Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity
Projectile: Background and Issues for
Congress
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
September 25November 6, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44175
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Summary
The Navy is currently developing three potential new weapons that could improve the ability of
its surface ships to defend themselves against enemy missiles—solid state lasers (SSLs), the
electromagnetic railgun (EMRG), and the hypervelocity projectile (HVP).
Any one of these new weapon technologies, if successfully developed and deployed, might be
regarded as a “game changer” for defending Navy surface ships against enemy missiles. If two or
three of them are successfully developed and deployed, the result might be considered not just a
game changer, but a revolution. Rarely has the Navy had so many potential new types of surfaceship missile-defense weapons simultaneously available for development and potential
deployment.
Although the Navy in recent years has made considerable progress in developing SSLs, EMRG,
and HVP, a number of significant development challenges remain. Overcoming these challenges
will likely require years of additional development work, and ultimate success in overcoming
them is not guaranteed.
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s funding requests and
proposed acquisition strategies for these three potential new weapons. Potential oversight
questions for Congress include the following:
Using currently available approaches for countering anti-ship cruise missiles
(ASCMs) and anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), how well could Navy surface
ships defend themselves in a combat scenario against an adversary such as China
that has large numbers of ASCMs (including advanced models) and ASBMs?
How would this change if Navy surface ships in coming years were equipped
with SSLs, EMRG, HVP, or some combination of these systems?
How significant are the remaining development challenges for SSLs, EMRG, and
HVP?
Are current schedules for developing SSLs, EMRG, and HVP appropriate in
relation to remaining development challenges and projected improvements in
enemy ASCMs and ASBMs? To what degree are current schedules for
developing SSLs, EMRG, or HVP sensitive to annual funding levels?
When does the Navy anticipate issuing roadmaps detailing its plans for procuring
and installing production versions of SSLs, EMRGs, and HVP on specific Navy
ships by specific dates?
Will the kinds of surface ships that the Navy plans to procure in coming years
have sufficient space, weight, electrical power, and cooling capability to take full
advantage of SSLs (particularly those with beam powers above 200 kW) and
EMRG? What changes, if any, would need to be made in Navy plans for
procuring large surface combatants (i.e., destroyers and cruisers) or other Navy
ships to take full advantage of SSLs and EMRG?
Are the funding sources for SSLs, EMRG, and HVP in Navy and Defense-Wide
research and development accounts sufficiently visible for supporting
congressional oversight?
Congressional Research Service
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Issue for Congress ..................................................................................................................... 1
Scope of Report ......................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Strategic and Budgetary Context............................................................................................... 2
Concern about Survivability of Navy Surface Ships .......................................................... 2
Depth of Magazine and Cost Exchange Ratio .................................................................... 3
SSLs, EMRG, and HVP in Brief ............................................................................................... 4
SSLs .................................................................................................................................... 4
EMRG ................................................................................................................................. 8
HVP .................................................................................................................................. 12
Indirectly Improving Ability to Counter ASCMs and ASBMs ............................................... 17
Remaining Development Challenges ...................................................................................... 17
SSLs .................................................................................................................................. 18
EMRG and HVP ............................................................................................................... 19
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 21
Potential Impact of Continuing Resolution (CR) for FY2016 ................................................ 21
Potential Oversight Questions ................................................................................................. 22
Legislative Activity for FY2016 .................................................................................................... 22
Congressional Action on FY2016 Funding ............................................................................. 22
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735/S. 1376) ........................................ 23
House ................................................................................................................................ 23
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 25
Conference (Version Vetoed) ............................................................................................ 29
FY2016 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 2685/S. 1558) ......................................................... 2930
House ................................................................................................................................ 2930
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 2930
Figures
Figure 1. Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on USS Ponce ................................................................ 6
Figure 2. Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on USS Ponce ................................................................ 7
Figure 3. Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on USS Ponce ................................................................ 8
Figure 4. Industry-Built EMRG Prototype Demonstrator ............................................................. 10
Figure 5. Industry-Built EMRG Prototype Demonstrator .............................................................. 11
Figure 6. EMRG Prototype Demonstrator Installed on a JHSV .................................................... 12
Figure 7. Photograph Showing HVP ............................................................................................. 13
Figure 8. HVP................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 9. HVP Launch Packages ................................................................................................... 15
Figure 10. HVP Application to Various Launchers ....................................................................... 16
Figure 11. Navy Slide Depicting Operations Against Various Target Types ................................. 17
Figure 12. Development Challenges for SSLs .............................................................................. 18
Figure 13. Development Challenges for EMRG ........................................................................... 20
Congressional Research Service
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Tables
Table 1. Summary of Congressional Action on FY16 Funding..................................................... 23
Appendixes
Appendix. Potential Advantages and Limitations of Shipboard Lasers ........................................ 3132
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 3334
Congressional Research Service
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
Issue for Congress
This report provides background information and issues for Congress on three potential new
weapons that could improve the ability of Navy surface ships to defend themselves against enemy
missiles—solid state lasers (SSLs), the electromagnetic railgun (EMRG), and the hypervelocity
projectile (HVP).1
Any one of these new weapon technologies, if successfully developed and deployed, might be
regarded as a “game changer” for defending Navy surface ships against enemy missiles. If two or
three of them are successfully developed and deployed, the result might be considered not just a
game changer, but a revolution. Rarely has the Navy had so many potential new types of surfaceship missile-defense weapons simultaneously available for development and potential
deployment. Although the Navy in recent years has made considerable progress in developing
SSLs, EMRG, and HVP, a number of significant development challenges remain.
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s funding requests and
proposed acquisition strategies for these three potential new weapons. Congress’ decisions on this
issue could affect future Navy capabilities and funding requirements and the defense industrial
base.
Scope of Report
SSLs are being developed by multiple parts of the Department of Defense (DOD), not just the
Navy. SSLs, EMRG, and HVP, moreover, have potential application to military aircraft and
ground forces equipment, not just surface ships. And SSLs, EMRG, and HVP can be used for
missions other than defending against ASCMs and ASBMs.2 This report focuses on Navy efforts
to develop SSLs, EMRG, and HVP for potential use in defending Navy surface ships against
ASCMs and ASBMs. It supersedes an earlier CRS report that provided an introduction to
potential Navy shipboard lasers.3
Note that while fictional depictions of laser weapons in popular media often show them being
used to attack targets at long ranges, the SSLs currently being developed by the Navy for
potential shipboard use would be used to counter targets at short ranges of about a mile to perhaps
a few miles.
1
Railgun is also spelled as rail gun; EMRG is also abbreviated as EM railgun; hypervelocity is also spelled as hypervelocity or hyper velocity.
2
As discussed later in the report, the Navy is exploring the potential for using shipboard lasers to counter small boats
and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and EMRG can be used to attack land targets.
3
CRS Report R41526, Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. This earlier CRS report has been archived and remains available as a supplementary
reference source on potential Navy shipboard lasers.
Congressional Research Service
1
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Background
Strategic and Budgetary Context
Concern about Survivability of Navy Surface Ships
Although Navy surface ships have a number of means for defending themselves against anti-ship
cruise missiles (ASCMs) and anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs),4 some observers are
concerned about the survivability of Navy surface ships in potential combat situations against
adversaries, such as China, that are armed with advanced ASCMs and with ASBMs.5 Concern
about this issue has led some observers to conclude that the Navy’s surface fleet in coming years
might need to avoid operating in waters that are within range of these weapons, or that the Navy
might need to move toward a different fleet architecture that relies less on larger surface ships and
more on smaller surface ships and submarines.6 Such changes in Navy operating areas and fleet
architecture could substantially affect U.S. military strategy and the composition of the Navy’s
shipbuilding expenditures.
Navy surface fleet leaders in early 2015 announced a new organizing concept for the Navy’s
surface fleet called distributed lethality. Under distributed lethality, offensive weapons such as
ASCMs are to be distributed more widely across all types of Navy surface ships, and new
operational concepts for Navy surface ship formations are to be implemented. The aim of
distributed lethality is to boost the surface fleet’s capability for attacking enemy ships and make it
less possible for an enemy to cripple the U.S. fleet by concentrating its attacks on a few veryhigh-value Navy surface ships (particularly the Navy’s aircraft carriers).7 Perspectives on whether
4
These include the following: operating ships in ways that make it hard for others to detect and accurately track Navy
ships; jamming or destroying enemy targeting sensors; interfering with the transmission of targeting data from sensors
to weapon launchers; attacking weapon launchers (which can land-based launchers or launchers on surface ships,
submarines, or aircraft); and countering ASCMs and ASBMs headed toward Navy ships. Navy measures for countering
ASCMs and ASBMs headed toward Navy ships include the following: jamming a missile’s guidance system; using
decoys of various kinds to lure enemy missiles away from Navy ships; and shooting down enemy missiles with surfaceto-air missiles and the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS), which is essentially a radar-controlled Gatling gun.
Employing all these measures reflects a longstanding Navy approach of creating a multi-layered defense against enemy
missiles, and of attacking the enemy’s “kill chain” at multiple points so as to increase the chances of breaking the
chain. (The kill chain is the sequence of steps that an enemy must complete to conduct a successful missile attack on a
Navy ship. This sequence includes, at a basic level of description, detecting and tracking the Navy ship, passing that
information from sensors to the weapon launcher, launching the weapon, and guiding the weapon all the way to the
Navy ship. Interfering with any one of these actions can break the kill chain and thereby prevent or defeat the attack.)
5
See, for example, Andrew F. Krepinevich, Maritime Warfare in a Mature Precision-Strike Regime, Washington,
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2014, 128 pp. For more on China’s ASCMs and ASBMs, see CRS
Report RL33153, China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
ASCMs and ASBMs are not the only reasons that some observers are concerned about the future survivability of U.S.
Navy surface ships in combat situations; observers are also concerned about threats to U.S. Navy surface ships posed
by small boats, mines, and torpedoes.
6
See, for example, Phillip E. Pournelle, “The Deadly Future of Sea Control,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, July
2015: 26-31.
7
See, for example, Thomas Rowden, Peter Gumataotao, and Peter Fanta, “Distributed Lethality,” U.S. Naval Institute
Proceedings, January 2015: 18-23; Sam LaGrone, “SNA: Navy Surface Leaders Pitch More Lethal Ships, Surface
Action Groups,” USNI News, January 14, 2015; Kris Osborn, “Navy Unveils New Surface Warfare Strategy,”
Military.com, January 14, 2015; Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., “‘If It Floats, It Fights,’: Navy Seeks ‘Distributed Lethality,’”
Breaking Defense, January 14, 2015; Mike McCarthy and Megan Eckstein, “Navy Eyeing A ‘Hunter Killer’ Surface
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
it would be cost effective to spend money spreading offensive weapons across a wider array of
Navy surface ships might be influenced by views on whether those surface ships can adequately
defend themselves against enemy missiles.
Depth of Magazine and Cost Exchange Ratio
Two key limitations that Navy surface ships currently have in defending themselves against
ASCMs and ASBMs are limited depth of magazine and unfavorable cost exchange ratios. Limited
depth of magazine refers to the fact that Navy surface ships can use surface-to-air missiles
(SAMs) and their Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) Gatling guns to shoot down only a certain
number of enemy unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and anti-ship missiles before running out of
SAMs and CIWS ammunition8—a situation (sometimes called “going Winchester”), that can
require a ship to withdraw from battle, spend time travelling to a safe reloading location (which
can be hundreds of miles away),9 and then spend more time traveling back to the battle area.
Unfavorable cost exchange ratios refer to the fact that a SAM used to shoot down a UAV or antiship missile can cost the Navy more (perhaps much more) to procure than it cost the adversary to
build or acquire the UAV or anti-ship missile. In the FY2016 defense budget, procurement costs
for Navy SAMs range from about $900,000 per missile to several million dollars per missile,
depending on the type.10
In combat scenarios against an adversary with a limited number of UAVs and anti-ship missiles,
an unfavorable cost exchange ratio can be acceptable because it saves the lives of Navy sailors
and prevents very expensive damage to Navy ships. But in combat scenarios (or an ongoing
military capabilities competition) against a country such as China that has many UAVs and antiship missiles and a capacity for building or acquiring many more, an unfavorable cost exchange
ratio can become a very expensive—and potentially unaffordable—approach to defending Navy
surface ships against UAVs and anti-ship missiles, particularly in a context of constraints on U.S.
defense spending and competing demands for finite U.S. defense funds.
(...continued)
Fleet, Would Require Upgunning Existing Ship Fleets,” Defense Daily, January 15, 2015: 1-3; Richard Scott,
“Offensive Language: USN Sets Out Surface Firepower Strategy,” Jane’s International Defence Review, May 2015:
42-47; Megan Eckstein, “Navy Studying Implications of Distributed Lethality in Wargames Series,” USNI News, July
9, 2015; Lara Seligman, “Navy Establishes Task Force To Study Impact of Distributed lethality,” Inside the Navy, July
10, 2015.
8
Navy cruisers have 122 missile cells; Navy destroyers have 90 or 96 missile cells. Some of these cells are used for
storing and launching Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles or anti-submarine rockets. The remainder are available for
storing and launching SAMs. A Navy cruiser or destroyer might thus be armed with a few dozen or several dozen
SAMs for countering ASCMs and ASBMs. Countering ASCMs or ASBMs with SAMs might sometimes require
shooting two SAMs at each ASCM or ASBM.
9
The missile cells on a Navy cruiser or destroyers are clustered together in an installation called a Vertical Launch
System (VLS). VLS cells cannot be reloaded while the ship is underway; a ship needs to return to a port or a calm
anchorage to reload its VLS.
10
Unit procurement costs for ship-launched SAMs in the FY2016 are as follows: about $900,000 for the Rolling
Airframe Missile (RAM), about $1.1 million to about $1.5 million for the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), about
$3.9 million for the SM-6 Block 1 missile, about $14 million for the SM-3 Block 1B missile, and more than $20
million for theSM-3 Block IIA missiles. RAM and ESSM are short-range missiles for defense against aircraft and
ASCMs. The SM-6 Block 1 is a medium-range missile used for both defense against aircraft and ASCMs, and terminal
(i.e., endo-atmospheric) defense against theater-range ballistic missiles. The SM-3 Block 1B and SM-3 Block IIA are
used for mid-course (i.e., exo-atmospheric) defense against theater-range ballistic missiles.
Congressional Research Service
3
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
SSLs, EMRG, and HVP offer a potential for dramatically improving depth of magazine and the
cost exchange ratio:
Depth of magazine. SSLs are electrically powered, drawing their power from
the ship’s overall electrical supply, and can be fired over and over, indefinitely, as
long as the SSL continues to work and the ship has fuel to generate electricity.
The EMRG’s projectile and the HVP (which are one and the same—see next
section) can be stored by the hundreds in a Navy surface ship’s weapon
magazine.11
Cost exchange ratio. An SSL can be fired for a marginal cost of less than one
dollar per shot (which is the cost of the fuel needed to generate the electricity
used in the shot), while the EMRG’s projectile/HVP has an estimated unit
procurement cost of about $25,000.12
For additional discussion of the strategic and budgetary context in which the programs discussed
in this report and other Navy programs may be considered, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy
Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald
O'Rourke.
SSLs, EMRG, and HVP in Brief
SSLs
The Navy in recent years has leveraged both significant advancements in industrial SSLs and
decades of research and development work on military lasers done by other parts of DOD to
make substantial progress toward deploying high-energy SSLs13 on Navy surface ships. Navy
surface ships would use high-energy SSLs initially for countering small boats UAVs, and
potentially in the future for countering ASCMs and ASBMs as well.14 High-energy SSLs on Navy
ships would be short-range defensive weapons—they would counter targets at ranges of about
one mile to perhaps eventually a few miles.15
In addition to a low marginal cost per shot and deep magazine, potential advantages of shipboard
lasers include fast engagement times, an ability to counter radically maneuvering missiles, an
ability to conduct precision engagements, and an ability to use lasers for graduated responses
ranging from detecting and monitoring targets to causing disabling damage. Potential limitations
11
In July 2015, the Navy issued a request for information (RFI) to industry for the fabrication of a prototype EMRG
mount that would store a minimum of 650 rounds. (RFI for Fabrication of Prototype Mount for Naval Railgun,
Solicitation Number: N00024-15-R-4132, FedBizOpps.gov, July 29, 2015. See also Justin Doubleday, “Navy
Developing Integrated Mount For Electromagnetic Railgun,” Inside the Navy, July 31, 2015.)
12
Sources for cost of HVP: David Martin, “Navy’s Newest Weapon Kills at Seven Times the Speed of Sound,” CBS
News (cbssnews.com), April 7, 2014; Kris Osborn, “Navy Will Test its Electromagnetic Rail Gun aboard DDG 1000,”
DefenseTech, April 15, 2015.
13
In discussions of potential Navy shipboard lasers, a high-energy laser is generally considered to be a laser with a
beam power of at least 10 kilowatts (kW).
14
In general, lasers would counter small boats and missiles by heating and burning holes in their skins, and causing
thermal damage to their interiors. Lasers can also be used to “dazzle” (i.e., interfere with) electro-optical sensors on a
boat or missile.
15
The Navy has also performed research and development work on a different kind of laser, called the free electron
laser (FEL). In recent years, Navy research and development work on potential shipboard lasers has shifted more to
SSLs. For background information on the FEL, see CRS Report R41526, Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and
Missile Defense: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
4
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
of shipboard lasers relate to line of sight; atmospheric absorption, scattering, and turbulence
(which prevent shipboard lasers from being all-weather weapons); an effect known as thermal
blooming that can reduce laser effectiveness; countering saturation attacks; possible adversary
use of hardened targets and countermeasures; and risk of collateral damage, including damage to
aircraft and satellites and permanent damage to human eyesight, including blinding. These
potential advantages and limitations are discussed in greater detail in the Appendix.
Key developments in the Navy’s high-energy SSL development effort include the following:
Between 2009 and 2012, the Navy successfully tested a prototype SSL called the
Laser Weapon System (LaWS) against UAVs in a series of engagements that took
place initially on land and subsequently on a Navy ship at sea.
Between 2010 and 2011, the Navy tested another prototype SSL called the
Maritime Laser Demonstration (MLD) in a series of tests that culminated with an
MLD installed on a Navy ship successfully engaging a small boat.
In April 2013, the Navy announced that it planned to install LaWS on the USS
Ponce (pronounced pon-SAY)—a converted amphibious ship that is operating in
the Persian Gulf as an interim Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB[I]) 16—to
conduct evaluation of shipboard lasers in an operational setting against swarming
boats and swarming UAVs.17 The system was installed in August 2014 (see
Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3).
In March 2014, it was reported that the Navy anticipated moving to a shipboard
laser program of record in “the FY2018 time frame” and achieving an initial
operational capability (IOC) with a shipboard laser in FY2020 or FY2021.18
In December 2014, the Navy declared LaWS on the Ponce to be an “operational”
system.19
16
An AFSB operates as a “mother ship” for Navy helicopter and small boat operations. The Ponce is serving as an
interim AFSB pending the arrival of a new AFSB that is currently being built.
17
“Navy Leaders Announce Plans for Deploying Cost-Saving Laser Technology,” Navy News Service, April 8, 2013;
Thom Shanker, “Navy Deploying Laser Weapon Prototype Near Iran,” New York Times, April 9, 2013: 4; Mike
McCarthy, “Navy Deploying Laser For Taking Out Drones,” Defense Daily, April 9, 2013; Graham Warwick, “U.S.
Navy Planning Gulf Deployment For Laser Weapon,” Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, April 9, 2013: 6; Megan
Eckstein, “Navy-Built Laser Weapon System Will Begin Demo On Ponce In Early 2014,” Inside the Navy, April 15,
2013. See also Lara Seligman, “Navy-built LaWS To Begin Demo This Summer, IOC Slated For FY-20-21,” Inside
the Navy, March 24, 2014; Office of Naval Research, “All Systems Go: Navy’s Laser Weapon Ready for Summer
Deployment,” Navy News Service, April 7, 2014.
Swarming refers to the use of boats and UAVs in large numbers, or swarms, in an attempt to confuse and overwhelm a
target ship’s defensive systems.
18
Lara Seligman, “Navy-built LaWS To Begin Demo This Summer, IOC Slated For FY-20-21,” Inside the Navy,
March 24, 2014. A program of record, or POR, is a term sometimes used by DOD officials that means, in general, a
program in the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) that is intended to provide a new, improved, or continuing materiel,
weapon, or information system or service capability in response to an approved need. The term is sometimes used to
refer to a program in a service’s budget for procuring and deploying an operational weapon system, as opposed to a
research and development effort that might or might not eventually lead to procurement and deployment of an
operational weapon system.
19
A December, 11, 2014, press report stated
The Navy’s first-of-a-kind laser deployed on a vessel sailing in the Persian Gulf has been declared
operational and can be used by the crew to defend itself against potential threats, the service’s head
of the Office of Naval Research said on Wednesday [December 10, 2014].
Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder told reporters on a conference call that Central Command has been
green lighted to use the laser in the event of a threat, approval that has been passed along to the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 1. Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on USS Ponce
Source: Navy photograph dated November 16, 2014, accompanying David Smalley, “Historic Leap: Navy
Shipboard Laser Operates in Arabian Gulf,” Navy News Service, December 10, 2014, accessed August 12, 2015, at
http://www.navy.mil/list_all.asp?id=84805.
LaWS has a reported beam power of 30 kilowatts (kW),20 which is strong enough to counter
small boats and UAVs. As a follow-on effort to LaWS and MLD, the Navy initiated the SSL
Technology Maturation (SSL-TM) program, in which industry teams led by BAE Systems,
Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon are competing to develop a shipboard laser with a beam
power of 100 kW to 150 kW, which would provide increased effectiveness against small boats
and UAVs.21 Boosting beam power further—to something like 200 kW or 300 kW—could permit
a laser to counter at least some ASCMs. Even stronger beam powers—on the order of at least
(...continued)
ship’s commanding officer. The 30-kilowat laser, known as the Laser Weapon System, or LaWS,
was installed on the USS Ponce in August [2014].
The ship later departed for the Persian Gulf and the LaWS successfully carried out operational
testing recently by striking a fast attack boat and drone, Klunder said, adding that this marks the
“historic” first ever operational deployment of a directed energy weapon.
(Mike McCarthy, “Navy Authorized To Use Ship-Based Laser In Battle,” Defense Daily,
December 11, 2014: 3. See also Sam LaGrone, “U.S. Navy Allowed to Use Persian Gulf Laser for
Defense,” USNI News, December 10, 2014; Philip Ewing, “Navy Declares Laser Weapon
‘Operational,’” Politico Pro (Pro Defense Report), December 10, 2014.)
20
See, for example, Mike McCarthy, “Navy Authorized To Use Ship-Based Laser In Battle,” Defense Daily, December
11, 2014: 3.
21
For more on the SSL-TM program, see Office of Naval Research, “Solid-State Laser Technology Maturation
Program,” accessed August 11, 2015, at http://www.onr.navy.mil/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Solid-State-LaserTechnology-Maturation-Program.aspx; Office of Naval Research, “Solid State Laser Technology Maturation
Program,” September 2012, accessed August 11, 2015, at http://www.onr.navy.mil/~/media/Files/Fact-Sheets/35/SolidState-Laser-Technology-Maturation-Program-2012-a.ashx; Office of Naval Research, “Research and
Development/Technology Maturation of Solid State High Power Laser Weapon Systems, Subsystems, and/or
Components for Surface Navy, USN, Broad Agency Announcement (BAA),” ONR BAA # 12-019, 2012, accessed
August 11, 2015, at http://www.onr.navy.mil/~/media/files/funding-announcements/baa/2012/12-019.ashx; Future
Force, “Developing a High-Energy Laser for the Navy,” January 23, 2015, accessed August 11, 2015, at
http://futureforce.navylive.dodlive.mil/2015/01/high-energy-laser/.
Congressional Research Service
6
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
several hundred kW, if not one megawatt (MW) or more—could improve a laser’s effectiveness
against ASCMs and enable it to counter ASBMs.22
Figure 2. Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on USS Ponce
Source: Navy photograph dated November 17, 2014, accompanying David Smalley, “Historic Leap: Navy
Shipboard Laser Operates in Arabian Gulf,” Navy News Service, December 10, 2014, accessed August 12, 2015, at
http://www.navy.mil/list_all.asp?id=84805.
A July 28, 2015, press report stated:
[Secretary of the Navy Ray] Mabus said he would release a DE [directed energy] 23
roadmap this fall that “charts our course for research, development, and fielding of high
power radio frequency weapons, lasers, and directed energy countermeasures. And I will
follow it up with my guidance to the Program Objective Memorandum for [Fiscal Year
2018],24 which, importantly, establishes a resource sponsor and a program of record.”...
Also meant to help quicken the pace of progress, the Office of Naval Research will take
lessons learned from the [USS] Ponce to inform the Solid State Laser Technology
Maturation program that aims to produce a 100-150 kilowatt laser prototype for at-sea
testing in 2018, or sooner if possible. Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, Naval Sea Systems
Command (NAVSEA) chief engineer, said... that everything the Navy learned about rules
of engagement and how to use LaWS in an operational environment would apply to
larger laser weapons as well. Leveraging the operational knowledge Ponce gained will
help the Navy field whatever comes out of the SSL-TM effort much more rapidly.
In the meantime, Mabus said the Laser Weapon System (LaWS) will continue its work in
the Middle East after early success led officials to extend its deployment. 25
22
For additional discussion, see CRS Report R41526, Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke, particularly the section entitled “Required Laser Power
Levels for Countering Targets” and Appendix A on “Laser Power Levels Required to Counter Targets.”
23
Lasers and another class of weapons called high-power microwave (HPM) weapons are referred to collectively as
directed-energy weapons because they achieve their effects by directing electromagnetic energy at their targets.
24
The Program Objective Memorandum (POM) is an internal DOD document that guides the preparation of a budget
for a particular fiscal year.
25
Megan Eckstein, “Mabus: Adversaries Showing Interest in Directed Energy; Navy Needs to Move Faster,” USNI
News, July 28, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
7
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 3. Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on USS Ponce
Source: Navy photograph dated November 16, 2014, accompanying David Smalley, “Historic Leap: Navy
Shipboard Laser Operates in Arabian Gulf,” Navy News Service, December 10, 2014, accessed August 12, 2015, at
http://www.navy.mil/list_all.asp?id=84805.
EMRG
In addition to SSLs, the Navy since 2005 has been developing EMRG, a cannon that uses
electricity rather than chemical propellants (i.e., gunpowder charges) to fire a projectile.26 In
EMRG, “magnetic fields created by high electrical currents accelerate a sliding metal conductor,
26
Because it uses electricity rather than a powder charge to accelerate the projectile, Navy officials sometimes refer to
EMRG as a launcher rather than a gun or cannon.
Congressional Research Service
8
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
or armature, between two rails to launch projectiles at [speeds of] 4,500 mph to 5,600 mph,”27 or
roughly Mach 5.9 to Mach 7.4 at sea level.28 Like SSLs, EMRG draws its power from the ship’s
overall electrical supply.29 The Navy originally began developing EMRG as a naval surface fire
support (NSFS) weapon for supporting U.S. Marines operating ashore, but subsequently
determined that the weapon also has potential for defending against ASCMs and ASBMs.30 In
response to Section 243 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540/P.L. 11281 of December 31, 2011), the Navy in September 2012 submitted to the congressional defense
committees a report on the EMRG development effort.31
Following tests with early Navy-built EMRG prototypes, the Navy funded the development of
two industry-built EMRG prototype demonstrators, one by BAE Systems and the other by
General Atomics (see Figure 4 and Figure 5).
The two industry-built prototypes are designed to fire projectiles at energy levels of 20 to 32
megajoules,32 which is enough to propel a projectile 50 to 100 nautical miles.33 (Such ranges
might refer to using the EMRG for NSFS missions. Intercepts of ASCMs and ASBMs might take
place at much shorter ranges.) The Navy began evaluating the two industry-built prototypes in
2012.
27
Grace Jean, “With a Bang, Navy Begins Tests on EM Railgun Prototype Launcher,” Navy News Service, February
28, 2012, accessed August 12, 2015, at http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=65577.
28
The speed of sound in air (i.e., Mach 1), varies with altitude; at sea level, it is approximately 761 miles an hour. (See
for example, the table entitled “Speed of Sound at Different Altitudes,” accessed August 12, 2015, at
http://www.fighter-planes.com/jetmach1.htm.
29
Unlike SSLs, however, EMRG is not a directed energy weapon, because it achieves its effects by firing a physical
projectile at the target, not by directing electromagnetic energy at the target. See also footnote 23.
30
For a recent article discussing the use of EMRG in countering ASCMs and ASBMs, see Sam LaGrone, “Navy Wants
Rail Guns to Fight Ballistic and Supersonic Missiles Says RFI,” USNI News, January 5, 2015.
31
U.S. Navy, Electromagnetic Railgun System: Final Report to the Congressional Defense Committees, August 2012,
with cover letters dated September 18, 2012.
32
The Navy states that “A megajoule is a measurement of energy associated with a mass traveling at a certain velocity.
In simple terms, a one-ton vehicle moving at 100 mph equals a magajoule of energy.” (Office of Naval Research Public
Affairs, “Navy Sets New World Record with Electromagnetic Railgun Demonstration,” Navy News Service, December
10, 2010, accessed August 12, 2015, at http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=57690.)
33
Grace Jean, “With a Bang, Navy Begins Tests on EM Railgun Prototype Launcher,” Navy News Service, February
28, 2012, accessed August 12, 2015, at http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=65577.
Congressional Research Service
9
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 4. Industry-Built EMRG Prototype Demonstrator
BAE prototype
Source: Navy photograph dated July 8, 2014, associated with Office of Naval Research Public Affairs, “From
Research to Railgun: Revolutionary Weapon at Future Force EXPO,” Navy News Service, January 13, 2015,
accessed August 12, 2015, at http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=85166.
Congressional Research Service
10
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 5. Industry-Built EMRG Prototype Demonstrator
General Atomics prototype
Source: navy photograph dated July 8, 2014, accessed August 12, 2015, at
http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=180994.
In April 2014, the Navy announced that it plans to temporarily install a prototype EMRG aboard a
Navy Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) in FY2016, for use in at-sea tests.34 Figure 6 is an artist’s
rendering of that installation.
34
Naval Sea Systems Command Office of Corporate Communication, “Navy to Deploy Electromagnetic Railgun
Aboard JHSV,” Navy News Service, April 7, 2014, accessed August 12, 2015, at
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=80055.
Congressional Research Service
11
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 6. EMRG Prototype Demonstrator Installed on a JHSV
Artist’s rendering
Source: Navy rendering dated March 13, 2014, associated with John Joyce, “CNO Tours Navy Electromagnetic
Railgun and Directed Energy Facilities, Hosts All Hands Call,” Navy News Service, September 5, 2014, accessed
August 12, 2015, at http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=83119.
Notes: In the temporary installation shown in the rendering, the weapon is placed on a tall platform to avoid
having to cut through the ship’s flight deck. In a permanent installation on a ship, only the top portion of the
“pyramid” would be above deck, and the remainder of the equipment would be below the main deck, inside the
ship’s hull.
In January 2015, it was reported that the Navy is projecting that EMRG could become operational
on a Navy ship between 2020 and 2025.35 In April 2015, it was reported that the Navy is
considering installing an EMRG on a Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyer by the mid-2020s.36
HVP
As the Navy was developing EMRG, it realized that the guided projectile being developed for
EMRG could also be fired from 5-inch and 155mm powder guns.37 Navy cruisers each have two
35
Sam LaGrone, “Navy Wants Rail Guns to Fight Ballistic and Supersonic Missiles Says RFI,” USNI News, January 5,
2015.
36
Sam LaGrone, “Navy Considering Railgun for Third Zumwalt Destroyer,” USNI News, February 5, 2015 (updated
February 11, 2015); Mike McCarthy, “Navy Aiming To Put Railgun On Third Zumwalt Destroyer,” Defense Daily,
February 6, 2015; Kris Osborn, “Navy Will Test its Electromagnetic Rail Gun aboard DDG 1000,” DefenseTech, April
15, 2015. For more on Zumwalt-class destroyers, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer
Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
37
The Navy describes the HVP as “a next generation, common, low drag, guided projectile capable of completing
multiple missions for gun systems such as the Navy 5-Inch, 155-mm, and future railguns.... HVP’s low drag
aerodynamic design enables high velocity, maneuverability, and decreased time-to-target. These attributes coupled with
accurate guidance electronics provide low cost mission effectiveness against current threats and the ability to adapt to
air and surface threats of the future.” (Office of Naval Research, Hypervelocity Projectile,” September 2012, accessed
August 14, 2015, at http://www.onr.navy.mil/~/media/Files/Fact-Sheets/35/Hypervelocity-Projectile-2012B.ashx.) The
Navy states that HVP weighs 23 pounds. (Source: David Martin, “Navy’s Newest Weapon Kills at Seven Times the
Speed of Sound,” CBS News (cbssnews.com), April 7, 2014.)
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
5-inch guns, and most Navy destroyers each have one 5-inch gun. The Navy’s three new Zumwalt
class (DDG-1000) destroyers, which are under construction, each have two 155mm guns.
The projectile is a hypervelocity projectile when fired from either EMRG or a powder gun, but
the term HVP tends to be used more frequently in connection with the concept of firing it from a
powder gun. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the HVP.
Figure 7. Photograph Showing HVP
Source: Navy photograph dated April 4, 2014, with a caption that reads: “Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder, chief of
naval research, shows off a Hypervelocity Projectile (HVP) to CBS News reporter David Martin during an
interview held at the Naval Research Laboratory's materials testing facility. The HVP is a next-generation,
common, low drag, guided projectile capable of completing multiple missions for gun systems such as the Navy
5-inch, 155-mm, and future railguns,” accessed August 12, 2015, at
http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=174517.
(...continued)
BAE Systems states that HVP is 24 inches long and weighs 28 pounds, including a 15-pound payload. The total length
and weight of an HVP launch package, BAE Systems states, is 26 inches and 40 pounds. BAE states that the maximum
rate of fire for HVP is 20 rounds per minute from a Mk 45 5-inch gun, 10 rounds per minute from the 155mm gun on
DDG-1000 class destroyers (called the Advanced Gun System, or AGS), and 6 rounds per minute from EMRG. HVP’s
firing range, BAE Systems states, is more than 40 nautical miles (when fired from a Mk 45 Mod 2 5-inch gun), more
than 50 nautical miles (Mk 45 Mod 4 5-inch gun), more than 70 nautical miles (155mm gun on DDG-1000 class
destroyers), and more than 100 nautical miles (EMRG). (BAE Systems, “Hypervelocity Projectile (HVP),” 2014,
accessed August 14, 2015, at http://www.baesystems.com/download/BAES_178505/hyper-velocity-projectile-hvpdatasheet.)
In July 2015, the Navy issued a request for information (RFI) to industry for the fabrication of a prototype EMRG
mount capable of handling an integrated launch weight package of 22 kg, or about 48.5 pounds. (RFI for Fabrication of
Prototype Mount for Naval Railgun, Solicitation Number: N00024-15-R-4132, FedBizOpps.gov, July 29, 2015. See
also Justin Doubleday, “Navy Developing Integrated Mount For Electromagnetic Railgun,” Inside the Navy, July 31,
2015.)
Congressional Research Service
13
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 8. HVP
Source: Slide 7 from Navy briefing entitled “Electromagnetic Railgun,” NDIA Joint Armaments Forum,
Exhibition & Technology Demonstration, May 14, 2014, LCDR Jason Fox, USN, Assistant PM [Program
Manager], Railgun Ship Integration, Distribution A, Approved for Public Release, accessed August 13, 2015, at
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014armaments/WedFox.pdf.
When fired from 5-inch powder guns, the projectile achieves a speed of roughly Mach 3, which is
roughly half the speed it achieves when fired from EMRG, but more than twice the speed of a
conventional 5-inch shell fired from a 5-inch gun.38 This is apparently fast enough for countering
at least some ASCMs. The Navy states that “The HVP—combined with the MK 45 [5-inch
gun]39—will support various mission areas including naval surface fire support, and has the
capacity to expand to a variety of anti-air threats, [and] anti-surface [missions], and could expand
the Navy's engagement options against current and emerging threats.”40
One advantage of the HVP/5-inch gun concept is that the 5-inch guns are already installed on
Navy cruisers and destroyers, creating a potential for rapidly proliferating HVP through the
cruiser-destroyer force, once development of HVP is complete and the weapon has been
38
Source: Sam LaGrone, “Updated: Navy Researching Firing Mach 3 Guided Round from Standard Deck Guns,” USNI
News, June 1, 2015 (updated June 2, 2015).
39
The type of 5-inch gun on Navy cruisers and destroyers is called the Mark 45.
40
Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division Corporate Communications, “DEPSECDEF Loads HVP on Test
Range, Observes Repetitive Rate Electromagnetic Railgun's Commissioning Series,” Navy News Service, May 8, 2015,
accessed August 12, 2015, at http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=86987.
Congressional Research Service
14
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
integrated into cruiser and destroyer combat systems. Figure 9 shows HVP launch packages
configured for 5-inch guns, 155mm guns, and EMRG.
Figure 9. HVP Launch Packages
Launch packages for 5-inch gun, 155mm gun, and EMRG
Source: BAE Systems, “Hypervelocity Projectile (HVP),” 2014, accessed August 14, 2015, at
http://www.baesystems.com/download/BAES_178505/hyper-velocity-projectile--datasheet.
Figure 10 is a slide showing the potential application of HVP to 5-inch power guns, 155mm
powder guns, and EMRG. The first line of the slide, for example, discusses HVP’s use with 5inch powder guns, stating that it uses a high-explosive (HE) warhead for the NSFS mission;41 that
a total of 113 5-inch gun barrels are available in the fleet (which could be a reference to 22
cruisers with two guns each, and 69 destroyers with one gun each); and that as a game-changing
capability, it is guided and can be used at ranges of up to 26 nautical miles to 41 nautical miles for
NSFS operations, for countering ASCMs, and for anti-surface warfare (ASuW) operations (i.e.,
attacking surface ships and craft).
41
The “KE” in the next line down means that when fired from EMRG, the projectile can alternatively attack targets
using its own kinetic energy (i.e., by simply impacting the target at hypersonic speed).
Congressional Research Service
15
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 10. HVP Application to Various Launchers
Source: Slide 16 from Navy briefing entitled “Electromagnetic Railgun,” NDIA Joint Armaments Forum,
Exhibition & Technology Demonstration, May 14, 2014, LCDR Jason Fox, USN, Assistant PM [Program
Manager], Railgun Ship Integration, Distribution A, Approved for Public Release, accessed August 13, 2015, at
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014armaments/WedFox.pdf.
Figure 11 is a not-to-scale illustration of how HVPs fired from EMRGs and 5-inch guns can be
used to counter various targets, including ASCMs and ASBMs.
Congressional Research Service
16
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 11. Navy Slide Depicting Operations Against Various Target Types
Source: Slide 5 from Navy briefing entitled “Electromagnetic Railgun,” NDIA Joint Armaments Forum,
Exhibition & Technology Demonstration, May 14, 2014, LCDR Jason Fox, USN, Assistant PM [Program
Manager], Railgun Ship Integration, Distribution A, Approved for Public Release, accessed August 13, 2015, at
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014armaments/WedFox.pdf.
Indirectly Improving Ability to Counter ASCMs and ASBMs
As discussed earlier, SSLs currently under development have enough beam power to counter
small boats and UAVs, but not enough to ASCMs or ASBMs. Even so, such SSLs could
indirectly improve a ship’s ability to counter ASCMs and ASBMs by permitting the ship to use
fewer of its SAMs for countering UAVs, and more of them for countering ASCMs and ASBMs.
Similarly, even though HVPs fired from 5-inch powder guns would not be able to counter
ASBMs, they could indirectly improve a ship’s ability to counter ASBMs by permitting the ship
to use fewer of its SAMs for countering ASCMs and more of its SAMs for countering ASBMs.
Remaining Development Challenges
Although the Navy in recent years has made considerable progress in developing SSLs, EMRG,
and HVP, a number of significant development challenges remain. Overcoming these challenges
will likely require years of additional development work, and ultimate success in overcoming
them is not guaranteed.42
42
Laser skeptics sometimes note that laser proponents over the years have made numerous predictions about when
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
17
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
SSLs
As shown in Figure 12, remaining development challenges for SSLs include, among other things,
making the system rugged enough for extended shipboard use, making the beam director (the
telescope-like part of the laser that sends the beam toward the target) suitable for use in a marine
environment (where moisture and salt in the air can be harsh on equipment), and integrating the
system into the ship’s electrical power system and combat system.
Figure 12. Development Challenges for SSLs
As of February 2013
Source: Slide from Navy briefing entitled “Navy Solid State Laser Program Overview,” ASNE Day 2013, Mr.
Peter “Rollie” Morrison, ONR 35 S&T Program Office, February 22, 2013, accessed August 13, 2015, at
https://www.navalengineers.org/ProceedingsDocs/ASNEDay2013/Morrison_Pres.pdf.
(...continued)
lasers might enter service with DOD, and that these predictions repeatedly have not come to pass. Viewing this record
of unfulfilled predictions, skeptics might argue that “lasers are X years in the future—and always will be.” Laser
proponents acknowledge the record of past unfulfilled predictions, but argue that the situation has now changed
because of rapid advancements in SSL technology and a shift from earlier ambitious goals (such as developing
megawatt-power lasers for countering targets at tens or hundreds of miles) to more realistic goals (such as developing
kilowatt-power lasers for countering targets at no more than a few miles). Laser proponents might argue that laser
skeptics are vulnerable to what might be called cold plate syndrome (i.e., a cat that sits on a hot plate will not sit on a
hot plate again—but it will not sit on a cold plate, either).
Congressional Research Service
18
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
A January 23, 2015, blog post co-authored by the Office of Naval Research’s program officer for
the Navy’s SSL program states:
In the near term, many challenges remain to develop and operate high-energy laser
systems in the maritime environment that are unique to the Navy and Marine Corps.
Among these challenges is dealing with the heat generated as power levels increase. A
second issue is packing sufficient power on the platform, which will require advanced
battery, generator, power conditioning, and hybrid energy technologies. Current laser
technologies are approximately 30 percent electrically efficient. Corrosion and
contamination of optical windows by shipboard salt spray, dirt, and grime also are
technical challenges. In addition, atmospheric turbulence resulting from shifting weather
conditions, moisture, and dust is problematic. Turbulence can cause the air over long
distances to act like a lens, resulting in the laser beam’s diffusing and distorting, which
degrades its performance.
Much progress has been made in demonstrating high-energy laser weapon systems in the
maritime environment, but there is still much to be done. Additional advances will be
required to scale power levels to the hundreds of kilowatts that will make high[-]energy
lasers systems robust, reliable, and affordable. Higher power levels are important for the
ability to engage more challenging threats and improve the rate and range at which
targets can be engaged.
The programs managed by ONR are addressing these remaining issues while positioning
this important warfighting capability toward an acquisition program and eventual
deployment with the fleet and force.43
EMRG and HVP
As shown in Figure 13, remaining development challenges for EMRG involve items relating to
the gun itself (including increasing barrel life to desired levels), the projectile, the weapon’s
electrical power system, and the weapon’s integration with the ship. Fielding HVP on cruisers and
destroyers ships equipped with 5-inch and 155mm powder guns would additionally require HVP
to be integrated with the combat systems of those ships.
43
Peter Morrison and Dennis Sorenson, “Developing a High-Energy Laser for the Navy,” Future Force, January 23,
2015, accessed August 13, 2015, at http://futureforce.navylive.dodlive.mil/2015/01/high-energy-laser/. The authors are
identified at the end of the post as follows: “Peter Morrison is the Office of Naval Research’s program officer for the
Navy’s Solid-State Laser program. Dennis Sorenson is a contractor with the Office of Naval Research.”
Congressional Research Service
19
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 13. Development Challenges for EMRG
As of May 2014
Source: Slide 9 from Navy briefing entitled “Electromagnetic Railgun,” NDIA Joint Armaments Forum,
Exhibition & Technology Demonstration, May 14, 2014, LCDR Jason Fox, USN, Assistant PM [Program
Manager], Railgun Ship Integration, Distribution A, Approved for Public Release, accessed August 13, 2015, at
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014armaments/WedFox.pdf.
The Navy states:
The EMRG effort began in FY 2005 with a focus on the barrel, power storage, and rail
technology. In 2015, the Navy is testing full-scale industry advanced composite launchers
for structure strength and manufacturability, and has advanced the pulsed-power system
design from single-shot to actively cooled repeated rate operations. Building on the
success of the first phase, the second phase started in 2012 with a focus on developing
equipment and techniques to fire ten rounds per minute. Thermal-management techniques
required for sustained firing rates are in development for both the launcher system and
the pulsed-power system. The Office of Naval Research will develop a tactical prototype
EMRG launcher and pulsed-power architecture suitable for advanced testing both afloat
and ashore. Railgun demonstration has been funded to occur in FY 2016. 44
A June 2015 press report states:
As the Navy prepares to test its electromagnetic railgun at sea for the first time in 2016,
service leaders said one of the biggest challenges will be integrating the new technology
onto existing platforms.....
44
U.S. Navy, U.S. Navy Program Guide 2015, p. 169.
Congressional Research Service
20
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
[Vice Adm. William Hilarides, commander of Naval Sea Systems Command] said he is
positive the Navy will successfully demonstrate the weapon’s ability to fire from the
Trenton, but one of the biggest challenges will be configuring the railgun so that it fits
within the power structure of other existing platforms.
“Those are not 600-ton margin ships,” he said [meaning ships with 600 tons of growth
margin available to accommodate EMRG]. “If they have 60 tons, if they have 16 tons,
then we’ll be talking about what do we take off our existing destroyers, cruisers and other
ships in order to get this incredible capability [on them].”
These types of discussions are influencing ship designs as program managers look at
what systems are indispensable and what can be exchanged, Hilarides said.
Integrating the railgun into the fleet won’t be a swift process.
It will be at least 10 years until the railgun is fielded on new ships and potentially 30
years past that before the Navy considers removing powder guns from the fleet entirely
and transitioning to energy weapons alone, according to Hilarides. 45
Issues for Congress
Potential Impact of Continuing Resolution (CR) for FY2016
One issue for Congress concerns the potential impact on Navy programs for SSLs, EMRG, and
HVP of an extended continuing resolution (CR) or a full-year CR for FY2016. Extended or fullyear CRs can lead to challenges in program execution because they typically prohibit the
following:
new program starts (“new starts”), meaning the initiation of new program efforts
that did not exist in the prior year;
an increase in procurement quantity for a program compared to that program’s
procurement quantity in the prior year; and
the signing of new multiyear procurement (MYP) contracts.46
In addition, the Navy’s shipbuilding account, known formally as the Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy (SCN) appropriation account, is written in the annual DOD appropriationappropriations act
not just with a total appropriated amount for the entire account (like other DOD acquisition
accounts), but also with specific appropriated amounts at the line-item level. As a consequence,
under a CR (which is typically based on the prior year’s appropriations act), SCN funding is
managed not at the account level (like it is under a CR for other DOD acquisition accounts), but
at the line-item level. For the SCN account—uniquely among DOD acquisition accounts—this
can lead to line-by-line misalignments (excesses and shortfalls) in funding for SCN-funded
programs, compared to the amounts those programs received in the prior year. The shortfalls in
particular can lead to program-execution challenges under an extended or full-year CR.
In addition to the above impacts, a CR might also require the agency (in this case, the Navy) to
divide a contract action into multiple actions, which can increase the total cost of the effort by
reducing economies of scale and increasing administrative costs.
45
Allyson Versprille, “Integration Biggest Challenge for Railgun,” National Defense, June 2015. See also Lance M.
Bacon, “3-Star: ‘Lot of Work’ Before Railgun Arrives in Fleet,” Navy Times, February 5, 2015.
46
For more on MYP contracts, see CRS Report R41909, Multiyear Procurement (MYP) and Block Buy Contracting in
Defense Acquisition: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke and Moshe Schwartz.
Congressional Research Service
21
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
The potential impacts described above can be avoided or mitigated if the CR includes special
provisions (called anomalies) for exempting individual programs or groups of programs from the
termsgeneral provisions of the CR, or if the CR includes expanded authorities for DOD for
reprogramming and
transferring funds.
Potential Oversight Questions
Potential oversight questions for Congress regarding Navy programs for SSLs, EMRG, and HVP
include the following:
Using currently available approaches for countering ASCMs and ASBMs, how
well could Navy surface ships defend themselves in a combat scenario against an
adversary such as China that has large numbers of ASCMs (including advanced
models) and ASBMs? How would this change if Navy surface ships in coming
years were equipped with SSLs, EMRG, HVP, or some combination of these
systems?
How significant are the remaining development challenges for SSLs, EMRG, and
HVP?
Are current schedules for developing SSLs, EMRG, and HVP appropriate in
relation to remaining development challenges and projected improvements in
enemy ASCMs and ASBMs? To what degree are current schedules for
developing SSLs, EMRG, or HVP sensitive to annual funding levels?
When does the Navy anticipate issuing roadmaps detailing its plans for procuring
and installing production versions of SSLs, EMRGs, and HVP on specific Navy
ships by specific dates?
Will the kinds of surface ships that the Navy plans to procure in coming years
have sufficient space, weight, electrical power, and cooling capability to take full
advantage of SSLs (particularly those with beam powers above 200 kW) and
EMRG? What changes, if any, would need to be made in Navy plans for
procuring large surface combatants (i.e., destroyers and cruisers) or other Navy
ships to take full advantage of SSLs and EMRG?
Are the funding sources for SSLs, EMRG, and HVP in Navy and Defense-Wide
research and development accounts (see “Congressional Action on FY2016
Funding” below) sufficiently visible for supporting congressional oversight?
Legislative Activity for FY2016
Congressional Action on FY2016 Funding
Funding in the defense budget for research and development work on Navy SSLs, EMRG, and
HVP is spread across several research and development account line items (which are known as
program elements, or PEs). The PEs shown in the table below capture much but not necessarily
all of the funding for developing Navy SSLs, EMRG, and HVP. The PEs shown in the table,
moreover, include funding for efforts other than Navy SSLs, EMRG, and HVP, so congressional
changes from requested amounts might or might not relate to SSLs, EMRG, or HVP.
Congressional Research Service
22
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 1. Summary of Congressional Action on FY16 Funding
In millions of dollars, rounded to nearest tenth
Authorization
Program Element (PE) number, PE
name, FY16 budget line number
Appropriation
Req.
HASC
SASC
Conf.
HAC
SAC
0602114N, Power Projection Applied
Research, line 4
68.7
68.7
68.7
68.7
73.7
86.7
0602750N, Future Naval Capabilities
Applied Research, line 13
179.7
0603114N, Power Projection Advanced
Technology, line 15
Conf.
Appropriation
HAC
SAC
68179.7
73179.7
86179.7
179.7
179.7
179.7
179.70603114N, Power Projection Advanced
Technology, line 15
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.1
0603673N, Future Naval Capabilities
Advanced Technology Development, line
20
258.9
248.9
248.9
258.9
265.9
258.9
0603925N, Directed Energy and Electric
Weapon System, line 73
67.4
67.4
67.4
67.4
55.2
40.2
0604250D8Z, Advanced Innovative
Technology, line 97
469,8
469.8
469.8
469.8
469.8
469.8
Conf.
Source: For request: Navy FY16 budget submission. For House Armed Services Committee (HASC): H.Rept.
114-102. For Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC): S.Rept. 114-49. For authorization conference: H.Rept.
114-270. For House Appropriations Committee
(HAC): H.Rept. 114-139. For Senate Appropriations Committee
(SAC): S.Rept. 114-63.
Notes: The PEs shown in the table below capture much but not necessarily all of the funding for work on Navy
SSLs, EMRG, and HVP. The PEs shown in the table, moreover, include funding for efforts other than Navy SSLs,
EMRG, and HVP.
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735/S. 1376)
House
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 114-102 of May 5, 2015) on H.R.
1735, states:
Naval electric weapons systems fielding plan
The committee is aware that the Navy has been pursuing development and operational
demonstration of a number of electric weapons systems, including both directed energy
systems and electromagnetic railguns. This class of electric weapons has the potential to
provide revolutionary new capabilities for Navy platforms, including increased range,
increased safety, and deeper magazines than conventional weapons. The committee
believes that such systems will be important in the future to counter cost-imposing
strategies in an anti-access environment where swarms of low-cost weapons could be
used to overwhelm higher-cost, limited numbers of defensive weapons. However, as the
Navy continues to pursue increasing power and decreasing size for such weapons, the
committee believes that the Navy should also be considering how to field and integrate
such systems into future naval platforms in order to facilitate successful transition from
the laboratory to the fleet.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to develop a plan for fielding
electric weapon systems within the Department of the Navy for both the current and
future fleet, and to provide a briefing on the results of this plan to the House Committee
on Armed Services by March 1, 2016. As part of this plan, the Secretary of the Navy
shall detail proposals for the allocation of the requisite power and space for the fielding
Congressional Research Service
23
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
shall detail proposals for the allocation of the requisite power and space for the fielding
of electric weapons systems, such as the Laser Weapons System, electromagnetic railgun,
or other similar systems currently in development for the current and future fleet. (Page
30)
Section 223 of H.R. 1735 as reported by the committee states (emphasis added):
SEC. 223. Plan for advanced weapons technology war games.
(a) Plan required.—The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall develop a plan for integrating advanced weapons technologies
into exercises carried out individually and jointly by the military departments to improve
the development and experimentation of various concepts for employment by the Armed
Forces.
(b) Elements.—The plan under subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) Identification of specific exercises to be carried out individually or jointly by the
military departments under the plan.
(2) Identification of emerging advanced weapons technologies based on joint and
individual recommendations of the military departments, including with respect to
directed-energy weapons, hypersonic strike systems,47 autonomous systems, or other
technologies as determined by the Secretary.
(3) A schedule for integrating either prototype capabilities or table-top exercises into
relevant exercises.
(4) A method for capturing lessons learned and providing feedback both to the developers
of the advanced weapons technology and the military departments.
(c) Submission.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees the plan under subsection
(a).
Regarding Section 223, H.Rept. 114-102 states (emphasis added):
Section 223—Plan for Advanced Weapons Technology War Games
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to develop a plan for integrating advanced technologies, such
as directed energy weapons, hypersonic strike systems,48 and autonomous systems, into
broader title 10 war games to improve socialization with the warfighter and the
development and experimentation of various concepts for employment by the Armed
Forces. The Secretary would be required to submit the plan to the congressional defense
committees not later than 180 days the date of the enactment of this Act.
The committee believes that there are a number of emerging advanced weapons systems,
like directed energy, electromagnetic railguns, hypersonics, and autonomous systems,
that have the potential for dramatically enhancing the military effectiveness of U.S.
forces. The committee has been concerned in the past with the transition of some of these
science and technology concepts into fielded systems, and recognizes that there are a
number of factors that can inhibit this transition. The committee believes that a
significant factor is the lack of experimentation, concept development and war gaming
that can be helpful in ironing out the technology, refining operating concepts and gaining
warfighter trust and confidence in untested systems. The committee is aware of numerous
47
The term “hypersonic strike systems” as used here may refer to certain potential long-range weapons that DOD is
developing separately from HVP.
48
See footnote 47.
Congressional Research Service
24
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
warfighter trust and confidence in untested systems. The committee is aware of numerous
historical examples in which experimentation with new technologies in peacetime have
paved the way for their adoption and effective use in wartime. The committee believes
that increasing integration of these new, advanced technology weapons systems into
existing exercises, either as tangible prototypes or as conceptual excursions, could be
valuable in promoting the experimentation needed to lay the foundation for successful
technology adoption by the warfighting community. (Page 95)
H.Rept. 114-102 also states (emphasis added):
Defense Laboratory Enterprise Infrastructure
The committee recognizes the important role that the Defense Laboratory Enterprise
plays, ensuring the United States maintains technological superiority, responding to the
needs of the Department of Defense, and accelerating delivery of technical capabilities to
the warfighter. To ensure the Defense Laboratory Enterprise is able to continue its
mission, the committee believes it is important that the military departments make
appropriate investments to sustain and recapitalize the infrastructure supporting the
Defense Laboratory Enterprise. The committee notes that several critical technologies,
including hypersonic weapons, directed energy, unmanned aerial systems and
electromagnetic railgun, will potentially transition from development into production in
the coming years. However, the budget request for fiscal year 2016 and the current Future
Years Defense Program do not include military construction projects in support of the
Defense Laboratory Enterprise.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretaries of the military departments, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by March 15, 2016, on the infrastructure supporting the Defense
Laboratory Enterprise. At minimum, the briefing should address the current condition
and capacity of existing infrastructure supporting defense laboratories, infrastructurerelated investments made to defense laboratory infrastructure since fiscal year 2011, and
the required infrastructure investments in laboratories, offices, and support facilities
necessary in the coming years to synchronize Defense Laboratory capacity with the
capability to transition emerging technologies into programs of record. (Pages 351-352)
Senate
Section 212 of S. 1376 as reported by the committee (S.Rept. 114-49 of May 19, 2015) states
(emphasis added):
SEC. 212. Department of Defense technology offset program to build and maintain the
military technological superiority of the United States.
(a) Program established.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish a technology offset
program to build and maintain the military technological superiority of the United States
by—
(A) accelerating the fielding of offset technologies that would help counter technological
advantages of potential adversaries of the United States, including directed energy, lowcost, high-speed munitions, autonomous systems, undersea warfare, cyber technology,
and intelligence data analytics, developed using Department of Defense research funding
and accelerating the commercialization of such technologies; and
(B) developing and implementing new policies and acquisition and business practices.
(2) GUIDELINES.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary shall issue guidelines for the operation of the program, including—
Congressional Research Service
25
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
(A) criteria for an application for funding by a military department, defense agency, or a
combatant command;
(B) the purposes for which such a department, agency, or command may apply for funds
and appropriate requirements for technology development or commercialization to be
supported using program funds;
(C) the priorities, if any, to be provided to field or commercialize offset technologies
developed by certain types of Department research funding; and
(D) criteria for evaluation of an application for funding or changes to policies or
acquisition and business practices by a department, agency, or command for purposes of
the program.
(b) Development of directed energy strategy.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary, in consultation with such officials and third-party experts as the
Secretary considers appropriate, shall develop a directed energy strategy to ensure
that the United States directed energy technologies are being developed and
deployed at an accelerated pace.
(2) COMPONENTS OF STRATEGY.—The strategy required by paragraph (1)
shall include the following:
(A) A technology roadmap for directed energy that can be used to manage and
assess investments and policies of the Department in this high priority technology
area.
(B) Proposals for legislative and administrative action to improve the ability of the
Department to develop and deploy technologies and capabilities consistent with the
directed energy strategy.
(C) An approach to program management that is designed to accelerate operational
prototyping of directed energy technologies and develop cost-effective, real-world
military applications for such technologies.
(3) BIENNIAL REVISIONS.—Not less frequently than once every 2 years, the
Secretary shall revise the strategy required by paragraph (1).
(4) SUBMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—(A) Not later than 90 days after the date on
which the Secretary completes the development of the strategy required by
paragraph (1) and not later than 90 days after the date on which the Secretary
completes a revision to such strategy under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives a copy of such strategy.
(B) The strategy submitted under subparagraph (A) shall be submitted in
unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
(c) Applications for funding.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Under the program, the Secretary shall, not less frequently than
annually, solicit from the heads of the military departments, the defense agencies, and the
combatant commands applications for funding to be used to enter into contracts,
cooperative agreements, or other transaction agreements entered into pursuant to section
845 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–
160; 10 U.S.C. 2371 note) with appropriate entities for the fielding or commercialization
of technologies.
(2) TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CERTAIN CONGRESSIONAL RULES.—Nothing
in this section shall be interpreted to require any official of the Department of Defense to
Congressional Research Service
26
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
provide funding under this section to any earmark as defined pursuant to House Rule
XXI, clause 9, or any congressionally directed spending item as defined pursuant to
Senate Rule XLIV, paragraph 5.
(d) Funding.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of appropriations for such purpose, of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated for research, development, test, and evaluation,
Defense-wide for fiscal year 2016, not more than $400,000,000 may be used for any such
fiscal year for the program established under subsection (a).
(2) AMOUNT FOR DIRECTED ENERGY.—Of this amount, not more than
$200,000,000 may be used for activities in the field of directed energy.
(e) Transfer authority.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may transfer funds available for the program to the
research, development, test, and evaluation accounts of a military department, defense
agency, or a combatant command pursuant to an application, or any part of an
application, that the Secretary determines would support the purposes of the program.
(2) SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.—The transfer authority provided in this
subsection is in addition to any other transfer authority available to the Department of
Defense.
(f) Termination.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The authority to carry out a program under this section shall
terminate on September 30, 2020.
(2) TRANSFER AFTER TERMINATION.—Any amounts made available for the
program that remain available for obligation on the date the program terminates may be
transferred under subsection (e) during the 180-day period beginning on the date of the
termination of the program.
Regarding Section 212, S.Rept. 114-49 states (see in particular the parts in bold):
Department of Defense technology offset program to build and maintain the
military technological superiority of the United States (sec. 212)
The committee notes with concern that the United States has not faced a more diverse
and complex array of crises since the end of World War II, and that taken together, they
constitute the greatest challenge in a generation to the integrity of the liberal world order,
which has consistently been underwritten by U.S. military technological superiority. At
the same time, the committee is alarmed by the apparent erosion in recent years of this
technological advantage, which is in danger of disappearing altogether. To prevent such a
scenario and to maintain the country’s global military technological edge, the committee
recommends a provision that would establish a new $400.0 million initiative.
In doing so, the committee notes that the Defense Department is facing an emerging
innovation gap. Commercial research and development in the United States now
represents 80 percent of the national total, and the top four U.S. defense contractors
combined spend only one-quarter of what the single biggest internet company does on
research and development. Furthermore, global research and development is now more
than twice that of the United States. The committee also notes that defense innovation is
moving too slowly—in cycles that can last up to 18 years, whereas commercial
innovation can be measured in cycles of 18 months or less.
The committee understands that accessing sources of innovation beyond the Defense
Department is critical for national security, particularly in the areas of directed energy,
low-cost high-speed munitions, cyber capabilities, autonomous systems, undersea
warfare, and intelligence data analytics. However, there are currently too many barriers
Congressional Research Service
27
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
that limit cooperation with U.S. allies and global commercial firms, posing a threat to the
country’s future military technological dominance.
For the past several years, U.S. adversaries have been rapidly improving their own
military capabilities to counter our unique advantages. Structural trends, such as the
diffusion of certain advanced military technologies, pose new operational challenges to
U.S. armed forces. As a result, the dominance of the United States military can no longer
be taken for granted. Consequently, the Department of Defense must remain focused on
the myriad potential threats of the future and thus maintain technological superiority
against potential adversaries.
The committee notes that since 1960, the department has invested more than $6.0
billion in directed energy science and technology initiatives. The committee is
concerned that, despite this significant investment, the department’s directed energy
initiatives are not resourced at levels necessary to transition them to full-scale
acquisition programs. The committee is encouraged by the Navy’s demonstration a
100–150 kilowatt prototype laser and by the Air Force’s demonstration of highpowered electromagnetic weapons capabilities. However, the committee is
concerned about the future of directed energy technologies as a whole. The
committee notes that there is no inter-service entity dedicated to advancing
promising directed energy platforms beyond the development point towards
acquisition.
The committee is encouraged that the department established a department-wide Defense
Innovation Initiative in November 2014 to pursue innovative ways to sustain and advance
our military superiority and to improve business operations throughout the department.
However, the committee is concerned by the possibility that this initiative is not being
implemented in an appropriate and expeditious manner.
In response to these factors, the committee recommends a provision that would establish
an initiative within the Department of Defense to maintain and enhance the military
technological superiority of the United States. The provision would establish a program
to accelerate the fielding of offset technologies, including, but not limited to, directed
energy, low-cost high-speed munitions, autonomous systems, undersea warfare, cyber
technology, and intelligence data analytics, developed by the department and to
accelerate the commercialization of such technologies. As part of this program, the
committee expects that the Secretary of Defense would also establish updated policies
and new acquisition and management practices that would speed the delivery of offset
technologies into operational use.
The provision would authorize $400.0 million for fiscal year 2016 for the initiative,
of which $200.0 million would be authorized specifically for directed energy
technology. Accordingly, the provision would mandate the Secretary to develop a
directed energy strategy to ensure that appropriate technologies are developed and
deployed at an accelerated pace, and update it every 2 years. The committee expects
that this strategy would include a recommendation on rationalizing the roles and
authorities of the Joint Technology Office for High Energy Lasers. The provision
would further direct the Secretary to submit this strategy to the Senate Armed
Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee no later than 90 days
after completing the strategy, and biennially thereafter.
To speed up the development of these vitally needed national security capabilities, the
committee directs that the Secretary of Defense shall consider all appropriate flexible
acquisition authorities granted in law and in this Act. These should include the
management structure and streamlined procedures for rapid prototyping outlined in
section 803 of this Act on the middle tier of acquisition for rapid prototyping and rapid
fielding, and the procedures and authorities to be considered under section 805 of this Act
Congressional Research Service
28
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
on use of alternative acquisition paths to acquire critical national security capabilities to
include other transactions, rapid acquisition, and commercial item authorities.
The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense would keep the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services regularly updated on
progress of activities under this technology offsets initiative. (Pages 44-46)
S.Rept. 114-49 also states:
Cost estimate for a land-based electromagnetic railgun program
The committee is aware that the efforts within the Navy to develop an electromagnetic
railgun have been successful in demonstrating early capabilities for naval applications.
Further, the committee recognizes that the Navy’s initial success has spawned
investments within the Strategic Capabilities Office of the Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to pursue development of a landbased electromagnetic railgun to support missile defense.
Recognizing that such investments are still in the demonstration phase, the committee
believes it is important to do as much as possible to plan concurrently for how to proceed
with railgun technology to improve the possibility of transition into a program of record.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation (CAPE) to conduct a cost estimate for a land-based electromagnetic railgun
program, and provide the results to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House
Armed Services Committee by January 1, 2016. As part of the cost estimate briefing,
CAPE should examine the potential costs for the projected life cycle of the railgun
system, as well as comparison of those costs against current systems and other systems
supporting missile defense missions projected to be fielded in the next 10 years. (Page
68)
Conference (Version Vetoed)
The conference report (H.Rept. 114-270 of September 29, 2015) on H.R. 1735 was agreed to by
the House and Senate on October 1 and 7, 2015, respectively, and vetoed by the President on
October 22, 2015.
Section 1680 of H.R. 1735 states (see in particular the parts in bold):
SEC. 1680. Boost phase defense system.
(a) In general.—The Secretary of Defense shall—
(1) prioritize technology investments in the Department of Defense to support feasible
and cost-effective efforts by the Missile Defense Agency to develop and field an airborne
boost phase defense system by not later than fiscal year 2025;
(2) ensure that development and fielding of a boost phase missile defense layer to the
ballistic missile defense system supports multiple warfighter missile defense
requirements, including, specifically, protection of the United States homeland and allies
of the United States against ballistic missiles, particularly in the boost phase;
(3) continue development and fielding of high-energy lasers, electromagnetic and
other railgun technology, high-power microwave systems, and other advanced
technologies as part of a layered architecture to defend ships and theater bases
against air and cruise missile strikes;
(4) encourage collaboration among the military departments and the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency with respect to high energy laser efforts carried out in support
of the Missile Defense Agency; and
Congressional Research Service
29
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
(5) ensure cooperation and coordination between the Missile Defense Agency with
respect to the plans of the Missile Defense Agency to develop an airborne laser and the
requirements of the Air Force for unmanned aerial vehicles.
(b) Report to Congress.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
the efforts of the Department of Defense to develop and deploy an airborne or other boost
phase defense system for missile defense by fiscal year 2025.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The report under paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) Such schedules, costs, warfighter requirements, operational concept, constraints,
potential alternative boost phase approaches, and other information regarding the efforts
described in paragraph (1) as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(B) Analyses of the efforts described in paragraph (1) with respect to the following cases:
(i) A case in which the Department is under no funding constraints with respect to such
efforts and progress is based on the state of the technology.
(ii) A case in which the Department is under funding constraints and the efforts are
carried out in accordance with a moderately aggressive schedule and are subject to
moderate technical risk.
(iii) A case in which the Department is under funding constraints and the efforts are
carried out in accordance with a less aggressive schedule and are subject to less technical
risk.
(C) An update on related efforts of the Department to develop high energy lasers,
electromagnetic and other railguns, high power microwave systems, and other
advanced technologies to defend ships and theater bases against air and cruise
missile strikes and to protect the homeland of the United States and protect allies of the
United States.
(D) An evaluation of recommendations, including a listing of the recommendations, from
industry on emerging technologies that could be applied for boost phase missile defense.
(E) Such recommendations as the Secretary may have for legislative or administrative
action to enable more rapid fielding of a directed-energy based missile defense system.
(3) FORM.—The report required by paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified
form, but may include a classified annex.
FY2016 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 2685/S. 1558)
House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 114-139 of June 5, 2015) on H.R.
2685, recommends reducing by $12.124 million the Navy’s FY2016 funding request for
0603925N, with the reduction being for “Railgun excess support” ($6 million) and “Program
execution” ($6.124 million) (page 236, line 73).
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 114-63 of June 1, 2015) on S. 1558,
recommends reducing by $27.1 million the Navy’s FY2016 funding request for 0603925N, with
Congressional Research Service
30
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
the reduction being for “Restoring acquisition accountability: Long lead materials for noncompetitive test event in fiscal year 2019” (page 163, line 73). S.Rept. 114-63 states:
Directed Energy.—The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $67,360,000 for a seabased demonstration of an electromagnetic railgun on board a Joint High Speed Vessel in
fiscal year 2016 and to purchase materials for a second, more complex sea-based
demonstration in fiscal year 2019. The Committee continues its strong support for an
electromagnetic railgun program, but remains concerned with the Navy’s acquisition
approach to this developmental program that has limited competition for major
components more than 5 years before the program is scheduled to enter the formal
Department of Defense acquisition process. The Committee notes that the proposed
complex fiscal year 2019 sea-based demonstration continues to drive the Navy towards a
single material solution. The Committee does not agree with this acquisition approach
Congressional Research Service
29
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
and recommends no funds for the fiscal year 2019 sea-based demonstration. (Pages 165166)
Congressional Research Service
3031
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendix. Potential Advantages and Limitations of
Shipboard Lasers
This appendix presents additional information on potential advantages and limitations of
shipboard lasers.
Potential Advantages
In addition to a low marginal cost per shot and deep magazine, potential advantages of shipboard
lasers include the following:
Fast engagement times. Light from a laser beam can reach a target almost
instantly (eliminating the need to calculate an intercept course, as there is with
interceptor missiles) and, by remaining focused on a particular spot on the target,
cause disabling damage to the target within seconds. After disabling one target, a
laser can be redirected in several seconds to another target.
Ability to counter radically maneuvering missiles. Lasers can follow and
maintain their beam on radically maneuvering missiles that might stress the
maneuvering capabilities of Navy SAMs.
Precision engagements. Lasers are precision-engagement weapons—the light
spot from a laser, which might be several inches in diameter, affects what it hits,
while generally not affecting (at least not directly) separate nearby objects.
Graduated responses. Lasers can perform functions other than destroying
targets, including detecting and monitoring targets and producing nonlethal
effects, including reversible jamming of electro-optic (EO) sensors. Lasers offer
the potential for graduated responses that range from warning targets to
reversibly jamming their systems, to causing limited but not disabling damage (as
a further warning), and then finally causing disabling damage.
Potential Limitations
Potential limitations of shipboard lasers include the following:
Line of sight. Since laser light tends to fly through the atmosphere on an
essentially straight path, shipboard lasers would be limited to line-of-sight
engagements, and consequently could not counter over-the-horizon targets or
targets that are obscured by intervening objects. This limits in particular potential
engagement ranges against small boats, which can be obscured by higher waves,
or low-flying targets. Even so, lasers can rapidly reacquire boats obscured by
periodic swells.
Atmospheric absorption, scattering, and turbulence. Substances in the
atmosphere—particularly water vapor, but also things such as sand, dust, salt
particles, smoke, and other air pollution—absorb and scatter light from a
shipboard laser, and atmospheric turbulence can defocus a laser beam. These
effects can reduce the effective range of a laser. Absorption by water vapor is a
particular consideration for shipboard lasers because marine environments
feature substantial amounts of water vapor in the air. There are certain
wavelengths of light (i.e., “sweet spots” in the electromagnetic spectrum) where
atmospheric absorption by water vapor is markedly reduced. Lasers can be
Congressional Research Service
3132
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
designed to emit light at or near those sweet spots, so as to maximize their
potential effectiveness. Absorption generally grows with distance to target,
making it in general less of a potential problem for short-range operations than
for longer-range operations. Adaptive optics, which make rapid, fine adjustments
to a laser beam on a continuous basis in response to observed turbulence, can
counteract the effects of atmospheric turbulence. Even so, lasers might not work
well, or at all, in rain or fog, preventing lasers from being an all-weather solution.
Thermal blooming. A laser that continues firing in the same exact direction for a
certain amount of time can heat up the air it is passing through, which in turn can
defocus the laser beam, reducing its ability to disable the intended target. This
effect, called thermal blooming, can make lasers less effective for countering
targets that are coming straight at the ship, on a constant bearing (i.e., “down-thethroat” shots). Other ship self-defense systems, such as interceptor missiles or a
CIWS, might be more suitable for countering such targets. Most tests of laser
systems have been against crossing targets rather than “down-the-throat” shots.
In general, thermal blooming becomes more of a concern as the power of the
laser beam increases.
Saturation attacks. Since a laser can attack only one target at a time, requires
several seconds to disable it, and several more seconds to be redirected to the
next target, a laser can disable only so many targets within a given period of time.
This places an upper limit on the ability of an individual laser to deal with
saturation attacks—attacks by multiple weapons that approach the ship
simultaneously or within a few seconds of one another. This limitation can be
mitigated by installing more than one laser on the ship, similar to how the Navy
installs multiple CIWS systems on certain ships.
Hardened targets and countermeasures. Less-powerful lasers—that is, lasers
with beam powers measured in kilowatts (kW) rather than megawatts (MW)—
can have less effectiveness against targets that incorporate shielding, ablative
material, or highly reflective surfaces, or that rotate rapidly (so that the laser spot
does not remain continuously on a single location on the target’s surface) or
tumble. Small boats could employ smoke or other obscurants to reduce their
susceptibility to laser attack. Measures such as these, however, can increase the
cost and/or weight of a weapon, and obscurants could make it more difficult for
small boat operators to see what is around them, reducing their ability to use their
boats effectively.
Risk of collateral damage to aircraft, satellites, and human eyesight. Since
light from an upward-pointing laser that does not hit the target would continue
flying upward in a straight line, it could pose a risk of causing unwanted
collateral damage to aircraft and satellites. The light emitted by SSLs being
developed by the Navy is of a frequency that can cause permanent damage to
human eyesight, including blinding. Blinding can occur at ranges much greater
than ranges for damaging targeted objects. Scattering of laser light off the target
or off fog or particulates in the air can pose a risk to exposed eyes.49
49
The United States in 1995 ratified the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restriction on the Use of Certain
Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. An
international review of the convention began in 1994 and concluded in May 1996 with the adoption of, among other
things, a new Protocol IV on blinding laser weapons. The protocol prohibits the employment of lasers that are
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3233
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
For additional background information on potential Navy shipboard SSLs, see CRS Report
R41526, Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Author Contact Information
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610
(...continued)
specifically designed to cause permanent blindness to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The
United States ratified Protocol IV on December 23, 2008, and it entered into force for the United States on July 21,
2009. DOD views the protocol as fully consistent with DOD policy. DOD believes the lasers discussed in this report
are consistent with DOD policy of prohibiting the use of lasers specifically designed to cause permanent blindness to
the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. For further discussion, see Appendix I (“Protocol on
Blinding Lasers”) in CRS Report R41526, Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background
and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
3334