Lockheed Martin has delivered a 60+ kW-class high-energy laser to the U.S. Navy, the first tactical laser weapon system to be integrated into existing ships and “provide directed energy capability to the fleet”.
“Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Navy share a common vision and enthusiasm for developing and providing disruptive laser weapon systems,” said Rick Cordaro, vice president, Lockheed Martin Advanced Product Solutions.
“HELIOS enhances the overall combat system effectiveness of the ship to deter future threats and provide additional protection for Sailors, and we understand we must provide scalable solutions customized to the Navy’s priorities. HELIOS represents a solid foundation for incremental delivery of robust and powerful laser weapon system capabilities.”
Laser weapon systems have tracked and detected targets, including small rockets, boats, UAVs, and trucks, with high fidelity and maintenance of the laser beam with enough time to eliminate the target.
Lockheed says here that HELIOS is a “transformational new weapon system providing an additional layer of protection for the fleet with its deep magazine, low-cost per kill, speed of light delivery and precision response”.
What’s the UK doing?
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.”
Interesting graphic. Am I right in saying the laser has opened a wormhole which has ripped apart the passing missile 😀
Should Dragonfire be fitted to the QECs and RFA platforms?
Would T45, T23 (in places like the gulf) not be a more logical start point & perhaps Gatwick airport
Up to a point. There is an issue of using a laser hard kill system to take out unmanned air systems (UAS) around airports, stadiums, fuel depots etc. In that the laser will burn through the UAS’s skin and destroy some control circuitry or the battery. You then have a largish mass coming down to earth quickly. If it hits somebody or damages property, litigation will sure to follow. This is the reason why both RF jamming and RF hacking are being pushed over public domains. In a wartime scenario, pretty much anything goes, so the laser would make more… Read more »
Good point. That might need legislation to shield the defender from liability or to transfer it to the operator of the drone. Eliminating potential threats from UAVs is only likely to increase and using such weapons to counter this problem would seem to be a proportionate response.
Why specifically Gatwick??
As per DaveyB’s response. Drones can be used as weapons in a range of scenarios and a few years ago it appears someone used one to attempt to disrupt activity at Gatwick. The question really is when is it appropriate & effective to use such weapons.
At the point its ready to be deployed it’ll be scrapped. To allow more money to be siphoned off to another projects share holders.
Do you ever stop whining
Do you ever pull your head out of the sand and face reality?
Marked wrote:
In the Aug issue of Air international they have knocked out an article on airborne countermeasures right at the end they mention the Miysis DIRCM (The Aviationist also knocked out an article last Oct) But the part which caught my eye is the system is been fitted to the RAFs Wedgetails and Shadows. It appears that they are made in my old stomping ground (Rochester)
So at least here, the sysytem has been bought and fitted
To be fair DIRCM is probably the best chance an aircraft has at defeating a modern infra-red guided missile. Multi-spectrum flares have a so-so chance. Which is predominantly dependent on whether the missile uses a moving target algorithm. The algorithm measures the speed and track of targets in the seeker’s field of view. If it determines the “target” is slowing down too much etc. it will ignore it and search for the one that meets certain parameters. Then lock onto it ignoring other false targets. Older DIRCM initially generated false IR images to fool the seeker into following. Newer ones… Read more »
Yeah, Miysis DIRCM, proudly designed and manufactured in Edinburgh. Already has multiple export customers. Fantastic capability.
Well by definition the ‘reality’ you define can only be reality when the project is indeed scrapped and any future funds it was dependent upon transferred elsewhere, so while you can envisage it if one is a cynic, you can’t claim it has actually happened. What is ‘reality’ however is that technology of this nature, if proved effective in trials by what ever forces around the World, WILL become vital on major fleet vessels. So whatever happens to Dragonfire specifically itself, almost inevitably something equivalent will come to pass, it’s a matter of when.
He has a point
Nimrod AEW; £2.4 billion in 2021 prices before it was cancelled and we bought a US aircraft that was already available
Nimrod MR4A; £4.2 billion in 2021 prices before it was cancelled and we bought a US aircraft that was already available.
Ajax; £3.2 billion to date for 14 vehicles that don’t work
They also cancelled the recent Mosquito drone. Granted, that was £30 million, not billions. I’m not sure what even happened to Taranis.
Coll wrote “”They also cancelled the recent Mosquito drone. “2 I read deeper into that story and found this: The United Kingdom has cancelled its Mosquito ‘loyal wingman’, deciding instead on a “change of direction” for the Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft (LANCA) programme from which it was being developed. Announced by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) on 24 June, the decision by the Royal Air Force (RAF) Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) not to take the osquito beyond its current design phase was decided on the basis that the desired additive capabilities can be better achieved by other means. “The decision… Read more »
Cheers
Taranis was only ever a research project surely to test the ground for potential future pilotless projects as and when they become useful and practical and no doubt is being fed into Tempest. Despite decades of research even US efforts are only beginning to be developed for service and confusion is still rife as to what, when and how they will be utilised certainly in any strike capacity. The number of cancelled related projects in this area is almost impossible to keep track of. Mosquito cancellation, though something of a shock I agree, feels to me to represent something of… Read more »
There’s nothing inherently naval about them. Banshees (Jet 80+) are currently provided to the US Army through an American supplier, Trideum. The RN’s Project Vampire seeks to extend their use beyond their traditional use of target drones to see if they can also be used for ISR and as command nodes.
The USAF is currently looking for target drones to practice against that can mimic Chinese supersonic stealth fighters. Banshee NG is described as transonic, so it’s getting there, but according to Warzone the Air Force want something capable of Mach 1.2. Not sure if QinetiQ is in the running.
The Banshee is also used to launch a smaller supersonic target drone called the Rattler.
If a Banshee flies without its IR generator and RF reflectors. It is a very stealthy aircraft making it very difficult to detect and track. It has a radar cross section significantly under 10cm2 (squared). Which isn’t in the F35 or F22 territory, but is similar to what has been calculated for the Chinese J20’s frontal aspect.
There is definitely a case for a larger supersonic target drone. Perhaps we may see Qinetiq build one in the not too distant future!
And you think this isn’t common for advanced militaries worldwide?…
Ask the US about the Zumwalt destroyer, Littoral Combat Ships, Seawolf submarine, XB-70 Valkyrie bomber, etc, etc, etc.
Indeed.
MOD get it in the neck for cancelling early or cancelling late!
Like it or not it’s the nature of cutting edge military projects ( indeed many hi tech projects generally if you want to push boundaries). The question is simply if by comparison to one’s competitors (or some alternative objective measure) it’s excessive. At one end the US seems horrendously wasteful while at the other I read how the Pakistani fighter project JF-17 designed and built in liaison with China has only resulted in aircraft they dare not put in harms way, if they can actually get them off the ground at all due to its woefully unreliable Chinese sourced Russian… Read more »
The be fair to UK MOD apart from AJAX the Lemmon count is actually quite low.
Delays to T45 PiP etc are more down to budgetary pressures and lack of political urgency.
At least with Wallace in charge getting what we have working properly seems to be top of the list now.
Hi Steve, re AJAX, your assertion is fundamentally incorrect.
Cheers
Interesting comment. I would thought this would be a good earner for the developer & a good asset for the Government providing it works.
Yes, definitely. I would suggest it would be used a complimentary system to the existing Phalanx on the carriers. As the 20mm sabot solid round is less effected by the weather than a pulsing laser. For the RFA, again definitely.
With you DB, if not Dragonfire just some additional defensive armament on the carriers, maybe even a couple of RAMs linked into the 3 Phalanx’s? Crucial RFAs platforms need something decent too. The latest French auxiliaries have the CTA 40mm as will their new carrier the latter plus Asters. No news on the UKs own SEA trainable launcher which looked bloody useful INHO and even if the 40mm might be adopted more broadly across the fleet.
I think that for the time being, traditional CIWS would be a better choice unless there is a dynamic change to laser physics. I could not see a reliable accurate energy weapon of any use on seagoing vessels for years to come – accurate targeting, which in seagoing conditions is essential, would be a nightmare.
Shhhhhh.
Stop being all practical. Next you will start mixing science in too!!
I failed my eleven plus in high energy particle theory and application
🙂
I usually get shot down on here when I start talking about the practical side of aiming things at moving targets from platforms that move in 3D…..
Apparently some people on here believe that WWII and postwar guns were just as capable as the current ones…..:)
Joking apart the laser is a bigger aiming problem as it needs to stay on a specific spot for the thermal effect to take place…..but what would I know?
I am led to believe by others who “know long words” that sustaining extremely accurate bearing of the target is essential for the “dwell time” of the laser beam to do what it does. 🙂
Never: this is Star Trek surely?
How does it work when it is foggy? Does it burn through the condensation/fog first? Be good to see this operate in a more realistic test I guess that is why it is on a ship.
Don’t ask silly questions like that, they get in the way of us procuring the latest gadgets. Realistically what’s the chances of a navy that primarily operates in the North Atlantic ever fighting in foggy conditions or anything but bright blue sunshine. 😀
It’s no that different to WW2 where the Japanese and Americans developed carrier strike operations based on blue sky conditions that would have been completely impossible on a typical day in the Atlantic.
One would assume that the engineering talent behind these weapons takes these things into consideration when designing and testing these weapons. After all the USN has been globally deployed for the past several decades and would expect to fight in varying climatic conditions.
Indeed, most weapons are affected by environmental considerations to a greater or lesser degree, lasers themselves are hardly uncommon in weapons themselves after all and deemed vital. Not being able to use a laser weapon for maybe 10% of the time, indeed even if it were 20% would still make it an overwhelmingly useful tool. Hey when you go on a cruise around the many various lovely shorelines of countries in the North Atlantic you don’t presume that you will be lucky for your expensive journey to see anything because of the ‘inevitable’ foggy conditions. Radar and Sonar are hardly… Read more »
Of course the US Navy takes this into consideration. Its White Sands Weapon test facility is at an altitude of 3000 ft and situated in a desert. This is highly representative of hot, humid air that is misty and foggy seen at sea level!
😁
Fair point. They also test space and satellite equipment and hypersonic weapons there as well and I think we all would agree the environmental requirements for those are a little more extreme than the mist and fog.
I believe a number of ‘wonder weapons’ tested in the clear air of America’s desert states fell over when confronted by the very different climatic conditions of Western Europe – or other regions of the U.S.A. However, this sort of venture is good for cash flow.
Which wonder weapons developed by the US failed to work in the climatic conditions of Europe?
Ultra was a ‘wonder weapon’ of sorts that many claim won the war but hey just reading a great book on the North African Campaign and the insights it gave probably led to a third of strategic decisions being wrong ones but hey the two thirds that were helpful more than covered for that. It’s the nuance, allowances and interpretation that often decide which way these many various technological innovations go in terms of being beneficial or otherwise on balance. It’s why you develop and test them exhaustively, often sadly some are lost along the way. Most things that don’t… Read more »
Since HELIOS was ground tested at Wallops Island Virginia it should work then.
Believe it or not, the very smart people who develop these things do think of this kind of thing. Just like all the self-driving technologies being developed in California are being built to handle rain and roundabouts.
I wouldn’t trust my Tesla to do anything is mild rain. It takes nothing to throw it off.
Not a silly question at all, but very pertinent. All lasers will suffer beam dispersion when passing through moisture. The dispersion will depend upon the density of the moisture and the size of the droplets. But, Dragonfire will be pushing out more than 50kw (hopefully 100kw). As this power is concentrated in the beam’s spot. Some of the beam’s energy will be absorbed by the moisture causing it to boil off. Some of the moisture will cause the beam to refract and therefore cause the beam to diverge. The beam from Dragonfire/Helios will punch through the “fog bank”, but its… Read more »
I would imagine that a pilot targeted by a laser weapon would be able to get out of its way fast and keep well out of the way.
It would be interesting to see some demonstration footage of Dragonfire.
Yes. I even wish we knew the timescale of the trials. The next one, the high energy one, will be the interesting one.
Serious question; why don’t buy the American one which works and is being deployed now rather than spending money on developing our own which involves technical risk?
These are the first of many such weapons. Having an independant energy weapons industry can only be a good thing for both countries.
Because these are first generation devices, ours might actually be considerably superior.
Plus at least some of the technology being used in US systems has uk origins which we need to encourage. Equally as we found with the Manhattan project even though much of the initial work for that came from British work transferred from Canada and many of the Scientists were British or Commonwealth citizens we were cut out of it post war and had to restart our own efforts which eventually got us a seat back at the table that lead to our present nuclear deterrent. While that may be an extreme case simply relying on the US efforts would… Read more »
I think the Mahon Act was an extreme example and was a result of the vagaries of the American democratic system. When the US and U.K. collaborated on the Manhattan Project there was no secret agenda by the USA to introduce the act. It was subsequently amended on 1958 and we’ve had unrivalled access to YS technology ever since.
Working with the Americans is not a zero-sun game and the potential market is sufficiently big enough to support both HELIOS and Dragonfire. Particularly if we is better 😉
Interesting.
I’m wondering how long the beam needs to be shining on the target before destruction happens. I think this would be good for relatively slow targets, such as speed boats and drones, but could it destroy a fast closing missile?
This is a different, more powerful laser than the HELIOS, but progress is being made:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT3wjK9Jj6Q
There is I think a real danger of over estimating the capability of directed energy weapons and also the threats they can face off against like drones and smaller rockets. If your replacing CIWS with this then you have to worry how much effect it can have against a kinetic weapon traveling towards you at multiples of the speed of sound with the momentum of a train. Using a kinetic weapon to counter such a threat will always use the inbound weapons kinetic energy against it in a way a direct energy weapon can’t. Don’t get me wrong I think… Read more »
Hi Martin, Yup. Everyone thought that guided missiles would see the end of guns… As you point out kinetic energy matters especially when thinking in terms of the bigger supersonic missiles in their terminal guidance phase. You are really going to want to break them up or they’ll punch huge holes in your ship even if they don’t explode. The old Sea Dart switched the fuse off when fired in anti-ship mode because someone realised that the unfragmented weapon had enough kinetic energy to punch through most ships as it attacked in a dive. Triggering the blast fragmentation warhead would… Read more »
Hmmm…recently someone suggested, perhaps wistfully, that rhe RN should develop cruiser squadrons. Mount another Mk-45 on rhe stern and the T-83 should approach the Ticonderoga class. 🤔
One can dream, in all seriousness though how expensive can it be in terms of a £1 billion + warship to whip in an extra 50 cell VLS. Also it’s high time the RN change its warships naming convention T26 should be a destroyer with T31 being a frigate and T 83 a cruiser. In the next round of renewals we will end up with 15000 t frigates.
🤔😳😁
Quite. A few old fashioned rapid fire AA guns might have saved one or two ships lost off the Falkland Islands.
Absolutely. The Italian’s had 40mm twin rapid firing guns available at the time. Instead of something like that we were fitted already obsolete Seacat SAM’s to brand new T21 frigates and WW2 era 40mm Bofors guns to LSL’s in which hundreds of troops were embarked
We had 2 x Bofor’s on Brilliant, electric drive using a metadyne system,,, 2 x 20mm Gambo’s mandraulicly driven.
On T21 the guidance and tracking system for SeaCat was very very good…The missile was absolutley rubbish which was a massive issue.
For sure, no way you would try Low flying skip bombing against ships armed with Phalanx or Goal keeper.
I agree to a point, especially if we are talking close in defence, that is supposed to replace Phalanx. However, if the laser can punch above 100kW, this will give it the potential to engage targets further away than Phalanx can engage. But it will depend on significantly more variables compared to the Phalanx’s sabot rounds, such as weather conditions, number of targets and the material the target is made from. A high power pulsing laser such as Dragonfire (50 to 75kW), has the potential to burn through a 20swg Ally skin in less than 1 second. It has already… Read more »
I agree, the systems are complementary. Trying to engage a drone at 5km is impossible with phalanx and very expensive and difficult with Sea Ceptor. Also it’s fairly easy to change the ablative qualities of an anti ship missile to better reflect or absorb laser light and even a split second would do when your talking about a Mach 3 + weapon headed at you. There is no material on earth that you could put on a missile warhead that’s going to stop a 20 mm round travelling at Mach 2 towards a missile traveling in the opposite direction at… Read more »
Yes I think it will be a combination AI selecting the best scenario either separate usage but increasingly I think in coordination as laser weapons can potentially greatly benefit the capabilities of smart kinetic weapons too, especially once the full design potential is developed which will happen once these laser experiments supply masses of information in realistic testing environments aboard ship in particular.
Yes for sure, one aspect may also eventually be satellite targeting with ship based lasers as well. Can’t do that with a phalanx for sure.
Very interesting concept. My guess is that it has been fitted to a warship, in order for it to be trialed in differing weather conditions.
My next guess, would be that these type of weapons, if not already, will be deployed in space. There is all manner of expansion going on ‘up there’, involving lots of countries. This ‘expansion’ is something that us ordinary folk would never ever know about.
Well indeed, the Russians already claim to have a laser under test on the ground that can take out satellites. Likely fanciful as yet knowing the modus operandi but one can see that it’s only a matter of time most like.
True but then they claimed to have a professional army 300k strong with the latest weapons and tactics and look how that worked out 😀
HELIOS is much further along the developmental trail as it has been integrated with the AEGIS weapons system. Any sophisticated Western defense contractor can field a KW class fiber LASER projector, but it takes a whole lot of investment and design work to make it an incremental tool (distract, dazzle, then destroy) while working in concert with the rest of the ship’s arsenal.
I think you are hugely underestimating the directed power part. “Any sophisticated Western defense contractor?” Name ten. After years of the defence industry pouring money into high energy weapons, I doubt there are that many Western companies who can produce a directable 50/60KW laser capable of targetting and attacking aerial threats. (Including Rafael and Roketsan as “Western”, I still couldn’t get beyond six). Maybe GA or nLight have progressed further than I think. I’d be happy to be shown wrong. The UK is going with BAE/Thales UK, Raytheon (UK) and the Dragonfire consortium (MBDA/Leonardo/QinetiQ), but as far as I know… Read more »
I speak from experience (my last 2 years in the USN I was a test-bed coordinator at the Integrated Combat Systems Test Facility) as to the difficulty of integrating a new weapon with unique characteristics into a CDS that is already heavily deployed and in day-to-day operation. It is a complex, expensive and very difficult project to tackle. The basic technology involved with high-powered combined-beam fiber LASERs has been out in the open scientific literature for at least two decades and the defense community has no lack of talent being applied to directed energy weapons research. I stand by my… Read more »
I agree. Producing a 50kW fibre laser is the easy part. Having it track a target and then focus the beam on it whilst (a) the target is moving and (b) so is the ship, the laser is attached to. From what I can gather this has been the one of the main efforts behind Dragonfire’s lack of recent press releases. MBDA have just published results of its progress in target tracking and beam focusing.They are saying that Dragonfire can now do both at some distance. Which I’m presuming is over 5km. As this was the distance of the drone… Read more »
But shouldnt it just be “Plug and Play”…Bolt it on and it just works first time…
Sorry DaveyB couldnt resist it…
As you know I do have a thing for so called “Plug and Play” weapon systems and how people have little understanding of the complexities of weapon system integration and testing.😉
LOL. If they are sophisticated they can do it, because if they can’t do it they obviously aren’t sophisticated. The three US companies who have succeded are three of the four biggest defence companies in the world, and GA who has a contract for future development, is partnered with Boeing, the missing one of the top four. I somehow think that corporate size may play a part in that definition of sophisticated. However, I bow to your integration experience. I don’t think Dragonfire is on the verge of deployment; I think it’s on the verge of its first high power… Read more »
If a ship simply “Makes smoke” & disappears into it, isn’t it protected from a laser? Though not from other weaponry.
Will not work in very foggy or wet conditions. Think car headlights on full beam in fog. Reflected straight back.