Twitter Facebook Google RSS
 
Cover Story 

Lasers Could Become Cost Effective Missile Defense Weapons 

2,014 

By Dan Parsons 



The U.S. military invests more money than any other country to maintain technological superiority, but its expensive high-tech defenses are increasingly countered by the proliferation of relatively cheap but effective weapons like cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft.

Without a more efficient and cost-effective method of knocking enemy munitions from the sky, the United States risks losing future conflicts with peer competitors that wield capable yet inexpensive munitions, experts agreed.

A new set of weapons straight out of Star Wars that cost dollars or pennies to fire could flip the price-per-shot equation in favor of the United States. When facing enemies with ballistic missiles and integrated air defense systems, the most economical way to counter incoming barrages could be blasting them out of the sky with concentrated beams of directed energy, said Mark Gunzinger, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

“As we look to the future toward potentially more contested operational environments where our enemies have precision defenses … that can drive us to need to use more [precision-guided munitions],” Gunzinger, said at a recent forum on directed energy weapons hosted by the George C. Marshall Institute. 

“Let’s face it, we’re upside down in this cost-imposition calculus,” he added. Fielding directed energy weapons “would help reverse the trend we see today … where the Navy has to spend more and more and more to defend the fleet at the expense of its offensive punch.”

Despite its promise for cheap, high-rate shipboard missile defense, spending on solid-state laser research-and-development has remained relatively flat since fiscal year 2011 when it was at a high of about $400 million. The overall budget for laser programs has since fallen to $350 million.

Lasers and other directed energy weapons can reverse the trend in favor of the United States because they cost next to nothing to fire and have almost limitless magazines, said Ronald O’Rourke, specialist in naval affairs at the Congressional Research Service.

The Navy fires expensive munitions at targets — be they incoming missiles, small attack craft or shore defenses — that cost the enemy comparatively little if destroyed, O’Rourke said during the Marshall Institute panel. 

“That is not an affordable game. If you were to continue it with large numbers of engagements, you would quickly find that you are on the wrong side of that equation economically.”
Another advantage is the deep magazine that electrically powered lasers would allow aboard ships.

“Even if you are shooting at small boats and UAVs, [lasers] can help you reserve your higher cost weapons that you have aboard in fixed or finite numbers for the kinds of targets that really need those weapons,” O’Rourke said.

Unlike a missile that simply explodes on impact, lasers offer effects other than blowing threats out of the sky. The systems allow commanders to choose from a menu of graduated lethality that gives them tactical flexibility, O’Rourke said.

All the services have their own directed energy roadmaps outlining development and operational plans. The Air Force in 2007 tested a chemical oxygen-iodine airborne laser mounted on a Boeing 747-400F intended for use against tactical ballistic missiles. Funding was cut in 2010, followed by cancelation the next year at the behest of then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The Navy is interested in electrically powered lasers that can draw power from existing shipboard power grids. Though generally more potent, service officials have turned away from chemically generated lasers that would require ships to stock a new, potentially caustic, fuel source.

The free-electron laser, for example, offers potential for scaling up to megawatt-class power levels, O’Rourke said. But the technology to achieve that capability is less developed than solid-state lasers. It would also require a lot of shielded space — a room between 60 and 100 feet long, several feet wide and several feet tall — aboard a ship because the laser produces X-ray radiation, he said.

Because of those shortcomings, the Navy’s emphasis has shifted to the solid-state laser, which takes up far less room and is nearly operational.

In the short term, the service wants to fire lasers at small boats and UAVs that can be disabled or destroyed with lower-power systems. Once the weapons can be safely amped up with more power, plans are to use them for defense against anti-ship missiles.

“The Navy is taking lasers to sea with short-range, self-defense engagements in mind,” O’Rourke said. Having relied on advancements in laser technology achieved through other Defense Department divisions and industry, the Navy was able to develop operationally viable weapons at relatively low cost. It also will likely be the first service to deploy such a laser in an operational environment.

The laser weapon system, or LAWS, developed in part by the Office of Naval Research, will be installed aboard the USS Ponce afloat forward staging base this summer.

“The leaps and bounds in solid-state laser technology over the last 10 or 15 years have been quite considerable and essentially what is making it possible to talk about using solid-state lasers for military purposes,” O’Rourke said.

LAWS is essentially six lasers strapped together whose beams converge on the target, creating more powerful effects. The system last year was installed on a destroyer and successfully caused a small drone to burst into flames mid-air.

“One of the real advantages of this experiment will be to put this laser in the hands of sailors at sea so that they can discover how to use it … and to help socialize the concept of lasers within the Navy and among Navy personnel,” O’Rourke said.

The Navy has also developed a slab laser that has a coherently combined beam of 105 kilowatts, the strongest to date. That laser has been tested at sea against small boats. Work is ongoing to scale the system to higher powers of 300 kilowatts or more, he said.

Lasers and the electromagnetic rail gun currently under development are often mentioned in the same breath during discussions of “next-generation game-changers” for the Navy, O’Rourke said.

“These weapons solve an economic problem for the Navy in terms of cost-exchange ratio and the other problem in terms and depth of magazine. These weapons, if they can be successfully developed and engineered, can solve the problem the Navy now faces … going up against large-scale opponents with capable [anti-access, area-denial] forces,” O’Rourke said.

Smaller versions of the solid-state laser could soon find a home on the roofs of Army and Marine Corps vehicles for use against enemy missiles and drones, which like cruise missiles are becoming more affordable and widespread.

The Army has developed the high-energy laser mobile demonstrator to counter rockets, artillery, mortars, drones and missiles. Gunzinger said it would be possible to outfit a Stryker wheeled combat vehicle with a laser of up to 50 kilowatts that could fire 60 shots without recharging and 2,000 shots before refueling. The service is also considering a 100-kilowatt laser that can be hauled by heavy expanded mobility tactical trucks.

ONR recently awarded contracts worth $22.6 million for development of the ground-based air defense system, or GBAD, designed to blast inexpensive unmanned aircraft from the sky.

The largest of those awards — $10.7 million — went to Raytheon Co., which will design and build a high-energy laser “suitable for integration into a light tactical vehicle.” The technology will be derived from previous efforts funded by the Defense Department’s high-energy laser joint technology office’s robust electric laser initiative.

Another $6 million contract was netted by L-3 Communications Corp. for the beam director assembly that will aim the laser and follow a designated target.   

“The traditional method of using missiles and guns against a very low-cost UAV is pretty much a failed strategy in the sense that we get priced out of the market real quickly,” Lee Mastroianni, program manager for force protection in ONR’s expeditionary maneuver warfare and combating terrorism department, told National Defense.  

Using lasers for protection against drones is “pennies per shot, reusable, as long as you can feed it power and cool it, you can keep firing it,” he said.

The core of the program is in creating a system that is capable of accompanying Marines during expeditionary maneuver operations. That will require ruggedization of the laser and its components, including electronics and power supply.

Development of the GBAD system is under the umbrella of the future naval capabilities program, a science and technology effort to mature systems to a readiness level appropriate for a military utility assessment, he said.

ONR is funding two laser systems. The first is a 10-kilowatt demonstrator that will come online in late winter or early spring. Plans are to then build a 30-kilowatt laser packaged to fit on a Humvee or joint light tactical vehicle by early fiscal year 2016, he said.

“In terms of power, the Marines want flaming balls of wreckage falling from the sky,” he said. “That is our program goal.”

As promising as directed energy weapons are in bending the cost equation of air defense in favor of the United States, they have some glaring limitations. Mastroianni said the Marines do not expect such systems to work in all weather conditions.

“I don’t think anyone is under those illusions. You will always have missiles and guns, but missiles and guns alone are inadequate. What we are trying to figure out is how much of the problem a laser can bite off.”

In their current iterations, lasers also are limited to line-of-sight engagements because they must be continuously pointed at a target to deliver energy.

“Level of operational utility versus size, weight and power are the key issues to be solved,” Howard Meyer, science adviser for the assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering, said at the Marshall Institute. “There are commercially available lasers, but they are designed to fire a beam less than a foot [long] while the military needs to shoot through the atmosphere.”

Research is ongoing into beam direction, control, pointing and tracking and power sources for the primary purposes of decreasing system size while boosting laser power, Meyer said.

There are limitations associated with atmospheric absorption, scattering and turbulence that the Navy in particular must understand. Because maritime lasers would fire from close to the ocean surface, moisture and other particulates can disrupt a laser beam, O’Rourke said.

“Lasers on ships should probably not be considered an all-weather weapon, and for that reason alone you would want to look at lasers as a complement to existing self-defense weapons, not as a substitute,” he said.

Photo Credit: Navy, Thinkstock, Air Force
Reader Comments

Re: Lasers Could Become Cost Effective Missile Defense Weapons

The industry is still hawking Death Rays? After nearly a century of broken promises?

Remember MTHEL (Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser)? That was cancelled way back in 2006, because it proved wildly impractical;
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30laser.html?_r=0

The manufacturer continued to market the MTHEL for a while, until engineers made it painfully obvious to the public that it was *anything* by "Mobile". In response, they changed the name to "THEL". Yes, that's all they did to improve it --- they changed the name;
http://www.wired.com/2008/02/israelis-demand/

Now they've re-named it HEL MD. Old wine in new bottles.

Let's also recall the Airborne Laser farce...;
http://www.g2mil.com/abl.htm

...and what became of it;
http://www.wired.com/2012/02/airborn-laser-rip/

Most important of all, don't forget about who we're talking about here. The US defense industry sold the CBU-97 SFW (Sensor-Fuzed Weapon) to the USAF based on the ability of it's infrared seeker heads to home-in on target vehicles that were roasted with space heaters, until they practically glowed red. Then there was the Paveway 3 bomb (not to be confused with the Paveway III), another heat-seeking guided bomb which missed by an average of 5 miles in half of it's tests (the rest fell BEYOND 5 miles from the target!), but managed to hit the target every time when the manufacturer later dropped them onto the target from a crane.

Back to the concept of directed energy weapons, it dates back to the 1930s, and the first attempts to develop them were made by the Germans in World War 2. Every single attempt in the past 84 years has met with grief;
http://phantasyphysics.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/directed-ehergy-weapons-the-history-of-the-ray-gun/

Here's a brief list of all the weapon systems (in no particular order) that have gone from conception to reality in that 84-year timespan, which more than anything else shows how futile the quest for a directed energy weapon really is;
- Radar
- Assault Rifles
- Main Battle Tanks
- Shaped Charges
- Rocket-Propelled Grenades
- Cruise Missiles
- Ballistic Missiles
- Intercontinental Bombers
- Jet Warplanes
- Nuclear Weapons
- ICBMs
- Nuclear Warships
- Satellites
- Manned Spacecraft
- GPS
- Guided Bombs
- Composite Armor
- Thermobaric Weapons
- Helicopters
- Aircraft-Launched Missiles
- Surface-to-Air Missiles
- Guided Torpedoes
- Gas Turbine Engines
- Infantry Fighting Vehicles
- Guided Projectiles
- Night Vision Systems
- Thermal Imaging Optics
- Cluster Bombs
- Armored Personnel Carriers
- Mechanical Computers
- Analog Computers
- Digital Computers
- Cellular Telephones
- Anti-Radiation Missiles
- Rocket Artillery
- Stealth Technology
- Anti-Tank Guided Missiles
- Rotary Cannons
- Combat Engineering Vehicles
- Supersonic Aircraft

...just to name a few.

Blacktail on 10/28/2014 at 20:27

Re: Lasers Could Become Cost Effective Missile Defense Weapons

The article implies that lasers would give the US a cost advantage. In fact, some of our adversaries are well ahead of us in operational laser technology, and if anything, the US failure to deploy laser weapon systems puts us at a cost disadvantage. At least the Navy is attempting to deploy some laser systems - good for them.

Jimr on 08/05/2014 at 11:47

Re: Lasers Could Become Cost Effective Missile Defense Weapons

As with all early stage weapon systems, full capabilities are long in development and maturation. For instance, powder propelled projectiles have come a long way from the first time a lead slug was fired from a barrel several hundred years ago. Just because a technology can't do what we want it to right out of the gate doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued or can't do the job. Lasers are new to the arena and still in their infancy and with technological developments over the next hundred years could eventually become the weapon of choice i.e. Star Trek's phasers. It's actually quite impressive the advancements that have been made since the laser's invention. Time and money will never be unlimited resources but determination, necessity, and invention are.

CLD on 07/25/2014 at 15:15

Re: Lasers Could Become Cost Effective Missile Defense Weapons

How much is a laser going to cost?

The French have just unveiled their AA and anti-drone response with this vehicle.

https://news.yahoo.com/truck-mounted-cannon-shoot-drones-sky-145724634.html

Not only can it shoot down small flying objects, its 40mm could destroy AFVs as well. I doubt a JLTV with a AA laser could even destroy AFVs. Since the USN lacks space on their amphibis, having a vehicle that can take out both air and ground targets would seem more logical than just having a vehicle that could take out small air targets. True, the USMC has the LAV-AD, but do the USMC really need one vehicle with just one weapon and one specific function to take out JUST UAVs and nothing else?

Peter on 07/22/2014 at 13:39

Re: Lasers Could Become Cost Effective Missile Defense Weapons

An unwise title choice; while lasers might be a replacement for 50cal / 20mm cannons in a close in air defense role against non-lethal threats (slow soft UAVs, not inbound fast movers) lasers will not be a feasible means of point defense against inbound ASBM RVs or hardened ASCMs. Pertaining physics scaling was done in 1984 by Dr Carter (later DEPSECDEF) for weapon class lasers for the BMD problem. Given the megawatt lasers that BMD applications require, the Sealite Beam Director (SLBD) / Alpha laser and the Airborne Laser / ABLTB have provided a limited set of operations data where the mean time between critical failures of the telescope/beam director under megawatt flux conditions is measured in seconds. Finally, the real world is full of contamination sources (especially at sea) that are assured to destroy the sorts of high performance optics that weapon lasers mandate. Simple answer to the question posed by the article, “not only no but hell no”.

J_kies on 07/21/2014 at 17:14

Re: Lasers Could Become Cost Effective Missile Defense Weapons

laser may be good, what about the attack by 300 to 400 missiles at Air carrier, how effective will it be, will destroy all the targets, Japanese did the same in ww2 america lost carriers , some damaged
oswald mumbai india

oswald on 07/19/2014 at 08:55

Submit Your Reader's Comment Below
*Name
 
*eMail
 
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
*Comments
 
 
Refresh
Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.
*Characters
  
*Legal Notice

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.

 
 
  Bookmark and Share