, tighter beamwidth means less need for higher powers 🙂

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 year ago
Reply to  ETH

Yeah 1cm circle 10,000th of 1m and 10,000th of 50MW is 5kw, don’t know why I said hundredth.

Last edited 1 year ago by Watcherzero
FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  ETH

1 meter = 100 centimeters; otherwise, calculation correct based upon Sandia’s data: 100KW – 500KW.

ETH
ETH
1 year ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

1cm is 100x smaller than a metre, yes, but 1cm^2 is 100^2 (10,000) times smaller than a m^2.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

So, if power requirement truly proportional to area requirement, the estimate would be 1KW – 5KW, based upon Sandia’s calculated requirements? Still uncertain how this would translate in terms of effects on weapons in real world conditions? 🤔

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

No, 10KW – 50 KW.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Oh hell, it is 1KW – 5KW. 🤔🙄

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

So I would speculate that the laser is modulated between moisture bursting and heating/lasing the target in those cases?

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 year ago

50 Kw is going to allow you to hit small boats and drones (Slow Speed) out to possibly 3-5 Km. It will also damage and blind optics on targets at ranges greater than that. To hit and destroy fast targets at a decent range the power requirements go up considerably. For something like a conventional cruise missile you are looking at 200/500Kw. Hypersonic /Ballistic missile defence is in the multi megawatts bracket. Those power outputs and the practical user friendly technology to produce them is still 10-15 years in the future. As power goes up then you get more issues… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Largely concur, engineering issues are solvable, given sufficient time and budget (Uncle Sugar’s role); physics issues hopefully solvable, but could prove to be a bitch. 🤔

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Turbo Lasers are a long way off, perhaps in a galaxy far, far away? I actually searched for turbo laser to see if that was a real thing. So we’ve no need to worry about paying for a Deathstar yet. I can imagine Ben Wallace trying to get that one past cabinet.

Wallace: I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Sunak: I knew we should have spent the money on a mid-winter heating allowance.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

😆 That deserves a like!

Steve R
Steve R
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

Brilliant!

Luke Rogers
Luke Rogers
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

According to Grim Reapers on YouTube, 10x B1s can take out a star destroyer if they are high enough. 😂

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

Mr. Scott, where are my damned shields and photon torpedoes? Oh wait, wrong sci-fi franchise…😉

Rudeboy
Rudeboy
1 year ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

It’s going to be interesting seeing the cost of Dragonfire.

I suspect we’ll see one mounted on land at Faslane in due course….

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

I’d guess the next one we’ll see in Scotland will be the Raytheon Wolfhound-mounted laser, as Raytheon are basing their high energy laser centre in Livingston.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

One method that could be used is a networked laser. Much like how a fibre laser works by merging lots of smaller ones together. This can also be achieved by focusing more that one laser on a target. The combined effect will be similar to a singular massive laser. But on the plus side your cooling and power needs will be more spread out and easier to maintain. The other bonus is that you will suffer less dilution of the spot’s intensity. So the spot’s dwell time can be reduced. The disadvantages is coordinating the laser network onto a particular… Read more »

Zach
Zach
1 year ago

Excellent cost effective way for taking out cheap drones.

Gareth
Gareth
1 year ago

Using QinetiQ’s phase-combined laser…

So, it’s a “phaser”? Mr. Worf, fire!

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  Gareth

🤔😳😁

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts
1 year ago

A bit of progress in the right direction, as other posters have pointed out here, 50KW is good for slower-moving targets, such as drones and small surface vessels. Much more power will be needed to deal with missile threats.

Sceptical Richard
Sceptical Richard
1 year ago

Good news. Let’s hope it works and gets deployed. Is this primarily aimed at drones and other small(ish) vehicles, or will it have wider applications? My next question reveals my ignorance, but I’ve always wondered how the enormous energy transmitted doesn’t destroy the projection device itself? Does it for example require masses of cooling while lasing?

Jon
Jon
1 year ago

I understand they needed to put considerable effort into the aiming mirror technology to avoid that issue, with special thought put into the materials to avoid the mirrors being destroyed.

Sceptical Richard
Sceptical Richard
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

Thanks! I’m sure big time cooling is also necessary

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago

Yes, mirrors in particular take a battering. As after a certain amount of time their reflectivity starts to fade. This is caused due to the fact that mirrors are not 100% perfect and absorb some of the light, that then is converted into heat. This causes the material over time to warp.

Similarly if the laser uses a diode to generate the light. These are at best 40% efficient. The remaining 60% is generated as heat, which then needs cooling. You can ramp up the efficiency by using refrigeration. But then you need space for the cooling circuit, evaporators etc.

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago

Things have come a long way since the RN first mounted a laser on a photography tripod and pointed it at a Soviet Bear to dazzle the cameras. The event was recorded by Janes.
Can anyone remind me what year it was and which ship was involved?
I think it was a frigate, if that helps.

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  George Parker

A dazzle laser was deployed to the Falklands but probably wasn’t used. The military HE laser programme started properly in 1974, so my guess is it would have been first trialled in the late ’70s. Laser target designators came first and were used in the Falklands.