Navy & SOCOM: Integration<\/strong><\/p>\n The Navy\u2019s already experimented with a 30-kilowatt laser,\u00a0LaWS, on the USS\u00a0Ponce<\/em>, and this year it will field a \u201croll-aboard\u201d laser to blind sensors,\u00a0ODIN, that can go on \u201canything that\u2019s floating,\u201d Boxall told last week\u2019s\u00a0Directed Energy Summit<\/a>. But LaWS and ODIN are stand-alone systems that don\u2019t connect to the combat system that controls a ship\u2019s permanently installed weapons and sensors.<\/p>\n That means, among other things, that the laser doesn\u2019t get targeting data from the ship\u2019s radars and must rely entirely on its own built-in optics. Conversely, the laser\u2019s optics can\u2019t provide targeting data to any other weapon on the ship. And you really want the ships\u2019 other weapons to be able to take advantage of the laser as a sensor: Lasers require extremely high-quality optics to work, and, when not firing, the crew of the\u00a0Ponce<\/em>\u00a0found theirs useful as a super-telescope. In fact, Boxall said, lasers are so precise \u2014 both as sensors and as weapons \u2014 that they both supply and demand much more data, much faster, than the radar-guided missiles that the Navy\u2019s Aegis fire control system is built around.<\/p>\n Getting lasers and Aegis to work together is a top priority for the Navy\u2019s\u00a0HELIOS<\/a>laser program, which in 2021 will install a 60-kW-plus weapon on an\u00a0Arleigh Burke<\/em>destroyer and \u2014 unlike LAWS and ODIN \u2014 integrate it with the\u00a0Aegis<\/a>\u00a0combat system. The HELIOS laser will actually replace an existing, proven missile defense weapon, a\u00a0Phalanx Close-In Weapons System<\/a>\u00a0(CIWS) gatling gun.<\/p>\n \u201cI believe that the power will come, I believe that the improvement in beam quality will come,\u201d Boxall said, \u201cbut where I\u2019m not yet confident is, very few people are working on that integration.\u201d<\/p>\n While HELIOS will integrate with the Aegis combat system, the admiral said, it still relies on its own dedicated power supply. In the long run, the Navy wants lasers that draw on the ship\u2019s regular electrical system, but modern ships have less and less power to spare as the Navy upgrades their electronics, particularly with the new Air & Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) going on the newest\u00a0Arleigh Burke\u00a0<\/em>destroyers, the Flight III variant. It\u2019ll actually be easier to power a laser on the smaller\u00a0frigates<\/a>\u00a0the Navy is about to buy, said Boxall, because that\u2019ll be a new class whose margin for growth hasn\u2019t yet been eaten up by upgrades. Ultimately, Navy leaders say they want\u00a0a new cruiser design<\/a>\u00a0built for much high power levels.<\/p>\n As Breaking D readers know, Special Operations Command has a similar challenge, but in even tighter quarters: They want a 60-kilowatt weapon on their\u00a0AC-130 gunships<\/a>, replacing an existing 30 mm cannon but not impacting the rest of the airplane\u2019s on-board arsenal. That\u2019s the same power as the initial version of the Navy\u2019s HELIOS, but instead of going on a\u00a08,000-10,000 ton<\/a>\u00a0warship, it\u2019s going on an aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of\u00a077 tons<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cIt a really challenging math problem in terms of SWAP,\u201d (Size, Weight, And Power) said Lisa Sanders, SOCOM\u2019s science & technology director<\/a>. The laser will weigh more than the weapon that it replaces \u2014 about 8.5 tons counting gun, ammo, mounting, etc. \u2014 and the aircraft can take the extra weight,, but the design is tightly constrained, she said.<\/p>\n SOCOM is also working with the Army on a\u00a0helicopter-mounted laser<\/a>, Sanders noted, but that\u2019ll be built into a pod and carried externally, rather than tightly integrated into the aircraft itself. Neither laser program has finalized requirements yet, she said.<\/p>\n The Army: Beam Control & More<\/strong><\/p>\n While the Navy and SOCOM worry about integrating their lasers, Army officials at the directed energy conference were still focused on the\u00a0laser weapons<\/a>. Like Boxall, they seemed sanguine about power levels \u2014 for\u00a0good reason.\u00a0<\/a>One particularly successful Army project, to put a drone-killing laser on an 8\u00d78 Stryker vehicle, already soared from two kilowatts to 10 and is on track for\u00a050 kW in 2021<\/a>. But there\u2019s plenty left to work out.<\/p>\n \u201cBeam control is an area where we need a little bit more help,\u201d said\u00a0Craig Robin<\/a>, a senior scientist at Army\u00a0Space & Missile Defense Command<\/a>. That\u2019s the complex and highly classified science of getting the laser to focus on a precise point on the target and stay focused on that point, like a blowtorch, as the target moves.<\/p>\n Beam control requires precise measurement not just of the target but of the intervening air, since moisture, dust, and turbulence \u2014 invisible to the human eye \u2014 can change moment to moment in ways that weaken and distort the beam unless compensated for. The lower your altitude, the thicker the air and the worse the potential distortion, so Air Force has the least to worry about here, Navy surface ships have more of a problem, and Army ground vehicles grinding through the mud have the most.<\/p>\n The good news, Robin says, is you don\u2019t need a full power laser to test for these effects, just a low-power surrogate and a calculator to scale up the results. (They\u2019re purely linear, he said: If a 1-kW laser suffers\u00a0x<\/em>\u00a0interference in certain conditions, a 100-kW laser will suffer exactly 100x<\/em>). The Army\u2019s sufficiently confident they\u2019ll work out beam control that they\u2019re already investing\u00a0Manufacturing Technology<\/a>(MANTECH) funds to improve production of key components such as optics and laser diodes.<\/p>\n Ultimately, all this technology needs to come together in a package that frontline troops can use. \u201cA warfighter in combat better not be trying to figure out what a CN-squared number is,\u201d said Booz Allen Hamilton\u2019s\u00a0David Stoudt<\/a>. (It\u2019s a measure of atmospheric turbulence, apparently). \u201cHe\u2019d better have a red\/yellow\/green [light] that tells him this is a good day to shoot a laser at that target at that range.\u201d<\/p>\n Given the technical and tactical complexities \u2014 and the split-second timing required to\u00a0shoot down incoming missiles<\/a>\u00a0or\u00a0swarming drones<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 the operator will need the help of some sophisticated software, perhaps even a form of\u00a0artificial intelligence<\/a>. Of course, once you start linking AI with any kind of lethal weapon, you get into a\u00a0whole world of controversy<\/a>.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/sites.breakingmedia.com\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2018\/07\/DDG-51-Flight-III-specs-GAO-image-678866-1-660x372-300x169.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/sites.breakingmedia.com\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2015\/01\/AC-130-firing-081016-F-6822S-001-300x238.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/sites.breakingmedia.com\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2017\/08\/Stryker-MEHEL.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Breaking](\"https:\/\/sites.breakingmedia.com\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2016\/10\/Screen-Shot-2016-10-05-at-12.06.00-PM-300x184.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Lockheed](\"https:\/\/sites.breakingmedia.com\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2018\/08\/ART1556-02B-2_Laser-truck_false-laser_v1-300x200.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n