Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Changes from March 18, 2016 to May 27, 2016
This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity
Projectile: Background and Issues for
Congress
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
May 27, 2016
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
Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Contents
- Introduction
- Issue for Congress
- Scope of Report
- Background
- Strategic and Budgetary Context
- Concern about Survivability of Navy Surface Ships
- Depth of Magazine and Cost Exchange Ratio
- SSLs, EMRG, and HVP in Brief
- SSLs
- EMRG
- HVP
- Indirectly Improving Ability to Counter ASCMs and ASBMs
- Remaining Development Challenges
- SSLs
- EMRG and HVP
- Issues for Congress
- Potential Oversight Questions
- Legislative Activity for FY2017
- Summary of Congressional Action on FY2017 Funding
Figures
- Figure 1. Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on USS Ponce
- Figure 2. Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on USS Ponce
- Figure 3. Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on USS Ponce
- Figure 4. Laser Weapon System Demonstrator (LWSD) on Self Defense Test Ship
- Figure 5. Laser Weapon System Demonstrator (LWSD) on Self Defense Test Ship
- Figure 6. ONR Graphic of LWSD Components
- Figure 7. Industry-Built EMRG Prototype Demonstrator
- Figure 8. Industry-Built EMRG Prototype Demonstrator
- Figure 9. EMRG Prototype Demonstrator Installed on a JHSV
- Figure 10. Photograph Showing HVP
- Figure 11. HVP
- Figure 12. HVP Launch Packages
- Figure 13. HVP Application to Various Launchers
- Figure 14. Navy Slide Depicting Operations Against Various Target Types
- Figure 15. Development Challenges for SSLs
- Figure 16. Development Challenges for EMRG
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).
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 surface-shipsurfaceship 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
-
How significant are the remaining development challenges for SSLs, EMRG, and
HVP? - Are current schedules for developing SSLs, EMRG, and HVP appropriate in
-
When does the Navy anticipate issuing roadmaps detailing its plans for procuring
-
Will the kinds of surface ships that the Navy plans to procure in coming years
-
Are the funding sources for SSLs, EMRG, and HVP in Navy and Defense-Wide
congressional oversight?
Introduction
Issue for Congress
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
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 surface-shipsurfaceship 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.22 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
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.
Background
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
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),44 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.55 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.66 Such changes in Navy operating areas and fleet
architecture could substantially affect U.S. military strategy and the composition of the Navy's ’s
shipbuilding expenditures.
Navy surface fleet leaders in early 2015 announced a new organizing concept for the Navy's ’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 very-highveryhigh-value Navy surface ships (particularly the Navy'’s aircraft carriers).77 Perspectives on whether 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
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 long-standing 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.
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 ammunition8ammunition8—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),99 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 anti-shipantiship 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
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 anti-shipantiship 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.
SSLs, EMRG, and HVP offer a potential for dramatically improving depth of magazine and the
(...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:
Depthcost exchange ratio:
Depthof magazine.. SSLs are electrically powered, drawing their power from'’s overall electrical supply, and can be fired over and over, indefinitely, as'’s projectile and the HVP (which are one and the same—see next'’s weapon11Cost11 Cost exchange ratio.. An SSL can be fired for a marginal cost of less than one'’s projectile/HVP has an estimated unit12
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 Navy
Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed].
, by Ronald O'Rourke. SSLs, EMRG, and HVP in Brief
SSLs
Overview
SSLs
Overview
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 SSLs13SSLs13 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.1414 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 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 15
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
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
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.
potential advantages and limitations are discussed in greater detail in the Appendix.
Selected Key Developments
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
-
Between 2010 and 2011, the Navy tested another prototype SSL called the
-
In April 2013, the Navy announced that it planned to install LaWS on the USS
16—to16—to conduct evaluation of shipboard lasers in an operational setting against swarming1717 The system was installed in August 2014 (see,, Figure 2, and Figure 3). - ).
In March 2014, it was reported that the Navy anticipated moving to a shipboard
"“the FY2018 time frame"” and achieving an initial18 In December 2014, the Navy declared LaWS on the Ponce to be an "operational" system.19
18
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.
Congressional Research Service
5
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
In December 2014, the Navy declared LaWS on the Ponce to be an “operational”
system.19
In January 2016, the Navy stated that it anticipated releasing a directed energy
weapon roadmap in February 2016.20
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
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.)
The Navy testified on February 24, 2016, that
the Solid State Laser Quick Reaction Capability (SSL-QRC) was fielded as a science and
technology demonstration aboard the USS PONCE. It was successfully demonstrated as an
effective weapon system and was subsequently transitioned to the fleet in the Central Command
area of responsibility and is now an operational system.
(Statement of Rear Admiral Mathias W. Winter, United States Navy, Chief of Naval Research,
Before the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the House Armed Services
Committee on The Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request, February 24, 2016, p. 15.)
20
Justin Doubleday, “Winter: Navy Directed-Energy Strategy To Be Released This Month,” Inside the Navy, February
1, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
6
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, |
. Figure 2. Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on USS Ponce |
Source: Navy photograph dated November 17, 2014, accompanying David Smalley, |
. 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, |
. SSL Technology Maturation (SSL-TM) Program
LaWS has a reported beam power of 30 kilowatts (kW),2021 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, among others, competed to develop a shipboard laser with a
beam power of 100 kW to 150 kW, which would provide increased effectiveness against small
21
See, for example, Mike McCarthy, “Navy Authorized To Use Ship-Based Laser In Battle,” Defense Daily, December
11, 2014: 3.
Congressional Research Service
8
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
boats and UAVs.22boats 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 several hundred kW, if not one megawatt (MW) or more—could improve a laser's ’s
effectiveness against ASCMs and enable it to counter ASBMs.22
23
On October 22, 2015, DOD announced that it had selected Northrop Grumman as the winner of
the SSL-TM competition. DOD'’s contract-award announcement stated:
Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corp., Redondo Beach, California, is
being awarded a $53,151,809 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the Solid State High Power
Laser Weapon System Demonstrator (LWSD) program.... The Office of Naval Research
seeks to continue the advancement of SSL weapon system designs, architectures, and
component technologies. The government believes that improvements in lethality may be
achieved through maturation and optimization of a variety of system characteristics,
including laser power, beam quality, beam director architecture, and other physical and
optical aspects of the laser, beam director, and system design. Leveraging our experience
and internal investments, the Northrop Grumman team is ready to fully support the three
phases of the LWSD program. This contract contains options, which if exercised, will
bring the contract value to $91,057,597. Work will be performed in Redondo Beach,
California, and is expected to be completed Oct. 21, 2016. If options are exercised, work
will continue through July 7, 2018.... This contract was competitively procured under the
Office of Naval Research broad agency announcement 15-0005 entitled "“Solid State,
High Power Laser Weapon System Demonstrator (LWSD) Design, Development and
Demonstration for Surface Navy, USN." ” Six proposals were received in response to this
solicitation.23
24
A December 22, 2016, Northrop Grumman news release about the October 22, 2016, contract
award stated:
During Phase 1 of the LWSD contract, Northrop Grumman will develop a detailed design
for the new system. Phase 2 will include assembly and ground test of the system, while
Phase 3 will comprise at-sea testing of the system aboard the Navy's Self Defense Test
Ship (SDTS). The Navy will lead this testing with Northrop Grumman providing
technical support. The SDTS is the former USS Paul F. Foster (DD-964).
According to Renard, Northrop Grumman's LWSD is well suited to support the Navy's
planned initial testing on the SDTS. The company has designed its system to be installed,
however, with minimal modification or additional costs, for demonstration on the Navy's
DDG-51 FLT II class destroyers.24
Figure 4 shows an artist's rendering of LWSD installed on the Navy's Self Defense Test Ship (the 25
22
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/.
23
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.”
24
DOD contract award announcements for October 22, 2015, accessed December 18, 2015, at:
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/625630.
25
“US Navy Selects Northrop Grumman to Design and Produce Shipboard Laser Weapon System Demonstrator,”
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 4 shows an artist’s rendering of LWSD installed on the Navy’s Self Defense Test Ship (the
USS Paul F. Foster [DD-964], an old Spruance [DD-963] class destroyer).
USS Paul F. Foster [DD-964], an old Spruance [DD-963] class destroyer).
Figure 4. Laser Weapon System Demonstrator (LWSD) on Self Defense Test Ship Artist's rendering |
Artist’s rendering
Source: Cropped version of image accessed on March 18, 2016, at |
. Figure 5 is a detail from the above photo.
(...continued) December 22, 2016, accessed March 18, 2016, at: http://www.globenewswire.com/newsarchive/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=10158731. See also Richard Scott, “Northrop Grumman To Build on MLD for SSL Demonstrator,” IHS Jane’s International Defence Review, February 2016: 5. Congressional Research Service 10 Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress Figure 5. Laser Weapon System Demonstrator (LWSD) on Self Defense Test Ship Artist's rendering |
Artist’s rendering
Source: Cropped version of image accessed on March 18, 2016, at |
.
Figure 6 Is an Office of Naval Research (ONR) graphic illustration of the LWSD'’s major
components.
Congressional Research Service
11
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 6. ONR Graphic of LWSD Components
Artist’s rendering
components.
Artist's rendering |
Source: Slide from February 2016 ONR briefing to CRS on SSL-TM program, received from Navy Office of |
Directed Energy Roadmap
A July 28, 2015, press report stated:
[Secretary of the Navy Ray] Mabus said he would release a DE [directed energy]25 26
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],2627 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
26
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.
27
The Program Objective Memorandum (POM) is an internal DOD document that guides the preparation of a budget
for a particular fiscal year.
Congressional Research Service
12
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
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.27
EMRG
28
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.28 In 29 In
EMRG, "“magnetic fields created by high electrical currents accelerate a sliding metal conductor,
or armature, between two rails to launch projectiles at [speeds of] 4,500 mph to 5,600 mph,"29 or ”30 or
roughly Mach 5.9 to Mach 7.4 at sea level.3031 Like SSLs, EMRG draws its power from the ship's ’s
overall electrical supply.3132 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.32 In 33 In
response to Section 243 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540//P.L. 112-8111281 of December 31, 2011), the Navy in September 2012 submitted to the congressional defense
committees a report on the EMRG development effort.33
34
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 7 and Figure 8).
BAE prototype |
|
. Congressional Research Service 14 Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress Figure 8. Industry-Built EMRG Prototype Demonstrator General Atomics prototype |
Source: navy photograph dated July 8, 2014, accessed August 12, 2015, at |
.
The two industry-built prototypes are designed to fire projectiles at energy levels of 20 to 32
megajoules,3435 which is enough to propel a projectile 50 to 100 nautical miles.3536 (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.
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.36 37 Figure 9 is an artist's ’s
rendering of that installation.
In January 2015, it was reported that the Navy is projecting that EMRG could become operational
on a Navy ship between 2020 and 2025.3738 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.38
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.3940 Navy cruisers each have two 5-inch guns, and most Navy destroyers each have one 5-inch gun. The Navy's three new Zumwalt
(...continued)
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.
40
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.)
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,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16
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.
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 10 and Figure 11 show the HVP.
|
show the HVP.
Figure 10. Photograph Showing HVP
Source: Navy photograph dated April 4, 2014, with a caption that reads: |
|
.
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.4041 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]4142—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."42
”43
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
41
Source: Sam LaGrone, “Updated: Navy Researching Firing Mach 3 Guided Round from Standard Deck Guns,” USNI
News, June 1, 2015 (updated June 2, 2015).
42
The type of 5-inch gun on Navy cruisers and destroyers is called the Mark 45.
43
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
18
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
integrated into cruiser and destroyer combat systems. Figure 12 shows HVP launch packages
configured for 5-inch guns, 155mm guns, and EMRG.
Figure 12. HVP Launch Packages Launch packages for 5-inch gun, 155mm gun, and EMRG |
Source: BAE Systems, |
.
Figure 13 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 5-inch5inch powder guns, stating that it uses a high-explosive (HE) warhead for the NSFS mission;4344 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).
|
|
.
Figure 14 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 20 Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress Figure 14. Navy Slide Depicting Operations Against Various Target Types |
Source: Slide 5 from Navy briefing entitled |
.
An April 11, 2016, press report states:
The Pentagon wants to take a weapon originally designed for offense, flip its punch for
defense and demonstrate by 2018 the potential for the Army and Navy to conduct missile
defense of bases, ports and ships using traditional field guns to fire a new hypervelocity
round guided by a mobile, ground variant of an Air Force fighter aircraft radar.
The Strategic Capabilities Office is working with the Army, Navy and Air Force to craft
a Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System that aims, in part, to provide China and Russia an
example of a secret collection of new U.S. military capabilities the Defense Department
is bringing online in an effort to strengthen conventional deterrence.
"It is a fantastic program," Will Roper, Strategic Capabilities Office director, said in a
March 28 interview with reporters, who said the project aims "to completely lower the
cost of doing missile defense" by defeating missile raids at a lower cost per round and, as
a consequence, imposing higher costs on attackers. 45
A May 5, 2016, press report states:
45
Jason Sherman, “SCO Aims To Flip The Script on Missile Defense With Hypervelocity Gun,” Inside the Navy, April
11, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
21
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Come January [2017], the Pentagon will almost assuredly have new leadership, complete
with a new vision for how the Department of Defense should operate, organize and plan
for the future.
It’s a reality facing down Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Deputy Secretary Bob Work
as they try to complete a transformation at the Pentagon, one which both men have said is
vital to making sure the US is able to maintain its technological edge against great
powers like Russia and China in the future.
While Carter has made his reach-out to nontraditional communities the centerpiece of his
initiative, Work’s focus has been the “Third Offset,” a series of technological bets,
largely focused on man-unmanned teaming, that he believes will pay off in the future.
So how do you make sure that a long-term project like the Third Offset keeps going
under a new administration?
“We have three really complimentary ways to go about this,” Work said Monday at an
event hosted by the Atlantic Council.
The first, he explained, is giving many options to the next administration.
“First of all, I’m going to be central to the transition, so I am going to be able to
personally talk with the transition team and explain to them what we have pursued and
why we have pursued it, and let them make their own decisions,” Work said.
“One of the things we have done in our program is build in a lot of different options that
they can pull levers on,” Work explained.
As an example, he pointed to the idea of an electromagnetic railgun. Initially, Work and
his team thought that was an area that would be a major focus of development, but as
they experimented they realized that a powder gun with a hypervelocity round could have
almost the same impact — but at a fraction of the cost, because it did not require the
development, testing and adaptation of a new gun.
“We’re going to say ‘look, this is the place where [we think] you want to put your
money,’ but we’re going to have enough money in both the electromagnetic railgun and
the powder gun that if the new administration says ‘I really want the electromagnetic
railgun, this is the way I want to go,’ knock yourself out,” Work said. “We’ve set you up
for success.”46
Indirectly Improving Ability to Counter ASCMs and ASBMs
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
46
Aaron Mehta, “Pentagon No. 2: How to Keep Third Offset Going in the Next Administration,” Defense News, May
5, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
22
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
will likely require years of additional development work, and ultimate success in overcoming
them is not guaranteed.44
SSLs
47
SSLs
As shown in Figure 15, 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.
s electrical power system and combat system.
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. |
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.45
EMRG and HVP
As shown in Figure 16, 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 48
47
Laser skeptics sometimes note that laser proponents over the years have made numerous predictions about when
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).
48
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
23
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 15. 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.
EMRG and HVP
As shown in Figure 16, 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.
Congressional Research Service
24
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
to be integrated with the combat systems of those ships.
Figure 16. Development Challenges for EMRG
As of May 2014
|
Source: Slide 9 from Navy briefing entitled |
. 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 2016.46
49 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.....
49
U.S. Navy, U.S. Navy Program Guide 2015, p. 169.
Congressional Research Service
25
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.47
50 Issues for Congress
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
-
How significant are the remaining development challenges for SSLs, EMRG, and
HVP? - Are current schedules for developing SSLs, EMRG, and HVP appropriate in
-
When does the Navy anticipate issuing roadmaps detailing its plans for procuring
-
Will the kinds of surface ships that the Navy plans to procure in coming years
-
50
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.
Congressional Research Service
26
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Are the funding sources for SSLs, EMRG, and HVP in Navy and Defense-Wide
"“Summary of Congressional Action on"” below) sufficiently visible for supporting congressional
Legislative Activity for FY2017
Summary of Congressional Action on FY2017 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 Table 1 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.
Table 1. Summary of Congressional Action on FY17 Funding
In millions of dollars, rounded to nearest tenth
Authorization
Program Element (PE) number, PE |
Req. |
Authorization |
Appropriation |
||||
|
HASC |
SASC |
Conf. |
HAC |
SAC |
Conf. |
||
|
0602114N, Power Projection Applied Research, line 4 |
41.4 |
||||||
|
165.1 |
||||||
|
0603114N, Power Projection Advanced Technology, line 16 |
96.4 |
||||||
|
249.1 |
||||||
|
0603925N, Directed Energy and Electric Weapon System, line 75 |
32.7 |
||||||
|
844.9 |
||||||
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on Navy FY17 budget submission and committee and conference
reports.
Notes: HASCreports.
Notes: HASC is House Armed Services Committee; SASCSASC is Senate Armed Services Committee; HAC is HAC is
House Appropriations Committee; SACSAC is Senate Appropriations Committee; Conf. is conference agreement.
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.
FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909/S. 2943)
House
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 114-537 of May 4, 2016) on H.R.
4909, recommended the funding levels shown in the HASC column of Table 1. The
recommended increase of $10 million for PE 0603114N, Power Projection Advanced Technology
Congressional Research Service
27
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
(line 16) is for “Program increase for common mount.” (Page 498) The recommended reduction
of $40 million for PE 0604250D8Z, Advanced Innovative Technology (line 95) is for “SCO” (the
Strategic Capabilities Office). (Page 518) H.Rept. 114-537 states:
Common mount for electromagnetic railgun
The budget request contained $96.4 million in PE 63114N for power projection advanced
technology. Of this amount, $15.4 million was included for the Navy’s electromagnetic
railgun prototype.
The committee remains supportive of the Navy’s program for developing and deploying
an electromagnetic railgun. The committee recognizes the growing imperative for the
Navy to field this type of weapon, not only to increase capabilities for naval surface fire
support and ballistic missile defense, but to also decrease the cost exchange model when
comparing the railgun to conventional missiles or guns. However, the committee is
increasingly concerned that the shift in emphasis to the hypervelocity projectile by the
Strategic Capabilities Office has left the Navy with a funding gap in developing the
requirements and design for a common mount, which is a necessary prerequisite to
getting this capability into operational use. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
February 15, 2017, on the plan and milestone schedule for demonstrating and deploying a
common railgun mount for sea- and land-based applications.
The committee recommends $106.4 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in PE 63114N
to support the development of a common mount for the sea-based and land-based
electromagnetic railgun. (Page 61)
H.Rept. 114-537 also states:
Strategic Capabilities Office
The budget request contained $844.9 million in PE 64250D8Z for development activities
of the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO).
Created in 2012 by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, SCO has the mission to identify,
analyze, demonstrate, and transition game-changing applications of existing and nearterm technology to shape and counter emerging threats. SCO is comprised of a relatively
small number of personnel and relies on other program office personnel and resources to
execute its mission. The committee appreciates the nature of SCO’s mission and
sustained leanness of the organization; however, the committee notes the budget for SCO
has grown exponentially each fiscal year. For example, the fiscal year 2017 budget
request is nearly double the request for fiscal year 2016.
The committee is concerned that such rapid budget growth may bring with it some risks,
including the demands on SCO’s small staff, demands on other Department of Defense
personnel, and impact of SCO decisions on existing programs. For example, the
committee is aware of SCO’s inclusion on the electromagnetic railgun development, and
subsequent reprioritizing of its planned investment in that program for fiscal year 2017,
resulting in a funding gap that could not be covered by the program office.
Additionally, the committee remains concerned that the transition of technologies from
SCO has not been adequately captured and conveyed to the oversight committees. The
report required by the committee report (H. Rept. 114–102) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 has not been delivered and is now almost
6 months late. In order to support prudent use of taxpayer resources, and to ensure proper
oversight of these activities, the committee believes this report should be provided and
concerns addressed before supporting full funding of planned activities.
Therefore, the committee recommends $804.9 million, a decrease of $40.0 million, in PE
64250D8Z for development activities of the Strategic Capabilities Office. (Page 92)
Congressional Research Service
28
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Section 220 of H.R. 4909 as reported states:
SEC. 220. Designation of Department of Defense senior official with principal
responsibility for directed energy weapons.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall—
(1) designate a senior official already serving within the Department of Defense as the
official with principal responsibility for the development and demonstration of directed
energy weapons for the Department; and
(2) set forth the responsibilities of that senior official with respect to such programs.
H.Rept. 114-537 also states:
Five-inch precision guided projectile development for naval surface fire support
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114–102) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the committee noted “that current surface Navy
gunnery requirements are outdated and that new technologies such as railgun and directed
energy weapons are nearing readiness for technology transition.” The committee
referenced the Advanced Naval Surface Fires (ANSF) initiative and noted the ANSF was
assessing options for providing a near-term 5-inch guided munition capability. The
committee understands this capability would provide for improved and extended-range
naval surface fire support. The committee continues to support the need for this precision
guided capability and is also aware of the Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System (HGWS)
program that is currently under consideration by the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO).
The committee notes the HGWS program would “flip the cost equation using
conventional guns to defend forward bases against raids of advanced cruise and ballistic
missiles” and believes there could be applications for use in 5-inch gun systems for naval
surface fires support. The committee is encouraged by the development of both of these
initiatives and expects the Navy and SCO to coordinate on these capabilities. The
committee also expects the Navy to proceed forward with an accelerated development
and acquisition strategy for this needed capability that is consistent with acquisition
reform principles. (Pages 62-63)
H.Rept. 114-537 also states:
Technology enablers for directed energy weapon systems
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has made significant advances in
the development and operational demonstration of directed energy weapons systems.
Each military department has demonstrated a marquee program in this area, such as the
Navy’s Laser Weapon System deployed on the USS Ponce, the Army High Energy Laser
Mobile Demonstrator, and the Marine Corps’ Ground Based Air Defense System. Along
with technology demonstration activities like the Robust Electric Laser Initiative and the
High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System, each of these programs demonstrated
the increased power output and power on target necessary to develop a militarily useful
directed energy weapon.
However, as the Department has made progress in raising the power levels of these
systems, it has also demonstrated the need for emphasis on development in other
technology areas necessary to realize the full potential of laser weapons. For example,
higher power output requires improved beam control to engage targets at greater
distances, as well as better thermal management systems to dissipate the increased heat
load. As the Department has been overcoming foundational technical challenges, new
challenges have emerged that will impact the operational uses for directed energy
weapons.
Congressional Research Service
29
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering, in coordination with the research components of the military departments
and the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office, to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by January 20, 2017. This briefing should provide a
roadmap for enabling technologies, including:
(1) Beam directors and adaptive optics, including deformable mirrors;
(2) Thermal management needs and capabilities;
(3) Integration challenges with fire control systems, including potential
future needs for fire control for laser systems;
(4) Power architectures and power electronics needs;
(5) Facilities and test range capabilities; and
(6) Other areas as deemed by the Secretary. (Page 93)
Senate
The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 114-255 of May 18, 2016) on S.
2943, recommended the funding levels shown in the SASC column of Table 1. The
recommended reduction of $15 million to PE 0603114N, Power Projection Advanced Technology
(line 16) is for “General decrease.” (Page 481) The recommended reduction of $10 million to PE
0603673N, Future Naval Capabilities Advanced Technology Development (line 21) is for
“Capable manpower, and power and energy.” (Page 481).51 S.Rept. 114-255 states:
Power projection advanced technology
The budget request included $96.4 million in PE 63114N for power projection advanced
technology. The committee notes that the Navy, Air Force, Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, Strategic Capabilities Office, and other elements within the Department
of Defense are all pursuing advanced power projection technologies and systems. The
committee is concerned that these efforts are not well-coordinated and have uncertain
pathways for transition to programs of record. In addition, the committee notes that the
budget request represents an almost 200 percent increase over the amount enacted for
fiscal year 2016. The committee believes that such a large increase in budget is not
warranted and is concerned about the ability of the programs to absorb the additional
funding. Consequently, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in PE
63114N, but directs that this reduction not be assessed against solid state laser maturation
efforts. (Page 52)
Section 216 of S. 2943 as reported states:
51
This recommended reduction of $10 million does not appear to relate (at least not directly) to lasers, the
electromagnetic railgun, or the HVP. S.Rept. 114-255 states:
Capable manpower and power and energy
The budget request included $249.1 million in PE 63673N for future naval capabilities advanced
technology developments. The activities listed under this program element include capable
manpower and power and energy. The committee believes that the work plans for fiscal year 2017
on these activities does not warrant the level of funding included in the budget request. For
example, the committee notes that the research included in these two projects include development
of new personnel and management methodologies, and capabilities in energy security. Both of
these efforts could be better coordinated with other organizations performing similar research.
Consequently, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63673N to be
distributed appropriately from capable manpower and power and energy. (Page 53)
Congressional Research Service
30
Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity ProjectileEMRG, and HVP.
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 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-the-throat" 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.48
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 [author name scrubbed].
Author Contact Information
Footnotes
| 1. |
Railgun is also spelled as rail gun; EMRG is also abbreviated as EM railgun; hypervelocity is also spelled as hyper-velocity 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 [author name scrubbed]. This earlier CRS report has been archived and remains available as a supplementary reference source on potential Navy shipboard lasers. |
| 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 surface-to-air missiles and the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS), which is essentially a radar-controlled Gatling gun. Employing all these measures reflects a long-standing 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 [author name scrubbed]. 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 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. |
| 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 [author name scrubbed]. |
| 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 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.) The Navy testified on February 24, 2016, that the Solid State Laser Quick Reaction Capability (SSL-QRC) was fielded as a science and technology demonstration aboard the USS PONCE. It was successfully demonstrated as an effective weapon system and was subsequently transitioned to the fleet in the Central Command area of responsibility and is now an operational system. (Statement of Rear Admiral Mathias W. Winter, United States Navy, Chief of Naval Research, Before the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on The Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request, February 24, 2016, p. 15.) |
| 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-Laser-Technology-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/Solid-State-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/. |
| 22. |
|
| 23. |
DOD contract award announcements for October 22, 2015, accessed December 18, 2015, at: http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/625630. |
| 24. |
"US Navy Selects Northrop Grumman to Design and Produce Shipboard Laser Weapon System Demonstrator," December 22, 2016, accessed March 18, 2016, at: http://www.globenewswire.com/newsarchive/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=10158731 . |
| 25. |
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. |
| 26. |
The Program Objective Memorandum (POM) is an internal DOD document that guides the preparation of a budget for a particular fiscal year. |
| 27. |
Megan Eckstein, "Mabus: Adversaries Showing Interest in Directed Energy; Navy Needs to Move Faster," USNI News, July 28, 2015. |
| 28. |
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. |
| 29. |
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. |
| 30. |
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. |
| 31. |
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 25. |
| 32. |
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. |
| 33. |
U.S. Navy, Electromagnetic Railgun System: Final Report to the Congressional Defense Committees, August 2012, with cover letters dated September 18, 2012. For a press report discussing the Navy's report to Congress, see Dan Taylor, "Stackley: Navy Identifies Four Technical Hurdles To Railgun Development," Inside the Navy, November 19, 2012. |
| 34. |
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.) |
| 35. |
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. |
| 36. |
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. |
| 37. |
Sam LaGrone, "Navy Wants Rail Guns to Fight Ballistic and Supersonic Missiles Says RFI," USNI News, January 5, 2015. |
| 38. |
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 [author name scrubbed]. |
| 39. |
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.) 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-hvp-datasheet.) 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.) |
| 40. |
Source: Sam LaGrone, "Updated: Navy Researching Firing Mach 3 Guided Round from Standard Deck Guns," USNI News, June 1, 2015 (updated June 2, 2015). |
| 41. |
The type of 5-inch gun on Navy cruisers and destroyers is called the Mark 45. |
| 42. |
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. |
| 43. |
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). |
| 44. |
Laser skeptics sometimes note that laser proponents over the years have made numerous predictions about when 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). |
| 45. |
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." |
| 46. |
U.S. Navy, U.S. Navy Program Guide 2015, p. 169. |
| 47. |
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. |
| 48. |
|