In her Spring Statement to Parliament today, the Chancellor will announce a modest increase of funding for defence, part of which will enable the RN to advance its plans for fitting the DragonFire laser weapon.
The new funding injection is described as a “downpayment” on the longer-term commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027. Although woefully inadequate, given the rising threat and diminishing reliability of US support for NATO, this new money is further evidence Government is trying to address the situation.
The £2.2Bn will be used to procure advanced defence technologies that can deliver effects on the frontline relatively rapidly. Part of the new funding will also be used to improve accommodation for forces personnel and families, an important step in addressing the retention crisis that is so corrosive.
The MoD had previously announced a DragonFire mount would go to sea on a single warship in 2027 but this will be expanded to four ships. Although not officially confirmed yet, the Type 45s are the most likely recipient of the new weapons. The post-PIP destroyers and the Type 26 frigates will have sufficient spare power generation capacity to support at least a 50kw class LDEW system such as DragonFire.
Directed energy weapons have many advantages over conventional projectile firing systems. The most obvious benefit, particularly relevant to the maritime domain, is that it cannot be exhausted in the way that munition stocks can be rapidly consumed.
A LDEW shot will only cost tens of pounds compared to the hundreds of pounds per round for advanced gun ammunition or missiles costing millions of pounds. Following experience in the Red Sea last year, this requirement is increasingly important. LDEW can also respond rapidly to very high-speed and hard manoeuvring targets. The need to fire a missile, calculate an intercept course and potentially make extreme manoeuvres in the terminal phase is eliminated. See our more in-depth article about the DragonFire system here.
Why quote the cost per shot in dollars? Royal Navy budgets in pounds Sterling!
fixed!
How will these work in rough seas?
What range have they?
How will they work in poor weather conditions?
Can targets be easily protected with reflective material?
That last part is a no, lasers burn through mirrors etc just fine at high power levels.
don’t see why rough seas would inherently stop them, range is a ?
More rain and moisture in the air means more diffusion of the beam and less energy transferred to the target at a given range.
As for the rough seas question, I assume Iain is questioning how well a LDEW mounted on a ship pitching around in a storm could remain focused on a rapidly manoeuvring target. The answer to that is probably going to be “remains to be seen”. A bigger ship better able to ride out the storm will be a better platform for laser weapons, but it will mostly depend on the quality of the mount.
Gyroscopic mount
Because they need to hold the target not just hit the target,
To concentrate the heat energy on the target, the beam must stay precisely focused on a very small area about the size of a one-pound coin at distances up to several kilometres. This focus must be maintained while both the target and the source may be moving.
laser weapons dont really work like that, its already a train of brief pulse of light 20-50 pulses per sec in that ‘hold’ isn’t really necessary for a 50kW laser. They can rapidly shift to another target or return to the original one.
Not so.
DEW works by heating.
The more concentrated the spot the more heat is generated.
The more time in target the more heat.
It is that simple.
Whilst time share targets, which you allude to, is possible you’d need even more energy for that.
It seems that the higher power , 300kW plus is the method for metal skinned ‘tougher’ airframes that are also moving faster rather than ‘holding longer’
A electro-optical based tracking system , using a different laser beam also helps
Have you not seen a tank rapidly manoeuvring over rough ground, the gun stays on target.
See the previous article, which covers the advantages/disadvantages of LDEW and the technical challenges involved in more detail. https://www.navylookout.com/dragonfire-pathway-to-a-laser-directed-energy-weapon-for-royal-navy/
thank you.
The laser mounts would have adequate mount stabilization to deal with rough seas. Just look at the Challenger 2 tank gyrostabilized gun system, allowing accurate firing while on the move in rough terrain,
Range is obviously line of sight.
With the use of infrared beams moderate weather would have little affect on the laser beam.
A gyro-stabilised gun on a tank is one thing, a force 8 at sea is a whole other level. Difficult to aim stuff in heavy seas no matter how good the stabilisation systems.
On the flip side, the likelyhood of a smallish OWE UAV or USV being able to operate in force 8 is fairly slim
Is the weight of one of these mounts suitable for this to be an addition to a Type 45’s existing weapons or will something need to be removed? Appreciate its not just weight margins but firing arcs and if only one is fitted I’d assume it would be mounted up high giving as much coverage as possible.
The Type 45 has enough excess buoyancy. The dragonfire is lightweight relative to the ships
Too weight margin isn’t just about buoyancy….there is meta centrics to consider.
As Dragon Fire won’t on the top of the radar mast I do t think it will be an issue.
Ultimately the laser source will be below deck and the effector above deck in evolved versions so the expensive bit is more protected.
Not having to expend valuable CAMM and Aster-30 Block 1 to destroy drones is very nice, as those can be prioritised for BMD and destroying more capable cruise missiles.
Does the DragonFire have capability against subsonic cruise missiles.
Lockheed is developing a 150-300kW laser for anti-ship missiles, which is at least 3x the power of DragonFire. It probably could take out a subsonic missile in ideal circumstance, either by destruction or dazzling IR sensors, but in reality a ship would never let a missile get that close for engaging. I’d be relatively confident that a more powerful version is already in the works, the newer ships have much more power generation for systems like this.
50kW is only the publicly disclosed minimum power rating, you can bet it is significantly greater than this but not being disclosed for security reasons.
I doubt it, we’re very early into development
If you refer to the link that NL have posted, you’ll see that Dragon Fire was an experimental exploration and that a 150 KW version would be most likely fitted to future warships. What I can’t find is if this new version will in fact have the 150KW mentioned.
DSTL previously stated
“ A 10-second burst is said to consume the same power as a domestic heater running for one hour.”
Interesting a domestic heater is rated between 1 and 3kW.
So that is 1 – 3kW/hrs…..which is quite a lot over 10s…..that is between 360 and 1000kW….which sounds high to me….if it really is that powerful that is quite something. It is the sort of burst you could get out of three or so sets of high performance EV batteries quite easily.
WR21 in T45 is about 21MW each and MT30 as used in QEC and T26 is a lot more.
You are right, that’s a very high power input. Let’s say it’s 500kW. How much of that is expended on output and how much radiated as wasted heat? I can’t believe it’s only 10% efficient.
Let me quote from The Conversation (2024)
So let’s say 40% efficiency, that would give an output of 200kW and possibly more. This is definitely inching into the “useful” category.
The other unanswered question is that of area. The 300kW US systems have a much higher advertised diameter. Dragonfire makes claims of a diameter the size of a “pound coin” (something much in use before Covid). That’s about 2.3cm. I’ve heard claims of a spot diameter from Helios (150 kW) of about 10cm, although nothing official. If the concentration of power is about 15 times better than that of the Helios system, and it can be ramped up to similar if not higher power, we’d have to await test results with bated breath, but it could be a real CIWS replacement and not just for drone swarms.
All the real figures are mired in secrecy, but HMG’s excitement suggests it could actually be world class this time, not just in the minds of MOD press announcers.
Thats easy . Just look up what say US Army is doing ( 20kW, 50kW, 200kW) and the quality information coming from their more open society.
The basic technology is much the same
Shouldn’t any threat have been dispatched long before it’s within range of these things?
No one on board is going to say ‘Don’t waste a missiles, let it get close enough for the lasers to deal with it’
..at least I hope they’re not.
These things, like Phalanx, are a last ditch defence.
The potential issue in today’s world is with large numbers of relatively slow be cheap drones. If this system can engage drones outside the minimum range of Sea Ceptor it gives a ship two full layers of defence to back up Dragon Fire.
Missile defence today would appear to be a numbers game.
My 2 bob rocket vs your 100K missile — I will eventually win as you run out of cash.
Threat thrifting would appear to be where the hip kids are working at the moment.
What actually is incoming and what is the most appropriate form of defence.
Happier if T31’s were fitted with real / proper CIWS as well as this as well as 40mm plus.
Cheap should not mean fewer capabilities it should mean more efficient build.
“ Happier if T31’s were fitted with real / proper CIWS as well as this as well as 40mm plus.”
T31 has the best defensive fit of all.
The 40/57mm is an excellent pairing.
Not sure I agree.
The 40mm looks a bit anaemic / lacks focus.
Plus the cost of the fancy ammo needs to be taken into account.
The 57mm would appear to be something of an acquired taste.
Once BAe had acquired the company certain navies acquired a desire to buy it.
Appears to have a bit of a Glaxo vibe to it — sales channels are all you need.
I wonder how much of a brains trust the RN has for Phalanx?
People champing at the bit to improve the system and make it more affordable.
Did UK PLC ever have a go at a gun based CIWS?
Or did the late 50’s missile craze kill it at birth.
Falklands — how we could have used a gun based system.
Didn’t need to be Goalkeeper CIWS spec — Hazemeyer would have done.
Circularity and all that.
Yes, there was a radar controlled gun mount.
Wasn’t a lot of good. One was dusted off post ‘82 for comparative testing. Waste of time compared to Sea Wolf – which worked pretty well in tests.
There was an attempt to control a similar gun mount from the Sea Wolf computer system that ultimately failed because of the difficulties of switching that kind of computer between functions. It also increased the program length which loaded from paper tape. So it slowed the boot time massively. It would have lead to all sorts of issues with buffer overflow.
The problem was that any computer that was fast enough was very, very large.
Phalanx pre 1988 was pretty useless too as it was unreliable. There was a major modification to it which made it into a useful and reliable system.
The 40m is multirole, that’s the whole point. It is probably not far off the Millennium Gun in the CIWS role with longer range but lower rate of fire, and arguably more effective than Phalanx for missile defence due to the increased accuracy and range.
57mm is too bulky for what it does but it is a very useful system anyway.
The UK’s had several gun CIWS projects since the falklands, if you go to the Secret Projects Forum I believe several are documented there.
I would say the 40 is more in keeping with the Phalanx, just more useable against a more varied amount of targets. The main gripe I have with the Bofors 40, is that it has to rely on the ship’s radar and optics for tracking. Whereas, with the Phalanx, it uses its own radar and optics for tracking targets. This is something that could be easily included on the Bofors turret. By doing so it would significantly reduce the ship’s radar resource time, i.e. the amount of time it has to spend on volume searching, tracking targets and gun laying. This I feel is especially important for ships with only one primary radar.
For me the 57 should be the better gun based system to deal with both slow and fast moving threats. As it has a dual ammunition capability, that can mix dumb proximity fused and guided ammunition types. If and I’m hoping it is still on track, the guided MAD-FIRES round makes it in to service, this could be the game changer for the 57 gun. The Leonardo combination of the 76mm and the guided DART round has now been combat proven off the Yemeni coast. Where it was successfully used against both airborne drones and an anti-ship cruise missile.
The MAD-FIRES guided round has the potential to be even more effective than the DART. As it is expected to use semi-active radar homing rather than command guidance. Which means you can engage more targets in a shorter amount of time.
love to see a swap of the 2 x 30mm on the T26 for 40mm instead, and even add a 57mm somewhere on top. That would make a real difference.
40mm is CIWS 🤦🏻♂️
Not really.
It is all down to the threat table.
You have always preserved your previous earshots for the most appropriate targets.
Why use an expensive missile for a 100mph drone that can’t manoeuvre?
Try with the laser and if that fails the 30/40mm cannon can mol it up.
Defence is in layers.
100mph drone that can’t manoeuvre — surely a bow and arrow would be enough?
Model 1415 / Irish that can’t swim spec.
Brummies can be so cruel …
Should read
‘ You have always preserved your precious war shots for the most appropriate targets.
One advantage of this system that shouldn’t be neglected is that presumably it will get tested far more frequently than missile systems are. If you’re looking to attract youngsters into the service, then firing cool weapons on a regular basis has got to help.
Yep and it will be a lot cheaper to test so the accountants in the mod that seem to hate doing anything will be more likely to sign off frequent testing
Lock Phasers on target and Fire!
I reckon the next stage is a Cloaking device.
Wasn’t a watermist “cloaking shield” mooted by Vosper back in the day?
I thought that Dragon Fire was a Technological demonstrator and a different system with more power was planned for some ships ?
Dragonfire is a great brand name. Why would they waste it just on the demonstrator? I can see export potential if it’s good enough so they definitely should keep the branding.
Getting this to sea faster will increase the likelihood of usage in real conditions, providing useful information (along with info from maintaining the system at sea) to help further development. It might also increase sales which will help development further still, hopefully UK can stay a leader on this.
Only issue is the fuel level available to supply them.
45s have enough issues with power and cooling as is even with the PIP upgrades
Position will be an issue so not to have blind arcs etc. more than one required per boat.
T23 has two trackers for seawolf for similar reasons in the day.
Missiles come with there own fuel system and are in vls cells so blind arcs , fuel are not issues
Not a simple solution as might be at first sight
Also just not enough D45 either should have been 12 .
Maybe new build would be a good idea. The replacement is too far off
All really valid points.
Not.
Explain . As there is not much room to place these . One or two probably won’t be good enough
Not so at all.
Post PiP T45 has bags of power on tap ca 50MW this laser is 50kW. A few zeros different.
Phalanx is a pair on T45 so likely Dragon Fire.
Dragonfire has been designed to be fitted to Ships, Aircraft and Wolfhound. I’m sure it won’t have a problem being fitted to an 8000 ton ship. As for “fuel”, see other answers here.
Should have been 12 ? yes but that was reduced to 6 some decades back.
New Builds ? That’s just silly isn’t it.
So there you go.
Not a problem fitting to a ship?. well there’s stabilisation and environment considerations ect… Salt water spray for one thing is harsh on equipment..
theres this
https://defence-blog.com/us-navy-evaluates-laser-weapon-aboard-destroyer/
An earlier sea testing was done , now its an operational destroyer, perhaps in the Red Sea soon enough
Mark, try reading the reply again then go and read the comment I replied to.
Relative to physically moving 8,000 tonnes of T45 around and running SAMPSON, the power draw from these won’t be significant so no need to worry about fuel consumption.
Not sure what the PIP power comment means, they’ve fixed the recuperator and added a bunch of extra diesels for power generation.
I suspect they will be positioned one on each beam like Phalanx, but that space will be getting crowded on T45 with the 30mm, Ancilia, Dragonfire and Phalanx all in a row. A “system” probably doesn’t mean just one turret.
Does this imply T31s don’t have enough power?
Yes, no, who knows, they aren’t even out of the shed yet.
A bigger concern is will there be enough charging points ?
Will T31 need them when they have two 40mm guns to take out drones.
I’m only expecting this to be mounted on T45 and T26
I wouldn’t be surprised if in time the carriers get them mounted where the 30mm’s were originally supposed to go. If the system works I could see it or later versions of it becoming standard in RN/RFA ships
Both T45 and T26 have electric drives, in the first case IEP, in the second CODLOG. So, the T26 will go most quickly on its gas turbine direct drive, while the diesels can produce 12MW, for onboard systems including Dragonfire. T31 is CODAD, with around 3.6MW for shipboard use including DEW if any. Is that enough? Hard to say.
Of course, the other ships with IEP and a ton of spare power are the carriers. I’d really like to see them there. As ATH says, it’s a possibility.
No. But the T45s are in service and are AAD destroyers so no-brainer they are the first to get Dragonfire.
Given the small cost per shot the Treasury will probably be happy to see these on all ships.
Oh would suspect that we will see them trialled in a QEC, T45 and T26 as these have the power margin.
If you were on board being shot at wouldn’t you want a near inexhaustible number of rounds to interdict incoming?
There is a genuine gain here in defence as well as in not wasting £££££ on shooting at £5k drones.
Maybe there is a need for a proper battleship that has all of this stuff and lots to take out cheap drones rather than the expensive solution and weapons we have so far
A ship with only lasers is useless in most other regards
Agree.
While it is a weather limited weapon. Drone in most cases also have weather limitations. It is an additional weapon in the arsenal so should be welcomed as such
Limits everywhere.
At the moment this is a PR exercise.
Trials were successful
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/advanced-future-military-laser-achieves-uk-first
Dwelling time of 10 sec is implied in the article.
Thats just a nominal number to compare to an every day item
“cost equivalent of using a regular heater for just an hour“
We hopefully are testing every day of the week and twice on Sunday’s.
If a test can generate a press release then we need to do more.
Lasers are light and light can be reflected with the correct type of mirror, fog and mist can also effect the intensity of the lasers strength?
I hope this has been considered.
Fog only. What mirror?
So you think those science PhD types and the naval warfare advisers at the MoD never thought, in all their years working in this, about these issues… 🤦🏻♂️
Yes, I think he actually does think that !
the MoD – the people who brought you the SA80 and Ajax
With everyday light generated by the sun, these photons actually have very little energy. Whereas a laser that has focused the light into a small diameter beam, the photons at the beam’s spot have an incredibly high amount of energy. You would think that a common reflective material would be able to reflect a laser as it does the sunlight. However, this is only partially the story. It is true that some of the light is reflected, however a great deal of it is absorbed by the material. The material does not have the capacity to remove the build up of heat. So for a shrink wrap type of reflective film it will burn through pretty quickly. For a traditional glass fronted material that uses polished aluminium as the reflective surface, it has a better ability to cope with the heat. However, even it over time will suffer from the build up of heat, where initially its reflective ability will be compromised and then is burnt through.
Fog and mist will disperse the beam, as the water droplets refract the light. However, if you are using a very powerful laser, it has the ability to vaporise the droplets, which allows the beam to pass through. But at a reduced power level, as work has been done. Conversely lasers with beam diameters around 1mm or less have the ability to map water droplets in a cloud. As the scanning speed of the beam kind of makes the droplets freeze in time. Again if the laser is powerful enough it can “burn” through the cloud, but again the beam after the cloud is much reduced in power.
You may well be very interested in read my latest comment / post on this topic
(Far below: right down at the very bootom of all of the strings)
I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on my latest post…..
Hi Pete, In regards to the mortar shell. There’s very little context on how the trial was conducted. Was the mortar shell engaged whilst in flight, or at that point in time, probably fixed to a stand and fired at?
The point also raises the question of how much time was the laser focused on that spot. I’m pretty certain DSTl etc, won’t release precise details of the trial. Just that Dragonfire successfully burnt through a relatively thick 120mm mortar shell casing. Depending on the nature of the explosive filler. I’d say there’s a very good chance that the laser once past the casing could initiate the explosive.
For me, the most important aspect of the publicly released information on Dragonfire so far. Has been its ability to hit moving targets at various CIWS typical ranges. From what little information is available these targets have been attacked in varied weather conditions. Additionally the targets ranged from your Amazon purchased DJI quadcopters up to Banshee target drones.
These targets cover the majority of airborne drone threats a ship may face. Either in port or at sea. Plus they’re all either use plastic for their fuselage construction or a mix of carbon and Fibreglass composites. So in theory the burn through times should be significantly less than the 10 seconds that’s been mooted. Therefore Dragonfire should be able to engage a relatively large number of these drones at a decent stand-off distance. Bearing in mind that the Shahed type drones max out at about 115mph.
I’m pretty sure they will be doing further trials against “hardened” drone targets, that represent anti-ship missiles. Though I’d say you really need to have a beam output greater than 100kW. To be confident that the target can be knocked down before it gets too close.
Yes can be reflected, but if the energy is focused and sustained some will transfer the the reflective material & It will rapidly degrade that reflective material as the energy is applied. And as the material degrades that energy transfer and absorption rate only climbs. A mirror needs to be as perfect as possible to have any effect, and it’s a lot easier to ruin that perfection than it is to achieve it & maintain it during the weapons flight. Especially within the weight limits allowed or order to actually have a weapon be useful, in speed & range ect..
Typo
Only 4. Typical efficiency.
Why are you assuming we’re only getting 4. In fact I’ll be impressed if we get that many fitted by then
What 4000? Be releastic.
Now who’s the one exaggerating
Dragonfire — interesting.
Hopefully it is panic stations development cadence.
Development / Development / Development as Blair would have said.
1880’s battleship design vs current RN CIWS positioning …
1880’s — main guns went fore and aft.
Hopefully RN vessel architecture will catch up.
As in CIWS fore and aft.
CIWS on the beam — poor choice / must have been desperate.
No ability for mutual support / cover when reloading.
Dragonfire at 2 per ship should be the same.
Although lack of physical loading of the ammo to interrupt its use will help.
CIWS business development — missed a trick to double up on the gun units.
Cheaper mech tech bits that could have shared the electronic bit / radar.
One unit active / one unit available to re-load.
TQM turned up to 11 to keep the cost real.
Also big push to get the overall cost down and get it used more widely.
Printer vs ink economics.
What is the going rate for a new Vulcan Phalanx — $5mill vs $10mill?
How low could you go — use it to defend an LCT / LCU / floating Merlin?
Desperate? Look at the T45 and tell me where you’d fit fore and aft Phalanx on a design like that, or why we continue to do broadside mounts, we’re not stupid
T45 is 18M too short at the pointy end.
Fit the CIWS behind the 4.5″ gun on a spare conning tower.
Some angle iron / some armour and it would be quite secure.
CIWS would have an excellent field of fire — able to cover both flanks.
Still would leave space for another set of VLS.
If we had some gumption / energy we could have fitted a couple of gen sets while we were at it — exhausts behind the CIWS unit. Sized to suit a locomotive / latest marine emissions level so the exhaust gases wouldn’t be an issue.
Missed a trick — well to me anyway.
Broadside mounts — you are stupid.
Broadside — 2 x 180 degree coverage / no overlap.
Pre Dreadnought — 2 x 270 to 300 degree coverage / 180 or 210 degree overlap.
I’m stupid? Says the guy who wants to slap some more gens on the T45… somewhere and squeeze some more missiles in too, without actually considering available space or tonnage.
You do not know better than the Navy
Given the performance of the original T45 design …
There are very few that know less than the RN / MOD.
An extra 18M of length at the pointy end will help.
We have done it before — Batch 1 vs Batch 2 T42 in fact.
General arrangements of the T45 — 3 decks deep or is it 4?
Extra volume from the new length — Plug number / 2000M3 usable?
3MW genset — 120M3 including trunking.
Fuel tank will probably be bigger …
MK41 8 box — 110M3 max.
So more than one.
All in dumb steel so costs will be kept down.
Weights — probably need some ballast.
Thinking many years in the future…
The biggest threat to the automated T92 sloop is going to be airborne. So if they have sufficient power generation then Dragonfire would be the obvious defensive weaponry. The only thing then constraining patrol duration would then be fuel.
That said, fully expect the T92 to be completely unarmed and simply a sensor platform initially.
Fully automated / unmanned ship — marine version of the lights out factory.
Will not work in the real world — the cost of getting the last 4 operators out the equation will be too much / take too long / restrict its capabilities.
Better to work towards remote operation / support and have a bare bones local crew.
The effort to make it fully autonomous will delay the project well past its obsolescence date.
Better to get something in the water and gain experience.
First up do we have a hullform / vessel architectures / powertrain?
100m2 of bare bones accommodation should not be a show stopper.
Plus if you know someone might be home you will act differently if you know it is definitely unmanned.
Comment when you’ve learned how to write sentences, paragraphs, and general structure, rather than spurting random phrases onto the page.
An AI could produce something more coherent 🤷🏻♂️
Sean
Quite correct!
Thus I believe that AI now needs to be replaced by BI
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
So does any one know how many seconds the the LASAR has to hold the target to destroy the sensitive electronics. How many more to structuraly destroy the .target.
No, I don’t think it should be put out for public consumption. Besides a lot will depend on the target and the materials it is made out of. For example, something like a DJI quadcopter drone made from plastic, will have a pretty quick burn through time. Whereas a missile, such as an Exocet, that has a ceramic nose cone that houses the active radar and a aluminium alloy tubular fuselage, will take a lot longer.
So, staying on this very same topic of “burn through rates” = which is a very important consideration for the brand-new owner of any very-flashy new “Ronnie Reagan” (note1)
….thus what I would now like to add onto your own very thoughful comment is my own very scientific observation that…..
…. that in all of those previously well-publicised photos of the “burn through rates” achieved on a big mortar shell during those earlier live-fire tests, “out on the ranges” by Q branch,,,,,
(This photo was previously extensively published last year, including here on Navy Lookout: https://www.navylookout.com/dragonfire-pathway-to-a-laser-directed-energy-weapon-for-royal-navy/
Upping the power is the answer.
The US Army has “deployed” 20kW units, 50kW units and even a 300kW one.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/04/24/army-has-officially-deployed-laser-weapons-overseas-combat-enemy-drones.html
Dragonfire is 50kW class
Duker
What does genuinely really surprise me is that this totally-unproven new laser system is being rushed into service – i.e. orders placed for four units for T45’s – well even before it has ever been tested, for the first time, out at sea.
So why, even as we speak, is the first prototype Dragonfire unit not being fitted, onto the maindeck of the Patrick Blackett trials ship?
All in all, this development timeline seems to me to be Classic Q branch piece of planning
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
It is called “Rabbits and Tortoises” if one is explaining very complex R&D timelines to very young kids…
Urgent Operational requirements !
Test setup at Hebrides range
https://www.navylookout.com/dragonfire-pathway-to-a-laser-directed-energy-weapon-for-royal-navy/
Duker
You can correct me if I am wrong with my next comment…….
….however that Q branch test rig looks to me – suspiciously – like it might be founded on dry land……
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
Mind you = if this laser can cope with both Light Hebridian Drizzile (note 1) and midges = it might be a bit more powerful than I give it credit for….
Note 1.
“Light Hebridian Drizzle” is often called “heavy rain” here in England….
Its an actual Dragon fire system. It works
New motto for UK PLC / MOD — move fast and make things.
Hopefully the MOD are working to maxim — Let a 1000 flowers bloom.
The more people involved at the moment the better.
Uni research / Fred in the shed / Dragon’s Den.
One active stream is very limiting.
Hopefully this success will encourage others.
And so the mapping libraries of the targets to get to a vulnerable spot in any aspect ratio are vital.
I doubt you would bother trying to burn through a ceramic nose cone if you could burn a flap linkage and let Mr Newton do the rest of the job! Or just burn into the fuel tank and let the fire triangle take over….