Directed Energy Weapons

[Ian Hall]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain ... programme/

[Ian Hall]

Raytheon UK to integrate new UK laser weapon

https://x.com/UKDefJournal/status/17018 ... 68904?s=20

[xav]

UK’s New DEW Roadmap Includes Maritime Laser Weapon

Acquisition of a maritime laser weapon system is one of three priority areas identified by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) as part of the so-called 'Transition Phase' programme designed to support the development and delivery of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) into the UK armed forces in the late 2020s/early 2030s.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ds ... er-weapon/

[Zeno]

There is room on the carriers for a few of these

[GarethDavies1]

To make lasers weapon system one of the three MoD priority areas appears very, very foolhardy as lasers have an abysmal record to date and would like to know the logic for justifying the decision as after 50 years in R&D not one laser weapon system is operational, they are purely line of sight weapons and don't work in bad weather, the old joke in the US R&D community comes to mind "lasers are the weapons of the future ... and always will be".

[2HeadsBetter]

Latest on DragonFire laser testing:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/adva ... s-uk-first

[tomuk]

To make lasers weapon system one of the three MoD priority areas appears very, very foolhardy as lasers have an abysmal record to date and would like to know the logic for justifying the decision as after 50 years in R&D not one laser weapon system is operational, they are purely line of sight weapons and don't work in bad weather, the old joke in the US R&D community comes to mind "lasers are the weapons of the future ... and always will be".

Read the quote again. It says a maritime weapon is one of three priorities within an overall dew programme not an overarching priority of the MOD.
I note that Lockheed have delivered two Helios lasers of similar power to Dragonfire to the USN recently.

[SKB]

^ Dragonfire trialled at the MOD's Hebrides Range.

[Ron5]

[NickC]

[RunningStrong]

What a load of drivel. Obsesses over the public 50kW power but doesn't understand the nuances of how different lasers have different spot sizes at different ranges and conditions.

[tomuk]

What a load of drivel. Obsesses over the public 50kW power but doesn't understand the nuances of how different lasers have different spot sizes at different ranges and conditions.

Just the sort of video\article NickC would like. Technically illiterate and craps on British forces\tech like most of his posts.

[NickC]

What a load of drivel. Obsesses over the public 50kW power but doesn't understand the nuances of how different lasers have different spot sizes at different ranges and conditions.

Just the sort of video\article NickC would like. Technically illiterate and craps on British forces\tech like most of his posts.

I'm sorry you feel like that, though will not express my sentiments on you in the interests of harmony.

I have explained in previous posts that MoD R&D funding for industry has fallen off the edge of cliff in recent years and we are seeing the natural consequences with foreign tech advancing at a faster pace and MoD increasingly buying foreign kit.

Would note Drangonfire was a technology demonstrator programme assessing the viability of laser technology and not envisaged as an operational weapon system and so not surprised at the comments on the limited capability expressed in the video.

Agree with "new guy" comment on lasers (T83) and surprised at MoD/RN investing so much of its limited R&D funds in the limited capability of lasers.

I'm even more doubtful of lasers now.


1) As has been seen with HMS Diamond, captains prefer to deal with threats as early as possible.

2) Most of these attacks are on other ships, which lasers don't have the range to defend for.

[RunningStrong]

Would note Drangonfire was a technology demonstrator programme assessing the viability of laser technology and not envisaged as an operational weapon system and so not surprised at the comments on the limited capability expressed in the video.

But the video is drivel. The video doesn't understand lasers and how they operate and assumed that the (publicly) stated power is the measure of capability. It doesn't even pretend to understand the complexities of spot size and thermal bloom management. It's the equivalent of using muzzle velocity as a measure of performance across different calibres and ammunition types.

I agree that LDEW are not the answer to all our protection needs. But, if a LDEW can be fitted.on warships and others then it's a means of defending against a high number of near simultaneous threats without the limitations of ready missiles.

[new guy]

I agree that LDEW are not the answer to all our protection needs. But, if a LDEW can be fitted.on warships and others then it's a means of defending against a high number of near simultaneous threats without the limitations of ready missiles.

There is an assumption that lasers can defend against a high number of near simultaneous threats and do wonder if its a realistic assumption, surely it will depend on the targets resistance to heat and that will vary and the time the laser beam takes to burn thru, the power of the laser, the operational time of the laser before it exceeds its cooling capacity and has to stop firing (guessing laser 40% efficient and 60% waste heat generated that has to be "lost" before it burns out the laser) and whether or not favourable operational weather conditions for lasers, as of yet have seen no figures or actual trials to confirm a lasers assumption of continuous operation.

Presuming for all the above unknowns the South Korean Navy made the choice to take the tried and tested path to develop a new CIWS II gun system, a 30mm gatling gun for their ships a replacement for their Thales Goalkeepers.

[RunningStrong]

There is an assumption that lasers can defend against a high number of near simultaneous threats and do wonder if its a realistic assumption, surely it will depend on the targets resistance to heat and that will vary and the time the laser beam takes to burn thru, the power of the laser, the operational time of the laser before it exceeds its cooling capacity and has to stop firing (guessing laser 40% efficient and 60% waste heat generated that has to be "lost" before it burns out the laser) and whether or not favourable operational weather conditions for lasers, as of yet have seen no figures or actual trials to confirm a lasers assumption of continuous operation.

The counter point to that is that lasers are easily scalable (i.e. mulitple fitted on platform), as are conventional CIWS but without the limitations of loaded ammunition.

[NickC]

There is an assumption that lasers can defend against a high number of near simultaneous threats and do wonder if its a realistic assumption, surely it will depend on the targets resistance to heat and that will vary and the time the laser beam takes to burn thru, the power of the laser, the operational time of the laser before it exceeds its cooling capacity and has to stop firing (guessing laser 40% efficient and 60% waste heat generated that has to be "lost" before it burns out the laser) and whether or not favourable operational weather conditions for lasers, as of yet have seen no figures or actual trials to confirm a lasers assumption of continuous operation.

The counter point to that is that lasers are easily scalable (i.e. mulitple fitted on platform), as are conventional CIWS but without the limitations of loaded ammunition.

Agree with your point of multiple CIWS being fitted, T26 has two Phalanx's fitted port and starboard, not in the most favourable positions as zero arc of fire forward, thought CIWS would rate a much higher priority in positioning fore and aft on the weapons deck as purpose is the last ditch defence to save ship.

Would say the limitations of loaded CIWS ammunition have only been a minor irritation over the last 100 or so years and not to compare with lasers unable to fire in adverse atmospheric conditions, rain, fog etc.

[RunningStrong]

Would say the limitations of loaded CIWS ammunition have only been a minor irritation over the last 100 or so years and not to compare with lasers unable to fire in adverse atmospheric conditions, rain, fog etc.

When was the last time a CIWS was engaging multiples? Probably the C-RAM units?

Don't believe everything you've read. The lasers aren't limited to only firing on sunny days.

[tomuk]

There is an assumption that lasers can defend against a high number of near simultaneous threats and do wonder if its a realistic assumption, surely it will depend on the targets resistance to heat and that will vary and the time the laser beam takes to burn thru, the power of the laser, the operational time of the laser before it exceeds its cooling capacity and has to stop firing (guessing laser 40% efficient and 60% waste heat generated that has to be "lost" before it burns out the laser) and whether or not favourable operational weather conditions for lasers, as of yet have seen no figures or actual trials to confirm a lasers assumption of continuous operation.

The counter point to that is that lasers are easily scalable (i.e. mulitple fitted on platform), as are conventional CIWS but without the limitations of loaded ammunition.

Agree with your point of multiple CIWS being fitted, T26 has two Phalanx's fitted port and starboard, not in the most favourable positions as zero arc of fire forward, thought CIWS would rate a much higher priority in positioning fore and aft on the weapons deck as purpose is the last ditch defence to save ship.

More criticism without any basis

[NickC]

There is an assumption that lasers can defend against a high number of near simultaneous threats and do wonder if its a realistic assumption, surely it will depend on the targets resistance to heat and that will vary and the time the laser beam takes to burn thru, the power of the laser, the operational time of the laser before it exceeds its cooling capacity and has to stop firing (guessing laser 40% efficient and 60% waste heat generated that has to be "lost" before it burns out the laser) and whether or not favourable operational weather conditions for lasers, as of yet have seen no figures or actual trials to confirm a lasers assumption of continuous operation.

The counter point to that is that lasers are easily scalable (i.e. mulitple fitted on platform), as are conventional CIWS but without the limitations of loaded ammunition.

Agree with your point of multiple CIWS being fitted, T26 has two Phalanx's fitted port and starboard, not in the most favourable positions as zero arc of fire forward, thought CIWS would rate a much higher priority in positioning fore and aft on the weapons deck as purpose is the last ditch defence to save ship.

More criticism without any basis

I feel taken aback that you are unable to see the sense of positioning the two T26 Phalanx's to give 360 degree ship CIWS coverage.

Only on 30th Jan in the Red Sea a Burke class destroyer USS Gravely had to use its Phalanx to take down a Houthi missile said to be near one mile and only seconds from impact.

We can only speculate as to why Gravely had to resort to using its CIWS Phalanx and the ESSM's and SM-2 and SM-6 hadn't been effective, but it emphasizes the lesson once again missile systems are not 100% effective and why CIWS needed, as have mentioned before Israeli's only claim Iron Dome has 90% Pk and that has been disputed in the past, understand normally work on the assumption of a missile with a 80% Pk, why fire two missiles per target.

[tomuk]

There is an assumption that lasers can defend against a high number of near simultaneous threats and do wonder if its a realistic assumption, surely it will depend on the targets resistance to heat and that will vary and the time the laser beam takes to burn thru, the power of the laser, the operational time of the laser before it exceeds its cooling capacity and has to stop firing (guessing laser 40% efficient and 60% waste heat generated that has to be "lost" before it burns out the laser) and whether or not favourable operational weather conditions for lasers, as of yet have seen no figures or actual trials to confirm a lasers assumption of continuous operation.

The counter point to that is that lasers are easily scalable (i.e. mulitple fitted on platform), as are conventional CIWS but without the limitations of loaded ammunition.

Agree with your point of multiple CIWS being fitted, T26 has two Phalanx's fitted port and starboard, not in the most favourable positions as zero arc of fire forward, thought CIWS would rate a much higher priority in positioning fore and aft on the weapons deck as purpose is the last ditch defence to save ship.

More criticism without any basis

I feel taken aback that you are unable to see the sense of positioning the two T26 Phalanx's to give 360 degree ship CIWS coverage.

Only on 30th Jan in the Red Sea a Burke class destroyer USS Gravely had to use its Phalanx to take down a Houthi missile said to be near one mile and only seconds from impact.

We can only speculate as to why Gravely had to resort to using its CIWS Phalanx and the ESSM's and SM-2 and SM-6 hadn't been effective, but it emphasizes the lesson once again missile systems are not 100% effective and why CIWS needed, as have mentioned before Israeli's only claim Iron Dome has 90% Pk and that has been disputed in the past, understand normally work on the assumption of a missile with a 80% Pk, why fire two missiles per target.

More nonsense.
Firstly you can't get 360 degree coverage from two Phalanx as they only cover 150 degrees each.
Secondly if you substituted Gravelly for a T45 or T26 with side mounted Phalanx why would they be as ineffective as you suggest? Was the missile approaching in the uncovered sectors 30 degree fore and aft?
Thirdly we can see you usual habit of trying to sound clever by including some irrelevant technobabble this time the relative Pk of missile systems.

[Ron5]

I believe Phalanx has a 300 degree arc of fire so, superstructure allowing, 2 fore and aft would provide 360 degree coverage.

[tomuk]

I believe Phalanx has a 300 degree arc of fire so, superstructure allowing, 2 fore and aft would provide 360 degree coverage.

Lets go with 300 then. But what is the difference between two fore and aft and two on sponsons on either beam of the ship ?

[NickC]

There is an assumption that lasers can defend against a high number of near simultaneous threats and do wonder if its a realistic assumption, surely it will depend on the targets resistance to heat and that will vary and the time the laser beam takes to burn thru, the power of the laser, the operational time of the laser before it exceeds its cooling capacity and has to stop firing (guessing laser 40% efficient and 60% waste heat generated that has to be "lost" before it burns out the laser) and whether or not favourable operational weather conditions for lasers, as of yet have seen no figures or actual trials to confirm a lasers assumption of continuous operation.

The counter point to that is that lasers are easily scalable (i.e. mulitple fitted on platform), as are conventional CIWS but without the limitations of loaded ammunition.

Agree with your point of multiple CIWS being fitted, T26 has two Phalanx's fitted port and starboard, not in the most favourable positions as zero arc of fire forward, thought CIWS would rate a much higher priority in positioning fore and aft on the weapons deck as purpose is the last ditch defence to save ship.

More criticism without any basis

I feel taken aback that you are unable to see the sense of positioning the two T26 Phalanx's to give 360 degree ship CIWS coverage.

Only on 30th Jan in the Red Sea a Burke class destroyer USS Gravely had to use its Phalanx to take down a Houthi missile said to be near one mile and only seconds from impact.

We can only speculate as to why Gravely had to resort to using its CIWS Phalanx and the ESSM's and SM-2 and SM-6 hadn't been effective, but it emphasizes the lesson once again missile systems are not 100% effective and why CIWS needed, as have mentioned before Israeli's only claim Iron Dome has 90% Pk and that has been disputed in the past, understand normally work on the assumption of a missile with a 80% Pk, why fire two missiles per target.

More nonsense.
Firstly you can't get 360 degree coverage from two Phalanx as they only cover 150 degrees each.
Secondly if you substituted Gravelly for a T45 or T26 with side mounted Phalanx why would they be as ineffective as you suggest? Was the missile approaching in the uncovered sectors 30 degree fore and aft?
Thirdly we can see you usual habit of trying to sound clever by including some irrelevant technobabble this time the relative Pk of missile systems.

I believe Phalanx has a 300 degree arc of fire so, superstructure allowing, 2 fore and aft would provide 360 degree coverage.

Lets go with 300 then. But what is the difference between two fore and aft and two on sponsons on either beam of the ship ?

Lets go with the facts and not the nonsense your spouting that Phalanx only covers 150 degrees but 300 degrees as Ron5 said, Phalanx can transverse 150° from either side of centreline.

From the T26 image you can see a large proportion of the forward arc not covered by the two side mounted Phalanxs whilst stern has some cover with the two DS30 Mk2s

[Ron5]

I believe Phalanx has a 300 degree arc of fire so, superstructure allowing, 2 fore and aft would provide 360 degree coverage.

Lets go with 300 then. But what is the difference between two fore and aft and two on sponsons on either beam of the ship ?

Same reason as why the main gun is placed on the fore/aft axis: increased coverage.