The British Army, working with Thales, DE&S and Dstl have tested an RFDEW demonstrator. Although a project initially focused on the land domain, this technology has the potential for naval use as a low-cost counter-UAS system.
The development of the Dragonfire Laser Directed Energy Weapon (LDEW) is well underway and it is intended this will be fitted to RN warships in the near future. Reflecting the particular threat from drones to the Army, the parallel ‘project EALING’ is developing RFDEW. This technology will go into service with the British Army before the RN but both projects have land and sea applications.
RFDEWs are a type of directed energy weapon that neutralises threats by emitting high-intensity radio frequency waves, disrupting or damaging the critical electronic components within UAS, USVs, aircraft or vehicles. Unlike conventional jamming systems that confuse threats, RFDEWs provide a ‘hard-kill’ solution, physically disabling the electronics of targets with a precision beam of electromagnetic energy.
Although it is possible to shield components with Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) protection to some extent, this adds considerable expense and weight and is especially impractical for small UAS.
The technology demonstrator can detect, track, and engage threats at distances of up to 1km with high accuracy but ongoing development aims to extend this range further. Costing about 10p per shot, RFDEWs are a very economical alternative to traditional missile-based systems (the more energy-intensive Dragonfire costs around £10 per shot). RFDEW can also react extremely quickly and disable targets in less than a second, they are especially well suited to defending against swarms of small drones. The system’s advanced automation enables operation by a single individual.
The RFDEW demonstrator was developed by a Thales UK-led consortium, which included partners such as QinetiQ, Teledyne e2v, and Horiba Mira. Supported by Team HERSA, a collaboration between the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) and Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S), the project has sustained about 135 jobs in the UK. Thales’ brand name for their RFDEW system is ‘RapidDestroyer’ but this will not necessarily be the name used for the operational system which the Army hopes to field by 2027.
Trials conducted recently by the Army’s Royal Artillery Trials and Development Unit and 7 Air Defence Group at the Manorbier range in West Wales showcased its effectiveness in targeting and engaging aerial threats. While the current demonstrator will not enter service, the knowledge gained and data gathered will shape the future of directed energy weapons for the UK. Project EALING continues to enable further experimentation and refinement.
The RFDEW system can be deployed as a standalone system, integrated within a collective of effectors, or as part of a comprehensive air defence solution. With lower power requirements than LDEWs, they have a smaller footprint and can fit on the back of a small truck.
Warships are generally less vulnerable than Army formations to small drone swarms due to the longer ranges involved. However when in port or operating in littoral waters or enclosed seas, swarming UAS or USVs can still pose a significant threat to ships. Electronic countermeasures may be a better solution than guns against small drones. RFDEW are also potentially effective against much larger one-way attack drones such as those recently deployed by the Houthis in the Red Sea.
The proliferation and increasing sophistication of attack drones in the hands of all types of adversaries demands that almost every naval platform needs to carry effective countermeasures. With its small footprint, RFDEW systems could be a very affordable ideal bolt-on solution for vessels of all types particularly low-end combatants such as the OPVs or vulnerable auxiliaries. They could also provide another layer of defence to back up short-range air defence missiles and CIWS on high-end combatants. There may be challenges to overcome to ensure RFDEW systems do not interfere with the ship’s own communications and sensors systems. (LDEW make use of light and heat energy meaning that this is not an issue.)
The RN already has some electronic C-UAS capabilities that rely on jamming, details of which are classified but there has been no formal announcement of plans to develop RFDEW so far with LDEW being the priority.
Hope they put them on the carriers soon so we can hear the last of the “one cheap drone could sink that” brigade.
Our carriers do seem less well protected than equivalents in most other Western navies. That definitely can’t be because we have more escorts as we definitely don’t.
I think that they definitely need radar guided guns to defend against surface drone swarms. I don’t know if Phalanx can do that and if it can then we should put on the full original planned numbers. If not then something should installed in the space reserved for the 30mm mounts that were never fitted.
Phalanx has already been used against incoming mortar rounds in the land domain, so it definitely can. It, however is reasonably short ranged. The further out you engage, hopefully the less of them make it to Phalanx range & the lower chance of one sneaking through hitting the ship.
The other problem with Phalanx is it fires solid rounds. That means it must physically hit the target to take effect. The downside when ships are in close proximity, is the chance of collateral damage goes up (ie ships in the background can be hit by the Phalanx rounds, sometimes kilometres away). Air burst (either timed or proximity with timed backup) are generally much safer in that regard.
Phalanx solid rounds ?
“The M940 also has a self-destruct function resulting in the round self-destructing if it does not hit a target. The 20mm M940 is fired from the C-RAM system.” Northrup Grumman
There are only 3 phalanx mounts. And unlikely anything other than 30mm will be installed on the other mounts
It us highly likely that anti drone systems are fitted to QEC.
I should say that there will be some inherent capability using the radar anyway but a dedicated system wouldn’t go amiss.
I guess the advantage over laser is that it would be less impacted by fog, smoke and other airborne particles that could disrupt the energy of a laser.
Yes you are correct John, most lasers under 10kw are negatively affected by the density of molecules in the air.
Increasing the energy to the Mw range, and beyond, would effectively overcome this issue, but we have always found problems with the materials used as reflectors within a given laser system, that is at a certain energy level – they melt.
Due to this, materials improvements and inclusion of novel ways to increase heat tolerance have helped, and will continue to improve the power outage.
Lasers will no doubt be formidable, but probably only in another 8 to 12 year’s, depending on research spending, or war.
Thanks for that. The US Army has deployed in the ME its 20kW mobile laser system
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/04/24/army-has-officially-deployed-laser-weapons-overseas-combat-enemy-drones.html
Plus even higher
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2023-07-28-Lockheed-Martin-to-Scale-Its-Highest-Powered-Laser-to-500-Kilowatts-Power-Level
Read recently in an article that the US has had serious problems up-powering its mobile laser system which is heightening the RFDEW aspect of their joint development. I assume the problems in a compact mobile system probably relates to Dr J Greene’s contribution.
SpyintheSky
Probably worth nothing at this point in time (2024) that the issues being raised by Dr J Greene (posting above), and also yourself, are precisely the sames ones that were first raised by the US SDI and BMDO programme leaders way back in the late 1980’s.
i.e. that the more one increases the power input into the laser the more that “other factors” – such as the known limits of materials technology and atmospheric blooming – then start to really “kick in”
Thus I personally doubt that we will be seeing a really effective high-powered (and thus long range) compact military laser anytime soon
———————
Thus I have to say that I agree with Deepsixteen (posting below) that, at this point in time = the Bofers 40mm is frankly a much better all-round bet for fitting to all RN ships.
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
yes
I would rather see these which keep the threat at a much greater distance.
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-the-bofors-40mm-mk-4-gun-that-will-equip-the-type-31-frigates/
The story mentions classified C-UAS
This was it from a firm Kirintec, a BAE company but based in Herefordshire which is good
https://navalinstitute.com.au/contract-for-rn-drone-jammer-awarded/
‘The contract covers an initial quantity of up to 11 C-UAS RF Jammers and includes the provision of 1 years in service support and spares’
Not only good for the Army to protect units in the front line and supporting troops. Also for ports like Plymouth, Portsmouth and Culdrose N.A.S.
There are many establishments that need this system such as RAF Lossiemouth.With so many eggs in one basket drones could cost UK defence dear. How many suicide drones can you fit in a 40 ft contaner?
To you with some knowledge out there. Is not the possibility to bring down a drone with the radio energy weapon at a range of 1k not better than no ability to do it. Forgetting lasers and guns.
Im sure the radio ‘energy’ isnt enough to bring down a drone, its just used to confuse the drones software and its comms links