UK Defence Forum

Hi all, new here.

I don't know if anyone has been watching "Warship: Life at Sea on Ch5" about a Type 45, but in the third episode just as the ship goes to action stations for the very first time, the sailor says, the "lasers are being set free." Unless it's my hearing...

I'm not aware we have lasers on our warships yet and I only know of one American ship that's equipped with a prototype laser. Anyone know anything about this?

I posted this on another forum and apart from one sarcastic response, somebody else thought it could be Dragonfire. Here's a article about Dragonfire from 2017:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/dragonf ... er-weapon/

The episodes are on catch up/the My5 app and he says it around about 32.50.

What do others think?

Titan wrote:Hi all, new here.

I don't know if anyone has been watching "Warship: Life at Sea on Ch5" about a Type 45, but in the third episode just as the ship goes to action stations for the very first time, the sailor says, the "lasers are being set free." Unless it's my hearing...

I'm not aware we have lasers on our warships yet and I only know of one American ship that's equipped with a prototype laser. Anyone know anything about this?

I posted this on another forum and apart from one sarcastic response, somebody else thought it could be Dragonfire. Here's a article about Dragonfire from 2017:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/dragonf ... er-weapon/

The episodes are on catch up/the My5 app and he says it around about 32.50.

What do others think?

Hi Titan, welcome aboard!

I would guess range finding/tracking lasers. Not the shoot `em down type.

Wish we had that show in the states.

Ron5 wrote:I would guess range finding/tracking lasers. Not the shoot `em down type.

I m inclined to suggest that the navy retained the none lethal distraction lasers that we developed in the 1980s. Successfully kept quite until someone forgot to cover a frigate set up on entry to port. They effectively disoriented the pilot if close to the ship. Was claimed to have been used on the Argentinian in 1982 by some of there pilots.

Yeah, I remember the Argentinian pilots claiming to feel sick when they were close to our ships, so it could be something like that. But if we had tech more than 30 years ago, then surely there must be something better now?

The article says that Dragonfire was to be installed by the end of 2019 on a ship, but this article from the Sun in May says that the tech is still 5-10 years from deployment:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/8995561/r ... pon-laser/

Seems an odd thing for a sailor to say, "the lasers are being free," it its merely just a tracking device.

Titan wrote:eah, I remember the Argentinian pilots claiming to feel sick when they were close to our ships, so it could be something like that. But if we had tech more than 30 years ago, then surely there must be something better now?

Know as laser dazzlers. Kept under wraps until HMS Andromeda entered port with them uncovered in 1987. I Know that the Monk of Dunfermline. (I can not afford to call him what Mr J Clarkson did) Wanted then banned along with Cluster bombs & Tactical Nuclear Weapons.

S M H wrote:

Titan wrote:eah, I remember the Argentinian pilots claiming to feel sick when they were close to our ships, so it could be something like that. But if we had tech more than 30 years ago, then surely there must be something better now?

Know as laser dazzlers. Kept under wraps until HMS Andromeda entered port with them uncovered in 1987. I Know that the Monk of Dunfermline. (I can not afford to call him what Mr J Clarkson did) Wanted then banned along with Cluster bombs & Tactical Nuclear Weapons.

They have been banned. Illegal now.

Ron5 wrote:They have been banned. Illegal now.

Dazzlers are still legal. The ban is on using lasers that cause "permanent blindness to unenhanced vision", (Article 1 , Protocol IV of 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons - came into effect in 1998).

Article 3 says "Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol."

Caribbean wrote:

Ron5 wrote:They have been banned. Illegal now.

Dazzlers are still legal. The ban is on using lasers that cause "permanent blindness to unenhanced vision", (Article 1 , Protocol IV of 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons - came into effect in 1998).

Article 3 says "Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol."

What you have posted exactly describes the banning of "dazzlers". The British equipment was designed & used to damage the pilots vision. They are no longer fitted on any RN ship.

Ron5 wrote:What you have posted exactly describes the banning of "dazzlers". The British equipment was designed & used to damage the pilots vision. They are no longer fitted on any RN ship.

The dazzlers used by the RN were, and are, perfectly legal. They weren't designed to blind the pilots or damage their eyesight. Instead the dazzlers were designed to interact with tiny, imperceptible, scratches that occur on any aircraft's windows and canopy. When the dazzler was pointed at an enemy aircraft the light interacted with these tiny scratches and caused them to fluoresce. To all intents and purposes the canopy would light up like a fluorescent lighting tube. The pilots vision would be unaffected but they would be unable to see out of the aircraft. The effect was the aircraft either going out of control and crashing due to pilot disorientation or the pilot pulling the aircraft up and aborting an attack run (and also making the aircraft more vulnerable to weapons).

Ron5 wrote:What you have posted exactly describes the banning of "dazzlers". The British equipment was designed & used to damage the pilots vision. They are no longer fitted on any RN ship.

Not so. The key word here is "permanent damage". I remember reading a post (over on ARRSE, I believe) by someone who had operated the laser systems during the Falklands. He was clear that they were not designed to permanently blind, only to dazzle and disorient. Temporarily affecting someone's sight does not contravene the Convention.

Caribbean wrote:Temporarily affecting someone's sight does not contravene the Convention.

This situation came to a test when the Chinese were testing their kit on American pilots in Djibouti (why the h@ll are the two bases so close to each other? Too few cows around there so the only things that can be milked are foreign gvmnts for basing rights... I wonder why the French decamped to the Gulf?)
- 'anyhoo' the case, despite protests, did not get hauled in front of any tribunal

Caribbean wrote:I remember reading a post (over on ARRSE, I believe) by someone who had operated the laser systems during the Falklands.

All the evidence suggests that Outfit DEC never made it down to the Falklands in time, and was never used there. It may have gone South on a couple of ships relieving the task force at the end of the war.

Good set of replies but I remain unconvinced. I don't know how you can target a pilots eyes with a laser and still claim it's not meant to harm his (or her) eyesight. There's no way the power of the laser can be modulated to such precision to temporary blind as opposed to permanently.

Anyhoo, not currently fitted for whatever reason you prefer.

Timmymagic wrote:All the evidence suggests that Outfit DEC never made it down to the Falklands in time, and was never used there. It may have gone South on a couple of ships relieving the task force at the end of the war

So some one removed them of Battleaxe type 22 as she was testing them before she sailed south.

Ron5 wrote:I don't know how you can target a pilots eyes with a laser and still claim it's not meant to harm his (or her) eyesight.

I'm pretty sure that the limits of what the human eye can tolerate without being permanently damaged are well known. You don't need to damage the pilot's eyesight, you just need to disrupt the attack.

In theory, how different from shooting down a plane with a missile would turning up the power on a laser, blinding the pilot and causing the plane to crash? In both cases even if the pilot survived he or she could be seriously injured. I also think such weapons are a law suit waiting to happen given the current scrutiny of combat these days. Just the hint of a weapon that could blind someone is likely to cause serious negative press and demands for it to be withdrawn from multiple sources. Of course countries like Russia and China will simply ignore such actions.

Popped up this morning:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... -uss-dewey

Ron5 wrote:
Wish we had that show in the states.

Google the show’s name followed by putlocker (keep your anti virus up to date or use a Mac) and you can watch that (or any other) show in the states!!

FWIW an update on the Leonardo OTO Merlo 76 mm/62 caliber gun with its STRALES/DART (Driven Ammunition Reduced Time of flight) round. The Dardo-F gun fire control system with a Ku-band, high frequency/high definition ~1 inch/short range fire control radar (seen mention of the Leonardo Selex NA-25X which is a puzzle as it's X-band) projecting four beams, two to illuminate and follow the target and two to follow the shell fired against it. The DART is a saboted 76 mm round that fires the 42 mm DART projectile at 1200 mps /~4,000 fps (leading to higher barrel wear due the high temperatures created by the large amount of propellant required to achieve 1200 mps), 42 mm projectile guided by six ailerons, fired in single round or three round burst. Video Aug 2018 shows trials of 3 round burst fired at Banshee target 100 mps/Mach 0.3 at 10 m altitude, acquired target at 10 km, fired at 5 km, first round hit at 4.5 km, third at 4.4 km.

Assuming similar scenario with the Bofors 57 mm 3P round, fired at 1,035 mps/3,400 fps, 16% slower than the DART projectile and additionally DART with its smaller dia of 43 mm lower drag its time of flight to target will be faster than the 3P round, need an expert in ballistics to work out actual figure, would guess max effective AA 57 mm 3P range drop to ~4 km to hit similar Mach 0.3 target, with a Mach 0.9 Exocet missile the 3P effective range will drop to ~1.3 km and with Brahmos Mach 2.8 drops to miniscule 400 metres, with a high probability the Brahmos with it's large mass/kinetic energy it will still hit ship.

If my fag packet calcs totally garbage would appreciate feedback (DoD/DARPA, seeking $116 million funding in FY2021 to develop a tactical-range, hypersonic boost-glide weapon for the US Air Force and Navy, how practical as basis of anti-ship missile no ideal).

Recently read the August EDR article on the Northrop Grumman new proximity fuzed 30x113mm HEP (High Explosive Proximity) XM1211 round for the lightweight M230LF/XM914 chain gun used on the Apache, 73 kg and can take a recoil force up to 7,400N. XM914 capable of "a very short burst, two to three rounds" needed to obtain a high kill probability against a single Class 1 and Class 2 UAS and said to provide a lethality range of over 2,000 metres, however no tests have yet been conducted against large groups of a 100 or more UASs, due to cost issues. Possible gun option to meet US Army requirement for additional M-LIDS (Mobile-Low, slow, small unmanned aircraft Integrated Defeat System) for Counter-UAS effector.

Though proximity fuzed rounds expensive compared with standard round, cheap compared to missiles or lasers (the US Navy HELIOS 60 kW laser estimated at ~ $100 million per ship currently being trialled on a Burke destroyer). NG is developing a dual feed version of the XM914, prototype should be available in Q1 '24 so proximity rounds not to be wasted against targets that do not require the expensive proximity rounds. NG is also working on a guided munition with the US Army and the US Navy with the aim is to extend the proximity technology to a new level of guidance that would bring the round closer to the target extending lethality/range, no hint of what tech they are using, currently the guided ammo development is at TRL5, the company aiming reaching TRL7 demonstration in 18 months.

The 30x173mm more powerful HEP round was first fired last year from the heavier 160 kg NG Bushmaster II Mk44 gun which installed on the MSI DS30M Mk 2 gun mounting, dual or single feed, with its electro optical gunfire control system as used by the RN and now the US Navy Mk38 30mm Mod 4 GWS.

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/northrop-gru ... the-m230lf

I thought the RN was moving away from the 30mm DS30M Mark 2 gun to Bofors 40 mm L/70 on Type 31 Frigates?

But I remain confused by RN's recent Gunnery choices.

The gunnery based on the Type 31 was the best offer Babcock could male within the fixed price contract.

RichardIC wrote: ↑29 Sep 2022, 13:50 The gunnery based on the Type 31 was the best offer Babcock could male within the fixed price contract.

I know. Does nt mean that I like it though. Especially with the resulting increase in RN guns to 7 or 8:
5 inch, 4.5 inch, 57mm, 40mm, 30mm, 20mm, 12.7mm.
Would be 8 if Oerlikon 20 mm cannon uses different ammo to Phalanx CIWS.

Nothing like making logistics simple....

You left out 7.62 mm for GPMG and miniguns, as well as 5.56 and 9mm for personal weapons

Is it such an issue, though? The Army has to get everything down to toothpicks and loo-roll delivered to individual fox-holes (OK exaggerating a little, but not that much). A ship collects everything from the nearest base or supply ship, which makes the issue a little simpler, I would have thought.

I think the 20mm Oerlikon will be going out of service in the next few years as only the River B1's and HMS Enterprise use them now, I think. The RFA have them on Fort Victoria and Argus, but I think they seem to be moving to the DS30B and Phalanx (plus secondary weapons).

Also, of course, the 4.5 will eventually disappear

... and I'm pretty sure that the Oerlikon doesn't use depleted uranium rounds, so yes, two different 20mm rounds

RichardIC wrote: ↑29 Sep 2022, 13:50 The gunnery based on the Type 31 was the best offer Babcock could male within the fixed price contract.

Yes but it must of been signed off by the navy so at some level the RN wanted 40mm as well as 57mm which was a given

AH140 could have had 1 x 57mm , 2 x Phalanx 1 on B point and 1 on top of the Hangar plus 2 x 30mm one each side of rear Phalanx. This could of allowed type 31 to sail with just the 57mm and 30mm and add the Phalanx as need and maybe just maybe the Phalanx could have been upgraded to SeaRam to give type 31 46 x defence missiles plus 57mm and 30mm latter down the line