Solid State Laser News

Breaking Defense "After CENTOM experiments, Army seeks more rugged counter-drone lasers to put on vehicles "August 13 - talking to Lt. Gen. Robert Rasch, the Director of Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO), and others

Looking for laser with capability to take out Group 1 to Group 3 UAS [<1320 lbs; <18,000 MSL (3.4 miles); 250 knots] with reliability and affordability, encountered challenges with the D M-SHORAD Stryker 50 kW under testing in CENTOM in the Middle East and planning a new competition and is encouraging the use of the JLTV platform with a competitive prototyping phase in fiscal 2025 before crowning an ultimate winner in FY26, if the Army can obtain funding.

Army focusing on "fluence" (ideal beam director and beam forming getting the power down range?) their metric of energy delivered per unit, while zeroing in on in-theater maintainability.

BlueHalo mentions a 20-to-30 KW laser will likely be the sweet spot for the competition and is working to design laser with more modular parts though for some components, like the optics says you still need a clean room, which presume a negative?

PS An oversight? Breaking Defense does not mention the Lockheed Martin and nLight offerings of their versions of D M-SHORAD


https://breakingdefense.com/2024/08...gged-counter-drone-lasers-to-put-on-vehicles/
"Army focusing on "fluence" (ideal beam director and beam forming getting the power down range?) their metric of energy delivered per unit, while zeroing in on in-theater maintainability."

Fluence is energy per unit area. In order to compute the fluence of the laser beam on the target, one needs to know the laser power at the target, the dwell time on the target, area of the laser spot on the target, and the laser irradiance profile across the laser spot on the target (e.g., Gaussian, flat top, etc.).

"BlueHalo mentions a 20-to-30 KW laser will likely be the sweet spot for the competition" That's probably because BlueHalo's P-HEL is 20 kW.

"PS An oversight? Breaking Defense does not mention the Lockheed Martin and nLight offerings of their versions of D M-SHORAD"

The article mentioned only one laser provider by name, BlueHalo and that was as the laser provider for P-HEL lasers.

The article states "When it comes to the competition field, a host of companies already competing in the directed energy space are expected to line up for a spot on the program. That list includes BlueHalo, which has delivered several P-HELs to the service."

The article does not mention by name any of the companies that have been competing to provide the laser for the DE M-SHORAD program, nor the prime contractor for the program.

The prime contractor for the program is Kord Technologies. Raytheon RTX supplied the lasers for the first prototypes.

nLight received a contract from Kord in December of 2023 to provide a laser for iteration 2 of DE M-SHORAD (see https://www.defenseandmunitions.com...GHT is serving as a,in support of this effort. ).

Northrop Grumman dropped out of the competition early, before the initial run-off trials against the Kord/Raytheon team at Ft. Sill in 2021, due to power and thermal management system issues with their prototype. Perhaps they will re-enter the fray again in this next round of the competition.

Lockheed Martin calls their 50-kW laser offering for DE M-SHORAD DEIMOS. DEIMOS achieved first light in January of 2023, but Lockheed Martin did not have their prototype ready for competition for DE M-SHORAD until March of 2024 (see https://frontline.asn.au/news/finally-the-us-armys-new-super-laser-weapon-is-ready-for-battle/ ). They will probably offer DEIMOS for this next round of the competition.

I haven't seen anything about Boeing's or General Atomics' laser offerings for DE M-SHORAD except for a mention of them without details in the article at https://www.photonics.com/Articles/nLIGHT_Awarded_345M_Defense_Contract/a69500 , which states "To date, companies including Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, and General Atomics have produced laser prototypes under the DE M-SHORAD project."
 
It seems to me that they are only advertising the minimal capacity demonstrated. But obviously we can also read that all others have failed to prove their reliability.
Given the rugged aspect of the competition, would that make sense to have power greater than 20kW when detection and targeting can only be done with EOIR or short range radar sensors (cheap anti-drone radar have a fairly low range)? In anyway, the overall system being sized to engage just above the fence.
 
It seems to me that they are only advertising the minimal capacity demonstrated. But obviously we can also read that all others have failed to prove their reliability.
Given the rugged aspect of the competition, would that make sense to have power greater than 20kW when detection and targeting can only be done with EOIR or short range radar sensors (cheap anti-drone radar have a fairly low range)? In anyway, the overall system being sized to engage just above the fence.
As is usual for military technology development, early development stages are focused on developing and demonstrating technical capabilities, which for lasers usually entails starting at low power and scaling to higher powers while demonstrating maintaining good beam quality. The applicability of the laser to particular sets of missions will depend on the power and beam quality level, and size, weight, power and cost (SWaP-C)

In parallel with technical capability development, but staggered a little later in time, development and demonstration of reductions in size, weight, and prime power draw are undertaken in order to make the system compact enough for fielding on the intended platforms. Then early testing of prototypes in systems of suitable size, weight, and power on representative platforms are undertaken. If or when those tests result in sufficient performance, then begins efforts to improve the other "ilities" : reliability, manufacturability, maintainability, sustainability, interoperability, etc., including the costs thereof.

Currently, the 20 kW to 50 kW HEL weapons have been through the early prototype testing/demonstration phase with some reductions in SWaP to be suitable for some representative platforms, and shown the requisite technical capabilities required for class 1 to 3 UAS in field tests. They are just entering the phase of ruggedization required to address the above listed "ilities" under programs such as discussed in the Breaking Defense article, so it is unreasonable to expect that any of these prototypes would be reliable in real operational environments at this stage in their development.

As to whether it makes sense to have greater than 20 kW in this competition given the rugged aspect of the competition, I think the answer is yes since 20 kW may be sufficient under good atmospheric conditions and target engagement geometries, but in degraded conditions, more power may be required even to reach the acquisition and tracking range limits of the EOIR sensors and/or short range radars.

It doesn't do much good to show that it is relatively easy to ruggedize a 20 kW HEL system if that system is grossly under powered for the mission in real world operational conditions. Since SWaP-C and the challenges for ruggedization and reliability will increase with increasing power, having ruggedized prototype development and testing at powers from 20 kW to 50 kW may show if there is a "knee" in the curve for the difficulty in providing system ruggedness and reliability as the laser power increases, at which "knee" in the curve the difficulty increases at a much greater rate than prior to that "knee" in the curve, without providing a commensurate increase in mission capability.

Also, 20 kW may be sufficient power when used with a very good beam director with adaptive optics, but 50 kW may be needed for use with a less capable and perhaps smaller beam director. Ruggedization of a simpler and/or smaller, but less effective beam director and a 50 kW laser may or may not be technically easier and less costly than for a complex and larger, but more effective beam director and a 20 kW laser. These kinds of system trades will be explored by each competitor in the design phase, with each competitor probably opting for different solutions in the trade space unless there are overwhelming factors that favor one type of design over the others.

Such design, development and testing may validate BlueHalo's claim that 20-30 kW is the sweet spot, but it may instead show that 40-50 kW is the sweet spot. The answer could be that even 50 kW is under powered, but even at that power level ruggedization is too difficult or too costly without some new game-changing development. We won't know until such design, development and testing is done.
 
The Army at first glance appears to moving away from the Stryker 50 kW laser to their suggesting use of the JLTV platform for the C-UAV laser for Battalion force protection, or will they be additional to Stryker lasers? Presuming the JLTV laser will be lower powered than the Stryker laser due to its smaller SWaP-C in line with BlueHalo mention of a 20-to-30 KW laser.

A very fast response was required, industry white papers had to be rec'd yesterday, August 14, program as outlined is the system must be ready for a sensor and laser lethality characterization test in 1QFY25, a lab demo in 2QFY25, an integrated system field test in 3QFY25, and a Soldier Touch Point (STP) event in 1QFY26 to production of up to 20 weapon systems at TRL 7 under a production OTA Award by 3QFY26.

 
The Army at first glance appears to moving away from the Stryker 50 kW laser to their suggesting use of the JLTV platform for the C-UAV laser for Battalion force protection, or will they be additional to Stryker lasers? Presuming the JLTV laser will be lower powered than the Stryker laser due to its smaller SWaP-C in line with BlueHalo mention of a 20-to-30 KW laser.

A very fast response was required, industry white papers had to be rec'd yesterday, August 14, program as outlined is the system must be ready for a sensor and laser lethality characterization test in 1QFY25, a lab demo in 2QFY25, an integrated system field test in 3QFY25, and a Soldier Touch Point (STP) event in 1QFY26 to production of up to 20 weapon systems at TRL 7 under a production OTA Award by 3QFY26.

You may be correct about the Army moving away from the Stryker 50 kW laser, but it could be that the Army wants to move forward with both the existing 50 kW laser for the Stryker and a lower power laser for the JLTV or other smaller platforms.

The announcement states ""The U.S. Army objective is to produce a HEL weapon system capable of fixed site defense (“palletized”) and/or integration onto an existing Army Platform, such as a Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)." So a fixed site "palletized" version is also an option.

Since the response is so fast requiring that "The systems must be ready for a sensor and laser lethality characterization test in 1QFY25" (1QFY25 starts October 1, 2024), they are looking for systems already under development and nearing transition from the lab. Those vendors who already have 50 kW HELs under development for the Stryker, may just scale them back to 20-30 kW output and package them with the thermal management, power systems, and interfaces necessary for the JLTV and/or for palletization.

The announcement indicates that their was an Industry Day at Redstone Arsenal, AL to discuss the Enduring HEL Weapon System requirements on 18 July 2024. That's where the government gave them more details on the requirements and answered interested parties' questions. For example, the announcement states "Demonstrate a lethality requirement that will be fully defined at Industry Day at a higher classification level than this document allows."
 
PI makes some very good FSMs that are space qualified.

However, the blurb and link to another article at the bottom of the new PI FSM announcement intrigued me more: NASA and JAXA exchange laser signals between SLIM lander and LRO in lunar orbit
 
Let´s not forget the risks of dissemination. A weapon system adapted to rugged environment is one that is carried onto battle with minimal support and greater risk of capture by an opponent. Limiting the power level to something that is in line what the foreign market is able to produce is de-facto drawing a line to proliferation (see the last Taliban defile in Afghanistan for example).
 
Let´s not forget the risks of dissemination. A weapon system adapted to rugged environment is one that is carried onto battle with minimal support and greater risk of capture by an opponent. Limiting the power level to something that is in line what the foreign market is able to produce is de-facto drawing a line to proliferation (see the last Taliban defile in Afghanistan for example).
Excellent point!
 
PLAN is testing a high power laser prototype on a Type-071. Previously it has been thought that they’d use HQ-10 for point defense but they dragged that out so long for budgetary reason that something fancier was ready technologically.

1724067831668.jpeg
With protective dome on.

1724067918379.jpeg

Without dome.
 
PLAN is testing a high power laser prototype on a Type-071. Previously it has been thought that they’d use HQ-10 for point defense but they dragged that out so long for budgetary reason that something fancier was ready technologically.

View attachment 737465
With protective dome on.

View attachment 737466

Without dome.
For those who may not know, the Type 071 (NATO reporting name: Yuzhao) is a class of Chinese amphibious transport dock ships in service with the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).
 
 
Lasers in the news

 
 
Laser news

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a0H0vOWUjbY
 
Last edited:

 
Last edited:
The article states "While the experiment is not the first for space-to-Earth laser communications, it’s the first using a commercially available ground station, according to Morizur."

NASA's 2017 Optical Communications and Sensor Demonstration (OCSD) conducted the first-ever high-speed laser communications downlink from a CubeSat to a ground station, as well as demonstrating an optical communications uplink to a CubeSat for the first time.

The abstract to a 12 July 2019 Aerospace Corporation presentation on OCSD https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4298&context=smallsat states: "In this presentation, we discuss the first demonstration of a lasercom downlink from a LEO 1.5U 2.3 kg CubeSat to our optical ground station at The Aerospace Corporation in El Segundo, CA."

I'm not sure of Morizur's definition of "a commercially available ground station," but The Aerospace Corporation is a commercial company.
 
Laser news

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a0H0vOWUjbY
The article on the microresonator based optical parametric oscillators used by NIST to produce laser light in the "green gap" somewhat overstates the lack of green semiconductor lasers.

According to https://spectrum.ieee.org/lasers-get-the-green-light "the first truly green nitride laser emerged on 16 July 2009, when the Japanese tech giant Sumitomo Electric Industries described a device that emits at 531 nm."

According to the 2012 article at https://www.laserfocusworld.com/las...ctor-lasers-green-laser-diode-emits-at-536-nm "A team from Sumitomo and the Advanced Materials Laboratory of Sony reports diodes emitting more than 100 mW continuous-wave (CW) at wavelengths beyond 532 nm, and CW emission of unspecified power at 536.6 nm."

The 2020 article at https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aav7523 "we report the first achievement of an all-epitaxial, distributed Bragg reflector (DBR)–free electrically injected surface-emitting green laser by exploiting the photonic band edge modes formed in dislocation-free gallium nitride nanocrystal arrays, instead of using conventional DBRs. The device operates at ~523 nm and exhibits a threshold current of ~400 A/cm2, which is over one order of magnitude lower compared to previously reported blue laser diodes. Our studies open a new paradigm for developing low-threshold surface-emitting laser diodes from the ultraviolet to the deep visible (~200 to 600 nm), wherein the device performance is no longer limited by the lack of high-quality DBRs, large lattice mismatch, and substrate availability."

According to https://www.rpmclasers.com/blog/gal...2dKW9YQ3p536yJZ_ttpuAf2IiT6VmIBULaTEc7p0JVUOz "Once thought to be impossible, blue, green and UV laser diodes have now become commonplace...for many years it was thought that these challenges would never be overcome, until 1996 when the first AlGaN laser diode was invented by Shuji Nakamura. Nakamura’s work with GaN based semiconductor lasers and LEDs was so revolutionary that he was later awarded the Nobel prize in physics...Over the past 20 years, the technology for making Gallium Nitride (GaN) Laser Diodes has matured into its own branch of optoelectronics. These laser diodes are now available in wavelengths from 375 nm to 521 nm, with output powers exceeding 100 watts."
 
Space Based Laser---a paper
https://phys.org/news/2024-09-plenty-powerful-lasers-space.html

Zappology, frank

For hobbyists

Fire the crater guns!
 
Last edited:
Lasers and other directed energy finds


Optics
 
Last edited:
On my system, the link you posted just links back to this thread.

Here is a link to the article: https://www.twz.com/land/counter-dr...hicle-armed-with-lasers-rockets-guns-unveiled
From the article: "The laser directed energy weapon, a 26-kilowatt version of the LOCUST from BlueHalo installed on a retractable mount on top of the rear of the hull, is clearly the centerpiece of the new counter-drone Stryker prototype.

“It’s going to provide a directed energy capability that can kill group ones, twos, three UASs at very long range,” Ed House Senior Director of Business Development at Leonardo DRS says in the video.

Per the U.S. military’s definitions, drones in these three categories, collectively, can weigh up to 1,320 pounds, fly at altitudes up to 18,000 feet, and get up to top speeds of 250 knots. BlueHalo does not appear to have disclosed a maximum engagement range for the LOCUST."
 
Ultrasonic Drone Destruction System (MUDDS)
The innovative technology uses ultrasonic waves to disrupt UAS Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) and sensors. It offers a ranged, non-point targeted defeat of internal components, providing an effective defense against weaponized UAS with minimal collateral damage. Effective in civilian security operations and defending critical infrastructure.

 
For the first time in the world, to my humble knowledge, usage of sonic weapons reach courtrooms debates.

Let's hope that France will size this historic opportunity to be the nation that set a high standards against their barbaric usage.


Update on this: all suspects were relaxed. Nothing was investigated and no one went in jail.
The great mockery toward the Sonic victims continue.
 
Something that puzzles me is that the reason given for using lasers against drones is that they are much cheaper per shot than using missiles against drones, but why not use cheap drones against cheap drones instead of missiles, which are overkill to begin with? Missiles are currently used only because that's what's deployed already. If one wants to deploy something cheaper to defend against cheap drones, why not deploy defensive drones.

As long as one's defensive drones are a little faster and a little more maneuverable than the enemy drones, the cheap defensive drones should be able to take out the cheap enemy drones by colliding with them. The purchase and installation costs of stocking lots of defensive drones would be less than the cost of buying and installing a laser weapon system.

On the other hand, if one wants a versatile weapon system that can take out missiles and mortar shells as well as drones at a low cost per shot, then a laser weapon system makes sense for that use case since cheap drones will not be able to take out missiles and mortar shells. However, the laser system for taking out missiles and mortar shells as well as drones needs to emit a lot more power than one that only takes out drones. I presume that the lower power, anti-drone only laser weapon is just a stepping stone to the more capable higher power laser weapon system.
 
The problem comes with guidance. A modestly faster intercepting drone needs a better tracking sensor with a large aperture. A faster missiles, like a laser guided rocket has only to see mostly in front and keep having the slow moving drone in a narrow cone by gradually following a direct impact course.
When the speed difference is only marginal, the computed trajectory comes with a greater need for anticipation, and a larger aperture to compensate and more evolved guidance.
Then there is also the payload that will actually terminate the target. A fast rocket can use a H2K strategy or a small charge as the relative movement of the target is only marginal. In a drone-on-drone situation, the charge, if an energetic kill is preferred, would have to compensate for a larger CEP, hence being rather powerful and potentially heavy and accidentally destructive, something that comes on top of the bulky dimension of the drone, launch and operator systems as a burden for an effective defensive system.

The solution is obviously to have a drone interceptor that can manage the safety of a volume of air with multiple kills per launch (let´s call it an Artificial Ace Agent (AAA)). That´s rather a more complicated thing to achieve. You can see how those that have attempted to follow that road still come with with rather expensive, heavy design (Anduril is noteworthy).

There is some solutions, obviously on that path too but the industry approach as a whole (and legacy as well as price range) made the automated canon, Laser and HPMW still better than any robotic ace or AAA system and more relevant for quite some time (think that the target will evolve too).
 
Last edited:
Has anyone used lasers to trigger in-bore explosives so as to increase energy imparted to a projectile?
 
The problem comes with guidance. A modestly faster intercepting drone needs a better tracking sensor with a large aperture. A faster missiles, like a laser guided rocket has only to see mostly in front and keep having the slow moving drone in a narrow cone by gradually following a direct impact course.
When the speed difference is only marginal, the computed trajectory comes with a greater need for anticipation, and a larger aperture to compensate and more evolved guidance.
Then there is also the payload that will actually terminate the target. A fast rocket can use a H2K strategy or a small charge as the relative movement of the target is only marginal. In a drone-on-drone situation, the charge, if an energetic kill is preferred, would have to compensate for a larger CEP, hence being rather powerful and potentially heavy and accidentally destructive, something that comes on top of the bulky dimension of the drone, launch and operator systems as a burden for an effective defensive system.

The solution is obviously to have a drone interceptor that can manage the safety of a volume of air with multiple kills per launch (let´s call it an Artificial Ace Agent (AAA)). That´s rather a more complicated thing to achieve. You can see how those that have attempted to follow that road still come with with rather expensive, heavy design (Anduril is noteworthy).

There is some solutions, obviously on that path too but the industry approach as a whole (and legacy as well as price range) made the automated canon, Laser and HPMW still better than any robotic ace or AAA system and more relevant for quite some time (think that the target will evolve too).
Since the air defense radar and electro-optic sensor systems are already tracking the enemy drones, that tracking data can be sent to the defensive drones' guidance systems to guide each defensive drone to the vicinity of its designated enemy drone until it gets to the "end-game" distance from the target at which point guidance is handed over the defensive drone's onboard sensors, thereby reducing the size of the aperture needed for the onboard sensors since they would operate only at relatively close ranges.

The maneuverability of the defensive drone would allow it to get close enough to the enemy drone to use a relatively small explosive or perhaps even just a kamakazi style collision to take out the enemy drone. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that cheap drones are rather agile, but very fragile, not very hardened like missiles or mortar rounds, otherwise they would be much more expensive. The defensive drone colliding with one of the enemy drone's propellers, power system, or control system would be enough to disable the enemy drone. If the enemy decides to harden its drones as a countermeasure against the defensive drones, that would make the enemy drones much more expensive to deploy. That would justify using more expensive defensive drones with larger explosive charges to defeat the more expensive enemy drones.

Since a big issue for laser weapons' use against drones is deployment of numerous drones in a swarm, the defensive drone solution can use the same strategy of deploying a swarm of defensive drones against the swarm of enemy drones. The directed energy weapon response would have to be using a completely different technology from lasers, i.e., High Powered Microwave systems, according to the article.
 
Underwater cutting beams
This technology is capable of cutting stainless steel specimens with a thickness of over 100mm in a simulated 10-meter water depth environment.Additionally, they independently developed an anti-collision device to prevent accidents during the underwater laser cutting process caused by collisions between the specimen and the nozzle.

The call for new colliders.

Muon beam
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-team-positive-muons-kev.html
The following step involved guiding the slowed muons into a radio-frequency cavity, where an electric field accelerated them to a final energy of 100 keV, achieving approximately 4% of the speed of light.

More

sound bubble
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom