In late 2023 an aerial target was destroyed during a successful test firing of the UK’s DragonFire Laser Directed Energy Weapon (LDEW) technology demonstrator. Here we look at DragonFire and the possibility of operational derivatives.
Background
In early 2017 a consortium led by MBDA was awarded a £30M contract by the MoD Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) to develop a LDEW demonstrator. This was a high-profile project and was widely publicised but progress was initially slow and there were rumours the project had stalled. Behind the scenes steady development continued and the first trials against static targets at the Dstl Porton Down range were made public in October 2022. In July 2023 low-power tracking trials were successfully concluded at the Hebrides Range followed by a high-power shot resulting in the destruction of a moving aerial target in October 2023. This was a UK first and demonstrated British LDEW technology is of sufficient maturity to form the basis of an operational capability.
In September 2023 the MoD announced it has funded the next 3-year DEW Transition Phase from 2024-27. This will continue Laser DEW developments for ground-based air defence and builds on DragonFire for maritime applications, as well as a high-frequency radio directed energy weapon (RFDEW) for use in the counter-UAS role.
DragonFire is not the only UK LDEW project and the MoD is investing around £100 million in this technology. During 2021 a Thales-led consortium including BAE Systems, Chess Dynamics Vision4CE and IPG began working on Project Tracey to produce advanced demonstrators for the RN. The first objective was to conduct an LDEW trial on a Type 23 frigate in 2023 but this was abandoned, most likely due to lack of maturity and so funds could be redirected into other programmes. In the longer term, there is an ambition to develop a 150kw class naval LDEW, initially to be fitted on the Type 26 frigates sometime in the early 2030s (illustrated in the main image above).
The US is some way ahead in LDEW development, having already fielded the experimental 30 Kw LaWS in 2017 and more recently the AN/SEQ-4 Optical Dazzler Interdictor Navy (ODIN) counter UAS system on some of its destroyers. The 150kw class Laser Weapon System Demonstrator (LWSD) was tested in 2020 and the 60kw high-energy laser with integrated optical dazzler and surveillance (HELIOS) was fitted to USS Preeble in 2022. In the longer term, the US is also working on the 300kw High Energy Laser Counter-ASCM Program (HELCAP) to defeat anti-ship missiles. While UK efforts are inevitably on a smaller scale, DragonFire does not rely on US components or IP and is a fully independent sovereign project.
Consortium
The DragonFire consortium is a team effort building on the strengths of different participants. While MBDA leads the project they have supplied the Command and Control system and using expertise derived from their missile portfolio, advanced image processing and tracking algorithms. QinetiQ provides the fibre amplifiers that deliver the laser source. At its heart, DragonFire is based on efficient solid-state fibre optic laser technology. Tens of glass fibres carry light which is combined into a single powerful beam. The exact methods used for combining beams are one the most sensitive aspects of the UK technology.
Leonardo has built the beam director, the most recognisable part of DragonFire, and are responsible for overcoming one of the hardest challenges in LDEW development. 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. Leonardo has some experience with this challenge, gained while developing the Miysis Directed Infrared Countermeasure (DIRCM) system for aircraft that uses lasers to disrupt infrared optical guidance used by many missile systems. DragonFire is initially cued onto the target by an external sensor, typically a radar which provides the coarse tracking data pointing the system in the direction of the target before it takes over precise visual tracking.
A series of Fast Moving Mirrors (FMM) are used to steer the beam. High speed cameras coupled with advanced algorithms provide continuous feedback, rapidly adjusting the mirrors to ensure the beam stays exactly focused on the target. Control must be exceptionally accurate as even tiny adjustments in the position of the mirrors result in large movements of the beam up to several kilometres away from the mounting. To prevent the mirrors from being destroyed by the powerful laser energy, Leonardo has selected special materials and developed low-absorption coating technologies.
Pros and cons
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. This avoids the need for replenishment and a complicated logistic tail. A LDEW shot will only cost tens of dollars compared to the hundreds of dollars per round for advanced gun ammunition or missiles costing millions of dollars. 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.
LDEW can be aimed very precisely, selecting a specific part of the target, avoiding eliminating collateral damage and casualties. The power of the laser can also be controlled for a graduated response. This can range from jamming of electro-optical (EO) sensors (or controversially, temporary blinding pilots and aircrew), to causing limited, but not disabling damage, up to the total destruction of some targets.
Even when fully mature, LDEW will not be a panacea and will be a compliment to the missiles and guns of warships. Lasers only work in direct line of sight and are limited by the horizon. The power and range of LDEW can be dramatically reduced by smoke, pollutants, salt and sand particles in the atmosphere. Water vapour and fog can also reduce effectiveness, a particular consideration for lasers in marine environments. This can be mitigated to some extent by tuning the laser to use light wavelengths that are less affected by water vapour.
More powerful LDEW can be affected by the ‘thermal blooming’ effect as the air around the beam is heated up, defocusing the beam. This is a particular issue when countering a missile threat head-on on as the beam’s position will be fairly static. Engagement of crossing targets is less problematic as a moving beam has less heating effect on the surrounding air.
Since LDEW rely on thermal energy for their destructive effect there are two possible countermeasures. Obscurants such as smoke can be used to dissipate the beam, though this is a solution of limited utility, particularly in the marine environment. Alternatively, heat-resistant, reflective materials or ablative thermal protection systems that burn off while protecting the item they are applied to may be the solution. The noses of supersonic and Hypersonic missiles are covered with thermal shielding anyway to protect from the heat generated by air friction at high speed, making them tough targets for head-on engagement by LDEW. In the long run, as the power of LDEWs increases, it may no longer be possible to protect missiles from focused laser energy without increasing weight beyond what is aerodynamically viable.
Future potential
As a technology demonstrator, DragonFire is some way from becoming an operational capability, should the MoD decide to pursue development further. Many of the components are of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) standard and would need to be replaced by much more robust military spec (MOTS) equivalents. The system is nominally rated as a 50kw-class weapon but has been deliberately designed to be scaleable up or down in power to provide a flexible basis for a variety of future weapons.
Besides the upper deck mounted beam director, a shipboard installation would require about the equivalent space below deck of a shipping container for the laser source and assorted racks for electronics. It would also need to be integrated with the ship’s combat system. The electrical power requirement is often somewhat overstated but LDEW need either a battery bank, a large capacitor to meet the peak power demands. Post-PIP Type 45 destroyers and the Type 26 frigates will certainly have sufficient spare power generation capacity to support at least a 50kw class system. Despite delivering a large pulses of energy LDEWs do not create interference with ship’s own radars and electronic warfare systems.
The DF consortium are confident that, depending on the laser power requirement, considerable reduction in weight and space requirements can be achieved. LDEW are a realistic proposition for mounting on Army fighting vehicles and possibly eventually an airborne version for GCAP/ Tempest.
Into the hands of operators?
The lessons from recent naval combat in the Red Sea and the Black Sea are likely to increase the desire to fit additional defences against proliferating uncrewed air and surface vehicle threats. The Italian warship ITS Caio Duilio recently destroyed a Houthi drone at about 6km range using 7 or 8 rounds of ammunition fired from one of its two Strales 76mm Super-Rapid guns. At least until the Type 31 frigates arrive equipped with modern 57mm and 40mm guns, the RN lacks an equivalent and must either use expensive missiles or risk engaging targets with 30mm ASCG or Phalanx at shorter range.
The MoD will not say what target sets DragonFire has been tested against but it is implies the ‘aerial target’ destroyed was a Banshee Jet 80 target drone. This is comparable in size to the Iranian attack drones being used by the Houthis in the Red Sea and demonstrates that UK LDEW may not be far away from offering very credible additional layer of defence against UAS for warships. With limited funds, in the near-medium term the RN maybe forced to focus on either LDEW or gun systems as the solution to this challenge. The advantages of LDEW are obvious but may still be perceived as a futuristic and unproven technology while modern gun systems with sophisticated air-burst ammunition are a less risky bet for now.
These systems will inevitably mature and be fielded in time with the maritime domain the most likely to utilise them first. While modern guns may be the safe immediate option for short-medium range defence, there is a strong argument to make a strategic investment in further developing and fielding LDEW as soon as possible for parity with or advantage over peer competitors.
Although some way off and requiring much higher power than DragonFire, evolved LDEWs may become the only viable counter to future ballistic and hypersonic missile threats. British industry has an unhappy track record of successful innovations and developments that were not commercially exploited or operationalised due to a lack of investment. After a slow start, DragonFire has delivered something very useful that UK defence would be unwise not to take further.
There was a sentence in here that I wondered about.
Just what advantage do we gain from this and how far are we from it? Part of the reason for the Valley of Death is that moving to an operational capability can multiply costs tenfold (maintenance, spares, training courses, support, operational costs, etc). Given the restrictive financial environment, I can’t see Dragonfire becoming operational any time soon. It would be useful to find a way to help reduce those costs.
Longevity of a system that is likely to be scaled up or replaced in the near future doesn’t seem appropriate. So maybe it’s reliability we gain? Might not producing cheaper systems in greater numbers be a better route to that, driving down the price and allowing for multiple lasers on a single ship to combine attacks on a single target? Do people here know, how much better are MOTS components over COTS equivalents and how much costlier, or is this so varied depending on the system that it can’t be answered generally enough on an open forum?
I see Naval News also has an interesting article on this that talks about the way ahead and why COTS to MOTS.
As an example, if we look at a modern processor such as AMD’s Ryzen. It is a highly capable processor that is a significant advancement over one of the Company’s previous Athlon processors from around 2001. It will have been stress tested to within an inch of its life. Where they try to work out its failure modes. But also to make sure that it has an operational life of many on/off cycles that meet the design criteria. Plus it is safe to use by those willing tinker with its clock speed and operating voltage, to get the maximum operating speed out of the processor. However, this is still a civilian based processor. It’s testing doesn’t come anywhere near to what is required to pass as a military based processor.
Basically the military will have a string of requirements. Such as resistance to electromagnetic interference (EMI), Max and Min operating temperatures etc. In general, companies such as AMD offer the military slightly older processor designs. As these can be built more robustly and are being tested from a very known standard.
This will be similar to the components that make up Dragonfire. Things such as the servos that control the mirrors. May not have the same high degree of stress testing, so in a military environment, they may fail or operate erratically due to the increased electrical noise when operating from a ship. At some point these components will need to be stress tested, to see what fails and what needs replacing when developing a production standard Dragonfire.
Milspec processor ‘boxes’ isnt all that complicated. As well a naval warship of decent size is one of the better environments, compared to land vehicles or helicopters and such.
This unit is used for Intel Xeon and Core CPUs
It also isn’t cheap. Milspec costs.
I’ve worked extensively with bleeding edge optical fibre equipment in live production (i.e. high paying customer) environments. Also loads of COTS equipment from multiple vendors
All I can say, is that both can sometimes do very strange and unexpected things, can be a nightmare to fix, and I wouldn’t want my life depending on either.
Key problems are buggy software or control loops that are maybe about 90% reliable. It’s the kind of stuff you don’t touch again when it suddenly starts working.
This is a particular problem with low volume high technology products, as vendors push stuff out the door too quickly to keep up with the competition.
Commodity consumer tech (e.g.smartphones) is far more reliable, because low margins mean that manufacturers can’t afford a worse failure rate
I have to wonder whether lasers will turn out to be a later day replacement for Phalanx and similar CIWS rather than a addition.
The principal problem with lasers remains their power demands. If you are talking about weapons with power levels of 100kW plus, which is essential if you are talking about an effective weapon. You have to get into the area of energy storage and that mean capacitor banks and the spare generator capacity to charge them and keep them charged. That probably says ships the design of which hasn’t even started yet.
Research by all means, but what is required in the short term is a good supply of Remote Weapons Systems to deal with the flood of unmanned systems that Ukraine has unleashed.
Like the Article says a laser doesn’t work in all conditions. Things as simple as weather can reduce its effectiveness, unlike conventional defences.
Whilst that is true you could also look at them as a way of augmenting the other kinetic defences when the conditions are right thus husbanding precious missiles?
IRL conditions would have to be pretty dreadful for the lasers to not offer something as CIWS augmentation.
In the Med lasers would be tractable the majority of the time.
Equally you can make similar observations about some kinds of laser and IR seeker heads on missiles which is why mixed mode targeting is always best as it ensures that there is pretty much always a way of getting the missile on target.
Certainly could be used to augment conventional defences or for low cost roles. Though yet to be seen when/if they’ll be able to defend against high cost anti ship missiles or other weapons.
Thing is the near infinite number of reloads.
So good for defeating cheap swarm attacked designed to deplete magazines.
Depends how that is achieved. If you have to recharge super capacitors (for example), then there will be delays between shots (for loss of a better word). How long is this recharge? 5 seconds, ok, 5 minutes, not so ok.
More detail is required.
Power and energy are different quantities. A shot might be preceded by a much lower powered laser beam target tracking, and when on target only milliseconds at say 100kW are needed .
As per the article, there is a battery or capacitor used for peak power demands. It may be only for a few seconds or less for the main beam, but if you are doing that, then there will be a limit to how often you can do that without recharging said battery/capacitor. On a CIWS, that recharge time will be critical.
This ^^^^,
The USN have stated that they consider a 250kW class laser as the necessary power, to replace CIWS, but also to replace a point defence missile system such as SeaRAM. They were looking at engaging a threat at the ship’s sea-level horizon. Which means you need a lot more juice than 100kW. To make sure sufficient energy reaches the target, through the dispersion and attenuation of the atmosphere at sea level.
A number of years ago (I think 10 now), Rolls Royce built a self-contained Laser power system, that fitted inside a 20ft ISO. This was powered by a 1500shp gas turbine used to power a helicopter, that charged up a battery and capacitor bank. If I remember correctly, the system provided enough juice for a 50 to 75kW laser. I would like to think in the intervening 10 years, we have developed a better power generation and storage system?
RR have been showcasing a new family of compact turbine power systems over the last year, primarily targetted at eVTOL market in the range 500 to 1200kW. Same sort of power as you were talking about at less than 5′ long. I’d guess you could fit 4 of them at one end of a 20′ container. Initially running on SAF, there was mention that they could eventually run on hydrogen, meaning that a lasers could become zero carbon killers. Batteries have also shrunk considerably in the last 10 years. Unfortunately in the UK we are still talking about 50-75kW lasers.
I think you generally start with 50 to 60kW lasers, perfect the tracking system so that you can maintain your beam on a moving target and then gradually upgrade the power in stage. It’s what the US has been doing and they are probably 5 years ahead but a lot depends on the Leonardo technology which if it’s ability to maintain the beam within a coins parameters is an advance then the power available will be all the more effective.
RR with the Williams originated tech is working on joint UK/US programs to provide a power set up.
The germans seem to think its scalable, with an actual test unit on Sachsen
The weapon is made up of 12 2-kW laser modules based on coiled bundles of solid-state doped fiber, which generate high-quality laser beams. These go through a beam combiner that uses spectral coupling technology to form a single, much more powerful beam that can be scaled up to 100 kW
https://newatlas.com/military/german-navy-sea-trials-laser-weapon/
LM has a development contract from US on a 300kW system. The power demands of these bundled sub systems arent the difficult part. 100kW system including the laser turret can be carried on heavy duty army truck but maybe limited endurance. A warship is even easier as power supply is longer endurance
This isn’t EMALS, 100kw is nothing on a ship.
An MT30 is about 27MW, and even the diesels on frigates are 2MW+.
For reference, a 100Kw genset is about a 7 liter truck engine.
Worst case, you might need to shed some non-critical load when firing
I missed this saw when I watched the original video before reading this (fantastic) article, but the video still used by the header image appears to show the Type 26 fitted with Chemring’s CENTURION trainable launcher to the left of the Dragonfire turret, whilst two large box structures are present to the right of the amidship mushroom farm (part of me is certain that I have seen those boxes somewhere before but I can’t identify them).
does anyone have an idea as to why these new assets might be present on what is seemingly just an animation of Dragonfire? Potential indication of CENTURION as the winner of the soon-to-be-announced trainable decoy launcher requirement???
The boxes are loop antennas for short range over the horizon communications. The T45s have similar systems.
Centurion is not in the trainable decoy launcher competition so it won’t win. Mainly because it was very expensive. It’s owning company (Chess) is a partner in the Ancilia system from SEA.
Nice to see you got an answer for your boxes question. You’ve been asking around a lot.
An interesting and informative article which makes it clear why such weapons will be complementary to, rather than replace, rapid fire guns and short range missiles.
Can a rocket that rotates constantly during flight also be shot down?
Yes if it’s heading directly towards you, but that might help for a side-on shot (very hard anyway). Don’t lets keep talking, you never know who might be listening 😉
Side on is deemed from what I read yesterday, the more effective scenario certainly against very fast moving targets which likely have treated surfaces to resit the heat they generate in flight.
Good point, it depends if it hits the front or the side.
The issue of lases is precisely concentrating the energy in same point to achieve destruction or significant degradation.
Which rocket is that? All the ones I know do not rotate.
There are a few missiles that rotate. This is probably the most well known…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile
True, I was meaning those that would be candidates to be shot down i.e. anti-ship missiles.
HOT rotates in flight too……
Anti tank and obsolete
Every missile or even rocket will rotate around its long axis. Most try to stabilise with fins but its doesnt prevent it.
The RAM type mentioned uses to its advantage to turn a 1D tracking system into 2D
What are they meant to be? I don’t see them on photos of the carrier.
Excellent System and a good future prospect to replace the CIWS. I do think the situation in Ukraine and the Gulf make the point for a UOR for replacement fleet-wide of the 30mm mounts with the Mk 4 Bofor’s complete with 3P ammo.
Lasers aren’t totally capable of replacing ciws, more like complementing it.
Also with the budget shortfalls I’m pretty sure 30mm will be sticking around.
I am also sure the 30mm will still be around, But it is penny wise and pound foolish given we are introducing the much better more effective Mk4 and the threat is increasing.
We’re maybe a decade away from LDEW replacing anything. For now it would be supplementing existing weapons.
LDEW is more a complementary weapon to existing CIWS guns rather than a replacement. If they ever get rail-guns working successfully then these may become the new CIWS solution, especially with hypersonic missiles becoming a reality.
Is the UK working on rail guns?
Indeed, and the quicker the better and the more the merrier. We might need these a little bit later on this decade if the expert opinions are to be believed.
The images come amid indications that the navalized fighter could operate aboard China’s first two aircraft carriers, as well as its third.
https://www.twz.com/air/new-images-of-chinas-j-35-naval-stealth-fighter-could-depict-third-example
Just as China modified the Mig 21 into a low end JF-17 with some F-16 features ( Grumman helped with the fuselage redesign to convert nose intake to sides) they seem to have taken the Mig -29K carrier borne fighter into a later developed version.
Along with a mostly completed carrier …… and plans
Thanks to Ukraine supplying the Mig -29K from the Crimean naval airfield. Ukraine also suppled its high level ballistic missile tech to North Korea producing a quantum jump for them. The design bureau in Dnipro created the very best for Soviet Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA_Pivdenmash
Caio Duilio have 3 x 76mm guns 2 in the bow side by side and 1 above hangar. The gun in use was the bow starboard.
Of note Italians ships all have radar directors besides electro optical ones for their guns. Artistic drawings for T31 do not show radar directors.
From Italmilradar website
From Naval News: All French 1st rank frigates will have installed long range electro optical anti aircraft fire control due to lessons from Houthis attacks to be able to use the guns. Currently only the 2 FREMM-DA have – they also are the only to have radar directors.
For completion Germans and French already destroyed Houthi drones with 76mm gun too. The German ship with an old model.
RN been there done that back in early 2000’s
Sea Archer on T23 HMS Kent
‘he Sea Archer seen here on the foremast of HMS Kent provides inputs for fire-control of the 4.5″ Mod 1 medium calibre gun. Each system cost around £2.2 Million at 2001 prices. Including below decks equipment, it weighs 585Kg.’
https://www.navylookout.com/the-electro-optical-director-eyes-of-the-royal-navy-fleet/
newer systems on T23 now such as Sea Eagle below
Note that the French already had a EO sight, it was just not good enough for AA fire at distance.
RN do not have AA capability in the 4.5″
Not it seem in the T23/T45 CMS . But the EO system seems able to designate and track a target for the 4.5 in
Agreed it should be, problem is the fire control and ammunition not the sight albeit i don’t know the EO age now and those things made a large advance in last decade.
The Dutch are moving to 76mm gun with DART plus RAM as their ‘close in weapon system’ replacing the most excellent Goalkeeper.
I have said for a while the 76mm guns were one of the features that T45 should have kept from the Horizon design. At least one instead of the Mk8 Mod 1 would have been something. But no.
76mm is Italian and that would hurt the sensitivities of RN .
Already the 76 should have been the gun of choice for Type 21 and others. It might have saved some ships in Falklands.
Note that RN only returned to the guns in T31 after decades despising them after BAE bought the Swedish and USA naval gun industries.
So there is a industrial choice here first and a combat one second.
I overall think that the 40mm and 57mm are too similar calibres.
In the old naming system, the 40mm AA was 2 pounder , while 57mm was 6 pounder. And 75 mm is approx 17 pounder Bore diameters arent the full story as its cubic rule for the propellant/explosive . Range etc scales up very quickly too
BAE bought United Defence in US , around 20 years back, and in that area its still all american. Same goes for Bofors which was bought by UDI 5 years before BAE takeover, its still a Swedish business. BAE Sytems AB
The big difference is that it is hard to incorporate big gun features below 76mm, whereas the reverse is not true. Nothing developed for 57mm cannot be easily replicated in 76mm plus. In many cases, it already has been. A 57mm Volcano would be a waste of time. A Leonardo equivalent to 3P already exists.
It is a good point that is easier with 76 then 57 and scale up is much easier than scale down.
In Italian forums some are saying that they could do a “Starstreak” with their 127mm round with 3 darts.
Bofors 57mm has those many ( smart) features, and rate of fire wins the game most of the time
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-the-bofors-57mm-mk-3-gun-that-will-equip-the-type-31-frigates/
57mm is air cooled. Its rate of fire is nominal.
Bofors says 130-220 rpm ( burst) depending on version.
Nominal ? ROFL
The evidence says they have smart rounds and a considerable rate of fire- the main feature- in short bursts
https://www.baesystems.com/en-media/uploadFile/20210404051741/1434555371458.pdf
Nominal rate of fire is direct extrapolation of rounds per second.
Many guns and machine guns would melt firing 1 full minute continuously.
Sorry, my misunderstanding
Continuous fire went out of usefulness in WW1.
Big jet engines can only go full power for a few minutes too.
My 10th gen Intel CPU is only going full belt occasionally- when the fan cuts in for the little radiator.
The problem comes with missile swarms. The 57mm, even firing short bursts, will quickly overheat & the system will automatically stop firing (even if you want it to keep firing). The 76mm is water cooled. It will keep firing till it runs out of ammunition if it has to.
Not needed anymore
“To remove weight from the design, the Mark 2 variant omitted the water-cooling used on the Mark 1. This meant a lighter barrel and gun mount. According to Bofors, water-cooling was not needed for the modern missions the Mark 2 was used for. Bofors even recommended that watercooling be removed from older mountings. The Mark 2 gun barrel was also forged from monobloc steel to help with heat-wear from the lack of water-cooling. “
One of possible smart features ORKA
The RN is buying guns for T31 because it fits it supposed role not because they have realised their error.
Originally the new frigate classes launched in the 1950s should have had 3″/70 as fitted to the TIgers. But instead they had the Mk6 4.5in mount instead. By the time T21 was on the board the Mk8 Mod1 was online. I have seen ‘drawings’ of early T23 proposals with 76mm Oto-Melera.
57mm is a lot bigger than 40mm. But as you point a lot closer than 76mm. Yes it was a ‘political decision’ to buy the two gun systems from the same supplier even though it is not optimal for a whole host of reasons.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EE1Br5oXsAAPLi0?format=jpg&name=small
Felt T31 was just to have hulls in the water. The comparative heavy 40mm seems a bit odd, are they still thinking fighting bogahmmers with RPG’s ?
Well it can’t go after submarines. And there are better platforms for AAW. That just leaves junk busting and presence……
They are not going to spend money on 5in and Phalanx is old. So that leaves BAE’s 57mm and 40mm combo…….
I think 5 in would make more sense instead of 57mm.
Even better would be 1 5″, 1 57 and 1 40mm
Yes a 5in system would have been a better choice especially if they had installed a full cream system with PGM and all that brings to the mix.
But without ASW T31 is just an expensive OPV.
My current thinking is that they RN chose the wrong variant. Imagine the Absalon variant with its better aviation arrangements. With the smart 5in as I said above. And kitted out for ASW ops. Six of those would have been useful. As it is we will have 5 fast OPV’s.
I agree with that.
The only think that can save T31 is more CAMM and its longer ranged versions, but the radar is a bit subpar.
The whole venture is subpar. It is a waste. It is a great hull capable of deploying worldwide and keeping pace with a CBG. If the current situation isn’t enough for an increase in spending one has to ask what is?
Its not a waste. What would’ve been a waste is deploying 5 T26s to forward locations, for the cost of them it would’ve been a waste.
5 T31 saved costs and are more appropriate for the planned deployments.
Yes deploying T26 away from the core of a task group would be a waste. I can’t see where I actually said that should be done. Even though at one time we had first rate frigates deployed across the globe.
There are no sleep backwaters now. Save costs? Or not enough money spent on fundamentals? How do we save costs if a war breaks out and a large frigate sized hull has to sit within the ASW screen. If you know your history of RN escort development post WW2, which I doubt, you will recall the only none first rater escort to be built was the T14 ASW ships. Why? Because the submarine is still the major threat in maritime war and the RN back then being of sound mind sort to increase the number of ASW hulls as cheaply as it could. The number of submarines out there is increasing. Yet the RN has decided to ignore the trend. No much of a cost saving if the deaf T31 is holed or worse sunk for the lack of what in terms of total system costs is quiet a small amount is it? That would bring a different meaning to the term sunk costs.
You are just trotting the RN and MoD’s position nothing more. Do you think I don’t know what the official position is? Is this website called the RN is Absolutely Super: Please only Shower Praise on Them in the Comments? No it isn’t.
The 5 cancelled T26s were never going to get towed arrays. For whatever reason we won’t go beyond 8 ASW hulls, therefore, why pay almost a billion per for a Frigate that cant do what it was designed to, when we can have a frigate more optimised for the forward deployed role.
Also consider the last time the RN built a frigate sized ship for constabulary work, the Tribal sloops later frigates, the went to sea with 3 sonar sets; bottom profiling (a must for operating in shoal or shallow waters), search, and attack. These were operating in seas where the most likely submarine they would come into contact with was either RN or USN. BUT THEY STILL HAD SONARS. Why? Because there might be a requirement for them to fight in a real war.
At this point I don’t know what to tell you, there’s no Sonar, is what it is. Wouldn’t have mattered if they picked an Absolon or whatever design, clearly they were never going to use one if it was installed. Same goes for the sonars on the T45, they are deactivated and out of use.
And what was one of its main weapons?
yes the ahead throwing Limo AS mortar located back on the quarterdeck
No Limbo no need for the multiple sonars to calculate bearing and depth of a sub “nearby”!!
AS warfare doesnt work like that anymore, largely because theres not the 200 Whiskey class subs around.
The Radar is better than the Artisan.
This is the better choice
That’s not a better choice, that’s a 1 Billion dollar vessel.
The 57mm.
Your claim was
“it was a ‘political decision’ to buy the two gun systems from the same supplier even though it is not optimal for a whole host of reasons”
yet here it is as well.
If the RN choose 75mm the usual chorus would have said why not 100mm ( 4in ) or the 5in.
Its just too silly and too expensive to boot
I never talked about a political decision I assume you’re talking about the guy the imagine was in response to.
They didn’t choose the wrong variant. Their requirements did not make the Absalon a variant at all. It was no proposed by anybody.
In your opinion they didn’t choose the wrong variant. In my opinion the should have thought again.
Talking hypothetically as I was seeing as the IH and Absalon share the same hull and engine room layout the better choice would have been the latter.
The T31 requirement is codswallop.
Too low rate of fire. The massive extra cost over 57mm means never even considered, as only competition is 75mm.
For higher value target and a up to 40km distance a small missile like Spike NLOS would be preferred , launcher or helicopter
UK uses them as Exactor 2.
https://www.rafael.co.il/worlds/naval/spike-eo-naval-tactical-missiles/
This pic is being used in Gaza war
Phalanx isnt old … continuous improvement. The 5 in ( US) is even older! meaningless of course
Phalanx is short range. Nothing can be done to a 20mm gun.
Little thought is given to ammunition here on this site. Nobody else is building 20mm smart gun systems these days because 20mm doesn’t give enough volume for intelligent fusing and a big enough bang. Just because the US purchased in large numbers for its large fleet isn’t an endorsement that it is the best option available. Note back in the 1980s/90s when the RN had the space they opted for the Dutch Goalkeeper system not Phalanx. All but one of Invincibles had Goalkeeper. The LPD’s had Goalkeeper. The noisy but mean B3 T22 had Goalkeeper. There was no space for that system in T42 without removing the Mk8 Mod 0. But given the destroyers poor AShM capability removing the gun probably wasn’t an option. Never mind the blunt ones would have seen a delicate system caked in salt. There is no point in trying to discuss that here though due to the weird and illogical obsession with Phalanx.
The Dutch are moving to 76mm firing DART backed up RAM for their next generation ‘close in weapon system’.
DART is fired at 1,200 m/s (3,900 ft/s), can reach 5 km range in only 5 seconds, and can perform up to 40G maneuver. The DART projectile is made of two parts: the forward is free to rotate and has two small canard wings for flight control.
Current and incoming AShM missiles are going to be more ‘intelligent’ and faster. They need to be tacked further out.
A 2km maximum range and throwing just a lump of hard metal isn’t enough today.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-62_mk75_Dart_pic.jpg
Yes, there is another serious issue for RN.
The artillery of Type 26. It needs revising.
5″ and Phalanx is not good for drone wars that are coming. Specially the 5″ is not ideal and the Phalanx too short range.
If structural superstructure limits force to use Phalanx anyway i think 5″ should be replaced by 57 – ideally 76 but RN will not buy it –
Modern precision guided shells are useful. Go have a look on YT at some of Leonardo videos. But just buying a dumb system is pointless.
At the speed some of these new missiles are moving if Phalanx does hit it the momentum will mean the wreckage is coming in through the ship’s side.
Hypersonics arent travelling even close to the height above the sea that a warship is …100ft
They are altitude lovers due to the way hypersonic propulsion works, and its only hyper for the mid course phase
Still suitable for drones as the Red Sea has shown. The optimal range for very fast cruise missiles which have a small cross section, yes its very ‘close in’
But a larger drone sized target , slower and crossing rather than heading directly for you moves the achievable range out a few more km
Well well discussed here
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/02/op-ed-close-call-in-the-red-sea-assessing-the-recent-houthi-missile-incident/
Phalanx is a different capability to 57/40mm etc.
The guns chosen for the T31 are to suit it’s role in the gulf and other such areas, the Phalanx is fitted to the T26 because that is the fleets last line of defence weapon, and it will be serving the majority of its time in carrier groups. So far these small caliber naval guns are unproven in taking down missile targets.
I think you will find that Bofors systems are expected to be used as close in weapons systems to a degree as Type 31 will still have to face missiles. Whilst also acting in a surface role which probably given that surface actions occur more often even in piece you could so then is their primary role. AS I SAID ABOVE JUNK BUSTING. The RN has no spare Phalanx units.
Yes Phalanx is a CIWS. Well done for noticing that. T26 will be out on the edges of submarine screen and nowhere near the HVU’s at the centre of a task group. The RN are fitting Phalanx because the RH has Phalanx not because it is the optimum solution. You can change all the sensors you want Phalanx still uses dumb short range ammunition.
FWIW a Bertholf class USCG NSC. The US uses the USCG for presence missions in much the same way the RN sees T31 being used.
OOH whats that on the hangar roof?? OOOOOH it’s a Phalanx? But the USCG aren’t sending these ships into combat. BUT THEY MIGHT END UP SOMEWHERE WHERE SOMEBODY IS SHOOTING AT THEM WITH EITHER MISSILES OR USING AN AIRCRAFT OFFENSIVELY. Why has the USCG use Phalanx? Because it a US systems and they have to hand.
Nothing pees me off more about this place is when somebody joins a conversation late. The regurgitates my own posts back at me. Infers that I don’t know what I am talking about. But themselves can’t be bothered to type more than a line or two.
Done being a condescending ass?
Also, more units of Phalanx will have to be acquired for the T26, there’s no way around it.
Thats why the sea ceptor missile is also a CIWS and out to 25 km
1km is min range
Even the British Army and its 0.5in HMG use them out to 2 km, and thats no radar or other accuracy features. 485-635 rpm
Well USN just needs a supplemental 150M$ because of current relative small Iranian/Houthi play…. to replace missiles….
You can see what we are getting if we don’t find a weapon with sizable range alternative to missiles for these drone targets.
That means gun 5 inch AA and 76mm AA.
You don’t play with Phalanx at 1.5km.
76mm was considered for the T31 but the weight of fire for the 57mm was similar and the cost significantly less.
Despite its smaller calibre, the 57mm Mk 3s’ high rate of fire can deliver a greater weight of explosive onto a target than the ubiquitous OTO Melara 76mm. As a crude comparison, a sustained 10-second burst would deliver 16.5 kg of explosives compared with 13.75 kg delivered by the Super Rapid 76mm.
Will front line units need their own power pack? I don’t think a sudden load on the main would be a good thing plus redundancy considerations. Three compact GT gen sets perhaps? Should be plenty of space up top on the new destroyers.
Interesting.
All,
Another very good article by Navy Lookout.
However…….it is now 40 years since US president Ronnie Raygun promised us, the great unwashed general public, his fantastic SDI project: the Strategic Defence Initiative.
Ronnie’s SDI project proposed Buck Rogers style laser guns in space zapping (I have just used the correct technical term here) incoming hypersonic ballistic missiles. SDI was designed to protect us from those nasty commies, the ones living over on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall dominated by the Russian Evil Empire (Note. When it comes to this history business, what goes around often comes around…..)
It is also, interestingly on very approximately the same timeline, now a full four decades since the RN first deployed their first-ever laser system onboard one of its warship’s out at sea.
That was the very-rarely-publicised, and now long-forgotten, RN Laser Dazzle Sight (LDS). It was deployed on some ships, including on the Armilla patrol, back in the 1980’s. LDS was often used to “deter” AIS (Ayatollahs in Speedboats). (Note to Youngsters reading NL. The lDS was developed by Royal Radar Establishment in 1981/2. And furthermore, if you don’t know what the Armilla Patrol was, I will now give you a clue. It was named after a local Persian curry house overlooking the Straights of Humus (Note to self: I must check the correct spelling of Hormuz!)
Yet still, after four full decades of very-expensive scientific R&D (Rumination and Debate) by the DSTI boffins; they have just (apparently) been able to deliver a military-grade laser system that just might, when the chips are down, deliver a weapon that might possibly down an enemy RCMP (Radio Controlled Model Plane).
Frankly, in this article, NL are greatly underestimating the many and varied technical challenges that still lie ahead of this particular project.
There are many many mission-critical challenges still to overcome: not least getting sufficient power into the laser beam and whilst also – simultaneously – keeping it continuously tracking and locked-onto the target (No easy task on a rolling and moving ship whilst one is also trying to aim at a target which is itself moving at quite high speed). Also, often forgotten, will be how to properly integrate what will inherently be a very bulky and heavy system onto the topsides of any frigate or destroyer. Furthermore, a design-phase damage control assessment on any high voltage/high capacity electrical system (such as batteries and capacitors) will probably prove to be, and what is a nice and polite way to put this next phrase, “a rather interesting exercise”.
That is all before the key question is raised, the one NL touched on, how effective will be LDEW’s on-board camera aiming system and/or laser be when the Iranians attack us with RCMP when the weather-witch tells us it is very foggy outside the ops-room? (i.e. something easily forgotten when one is living inside a grey-painted box looking at screens all day = that fog does often occur out at sea; especially when cruising about in the littorals(i.e. the drone zone)!). Any weapon system that only has a very-short effective range in certain climatic condition, is frankly, a complete waste of space!
Thus, whilst this article will be of great interest to all fans of our comic book hero’s of the 20th century (note 1), all in all, as of today DSTI’s LDEW still falls a very long way short of becoming anything close to being a useable and deployable shipborne weapons system anytime soon.
So, all-in-all, a distinct sense of Deja–Vue………
Because these key several challenges are precisely the very-same key challenges that prevented the US SDI from ever working properly during its numerous tests four decades ago.
…..and I am not seeing any new technical solutions to inherently “wicked” challenges…..
Thus, if MOD and RN want a very-low-cost air defence system that will shoot down very-inexpensive I3H drones – and a system that can be quickly brought into action – can I suggest they introducing clay pigeon throwers (and plenty of clays) onto the MOD’s rifle ranges. That will make an average matelot’s regular rifle practice far more interesting than aiming at a very-boring static target!
So, the $64 million dollar question remains unanswered by NL = can DSTI’s new LDEW shoot down one clay pigeon puck flying on a ballistic trajectory at a range of, let say, 500m?
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. I really hope I don’t have to explain here what a comic book is to the Glued to the Mobile Phone Generation(GMPG) ….
They were space based lasers not ground based ones. They also tried a laser in a 747 nose to destroy a missile taking off, test worked but a dead end too
Duker
Your comment is factually incorrect (Note 1)
Both mobile and/or fixed ground-based defensive lasers were being developed – and some were even test-fired – well over thirty years ago.
(i.e. military-grade laser systems that were first originally developed as part(s) of Ronnie Raygun’s SDI programme and/or the various US follow-up projects: which were not called SDI).
I would add that at least one of those now-very-old defensive laser systems was quite-remarkably similar in its overall conceptual design intent to this very-recently-proposed UK-DSTI-LDEW.
Therefore, and I will now have to add “and not for the first time”, in developing LDEW / Dragonfire in the way they have been doing over the past six years, those wet-behind-the-eras boffins at Porton have simply not leant anything from the experience of their elders (i.e. those with grey hairs…)
———————–
In particular, there was one fixed ground-based defensive laser system in the early 1990’s that was quite-remarkably similar to this week’s (weak?) ship-borne effort.
That was a now-long-forgotten American-Israeli system. It was specifically designed to shoot down shorter-range incoming tactical missiles and artillery shells.
(Note to youngsters. Four decades ago RCMP (Radio Controlled Model Planes) – aka drones – was not a term in regular use in the military lexicon).
That particular ground-based laser system was developed by (and in) Israel – with plenty of US technical aid and copious supplies of US Wonga – simply because all of Israel’s major population centres all lie within range of enemy tactical missiles and shells (i.e. those being fired from just-over-their very-often-hostile borders).
Furthermore, you might be far too young to remember that the main reason the Israeli’s were very-very-keen on ABM precisely thirty four years ago to this day was as follows:
That US / Israeli tactical ground-based laser system was “successfully tested” , in calibrated test conditions, out on the Israeli desert ranges. Their laser successful hit, on several occasions, both incoming artillery shots and even mortar rounds (note: something which Proton Down has not managed yet).
However, due to the numerous practical difficulties, their laser system was soon dropped.
Instead, the Israeli’s favoured developing smaller and more agile interceptor missiles. Their new small and very agile missile system eventually became the Israeli Iron Dome system:
As I am sure you know from reports you have read on your IT (Internet Thingy), Iron Dome has been recently used very extensively as an ABM defensive shield against Hamas (i.e. Iranian) missiles.
Many small missiles and drones have been fired from Gazza (note 2) into Israel during the latest (ongoing) Arab-Israeli war. The Iron Dome interceptors have a publicly reported success rate of very-approximately 80-90%.
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1
Note 2
The point about those early lasers they used a dead end technology.
Now its all glass fibre based- from the huge developments for the commercial fibre optic cables funded by private business- and they scale up more easily and best of all are compact.
So lasers had to start from the beginning with the new glass fibre based technology
Duker
Really?
Fibre optic were in use in laser’s the 1980’s……
Furthermore, over 20 years ago, the USAF described (in open source research documents) the many advantages of using fibre optics in military grade laser-weapons. They even said that their very own Airborne laser system would benefit from using them (i.e your very own photo)!
Now remind me – as I am getting old and thus I have very-short memory these days – what did you say on NL two days ago about the combat effectiveness of the USAF’s airborne laser system??????
The simple (hard) truth of the matter is that, at the end of the day, the recently-developed Porton Down LDEW Dragon fire system is quite-remarkably similar in its overall physical size to the one that was tested in the Israeli desert three decades ago. (i.e as I described on Navy Lookout (directly above)). Approximately the same size of beam director / aiming head and also very similar number of support equipment/generator containers required “behind the scenes”. Power output of the laser appears worse!
Yet another example of the MOD’s Rumination & Debating boffins spending hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers money in an effort to come up with a very-low-cost anti-drone system (Editorial note: the sarcasm and oxymoron was intended in my last statement)
Meanwhile…………….as reported on NL, our aircraft carrier Prince of Wales recently went out sea = without the fitting of even very basic Phalanx systems……
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS. Whilst staying on the subject of young Big Tech employed boffins over-promising and under-delivering on wonder-products that they promise us oldie’s will soon change the world: did your very-own autonomous driverless car bring you back home from the pub last night?
Not for massive lasers they werent in the 1980s. They were hoping for 1MW ( not kWs) from a single laser generator
The bundled multiple laser beams through glass fibre is very new,
current fibre optics arent your grandfathers type in terms of purity etc- which is reflected in their massive data transmission – by laser- compared to early glass fibre . From GB/s in the 90s to the TB/s of today
See my picture below of the 1920s RN drone being tested on deck of a warship. Just because something ‘was around’ many years before doesnt mean the technology is the same in todays versions.
Look at that picture of the 1990s era 747 based nose laser , and compare with the images of deck units
?auto=format,compress&fit=max&q=45&w=950
SDI was always going to be decades away from producing anything deplorable operationally, this was known by the Pentagon at the time.
It did put pressure on the USSR, with it fearing falling behind, which resulted in;
• Soviet embedded covert assets taking high risks to get details on SDI, resulting in a large number being caught
• increased realisation within the USSR that it couldn’t compete technologically or financially with the West, which together with increased domestic unrest and the Chernobyl disaster, acted as a catalyst in the collapse of communism.
The aiming part has pretty well been worked out. Clay pigeons, though, in my experience, have a mind of there own.
DJ
I know what you mean……
My own biologically-networked cranially-mounted processor (aka my one functioning brain cell) has always had very great trouble predicting the ballistic trajectories of a clay……
Thus, over many decades I have tried out many and various types of LL (Liquid Lubrication) whilst attempting to improve this processer’s speed. However none of the commercially available spirit formulations seems to consistently improve my aim: not even when several are taken together in combination!!!….
Thus, I think I need an all-new higher-speed processor!………………
All in all, it sounds like several million more quid of taxpayer’s money will need to be pumped into Porton Down before they conclusively prove that their super-dooper laser can hit all incoming clays “on the nose”
Can I therefore suggest that – when the boffins can conclusively prove their laser can hit 95% plus of all incoming clays – this laser will be ready for operational deployment!
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
They are doing that. Its making the equipment usable in military operations- not specialised test rigs- and producing them at volume and reasonable costs
The RN cant say they didnt know about drones, they were testing them in late 1920s
The RAE Larynx guided anti-ship weapon
And they were testing directed energy weapons to stop engines at around the same time, so nothing is all that new. Check out the Grindell Mathews death ray! The Air Ministry tested it out on an island in the Bristol Channel in 1925, but many believed it was a con.
Would the ship be protected from the beam being reflected back? What’s stopping, for example, a modified drone of mirrors?