# Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for Congress

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41526

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** June 23, 2015
- **Citation:** R41526

## Text

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and
Missile Defense: Background and Issues for
Congress
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
June 12, 2015

Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41526

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

Summary
Department of Defense (DOD) development work on high-energy military lasers, which has been
underway for decades, has reached the point where lasers capable of countering certain surface
and air targets at ranges of about a mile could be made ready for installation on Navy surface
ships over the next few years. More powerful shipboard lasers, which could become ready for
installation in subsequent years, could provide Navy surface ships with an ability to counter a
wider range of surface and air targets at ranges of up to about 10 miles.
The Navy and DOD have conducted development work on three principal types of lasers for
potential use on Navy surface ships—fiber solid state lasers (SSLs), slab SSLs, and free electron
lasers (FELs). One fiber SSL prototype demonstrator developed by the Navy is the Laser Weapon
System (LaWS). The Navy in August 2014 installed a LaWS system on the USS Ponce, a ship
operating in the Persian Gulf as an interim Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB[I]), to conduct
continued evaluation of shipboard lasers in an operational setting. The Navy reportedly
anticipates moving to a shipboard laser program of record in “the FY2018 time frame” and
achieving an initial operational capability (IOC) with a shipboard laser in FY2020 or FY2021.
Although the Navy is developing laser technologies and prototypes of potential shipboard lasers,
and has a generalized vision for shipboard lasers, the Navy currently does not yet have a program
of record for procuring a production version of a shipboard laser. The possibility of equipping
Navy surface ships with lasers in coming years raises a number of potential issues for Congress,
including the following:
•

how many types of lasers to continue developing, particularly given constraints
on Navy funding, and the relative merits of types currently being developed; and

•

the potential implications of shipboard lasers for the design and acquisition of
Navy ships, including the Flight III DDG-51 destroyer that the Navy wants to
begin procuring in FY2016.

Congressional Research Service

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Issue for Congress ..................................................................................................................... 1
Scope, Sources, and Terminology ............................................................................................. 2
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Shipboard Lasers in General...................................................................................................... 2
Potential Advantages and Limitations of Shipboard Lasers ................................................ 2
Potential Targets for Shipboard Lasers................................................................................ 6
Required Laser Power Levels for Countering Targets ........................................................ 7
Types of Lasers Being Developed for Potential Shipboard Use................................................ 8
Fiber Solid State Lasers (Fiber SSLs) ................................................................................. 8
Slab Solid State Lasers (Slab SSLs) .................................................................................. 11
Free Electron Lasers (FELs) ............................................................................................. 12
Navy Surface Fleet’s Generalized Vision for Shipboard Lasers.............................................. 12
Remaining Technical Challenges ............................................................................................ 13
Recent Developments .............................................................................................................. 14
Naval Directed Energy Steering Group ............................................................................. 14
Directed Energy Vision for U.S. Naval Forces ................................................................. 15
Directed Energy Roadmap and Possible Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) ........................ 16
Destroyers and LCSs Reportedly Leading Candidate Platforms ...................................... 17
LaWS Installed and Tested on USS Ponce, Declared Operational ................................... 17
Navy Anticipates Program of Record in FY2018 and IOC in FY2020-FY2021 .............. 19
March 2014 Navy Testimony ............................................................................................ 19
FY2016 Funding Request ........................................................................................................ 21
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 22
Number of Laser Types to Continue Developing .................................................................... 22
Potential Strategies ............................................................................................................ 22
Relative Merits of Laser Types.......................................................................................... 22
Implications for Ship Design and Acquisition ......................................................................... 24
Options for Congress ..................................................................................................................... 26
Legislative Activity for FY2016 .................................................................................................... 27
FY2016 Funding Request ........................................................................................................ 27
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735/S. 1376) ........................................ 28
House................................................................................................................................. 28
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 28
FY2016 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 2685/S. 1558) ......................................................... 32
House................................................................................................................................. 32
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 32

Figures
Figure C-1. Photograph of LaWS Prototype ................................................................................. 39
Figure C-2. Rendering of LaWS Integrated on CIWS Mount ....................................................... 40
Figure D-1. Rendering of TLS Integrated on Mk 38 Machine Gun Mount ................................... 42

Congressional Research Service

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

Figure E-1. Photograph of MLD on Trailer ................................................................................... 46
Figure E-2. Schematic of MLD ..................................................................................................... 46
Figure E-3. Rendering of MLD in Notional Shipboard Installation .............................................. 47
Figure F-1. Photograph of an FEL Facility .................................................................................... 50
Figure F-2. Simplified Diagram of How an FEL Works................................................................ 51
Figure F-3. Schematic of an FEL................................................................................................... 51

Tables
Table 1. Surface Navy’s Generalized Vision for Shipboard High-Energy Lasers ......................... 13
Table A-1. Approximate Laser Power Levels Needed to Affect Certain Targets........................... 34

Appendixes
Appendix A. Laser Power Levels Required to Counter Targets .................................................... 34
Appendix B. Navy Organizations Involved in Developing Lasers ................................................ 36
Appendix C. Additional Information on Laser Weapon System (LaWS) ...................................... 37
Appendix D. Additional Information on Tactical Laser System (TLS) ......................................... 41
Appendix E. Additional Information on Maritime Laser Demonstration (MLD) ......................... 43
Appendix F. Additional Information on Free Electron Laser (FEL).............................................. 48
Appendix G. Innovative Naval Prototypes (INPs) ......................................................................... 52
Appendix H. DOD Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) ............................................................ 53
Appendix I. Protocol on Blinding Lasers ...................................................................................... 54
Appendix J. Illumination of Objects in Space ............................................................................... 57
Appendix K. Section 220 of FY2000 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-398) ......................... 58

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 60

Congressional Research Service

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

Introduction
Issue for Congress
Department of Defense (DOD) development work on high-energy military lasers, which has been
underway for decades, has reached the point where lasers capable of countering certain surface
and air targets at ranges of about a mile could be made ready for installation on Navy surface
ships over the next few years. More powerful shipboard lasers, which could become ready for
installation in subsequent years, could provide Navy surface ships with an ability to counter a
wider range of surface and air targets at ranges of up to about 10 miles.
The Navy in August 2014 installed a prototype solid state laser called the Laser Weapon System
(LaWS) on the USS Ponce, a ship operating in the Persian Gulf as an interim Afloat Forward
Staging Base (AFSB[I]), to conduct continued evaluation of shipboard lasers in an operational
setting. The Navy reportedly anticipates moving to a shipboard laser program of record in “the
FY2018 time frame” and achieving an initial operational capability (IOC) with a shipboard laser
in FY2020 or FY2021.1
Compared to existing ship self-defense systems, such as missiles and guns, lasers could provide
Navy surface ships with a more cost effective means of countering certain surface, air, and
ballistic missile targets. Ships equipped with a combination of lasers and existing self-defense
systems might be able to defend themselves more effectively against a range of such targets.
Equipping Navy surface ships with lasers could lead to changes in naval tactics, ship design, and
procurement plans for ship-based weapons, bringing about a technological shift for the Navy—a
“game changer”—comparable to the advent of shipboard missiles in the 1950s.
The central issue for Congress is whether to approve or modify the Administration’s proposed
funding levels for development of potential shipboard lasers, and whether to provide the Navy or
DOD with direction concerning development and procurement programs for shipboard lasers.
Potential specific issues for Congress include the following:
•

how many types of lasers to continue developing, particularly given constraints
on Navy funding, and the relative merits of types currently being developed; and

•

the potential implications of shipboard lasers for the design and acquisition of
Navy ships, including the Flight III DDG-51 destroyer that the Navy wants to
begin procuring in FY2016.

1
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. If a research and development effort is converted into a program or record for procuring an operational weapon
system, the program might then be conducted under the DOD’s process for managing the acquisition of weapon
systems, which is discussed further in CRS Report RL34026, Defense Acquisitions: How DOD Acquires Weapon
Systems and Recent Efforts to Reform the Process, by Moshe Schwartz.

Congressional Research Service

1

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

Decisions that Congress makes regarding potential shipboard lasers could significantly affect
future Navy capabilities and funding requirements, the U.S. industrial base for military lasers, and
the industrial base for existing shipboard self-defense systems.

Scope, Sources, and Terminology
This report focuses on potential Navy shipboard lasers for countering surface, air, and ballistic
missile threats. It does not discuss the use of lasers on Navy aircraft or submarines, or the use of
lasers by other military services. This report is based on unclassified, open-domain information
from the Navy, industry, and research organizations such as RAND.
For purposes of this report, the term “short range” generally refers to ranges of one or two
nautical miles, while references to longer ranges or extended ranges refer to ranges of up to about
10 nautical miles.2 Lasers are one type of directed energy weapon (DEW); other DEWs include
microwave weapons and millimeter wave weapons. (Another new weapon being developed by
the Navy, the electromagnetic rail gun, is an electrically powered weapon, but strictly speaking is
not a directed energy weapon, since it fires a projectile.)

Background
Shipboard Lasers in General
Potential Advantages and Limitations of Shipboard Lasers
Lasers are of interest to the Navy and other observers as potential shipboard weapons because
they have certain potential advantages for countering some types of surface, air, and ballistic
missile targets. Shipboard lasers also have potential limitations for countering such targets.
Potential advantages and limitations are discussed below.

Advantages
Potential advantages of shipboard lasers for countering surface, air, and ballistic missile targets
include the following:
•

Low marginal cost per shot. Shipboard lasers could counter surface, air, and
ballistic missile targets at a low marginal cost per shot. The shipboard fuel
needed to generate the electricity for firing an electrically powered laser would
cost less than a dollar per shot (some sources express the cost in pennies per
shot).3 In contrast, the Navy’s short-range air-defense interceptor missiles cost

2

In discussions of other types of defense systems, the terms short range and long range could have considerably
different meanings. In discussions of the ranges of military airplanes or ballistic missiles, for example, the term short
range might mean a range of hundreds of miles, while references to longer ranges could refer to ranges of thousands of
miles.
3
See, for example, Geoff Fein, “Navy Leveraging Commercial Lasers To Shoot Down UAVs,” Defense Daily, May
11, 2010: 3-4.

Congressional Research Service

2

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

hundreds of thousands (or more than a millions dollars) each, and its longerrange air- and missile-defense interceptor missiles cost several million dollars
each. A laser can give a ship an alternative to using an expensive interceptor
missile to achieve a “hard kill”4 against a much less expensive target, such as an
unsophisticated unmanned air vehicle (UAV). A low marginal cost per shot could
permit the Navy to dramatically improve the cost exchange ratio—the cost of the
attacker’s weapon compared to the Navy’s marginal cost per shot for countering
that weapon. Cost exchange ratios currently often favor the attacker, sometimes
very significantly. Converting unfavorable cost exchange ratios into favorable
ones could be critical for the Navy’s ability in coming years to mount an
affordable defense against adversaries that choose to deploy large numbers of
small boats, UAVs, anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), and anti-ship ballistic
missiles (ASBMs) for possible use against U.S. Navy ships.
•

Deep magazine. Navy surface ships can carry finite numbers of interceptor
missiles in their missile launch tubes. Once a Navy surface ship’s interceptors are
fired, loading a new set of interceptors onto the ship would require the ship to
temporarily withdraw from the battle. The Phalanx Close-In Weapon System
(CIWS) that is installed on Navy surface ships—a radar-controlled Gatling gun
that fires bursts of 20mm shells—similarly can engage a finite number of targets
before it needs to be reloaded, which takes a certain amount of time. In contrast,
an electrically powered laser can be fired again and again, as long as the ship has
fuel to generate electricity (and sufficient cooling capacity to remove waste heat
from the laser). A laser would give a ship a weapon with a deep (some observers
say virtually unlimited) magazine capacity. Lasers could permit Navy surface
ships to more effectively defend themselves against adversaries with more
weapons and decoys than can be handled by the ships’ onboard supplies of
interceptor missiles and CIWS ammunition. A ship equipped with a laser, for
example, could use the laser to counter an initial wave of decoys while
conserving the ship’s finite supply of interceptor missiles and CIWS ammunition
for incoming weapons that are best countered by those systems. Future ships
designed with a combination of lasers and missile-launch tubes could be smaller,
and thus less expensive to procure, than future ships designed with no lasers and
a larger number of missile-launch tubes.

•

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. Fast engagement
times can be particularly important in situations, such as near-shore operations,
where missiles, rockets, artillery shells, and mortars could be fired at Navy ships
from relatively close distances.

•

Ability to counter radically maneuvering air targets. Lasers can follow and
maintain their beam on radically maneuvering air targets (such as certain

4

A “hard kill” involves destroying the attacking weapon in some manner. A “soft kill” involves confusing the weapon
through decoys or other measures, so that it misses its intended target.

Congressional Research Service

3

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

ASCMs) that might stress the maneuvering capabilities of Navy interceptor
missiles.
•

Precision engagement and reduced risk of certain kinds of collateral damage
in port areas. 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. Navy ships
in overseas ports might be restricted in their ability to use the CIWS to defend
themselves against mortars and rockets out of concern that CIWS shells that are
fired upward but miss the target would eventually come back down, possibly
causing collateral damage in the port area. In contrast, light from an upwardpointing laser that does not hit the target would continue flying upward in a
straight line, which can reduce the chance of causing collateral damage to the
port area.

•

Additional uses; 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.5 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.

Limitations
Potential limitations of shipboard lasers for countering surface, air, and ballistic missile targets
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, and more generally might be able to engage targets at longer
ranges than certain existing shipboard gun systems. An airborne mirror, perhaps
mounted on an aerostat,6 could bounce light from a shipboard laser, so as to
permit non-line-of-sight engagements; implementing such an arrangement would
add cost and technical challenges, and the aerostat could be damaged by a
misaimed shipboard laser or enemy attack.

•

Atmospheric absorption, scattering, and turbulence; not an all-weather
solution. 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

5

Reversible jamming means that the jamming does not damage the sensor, and that the sensor can resume normal
operations once the jamming ends.
6
An aerostat is a lighter-than-air object, such as a dirigible or balloon, that can stay stationary in the air.

Congressional Research Service

4

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

environments feature substantial amounts of water vapor in the air.7 There are
certain wavelengths of light (i.e., “sweet spots” in the electromagnetic spectrum)
where atmospheric absorption by water vapor is markedly reduced.8 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-thethroat” shots). Other ship self-defense systems, such as interceptor missiles or a
CIWS, might be more suitable for countering such targets. Most tests of laser
systems have been against crossing targets rather than “down-the-throat” shots.
In general, thermal blooming becomes more of a concern as the power of the
laser beam increases.

•

Saturation attacks. Since a laser can attack only one target at a time, requires
several seconds to disable it, and several more seconds to be redirected to the
next target, a laser can disable only so many targets within a given period of time.
This places an upper limit on the ability of an individual laser to deal with
saturation attacks—attacks by multiple weapons that approach the ship
simultaneously or within a few seconds of one another. This limitation can be
mitigated by installing more than one laser on the ship, similar to how the Navy
installs multiple CIWS systems on certain ships.9

•

Hardened targets and countermeasures. Less-powerful lasers—that is, lasers
with beam powers measured in kilowatts (kW) rather than megawatts (MW)10—
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.11 Small boats could employ smoke or other obscurants to reduce their

7

For further discussion, see P. Sprangle, J.R. Peñano, A. Ting, and B. Hafizi, “Propagation of High-Energy Lasers in a
Maritime Atmosphere,” NRL Review 2004. (Accessed online at http://www.nrl.navy.mil/research/nrl-review/2004/
featured-research/sprangle/.)
8
Lasers being developed for potential shipboard use produce light with wavelengths in the near-infrared portion of the
spectrum. Sweet spots in this part of the spectrum include wavelengths of 0.87 microns, 1.045 microns, 1.24 microns,
1.62 microns, 2.13 microns, and 2.2 microns. (Other sources, such as the research paper cited in footnote 7, cite
somewhat different figures for sweet spot wavelengths, depending in part on whether sweet spot is for water vapor
alone, or for multiple sources of atmospheric absorption and scattering.)
9
The Navy installs multiple CIWS systems on certain ships not only to improve their ability to handle a saturation
attack, but also to ensure that each ship has full (i.e., 360-degree CIWS) coverage around the ship. A desire for 360degree laser coverage could be another reason for installing multiple lasers on a ship.
10
For a discussion of laser power levels, see “Required Laser Power Levels for Countering Targets.”
11
A March 2014 press report states, “Laser weapons like those developed by the United States pose little threat to [the
Chinese military] ... because mainland [Chinese] researchers have pioneered coatings that can deflect beams and render
(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

5

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

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 and satellites. 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.12

In addition to the above points, a shipboard laser, like other shipboard systems, would take up
space on a ship, use up some of the ship’s weight-carrying capacity, create a load on the ship’s
electrical power and cooling systems, and possibly alter the ship’s radar cross section. These
considerations—referred to collectively as ship impact—can become significant when
considering whether to backfit lasers onto existing ships, or whether to incorporate lasers into
new ship designs.13

Potential Targets for Shipboard Lasers
Potential targets for shipboard lasers include the following:
•

electro-optical (EO) sensors, including those on anti-ship missiles;

•

small boats (including so-called “swarm boats”)14 and other watercraft (such as
jet skis);

•

rockets, artillery shells, mortars (sometimes collectively referred to as RAM);

•

UAVs;

•

manned aircraft;

•

ASCMs; and

•

ballistic missiles, including ASBMs.

Small boats, rockets, artillery shells, and mortars can be a particular concern for Navy surface
ships during operations close to shore. Iran has acquired large numbers of swarm boats for
(...continued)
them harmless, mainland scientists say.” (Stephen Chen, “US Lasers? PLA Preparing To Raise Its Deflector Shields,”
South China Morning Post (www.scmp.com), March 10, 2014.) Another observer notes, “Lethality or desired levels of
military effect are direct functions of the applied energy flux at the target and the ‘race’ between carriage of heat away
from the material and bulk heating in a manner that causes the failure of the materials ... at high flux levels, surface
ablation processes can create a dense outgassing cloud above the surface that absorbs the applied laser energy away
from the surface thus acting to protect the target against vast power increases.” (Email from James Kiessling, DT&E
Space and Missile Defense Systems, March 13, 2014.)
12
For more on the issue of collateral damage to satellites, see Appendix J.
13
For an additional (and somewhat similar) discussion of the potential advantages and limitations of lasers, see Richard
J. Dunn, III, Operational Implications of Laser Weapons, Northrop Grumman Analysis Center Papers, September
2005, pp. 10-12.
14
Swarm boats are small, fast boats that attack a larger ship by operating in packs, or swarms, so as to present the
larger ship with a complex situation of many hostile platforms that are moving rapidly around the ship in different
directions.

Congressional Research Service

6

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

potential use during a crisis or conflict against U.S. Navy ships seeking to enter or operate in the
Persian Gulf. RAM weapons are widely proliferated to both state and non-state organizations.
UAVs, including relatively simple and inexpensive models, can be used to collect and transmit
targeting data on Navy ships, attack Navy ships directly by diving into them, and be armed to
attack Navy ships at a distance. ASCMs are widely proliferated to state actors, and were also
reportedly used by the non-state Hezbollah organization in 2006 to attack an Israeli warship.
China has developed an ASBM. Lasers that are not capable of disabling ballistic missiles could
nevertheless augment ballistic missile defense operations by being used for precision tracking and
imaging.

Required Laser Power Levels for Countering Targets
A laser’s ability to disable a target depends in large part on the power and beam quality of its light
beam. The power of the light beam is measured in kilowatts (kW) or megawatts (MW). Beam
quality (BQ) is a measure of how well focused the beam is.15 Additional factors affecting a laser’s
ability to disable a target include:
•

atmospheric absorption, scattering, and turbulence,16

•

jitter—the degree to which the spot of laser light jumps around on the surface of
the target due to vibration or other movement of the laser system,17 and

•

target design features, which can affect a target’s susceptibility to laser damage.

Table A-1 in Appendix A summarizes some government and industry perspectives regarding
power levels needed to counter certain targets. Although these perspectives differ somewhat, the
following conclusions might be drawn from the table regarding approximate laser power levels
needed to affect certain targets:
•

Lasers with a power level of about 10 kW might be able to counter some UAVs
at short range, particularly “soft” UAVs (i.e., those with design features that
make them particularly susceptible to laser damage).

•

Lasers with power levels in the tens of kilowatts could have more capability
for countering UAVs, and could counter at least some small boats as well.

•

Lasers with a power level of about 100 kW would have a greater ability for
countering UAVs and small boats, as well as some capability for countering
rockets, artillery, and mortars.

15
A laser with perfect BQ – meaning that the laser’s light spot is focused to the physical diffraction limit – is said to
have a BQ of 1.0. A beam that is focused to the physical diffraction limit is focused as well as the laws of nature allow.
Lasers with the wavelengths considered in this report that are focused to the physical diffraction limit would, if fired in
a vacuum, experience very little spreading out of the laser spot as the beam travels further and further from the source.
A BQ of 2.0 means that the laser’s light spot at a given range is twice as large in diameter as an otherwise-same laser
with a BQ of 1. The Navy considers a BQ of 1.1 to 5 to be high, and a BQ of 5.1 to 20 to be moderate. Achieving a BQ
of 1 to 5 generally adds complexity and cost to the system. In general, the longer the range to the target, the more
important BQ becomes.
16
As discussed earlier, atmospheric absorption, scattering, and turbulence are affected by the laser’s light wavelength
and the use of adaptive optics.
17
Jitter becomes more important as BQ improves and range increases.

Congressional Research Service

7

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

•

Lasers with power levels in the hundreds of kilowatts could have greater
ability for countering targets mentioned above, and could also counter manned
aircraft and some missiles.

•

Lasers with power levels in the megawatts could have greater ability for
countering targets mentioned above—including supersonic ASCMs and ballistic
missiles—at ranges of up to about 10 nautical miles.

In addition to the points above, one Navy briefing stated that lasers with power levels above 300
kW could permit a ship to defend not only itself, but other ships in the area as well (a capability
referred to as area defense or escort operations or battle group operations).

Types of Lasers Being Developed for Potential Shipboard Use
The Navy and DOD are developing three principal types of lasers for potential use on Navy
surface ships:
•

fiber solid state lasers (SSLs),

•

slab SSLs, and

•

free electron lasers (FELs).

All three types are electrically powered.18 Each type is discussed briefly below. Additional
information on each type is presented in Appendix C through Appendix F.

Fiber Solid State Lasers (Fiber SSLs)
Fiber solid state lasers (SSLs) are widely used in industry—tens of thousands are used by auto
and truck manufacturing firms for cutting and welding metal. Consequently, they are considered
to be a very robust technology.

Laser Weapon System (LaWS)
One fiber SSL prototype demonstrator developed by the Navy, called the Laser Weapon System
(LaWS), had a beam power of 33 kW. The Navy at one point envisioned LaWS being used for
operations such as disabling or reversibly jamming EO sensors, countering UAVs and EO guided
missiles, and augmenting radar tracking. The Navy envisioned installing LaWS on a ship either
on its own mount or as an add-on to an existing Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS)
mount.19 The Navy funded work to integrate LaWS with CIWS, to support the latter option.
The Navy has stated the following regarding tests of LaWS:
18

Some military lasers, such as the Air Force’s Airborne laser (ABL), are chemically powered. Development work on
potential shipboard lasers focuses on electrically powered lasers because such lasers can be powered by a ship’s
existing electrical power system, whereas a chemically powered laser would require the ship to be periodically
resupplied with the chemicals used by the laser. Resupplying the ship with the chemicals could require the ship to
temporarily remove itself from the battle. In addition, the Navy would need to establish a new logistics train to provide
the chemicals to Navy surface ships, and loading and storing the chemicals on ships would create a handling risk for
crew members, since the chemicals in question are toxic.
19
As mentioned earlier the Phalanx CIWS is a radar-controlled Gatling gun that fires bursts of 20mm shells.

Congressional Research Service

8

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

•

In June 2009, LaWS successfully engaged five threat-representative UAVs20 in
five attempts in tests in combat-representative scenarios in a desert setting at the
Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake, in southern California.

•

In May 2010, LaWS successfully engaged four threat-representative UAVs in
four attempts in combat-representative scenarios at a range of about one nautical
mile in an over-the-water setting conducted from San Nicholas Island, off the
coast of southern California. LaWS during these tests also demonstrated an
ability to destroy materials used in rigid-hull inflatable boats (RHIBs—a type of
small boat) at a range of about half a nautical mile, and to reversibly jam and
disrupt electro-optical/infrared sensors.21

•

Between July and September 2012, LaWS successfully engaged three UAVs in
three attempts in tests during which the system was aboard the Arleigh Burke
(DDG-51) class destroyer Dewey (DDG-105) in waters off San Diego.22

The Navy at one point envisioned scaling up the power of the LaWS beam to about 100 kW by
FY2014. How much beyond 100 kW the system could eventually be scaled up to was not clear,
but the system was not generally viewed as having the potential for being scaled up to megawatt
power levels.
The Navy stated that as of June 2010, the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the LaWS
prototype “is approaching 6, based on a system prototype demonstration in a relevant (maritime)
environment.”23 The Navy estimated that it might cost roughly $150 million to develop LaWS to
TRL 7, meaning the demonstration of a system prototype in an operational environment. The
Navy considered the LaWS effort to be ready for conversion into a program of record. The Navy
estimated that production copies of the LaWS system could be installed and procured as additions
to ship CIWS mounts for a total cost of roughly $17 million per CIWS mount.24

20

Threat-representative means that the UAV is generally similar in design and capabilities to UAVs operated by
potential adversaries.
21
For a Navy press release about this test, see NAVSEA (Naval Sea Systems Command) press release dated May 28,
2010, and entitled “Navy Laser Destroys Unmanned Aerial Vehicle in a Maritime Environment,” accessed online at
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/PR2010/PressRelease_20100528_Laser%20Destroys%20UAV.pdf. The UAVs engaged in
these tests were BQM-147s, which various sources describe as low-cost, propeller-driven UAVs with a length of about
5 feet, a wingspan of about 8 feet, and a maximum speed of 100 knots or less.
22
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.
23
Source: Navy information paper dated June 6, 2011, provided by the Navy to CRS and CBO on June 14, 2011. DOD
uses TRL ratings to characterize the developmental status of many weapon technologies. DOD TRL ratings range from
1 (basic principles observed and reported) to 9 (actual system proven through successful mission operations). For the
definitions of all 9 DOD TRL ratings, see Appendix H.
24
The $17 million figure was provided in a Navy briefing to CRS. A May 11, 2010, press report quoted a Navy official
as estimating the cost at $15 million:
“I think the total system, when we finally get it out there, will be on the order of $15 million per
system and then there will be no ordnance costs, no logistics tail for maintaining the ordnance, no
depots to overhaul ordnance, and no fire suppression as you move this ordnance around,” [Capt.
Dave Kiel, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) directed energy and electric weapons
program manager] said.
(Geoff Fein, “Navy Leveraging Commercial Lasers To Shoot Down UAVs,” Defense Daily, May
11, 2010: 3-4.)

Congressional Research Service

9

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

The Navy in August 2014 installed a LaWS system on the USS Ponce, a ship operating in the
Persian Gulf as an interim Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB[I]), to conduct continued
evaluation of shipboard lasers in an operational setting. For further discussion, see “LaWS
Installed and Tested on USS Ponce” in “Recent Developments” below.
For additional information on fiber SSLs and LaWS, see Appendix C.

Tactical Laser System
Another Navy fiber SSL effort is the Tactical Laser System (TLS)—a laser with a beam power
of 10 kW that is designed to be added to the Mk 38 25 mm machine guns installed on the decks
of many Navy surface ships.25 TLS would augment the Mk 38 machine gun in countering targets
such as small boats; it could also assist in providing precise tracking of targets. The Navy in
March 2011 awarded a $2.8 million contract to BAE to develop a prototype of the TLS over a 15month period.26 Boeing is collaborating with BAE on the project. The TLS effort was initiated
following a January 2008 incident involving Iranian small boats.
A March 26, 2012, press report states that “[Michael] Rinn, [Boeing’s vice president for directed
energy systems], said the project, which gets a small amount of Navy funding and is
supplemented by internal investments from both companies, has had several successes over the
past few years. Field testing of the major components last summer at Eglin Air Force Base in
Florida showed the system could distinguish between friendly and enemy activities in both
daytime and nighttime, for example.” The report states that full system testing of the laser was
scheduled for the summer of 2012.27
A January 28, 2013, press report states that “BAE Systems and Boeing are pushing their Mark 38
Tactical Laser System through intense internally-funded testing, hoping to get onto a ship for atsea testing as soon as one is available, company officials said earlier this month.” The article
stated that Mark Rinn, a Boeing official, “said testing in December [2012] went well and showed
successful engagements at ‘several thousands of meters.’ He had hoped to include unmanned
aerial vehicles in the set of targets for the Mark 38 Tactical Laser System—the weapon system
has already shot at targets on land and on water—but the companies could not get permission in
time. He said that they would have permission for counter-UAV testing before the next round of
tests this spring.”28
For additional information on TLS, see Appendix D.

25

Carlo Munoz, “New Laser-Based Weapon For Navy Fleet Protection Operations In The Works,” Defense Daily,
April 11, 2011. See also Marc Selinger, “Lasers on the High Seas,” http://www.boeing.com, November 28, 2011,
accessed November 28, 2011, at http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/11/bds_tls_11_28_11.html.
26
BAE Systems press release dated April 7, 2011, entitled “BAE Systems Selected to Demonstrate Tactical Laser
System for the U.S. Navy;” Carlo Munoz, “New Laser-Based Weapon For Navy Fleet Protection Operations In The
Works,” Defense Daily, April 11, 2011.
27
Megan Eckstein, “FEL Looks Good At CDR, But Project Halted In Favor of SSL Development,” Inside the Navy,
March 26, 2012.
28
Megan Eckstein, “BAE, Boeing Pushing To Get Tactical Laser System To At-Sea Testing,” Inside the Navy, January
28, 2013.

Congressional Research Service

10

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

Slab Solid State Lasers (Slab SSLs)
DOD has pursued multiple efforts to develop slab SSLs for military use. Among these was the
Maritime Laser Demonstration (MLD), a prototype laser weapon developed as a rapid
demonstration project under DOD’s Joint High Power SSL (JHPSSL) program. MLD leveraged
development work on slab SSLs done elsewhere in DOD under the JHPSSL program. In March
2009, Northrop demonstrated a version of MLD that coherently combined seven slab SSLs, each
with a power of about 15 kW, to create a beam with a power of about 105 kW.
In July 2010, the ability of MLD to track small boats in a marine environment was tested at
NSWC Port Hueneme, CA.29 In late August and early September 2010, MLD was tested in an
over-the-water setting at the Navy’s Potomac River Test Range against stationary targets,
including representative small boat sections.30 In November 2010, an at-sea test of the system
against small boat targets reportedly was stopped midway because one of the system’s
components needed to be replaced.31 The test was resumed in April 2011, and on April 6, 2011,
the system successfully engaged a small target vessel. According to the Navy, this was the first
time that a laser of that energy level had been put on a Navy ship, powered from that ship, and
used to counter a target at range in a maritime environment.32 In May 2011, Northrop stated that it
could build the first unit of a full-power engineering and manufacturing development (EMD)
version of the weapon within four years, if the Navy could find the resources to fund the effort.33
Scaling up a slab laser to a total power of 300 kW is not considered to require any technological
breakthroughs. Supporters of slab SSLs such as MLD believe they could eventually be scaled up
further, to perhaps 600 kW. Slab SSLs are not generally viewed as easily scalable to megawatt
power levels.
The Navy stated that as of December 2010, MLD was at a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of
5, meaning component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment.34
For additional information on slab SSLs and MLD, see Appendix E.

29

See Northrop Grumman press release dated July 26, 2010, and entitled “Northrop Grumman-Built Maritime Laser
Demonstration System Proves Key Capabilities for Shipboard Operations, Weaponization,” accessed online at
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=197321.
30
See Northrop Grumman press release dated September 30, 2010, and entitled “Northrop Grumman-Built Maritime
Laser Demonstration System Shows Higher Lethality, Longer Ranges at Potomac River Test Range; U.S. Navy SolidState Laser’s Mature Technology is Ready for Marine Environment;” accessed online at http://www.irconnect.com/
noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=202703.
31
Andrew Burt, “Navy’s First At-Sea Maritime laser Weapon Test Encounters Delays,” Inside the Navy, November 15,
2010.
32
Geoff S. Fein, “MLD Test Moves Navy a Step Closer to Lasers for Ship Self-Defense,” April 8, 2011 (Office of
Naval Research news release, accessed online at http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2011/
Maritime-Laser-MLD-Test.aspx.)
33
Graham Warwick, “Northrop To Offer High-Power Ship Laser Within Four Years,” Aerospace Daily & Defense
Report, May 16, 2011: 4.
34
Source: Navy information paper dated December 3, 2010, provided by the Navy to CRS on December 3, 2010. As
mentioned in footnote 23, DOD uses TRL ratings to characterize the developmental status of many weapon
technologies. DOD TRL ratings range from 1 (basic principles observed and reported) to 9 (actual system proven
through successful mission operations). For the definitions of all 9 DOD TRL ratings, see Appendix H.

Congressional Research Service

11

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

Free Electron Lasers (FELs)
Unlike slab SSLs, which are being developed by multiple U.S. military services, FELs are being
developed within DOD solely by the Navy, in part because they would be too large to be installed
on Army or Marine Corps ground vehicles or Air Force tactical aircraft, and in part because an
FEL’s ability to change its wavelength so as to match atmospheric transmission sweet spots
makes it particularly suited for operations in a marine environment. The basic architecture of an
FEL offers a clear potential for scaling up to power levels of one or more megawatts.
A 14.7 kW FEL has been developed; it has not been moved out of a laboratory setting or fired at
an operational moving target. The Office of Naval Research (ONR) had planned to follow this
with the development, as an Innovative Naval Prototype (INP),35 of a 100 kW FEL; the work was
scheduled to be performed during FY2010-FY2015.36 Developing a 100 kW FEL would reduce
the risks associated with developing a megawatt-class FEL. A March 26, 2011, press report,
however, states that “the Navy is putting the project on the back burner as it focuses on a solidstate laser as the quickest way to get a directed-energy weapon to the fleet.” The report states that
“[Roger] McGinnis, [program executive for INPs at ONR’s Naval Air Warfare and Weapons
Department], said the Navy had previously wanted to pursue a 100 kilowatt FEL gun as an
intermediate step toward the megawatt gun but decided to instead focus on maturing the critical
technology components with an Energy department lab or small industry partners.... ”37
The Navy states that as of December 2010, FEL was at a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 4
(meaning component and/or breadboard validation in a laboratory environment).38
For additional information on FEL, see Appendix F.

Navy Surface Fleet’s Generalized Vision for Shipboard Lasers
The Navy’s surface fleet has a three-phase generalized vision for shipboard high-energy lasers
that is summarized in Table 1. Although this generalized vision refers to lasers of certain power
levels and potential time frames for installing lasers on Navy ships, it is not a program of record
for procuring a production version of a shipboard laser.

35

For a description of INPs, see Appendix G.
A low power Terahertz Sensor FEL is also being developed under the INP, with a prototype scheduled to be
available in FY2015. ONR states that “Possible uses of this system include [target] interrogation, sensing and
discrimination of high value targets, and weapons of mass destruction detection.”
37
Megan Eckstein, “FEL Looks Good At CDR, But Project Halted In Favor of SSL Development,” Inside the Navy,
March 26, 2012.
38
Source: Navy information paper dated December 3, 2010, provided by the Navy to CRS on December 3, 2010. As
mentioned in footnote 23, DOD uses TRL ratings to characterize the developmental status of many weapon
technologies. DOD TRL ratings range from 1 (basic principles observed and reported) to 9 (actual system proven
through successful mission operations). For the definitions of all 9 DOD TRL ratings, see Appendix H.
36

Congressional Research Service

12

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

Table 1. Surface Navy’s Generalized Vision for Shipboard High-Energy Lasers
(Draft version as of May 2011)

Laser’s beam power
Missions

Initial capability

Added capability

Added capability

60 kW to 100 kW

300 kW to 500 kW

> 1 MW

Countering UAVs, EOguided ASCMs, enemy ISR
systems, and swarm boats,
and
used for precise tracking to
support air defense
missions conducted by
electromagnetic rail gun
(EMRG), ballistic missile
defense (BMD) missions,
augmenting the ship’s radar,
and enhancing general
situational awareness

Capabilities in previous
column, but with added
range and a capability to
counter ASCMs flying a
crossing path toward
another ship.

Capabilities in previous
column, but a capability for
full-self defense operations
against ASCMs and
maneuvering reentry
vehicles (MaRVs), and full
BMD missions

Required ship power (in kW
or MW) and cooling capacity
(in tons)a

<400 kW and 68 tons

<2.5MW and 560 tons

~10-20 MW and ~1,400
tons

Current weapon system TRL

5

4

2-3

2017

~2022

after 2025

Could be installed on
future surface combatants,
including potentially the
Flight III DDG-51

Could be installed on
future surface combatants,
ships with integrated
propulsion systems, and
aircraft carriers

Earliest potential IOC
Applicable ships

Could be backfit onto
existing ships, as well as
installed on new ships

Source: U.S. Navy briefing slide dated May 20, 2011, and provided to CRS and CBO at a briefing on that date.
a.

Power and cooling requirements assume continuous firing of the laser with a 67% duty cycle (i.e., the laser
is firing 67% of the time).

Remaining Technical Challenges
Although Navy and DOD research on military lasers has overcome many of the technical
challenges associated with developing shipboard lasers, a number of challenges remain.
Remaining technical challenges for potential shipboard lasers can be grouped into four broad
categories:
•

scaling up beam power to higher levels while maintaining or improving beam
quality and addressing thermal management (the removal of waste heat from the
gain medium);

•

turning prototype and demonstration versions of lasers into versions that are
suitable for series production, shipboard installation, and shipboard operation and
maintenance over many years of use;

•

engineering other parts of a complete laser weapon system, including target
detection and tracking, and beam pointing; and

Congressional Research Service

13

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

•

integrating lasers with ship power and cooling systems, and with ship combat
systems (i.e., a ship’s integrated collection of sensors, computers, displays, and
weapons).

Although these challenges are stated briefly here, they are not trivial. Skeptics might argue that
certain past DOD laser development efforts proved over-optimistic in terms of projections for
overcoming technical challenges and producing operational weapons. In spite of decades of
development work, these skeptics might note, DOD has not deployed an operational high-energy
laser weapon system.

Recent Developments
Naval Directed Energy Steering Group
In June 2012, it was reported that the Navy in December 2011 formed a Naval Directed Energy
Steering Group (NDESG) to develop a naval directed energy vision, strategy, and roadmap. The
December 12, 2011, Navy memorandum establishing the steering group states in part:
A key to future Navy and Marine Corps war fighting capabilities is the efficient, effective
and rapid development, acquisition, and fielding of advanced technologies having gamechanging capabilities across a range of mission areas. Directed Energy Weapon (DEW)
technologies, including lasers and high power microwave (HPM) weapons, may offer our
naval forces such game-changing potential....
The Naval DE Steering Group (NDESG) is formed as a Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV)
initiative to deliver a synchronized, fiscally-informed strategy that aligns DE investments
with roadmaps across the Doctrine, Organization, Training, Material, Leadership and
Education, Personnel and Facilities (DOTMLPF) spectrum [of naval activities] to address
near-term fleet capability gaps and the long-range vision for the implementation of DE in the
fleet. The NDESG will be the formal engine to drive this effort....
The NDESG will have the following objectives:
a. Develop a DON Naval DE Vision and Strategy.... A Directed Energy vision is necessary
to provide DON leadership’s depiction of desired DEW capabilities and DE countermeasures
as deployed and employed across U.S. naval forces. A supporting DE strategy would be used
to establish strategic goals, guiding principles, mission area priorities, roles and
responsibilities and overarching objectives regarding the acquisition and fielding of DEW
across the Navy and Marine Corps.
b. Develop a comprehensive DE roadmap... based on the overarching vision and strategy.
The proposed roadmap would address the prioritized mission needs across all naval forces
and the associated DE technologies than can be fielded to satisfy those mission needs in the
near-term (2-5) years, mid-term (5-10 years) and far-term (10-20 years).
c. Provide assessments on Science & Technology (S&T)/Research & Development (R&D)
and oversee the development and transition of DE systems and technologies to the Fleet,

Congressional Research Service

14

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

including non-material efforts39 to integrate these new capabilities into existing operational
concepts and procedures....
The NDESG will provide a draft vision and strategy with initial plan of actions and
milestones to the UNDERSECNAV [Under Secretary of the Navy] within 90 days of the
promulgation of this charter.40

Directed Energy Vision for U.S. Naval Forces
The directed energy vision and the directed energy strategy called for in paragraph (a) of the
memorandum quoted in the previous section have been developed. The text of the vision
statement is as follows:
A Directed Energy Vision for U.S. Naval Forces
Guidance from the Secretary of Defense promulgated in Priorities for 21st Century Defense
in January 2012 directs the Department to “sustain key streams of innovation that may
provide significant long-term payoffs.” Directed-energy (DE) technology not only offers the
prospect for a major return on investment over the long term, it could begin paying
significant dividends within the current future years defense plan (FYDP) by addressing
immediate combatant commander requirements and enabling fleet experimentation focused
on emerging threats, including anti-access and area-denial challenges.
Military applications of DE technology hold growing promise for gaining and sustaining
tactical, operational, and strategic advantage for U.S. forces across the full range of military
operations. They could have significant effects across multiple dimensions of the battlespace:
maritime, air, land, space, and cyberspace. Directed energy weapons (DEWs) offer several
potentially “game changing” advantages: very rapid engagement, low cost per engagement,
essentially infinite magazines, and low total ownership costs. DEWs and their associated
platform integration technologies must be properly resourced across the FYDP to ensure that
our Navy and Marine Corps Team maintains its warfighting edge over prospective
adversaries, including those aggressively pursuing DEWs.
DEWs affect a target by imparting non-kinetic, or electromagnetic, energy. DEW
technologies can operate in any part of the electromagnetic spectrum and typically fall into
the categories of either lasers (i.e., low, medium, or high power) or high-power radio
frequency (i.e., high-power microwave, radio frequency (RF), microwave, and millimeter
wave (MMW)). DEW technologies and systems use electromagnetic energy to cause
persistent disruption, reversible effects or permanent damage by attacking target materials,
electronics, optics, antennas, and sensors, including non-lethal counter-personnel and
counter-materiel applications. The ability of these weapons to incapacitate, disrupt, damage,
disable, or destroy targets has been proven with numerous demonstrations of lethal and nonlethal effects carried out in laboratory, field testing and evaluation, and successful
employment on the battlefield.

39

The term non-material efforts refers to actions other than the acquisition of new or modernized equipment, such as
making changes in doctrine or tactics.
40
Memorandum dated December 12, 2011, from the Under Secretary of the Navy, to various Navy offices, on the
subject: “Naval Directed Energy Steering Group Charter,” posted at InsideDefense.com (subscription required) June
18, 2012. See also: Megan Eckstein, “Naval Directed-Energy Steering Group Outlining Future Of DE Weapons,”
Inside the Navy, June 15, 2012.

Congressional Research Service

15

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

The DoN [Department of the Navy] will focus its DE investments on those technologies
that address critical Navy and Marine Corps capability gaps. Given the surface fleet’s
ability to overcome the technical challenges associated with the military exploitation of high
power, long range DEW—including power, cooling, weight, and volume requirements—it is
the logical vanguard for demonstrating the potential of first-generation weapons. Across the
spectrum of DEWs, early applications will focus on supporting forward deployed forces to
defeat Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs); artillery, mortars, and rockets; intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance systems; fast-attack craft; fixed and rotary-wing aviation;
and subsonic anti-ship cruise missiles. The longer term objective is to field higher power
systems capable of defeating supersonic cruise missiles and selected ballistic missiles.
As the technology matures to increase energy efficiency and reduce form factors, DEWs will
be integrated into ground vehicles to support fire and maneuver in contested environments,
to include conducting low-collateral damage strikes in built-up terrain, employing non-lethal
DEW to segregate and isolate enemy from civilians, and defending against increasingly
ubiquitous guided rockets, artillery, mortars, and missiles. DE applications for fixed- and
rotary-wing aircraft will focus both on offensive and defensive air-to-air, air-to-surface, and
air-to-ground missions. Early applications will focus on countering surface-to-air and small
boat threats, as well as conducting precision strikes with mission-tailored lethality.
The DoN will field initial DEW capabilities in the near-term to provide our fleet and
operating forces with the ability to address identified critical mission capability gaps
while learning invaluable fielding and employment lessons that will inform our way
ahead. Innovation has been the hallmark of U.S. Naval Forces. DEWs represent another
naval innovation that when transitioned from the laboratory to battlefield will help our Navy
and Marine Corps Team to sustain its technological advantage and win our nation’s battles.
Towards this end, the DoN will take a measured approach toward DEW S&T and R&D
activities and their transition to acquisition programs based on operational requirements,
technological maturity or readiness, demonstrated performance, ease of systems integration
and affordability.
The DoN will address the defensive challenges posed by diffusion and maturation of
DEWs available to prospective adversaries. These efforts will guide the development and
fielding of countermeasures, DEW-resistant systems, and effective non-material solutions
across the maritime battlespace domain. While high-power DEWs will be limited to nation
states that choose to pursue them, lower power weapons will become increasingly available
at a relatively low cost to non-state actors.
Finally, the DoN will coordinate with other Services and agencies to ensure policies and
rules of engagement are in place to enable our Sailors and Marines to operationally
employ DEWs effectively. In addition, we will develop not only the DEWs themselves but
the sensors, communications, and control technologies that will enable DEWs to operate, in
combination with other military capabilities, at their full potential.41

Directed Energy Roadmap and Possible Analysis of Alternatives (AOA)
An August 5, 2013, press report based on an interview with a Navy official states that the Naval
Directed Energy Steering Group “will have its near-term roadmap ready this fall to begin
informing decisions to address drone and small boat swarm threats with directed-energy weapons
41

Department of the Navy, A Directed Energy Vision for U.S. Naval Forces, 2 pp., provided to CRS by Navy Office of
Legislative Affairs, August 20, 2012. Emphasis as in original.

Congressional Research Service

16

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

rather than kinetic weapons, with mid- and long-term roadmaps to follow next year.” The report
quoted the Navy official as saying that there have been discussions of conducting an analysis of
alternatives (AOA) on directed-energy capabilities in FY2014.42

Destroyers and LCSs Reportedly Leading Candidate Platforms
An August 20, 2012, press report stated that following the MLD effort, the Navy conducted
studies to examine the ability of various Navy ship classes to accept SSLs. The report quoted
Peter Morrison, ONR’s SSL program manager, as saying that based on these studies, “the DDG
[destroyer] and LCS [Littoral Combat Ship] classes ... provided the best opportunity to match
new capabilities with emerging needs with higher-energy laser weapons capabilities, and the
class’ forecasts for power, cooling, space and weight.” The report stated that the Navy continues
to review the potential for installing SSLs on other types of ships as well.43

LaWS Installed and Tested on USS Ponce, Declared Operational
On April 8, 2013, the Navy announced that it would install LaWS on the USS Ponce (pronounced
pon-SAY), a converted amphibious ship that is operating in the Persian Gulf as an interim Afloat
Forward Staging Base (AFSB[I]), to conduct evaluation of shipboard lasers in an operational
setting against swarming boats and swarming UAVs.44 LaWS, the Navy stated, would be installed
on the Ponce in the summer of 2014 and would be evaluated on the ship for a period of 12
months.45
The system was installed on the Ponce in August 2014. A December 10, 2014, news release from
the Office of Naval Research (ONR) stated:
Officials at the Office of Naval Research (ONR) announced today that the laser weapon
system (LaWS)—a cutting-edge weapon that brings significant new capabilities to
America’s Sailors and Marines—was for the first time successfully deployed and operated
aboard a naval vessel in the Persian Gulf.
The operational demonstrations, which took place from September to November [2014]
aboard USS Ponce (AFSB[I] 15), were historic not only because they showed a laser weapon
working aboard a deployed U.S. Navy ship, but also because LaWS operated seamlessly
with existing ship defense systems....

42

Megan Eckstein, “Directed-Energy Roadmap Due This Fall, Will Begin Guiding Budgets,” Inside the Navy, August
5, 2013.
43
Megan Eckstein, “ONR Planning First Solid-State Laser Weapon Prototypes On DDG, LCS,” Inside the Navy,
August 20, 2012. Ellipse in the quote as in the article.
44
“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 Office of Naval Research, “All Systems Go: Navy’s Laser Weapon Ready for Summer Deployment,”
Navy News Service, April 7, 2014.
45
Lara Seligman, “Navy-built LaWS To Begin Demo This Summer, IOC Slated For FY-20-21,” Inside the Navy,
March 24, 2014.

Congressional Research Service

17

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

“Laser weapons are powerful, affordable and will play a vital role in the future of naval
combat operations,” said Rear Adm. Matthew L. Klunder, chief of naval research. “We ran
this particular weapon, a prototype, through some extremely tough paces, and it locked on
and destroyed the targets we designated with near-instantaneous lethality.”
During the tests, LaWS—a collaborative effort between ONR, Naval Sea Systems
Command, Naval Research Laboratory, Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division
and industry partners—hit targets mounted aboard a speeding oncoming small boat, shot a
Scan Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) out of the sky, and destroyed other moving
targets at sea.
Sailors worked daily with LaWS over several months since it was installed, and reported the
weapon performed flawlessly, including in adverse weather conditions of high winds, heat
and humidity. They noted the system exceeded expectations for both reliability and
maintainability.
The system is operated by a video-game like controller, and can address multiple threats
using a range of escalating options, from non-lethal measures such as optical “dazzling” and
disabling, to lethal destruction if necessary. It could prove to be a pivotal asset against what
are termed “asymmetric threats,” which include small attack boats and UAVs.
Data regarding accuracy, lethality and other factors from the Ponce deployment will guide
the development of weapons under ONR’s Solid-State Laser-Technology Maturation
program. Under this program, industry teams have been selected to develop cost-effective,
combat-ready laser prototypes that could be installed on vessels such as guided-missile
destroyers and the Littoral Combat Ship in the early 2020s....
“At less than a dollar per shot, there’s no question about the value LaWS provides,” said
Klunder. “With affordability a serious concern for our defense budgets, this will more
effectively manage resources to ensure our Sailors and Marines are never in a fair fight.”
The Navy already has demonstrated the effectiveness of lasers in a variety of maritime
settings. In a 2011 demonstration, a laser was used to defeat multiple small boat threats from
a destroyer. In 2012, LaWS downed several unmanned aircraft in tests during naval
exercises. Specific details on next steps and timeframes are being determined as the data
from the current demonstrations are analyzed.46

A December 11, 2014, trade press report stated:

46

Office of Naval Research news release, “Historic Leap: Navy Shipboard Laser Operates in Persian Gulf,” December
10, 2014, accessed December 23, 2014, at http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2014/LaWSshipboard-laser-uss-ponce.aspx. The news release was also posted as David Smalley, “Historic Leap: Navy Shipboard
Laser Operates in Arabian Gulf,” Navy News Service, December 10, 2014, accessed December 23, 2014, at
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84805.
See also Dan Lamothe, “With Photos And Video, Navy Shows How Its New Laser Gun Works At Sea,” Washington
Post (www.washingtonpost.com), December 10, 2014; David Larter, “Navy’s First Laser Gun Shines In Deployed
Exercises,” Defense News (www.defensenews.com), December 11, 2014; Julian E. Barnes, “Navy Tests Laser Weapon
on Drones, Boats,” Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com), December 9, 2014; Hendrick Simoes, “Navy Encouraged By
Performance of Laser System on USS Ponce,” Stars and Stripes (www.stripes.com), December 6, 2014; Tony
Capaccio, “U.S. Navy Deploys Its First Laser Weapon in the Persian Gulf,” Bloomberg News (www.bloomberg.com),
November 14, 2014; Lara Seligman, “Navy Fires Laser Weapon For First Time From Forward-Deployed Vessel,”
Inside the Navy, October 76, 2014.

Congressional Research Service

18

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

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.
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.
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.47

Navy Anticipates Program of Record in FY2018 and IOC in FY2020-FY2021
In March 2014, it was reported that the Navy anticipates moving to a shipboard laser program of
record in “the FY2018 time frame” and achieving an initial operational capability (IOC) with a
shipboard laser in FY2020 or FY2021.48

March 2014 Navy Testimony
At a March 26, 2014, hearing before the Intelligence, Emerging Threats & Capabilities
subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on FY2015 DOD Science and technology
Program, Rear Admiral Matthew L. Klunder, Chief of Naval Research, stated:
An ongoing example of our success is the laser weapons system [LaWS], part of our solid
state laser maturation effort [SSL-TM]. We feel energy weapons, specifically directed energy
weapons, offer the Navy and the Marine Corps game-changing capabilities in speed of light
engagement, deep magazines, multi-mission functionality and affordable solutions. Laser
weapons are very low engagement costs. Right now, we‘re literally under a U.S. dollar per—
per pulsed energy round. Which is critical in our current fiscal environment.
They are capable in defeating adversarial threats, including fast boats, UAVs and other lowcost, widely-available weapons. Now, our laser weapons system—again, referred to as
LaWS—leverages advances in commercial technology for use in a rugged, robust prototype
weapon capable of identifying, illuminating, tracking and lasing enemy surface and air
threats. The Navy’s installing this LaWS system on board the USS Ponce in the Arabian
Gulf this year; this summer, to be exact.
That harsh and operationally important environment will provide an ideal opportunity to
evaluate long-term system performance. We believe that LaWS has every potential for
extraordinary success in field—terms of fielding an effective, affordable weapon for our
sailors and Marines.49
47
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 (http://news.usni.org),
December 10, 2014; Philip Ewing, “Navy Declares Laser Weapon ‘Operational,’” Politico Pro (Pro Defense Report),
December 10, 2014.
48
Lara Seligman, “Navy-built LaWS To Begin Demo This Summer, IOC Slated For FY-20-21,” Inside the Navy,
March 24, 2014.
49
Transcript of hearing.

Congressional Research Service

19

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

Later in the hearing, the following exchange occurred:
REPRESENTATIVE NUGENT (continuing): ... Admiral, I'm really interested in—and I’m
interested in all of you as it relates to directed energy. Mr. Langevin and I, I think, are—are
pretty big proponents of directed energy because of what you mentioned in regards to—on
the Ponce, in regards to actually testing, and the ability to test and what it costs to test versus
shooting a missile off at a—a million dollars a copy versus a dollar.
Can you—we see programs in development stage. But then they tend to never make it to
production, never make it to, you know, deployment. Where do we stand as it relates to that
system on the Ponce in regards to the future?
KLUNDER: Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. And I—I'll offer that there’s—it’s really a
conviction my our senior leadership in the Department of the Navy. And—and what I mean
by that is that we—we want those new innovative systems to be in the hands of sailors and
Marines. We want them to tell us did we develop it right, did we develop and it needs to be
tweaked a little bit? Or did we develop and we just didn't do it right? And we'll—we'll bring
it back.
But the point there is, you need to get a sailor or a Marine’s hands on that thing, and tell
them is it gonna be effective in warfighting environment, and it—will—will it be affordable.
So the point I'd like to make, and thank you for your—your—your comments about
innovation, we truly think that’s the way this nation was built and—and is the way we get in
front of our adversaries. We don’t want to run with them. I don't want a sailor or a Marine to
ever go into a fair fight.
I want them to always have the technological advantage so we always win and defend our
nation. What we’ve done this time on the Ponce, I think, is very credible is I don't have a
bunch of (ph)—my scientists and my colleagues, we developed it. But I've got real sailors
right down there at Dahlgren, right now, on the system. And it’s not a singular laptop over in
the corner somewhere. It’s a fully-integrated with our fully-integrated combat information
system on that ship.
So those young men and women on that—detachment of sailors are gonna go out there.
They’re gonna test it. And, indeed, we feel very comfortable because we’ve never missed so
far. And that’s one of the reasons why CNO [the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral
Jonathan] Greenert said, “Matt, get it out there.” We've never missed. We feel confident,
though, that we'd like to test it in that tough environment and see where it goes.
And to—the follow-on to the last bit of your question, I think regardless of the High Energy
Laser-Joint Technology Office, I can assure you that we’ve got all the resources positioned
in the Navy and Marine Corps to put us in a good place when this test is done. And I'm not
sure if you're familiar, but we also have a solid state laser technology maturation program
that takes it to a much higher power level, and that’s in ’16 [FY2016].
So when we finish this test on Ponce, that demo with real sailors, and we finish up the
prototyping in ‘16 [FY2016], we think we'll be very well positioned for follow-on, longterm, enduring efforts.
NUGENT: And I just don't want us to—we can be in a testing mode forever.
KLUNDER: Yes, sir.

Congressional Research Service

20

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

NUGENT: I mean, I think you might agree with that. And—and I'd like to see us have at
least a timeline as to—as to when we want to have it operational. It goes back to CHAMP.50
Mr. Langevin and I have talked about that. It goes back to programs as it relates to the Army,
and I know there’s some collaboration between the Army and the Navy on those issues. And
from my standpoint, I think that’s great when you can get bright minds across the lines,
across those services, to utilize that same information and—and make us all safer.
So my question back to you, then is, if, after this test on the Ponce, if it meets the
expectations, what would stand in your way of, if it’s successful, in deploying that on other
ships?
KLUNDER: I would say nothing. Right now, we’ve already started the AOA on that
process, that we’re very familiar with the acquisition programs. We’ve already done all the
blueprinting for the different classes of ships. So in many cases, if we are successful we see
this as a possible weapons system for a number of classes of our ships. And I think it’s
important, too, if I could just give my colleagues to my right here a great shout out.
Because we’re doing a test down in your—your great state here in just a few months here to
do some joint Army-Navy testing down at Eglin. And so I think that, again, shows the
collaborative effort we do on directed energy.51

FY2016 Funding Request
The Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget requests $26.9 million for research and development work
on directed energy technologies, including the SSL technologies, in the directed energy portion of
Program Element (PE) 0602114N, Power Projection Applied Research, a line item in the Navy’s
research and development account.52 The figures for FY2014 and FY2015 for this PE are $40.3
million and $40.5 million, respectively. The Navy states that the “FY 2015 to FY 2016 decrease
in funding is due to completion of the Solid State Laser - QRC [Quick Reaction Capability]
program as well as a continued realignment of FEL activities.”53
Additional funding for the Solid State Laser Technology Maturation Program (SSL-TM) forms
part of the FY2016 funding request for the precision strike technology portion of PE 0603114N,
Power Projection Advanced Technology, another line item in the Navy’s research and
development account.54

50

CHAMP stands for Counter-Electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project, another DOD effort.
Transcript of hearing. See also Lara Seligman, “ONR Chief: If Ponce Demo A Success, LaWS Will Deploy On
Other Ships,” Inside the Navy, March 31, 2014; John C. Marcario, “Navy’s Laser Weapon System Facing Big Test,”
Seapower (www.seapowermagazine.org), March 26, 2014.
52
Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 President's Budget Submission, Navy Justification Book Volume 1 of
5, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, Budget Activities 1, 2 & 3, February 2015, p. 89.
53
Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 President's Budget Submission, Navy Justification Book Volume 1 of
5, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, Budget Activities 1, 2 & 3, February 2015, p. 89.
54
Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 President's Budget Submission, Navy Justification Book Volume 1 of
5, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, Budget Activities 1, 2 & 3, February 2015, p. 328.
51

Congressional Research Service

21

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

The Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget also requests $9.5 million for SSLs in Project 9823 (Lasers
for Navy Applications) within PE 0603925N, Directed Energy and Electric Weapon System,
another line item in the Navy’s research and development account.55

Issues for Congress
Number of Laser Types to Continue Developing
Potential Strategies
One potential issue for Congress is how many of the three laser types discussed in this report—
fiber SSLs, slab SSLs, and FELs—the Navy should continue developing.
Supporters of stopping development of all three types (or of continuing development of one type)
might argue that continuing the development of shipboard lasers (or of more than one type of
laser), while perhaps desirable, would reduce funding for more important Navy program priorities
below critical levels, particularly in a situation of constrained Navy resources. They might argue
that the Navy’s kinetic weapons in coming years will have sufficient (or largely sufficient)
capability for countering the kinds of targets that shipboard lasers could counter.
Supporters of continuing development of two or three types might argue that it would permit
continued competition between laser types and provide a hedge against the failure of one of the
development efforts. DOD in the past, they might argue, has sometimes pursued comparable
programs concurrently to ensure the best outcome for an area of effort deemed important. They
might also argue that the Navy’s kinetic weapons in coming years will be insufficient to counter
certain kinds of targets, or that shipboard lasers would counter them more cost effectively.

Relative Merits of Laser Types
In considering which laser types to continue developing, policymakers may consider the relative
merits of each type. Below are some arguments relating to the relative merits each type. The
discussions below are intended as introductory only; a full comparison of their relative merits
would entail much longer discussions.

Some Arguments Relating to Fiber SSLs
Supporters of LaWS argue that it has a demonstrated ability to counter certain targets of interest
at short (but tactically useful) ranges in a marine environment; that it can be installed on Navy
ships in the near term; that it promises to be less expensive than a slab SSL; that it poses less of a
challenge in terms of thermal management than a slab SSL; that it has less ship impact than
FELs; that it uses an industrial laser technology with high reliability and few alignment optics,
making possible a simplified system engineering solution for a Navy laser system; and that its
power can be scaled up to 100 kW or perhaps more. They argue that the system’s BQ, though not
55

Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 President's Budget Submission, Navy Justification Book Volume 2 of
5, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy Budget Activity 4, February 2015, p. 906.

Congressional Research Service

22

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

excellent, is good enough to disable targets of interest at short ranges. They argue that the
system’s light wavelength of 1.064 microns, though not exactly on the atmospheric transmission
“sweet spot” located at 1.045 microns, is good enough in terms of atmospheric transmission to
permit the laser to disable targets of interest at tactically useful ranges, and that development
work is underway on SSLs that would emit light at wavelengths above the threshold (about 1.5
microns) at which laser light becomes much less dangerous to human eyes.
Some skeptics of LaWS, including supporters of the MLD, argue that the LaWS’s BQ limits its
effective range. Other skeptics of LaWS, including supporters of FELs, argue that LaWS’s
operating wavelength limits its effective range, particularly when compared to FELs, whose
wavelengths can be tuned to exactly match atmospheric transmission sweet spots, and that
LaWS’s current wavelength is dangerous to human eyes, whereas an FEL can operate at
wavelengths matching atmospheric sweet spots that are located above 1.5 microns.

Some Arguments Relating to Slab SSLs
Supporters of MLD argue that it has a demonstrated power level of 105 kW (more than three
times that of LaWS); that it has a much better BQ than LaWS, permitting it to counter targets at
greater ranges (thereby providing a larger defended area around the ship, and more time to
counter targets approaching the ship); that it could be ready for installation on ships as soon as, or
not very long after, the LaWS system would be; that a production version could have a
procurement cost comparable to, or even less than, that of a production version of LaWS; that the
challenge slab SSLs pose in terms of thermal management, though perhaps greater than that of
fiber SSLs, can nevertheless be handled; and that slab SSLs can be scaled up to 300 kW or more
while retaining good BQ. The MLD contract, they argue, was competitively awarded, the
competitors for the contract included fiber SSLs, and the contract was awarded instead to a slab
SSL.
Supporters of slab MLDs argue that the difference in complexity between fiber SSLs and slab
SSLs is not as great as some supporters of LaWS contend—that fiber SSLs, for example, have
more free-space optics56 than slab SSLs. Supporters of MLD argue that the industrial
environments in which commercial fiber SSLs have operated are not characterized by shocks or
high humidity—two features that characterize the shipboard operating environment—whereas
MLD was designed from the start with eventual ship operations in mind. Supporters of MLD
argue that it can be maintained easily in the field through the use of sealed line replaceable units
(LRUs).57 MLD supporters argue, as do supporters of LaWS, that the system has less ship impact
than an FEL; that the system’s light wavelength of 1.064 microns, though not exactly on the
atmospheric transmission “sweet spot” located at 1.045 microns, is good enough in terms of
atmospheric transmission to permit the laser to disable targets of interest at tactically useful
ranges, and that development work is underway on SSLs that would emit light at wavelengths
above the threshold (about 1.5 microns) at which laser light becomes much less dangerous to
human eyes.

56

Free space optics are those arranged so that the light travels from one optical element (such as a mirror) to another,
with an air gap (i.e., free space) in between.
57
LRUs are sealed, box-like containers enclosing many of a weapon’s components. LRUs support a modular approach
to maintenance in which personnel repair the weapon by removing a faulty LRU and replacing it with another.

Congressional Research Service

23

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

Skeptics of MLD, including supporters of LaWS, argue that it uses complex optics, making it
more expensive to procure and potentially less reliable and more difficult to maintain than LaWS.
Other skeptics of MLD, including supporters of FELs, argue, as they do regarding LaWS, that
MLD’s operating wavelength limits its effective range, particularly when compared to FELs,
whose wavelengths can be tuned to exactly match atmospheric transmission sweet spots, and that
MLD’s current wavelength is dangerous to human eyes, whereas an FEL can operate at
wavelengths matching atmospheric sweet spots that are located above 1.5 microns.

Some Arguments Relating to FELs
Supporters of FELs argue that unlike SSLs, FELs clearly can be scaled up to megawatt power
levels that would be capable of countering a wide range of targets, including supersonic ASCMs
and ballistic missiles, and that unlike SSLs, FELs can be scaled up in power from 10 kW to 1
MW without any increase in the size of the system or need for a beam combiner (a component
that adds to system complexity and cost). Supporters of FELs argue that in contrast to the fixed
wavelength of light emitted by an SSL, the wavelength of light emitted by an FEL can be tuned to
exactly match various atmospheric transmission sweet spots, including those above the threshold
(about 1.5 microns) at which laser light becomes much less dangerous to human eyes. They also
argue that in contrast to SSLs, FELs pose no large thermal management issues because an FEL’s
waste heat is not produced inside the laser mechanism itself.
Skeptics of FELs, including supporters of SSLs, argue that FELs will not be ready for installation
on ships for a significant number of years. They argue that FELs are so large that they cannot be
incorporated into most if not all existing Navy ship designs, limiting the potential applicability of
FELs to the surface fleet for many years, and that incorporating an FEL into a new ship design
could make the ship considerably larger, adding to the ship’s construction cost. They also argue
that the need for isolating the FEL system from vibration and shock and the possible need for
using cryogenic equipment adds to an FEL’s cost and complexity.

Implications for Ship Design and Acquisition
Another potential issue for Congress are the possible implications that shipboard lasers might
have for the design and acquisition of Navy ships, including the Flight III DDG-51 destroyer that
the Navy wants to begin procuring in FY2016.58 The ability of existing Navy ship designs to
support lasers, particularly in terms of having sufficient electrical power and cooling capacity, can
be summarized as follows:
•

The Navy has concluded that its Aegis cruisers and destroyers (i.e., CG-47 and
DDG-51 class ships), as well as San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships,
would have enough available electrical power under battle conditions (i.e., when
many other systems are also drawing electrical power) to support a LaWS
system. An August 2010 press report stated: “Today’s warships have enough
power to support a 100-kilowatt laser, said [Capt. David Kiel, program manager
for directed energy and electric weapons at Naval Sea Systems Command]. Any

58

For more on the Flight III DDG-51, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.

Congressional Research Service

24

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

surface combatant large enough to accommodate the close-in weapon system
[CIWS] could also carry the fiber laser, he added.”59
•

Some Navy ships might be able to support, under battle conditions, an SSL with
a power somewhat above 100 kW.

•

No existing Navy surface combatant designs have enough electrical power or
cooling capacity to support an SSL with a power level well above 100 kW.

•

Because of its probable size, an FEL could not be backfitted onto existing
cruisers or destroyers. Aircraft carriers and “large-deck” amphibious assault ships
(i.e., LHA/LHD-type amphibious ships) might have enough room to
accommodate an FEL, but existing carriers and amphibious assault ships might
not have enough electrical power to support a megawatt-class FEL. In addition,
because of thermal blooming and the status of carriers and amphibious assault
ships as potential high-value targets, it might make more operational sense to
install megawatt-class FELs on ships other than carriers or amphibious assault
ships.60

The above points suggest that the Navy in coming years could face significant ship-design
constraints in its ability to install shipboard lasers, particularly SSLs well above 100 kW in
power, and FELs in general. These constraints are a product, in part, of the Navy’s termination of
the CG(X) cruiser program, because the CG(X) could have been designed to support SSLs well
above 100 kW in power and/or a megawatt-class FEL.61 Following the termination of the CG(X)
program, the Navy has no announced plans to acquire a surface combatant clearly capable of
supporting an SSL well above 100 kW in power, or an FEL.
Ship-design options for expanding the Navy’s ability to install lasers on its surface ships in
coming years include the following:
•

design the new Flight III version of the DDG-51 destroyer, which the Navy
wants to start procuring in FY2016, with enough space, electrical power, and
cooling capacity to support an SSL with a power level of 200 kW or 300 kW or
more—something that could require lengthening the DDG-51 hull, so as to
provide room for laser equipment and additional electrical generating and cooling
equipment;

•

design and procure a new destroyer as a follow-on or substitute for the Flight III
DDG-51 that can support an SSL with a power level of 200 kW or 300 kW or
more, and/or a megawatt-class FEL;62

59
Grace V. Jean, “Navy Aiming for Laser Weapons at Sea,” National Defense, August 2010, accessed online at
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2010/August/Pages/NavyAimingforLaserWeaponsatSea.aspx.
60
The issue of thermal blooming in “down-the-throat” engagements is of particular concern for a megawatt-class laser.
Since carriers and amphibious assault ships are potential high-value targets for an attacker, it might make more
operational sense to install megawatt-class FELs on ships other than carriers or amphibious assault ships, so that those
other ships could use their FELs to counter targets that are flying a crossing path toward a carrier or amphibious assault
ship.
61
For more on the CG(X) program, see CRS Report RL34179, Navy CG(X) Cruiser Program: Background for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
62
For more on the option of a new-design destroyer, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000
Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.

Congressional Research Service

25

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

•

modify the designs of amphibious assault ships to be procured in coming years,
so that they can support SSLs with power levels of 200 kW or 300 kW or more,
and/or megawatt-class FELs; and

•

modify the design of the Navy’s new Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carriers, if
necessary, so that they can support SSLs with power levels of 200 kW or 300 kW
or more, and/or megawatt-class FELs.63

An April 29, 2013, press report states:
Now that the U.S. Navy is pushing even harder to equip its vessels with lasers, the service is
focusing on reliable, high-voltage shipboard power to feed those weapons. Indeed, Navy
officials say, meeting that need is becoming a matter of national security.
“The work being done in this area is vital,” said Thomas Killion, who heads the Office of
Naval Research’s (ONR’s) Office of Transition, during this month’s Electric Ship
Technologies Symposium outside Washington. “As the upcoming deployment of a shipboard
laser weapon reminds us, we need power generation and power management systems with
greater-than-ever capabilities, but from devices that are smaller than ever.”
Now, navy scientists are looking for ways to better power those shipboard weapons. ONRsupported efforts are focused on cutting-edge technologies that include silicon carbide (SiC)based transistors, transformers and power converters. “SiC is important because it improves
power quality and reduces size and weight of components by as much as 90 percent,” says
Sharon Beerman-Curtin, ONR’s power and energy science and technology lead. “This is a
critical technology enabler for future Navy combatant ships that require massive amounts of
highly controlled electricity to power advanced sensors, propulsion and weapons such as
lasers and the electromagnetic railgun.”64

Options for Congress
Options for Congress regarding potential shipboard lasers include, among other things, the
following:
•

approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s funding requests for development of
potential shipboard lasers;

•

request additional information from the Navy and DOD about potential shipboard
lasers, perhaps by holding one or more hearings on the issue, or by requiring the
Navy to submit one or more reports to Congress on the topic;

•

review and comment on any roadmap for shipboard lasers that the Navy adopts;

•

encourage or direct the Navy to adopt a program of record for procuring a
production version of a shipboard laser;

63

For more on the CVN-78 program, see CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
64
Michael Fabey, “U.S. Navy Beefing Up Shipboard Power For Laser Weapon Needs,” Aerospace Daily & Defense
Report, April 29, 2013: 4.

Congressional Research Service

26

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

•

in the absence of a Navy program of record, direct the Navy to develop and
install lasers with certain capabilities on a certain number of Navy surface ships
by a certain date;65

•

encourage or direct the Navy to design the Flight III version of the DDG-51
destroyer so that it can support an SSL with a power level of 200 kW or 300 kW
or more;

•

encourage or direct the Navy to design and procure a new destroyer as a followon or substitute for the Flight III DDG-51 that can support an SSL with a power
level of 200 kW or 300 kW or more, and/or a megawatt-class FEL;

•

encourage or direct the Navy to modify the designs of amphibious assault ships
to be procured in coming years, so that they can support SSLs with power levels
of 200 kW or 300 kW or more, and/or megawatt-class FELs; and

•

encourage or direct the Navy to modify the design of the Navy’s new Ford
(CVN-78) class aircraft carriers, if necessary, so that they can support SSLs with
power levels of 200 kW or 300 kW or more, and/or megawatt-class FELs.

Legislative Activity for FY2016
FY2016 Funding Request
The Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget requests $26.9 million for research and development work
on directed energy technologies, including the SSL technologies, in the directed energy portion of
Program Element (PE) 0602114N, Power Projection Applied Research, line item 4 in the Navy’s
FY0216 research and development account.66 The figures for FY2014 and FY2015 for this PE are
$40.3 million and $40.5 million, respectively. The Navy states that the “FY 2015 to FY 2016
decrease in funding is due to completion of the Solid State Laser - QRC [Quick Reaction
Capability] program as well as a continued realignment of FEL activities.”67
Additional funding for the Solid State Laser Technology Maturation Program (SSL-TM) forms
part of the FY2016 funding request for the precision strike technology portion of PE 0603114N,
Power Projection Advanced Technology, line item 15 in the Navy’s FY2016 research and
development account.68

65

This option could take the form of a provision broadly similar to Section 220 of the FY2001 defense authorization
act (H.R. 4205/P.L. 106-398 of October 30, 2000), which set goals for the deployment of unmanned combat aircraft
and unmanned combat vehicles. For the text of Section 220, see Appendix K.
66
Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 President's Budget Submission, Navy Justification Book Volume 1 of
5, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, Budget Activities 1, 2 & 3, February 2015, p. 89.
67
Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 President's Budget Submission, Navy Justification Book Volume 1 of
5, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, Budget Activities 1, 2 & 3, February 2015, p. 89.
68
Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 President's Budget Submission, Navy Justification Book Volume 1 of
5, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, Budget Activities 1, 2 & 3, February 2015, p. 328.

Congressional Research Service

27

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

The Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget also requests $9.5 million for SSLs in Project 9823 (Lasers
for Navy Applications) within PE 0603925N, Directed Energy and Electric Weapon System, line
item 73 in the Navy’s FY2016 research and development account.69

FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735/S. 1376)
House
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 114-102 of May 5, 2015) on H.R.
1735, recommends approving the Navy’s FY2016 funding requests for PEs 0602114N,
0603114N, and 0603925N (page 461, lines 004 and 015, and page 463, line 073).
H.Rept. 114-102 states:
Naval electric weapons systems fielding plan
The committee is aware that the Navy has been pursuing development and operational
demonstration of a number of electric weapons systems, including both directed energy
systems and electromagnetic railguns. This class of electric weapons has the potential to
provide revolutionary new capabilities for Navy platforms, including increased range,
increased safety, and deeper magazines than conventional weapons. The committee believes
that such systems will be important in the future to counter cost-imposing strategies in an
anti-access environment where swarms of low-cost weapons could be used to overwhelm
higher-cost, limited numbers of defensive weapons. However, as the Navy continues to
pursue increasing power and decreasing size for such weapons, the committee believes that
the Navy should also be considering how to field and integrate such systems into future
naval platforms in order to facilitate successful transition from the laboratory to the fleet.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to develop a plan for fielding
electric weapon systems within the Department of the Navy for both the current and future
fleet, and to provide a briefing on the results of this plan to the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 1, 2016. As part of this plan, the Secretary of the Navy shall detail
proposals for the allocation of the requisite power and space for the fielding of electric
weapons systems, such as the Laser Weapons System, electromagnetic railgun, or other
similar systems currently in development for the current and future fleet. (Page 30)

Senate
The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 114-49 of May 19, 2015) on S.
1376, recommends approving the Navy’s FY2016 funding requests for PEs 0602114N,
0603114N, and 0603925N (page 403, line 4, page 404, line 15, and page 406, line 73).
Section 212 of S. 1376 as reported by the committee states (see in particular the parts in bold):
SEC. 212. Department of Defense technology offset program to build and maintain the
military technological superiority of the United States.

69

Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 President's Budget Submission, Navy Justification Book Volume 2 of
5, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy Budget Activity 4, February 2015, p. 906.

Congressional Research Service

28

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

(a) Program established.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish a technology offset program to
build and maintain the military technological superiority of the United States by—
(A) accelerating the fielding of offset technologies that would help counter technological
advantages of potential adversaries of the United States, including directed energy, low-cost,
high-speed munitions, autonomous systems, undersea warfare, cyber technology, and
intelligence data analytics, developed using Department of Defense research funding and
accelerating the commercialization of such technologies; and
(B) developing and implementing new policies and acquisition and business practices.
(2) GUIDELINES.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall issue guidelines for the operation of the program, including—
(A) criteria for an application for funding by a military department, defense agency, or a
combatant command;
(B) the purposes for which such a department, agency, or command may apply for funds and
appropriate requirements for technology development or commercialization to be supported
using program funds;
(C) the priorities, if any, to be provided to field or commercialize offset technologies
developed by certain types of Department research funding; and
(D) criteria for evaluation of an application for funding or changes to policies or acquisition
and business practices by a department, agency, or command for purposes of the program.
(b) Development of directed energy strategy.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary, in consultation with such officials and third-party experts as the
Secretary considers appropriate, shall develop a directed energy strategy to ensure that
the United States directed energy technologies are being developed and deployed at an
accelerated pace.
(2) COMPONENTS OF STRATEGY.—The strategy required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) A technology roadmap for directed energy that can be used to manage and assess
investments and policies of the Department in this high priority technology area.
(B) Proposals for legislative and administrative action to improve the ability of the
Department to develop and deploy technologies and capabilities consistent with the
directed energy strategy.
(C) An approach to program management that is designed to accelerate operational
prototyping of directed energy technologies and develop cost-effective, real-world
military applications for such technologies.
(3) BIENNIAL REVISIONS.—Not less frequently than once every 2 years, the
Secretary shall revise the strategy required by paragraph (1).

Congressional Research Service

29

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

(4) SUBMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—(A) Not later than 90 days after the date on which
the Secretary completes the development of the strategy required by paragraph (1) and
not later than 90 days after the date on which the Secretary completes a revision to
such strategy under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives a copy of such strategy.
(B) The strategy submitted under subparagraph (A) shall be submitted in unclassified
form, but may include a classified annex.
(c) Applications for funding.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Under the program, the Secretary shall, not less frequently than
annually, solicit from the heads of the military departments, the defense agencies, and the
combatant commands applications for funding to be used to enter into contracts, cooperative
agreements, or other transaction agreements entered into pursuant to section 845 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160; 10 U.S.C.
2371 note) with appropriate entities for the fielding or commercialization of technologies.
(2) TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CERTAIN CONGRESSIONAL RULES.—Nothing in
this section shall be interpreted to require any official of the Department of Defense to
provide funding under this section to any earmark as defined pursuant to House Rule XXI,
clause 9, or any congressionally directed spending item as defined pursuant to Senate Rule
XLIV, paragraph 5.
(d) Funding.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of appropriations for such purpose, of
the amounts authorized to be appropriated for research, development, test, and
evaluation, Defense-wide for fiscal year 2016, not more than $400,000,000 may be used
for any such fiscal year for the program established under subsection (a).
(2) AMOUNT FOR DIRECTED ENERGY.—Of this amount, not more than
$200,000,000 may be used for activities in the field of directed energy.
(e) Transfer authority.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may transfer funds available for the program to the
research, development, test, and evaluation accounts of a military department, defense
agency, or a combatant command pursuant to an application, or any part of an application,
that the Secretary determines would support the purposes of the program.
(2) SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.—The transfer authority provided in this subsection is
in addition to any other transfer authority available to the Department of Defense.
(f) Termination.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The authority to carry out a program under this section shall terminate
on September 30, 2020.
(2) TRANSFER AFTER TERMINATION.—Any amounts made available for the program
that remain available for obligation on the date the program terminates may be transferred
under subsection (e) during the 180-day period beginning on the date of the termination of
the program.

Congressional Research Service

30

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

Regarding Section 212, S.Rept. 114-49 states (see in particular the parts in bold):
Department of Defense technology offset program to build and maintain the military
technological superiority of the United States (sec. 212)
The committee notes with concern that the United States has not faced a more diverse and
complex array of crises since the end of World War II, and that taken together, they
constitute the greatest challenge in a generation to the integrity of the liberal world order,
which has consistently been underwritten by U.S. military technological superiority. At the
same time, the committee is alarmed by the apparent erosion in recent years of this
technological advantage, which is in danger of disappearing altogether. To prevent such a
scenario and to maintain the country’s global military technological edge, the committee
recommends a provision that would establish a new $400.0 million initiative.
In doing so, the committee notes that the Defense Department is facing an emerging
innovation gap. Commercial research and development in the United States now represents
80 percent of the national total, and the top four U.S. defense contractors combined spend
only one-quarter of what the single biggest internet company does on research and
development. Furthermore, global research and development is now more than twice that of
the United States. The committee also notes that defense innovation is moving too slowly—
in cycles that can last up to 18 years, whereas commercial innovation can be measured in
cycles of 18 months or less.
The committee understands that accessing sources of innovation beyond the Defense
Department is critical for national security, particularly in the areas of directed energy,
low-cost high-speed munitions, cyber capabilities, autonomous systems, undersea
warfare, and intelligence data analytics. However, there are currently too many
barriers that limit cooperation with U.S. allies and global commercial firms, posing a
threat to the country’s future military technological dominance.
For the past several years, U.S. adversaries have been rapidly improving their own military
capabilities to counter our unique advantages. Structural trends, such as the diffusion of
certain advanced military technologies, pose new operational challenges to U.S. armed
forces. As a result, the dominance of the United States military can no longer be taken for
granted. Consequently, the Department of Defense must remain focused on the myriad
potential threats of the future and thus maintain technological superiority against potential
adversaries.
The committee notes that since 1960, the department has invested more than $6.0
billion in directed energy science and technology initiatives. The committee is
concerned that, despite this significant investment, the department’s directed energy
initiatives are not resourced at levels necessary to transition them to full-scale
acquisition programs. The committee is encouraged by the Navy’s demonstration a
100–150 kilowatt prototype laser and by the Air Force’s demonstration of highpowered electromagnetic weapons capabilities. However, the committee is concerned
about the future of directed energy technologies as a whole. The committee notes that
there is no inter-service entity dedicated to advancing promising directed energy
platforms beyond the development point towards acquisition.
The committee is encouraged that the department established a department-wide Defense
Innovation Initiative in November 2014 to pursue innovative ways to sustain and advance
our military superiority and to improve business operations throughout the department.
However, the committee is concerned by the possibility that this initiative is not being
implemented in an appropriate and expeditious manner.

Congressional Research Service

31

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

In response to these factors, the committee recommends a provision that would
establish an initiative within the Department of Defense to maintain and enhance the
military technological superiority of the United States. The provision would establish a
program to accelerate the fielding of offset technologies, including, but not limited to,
directed energy, low-cost high-speed munitions, autonomous systems, undersea
warfare, cyber technology, and intelligence data analytics, developed by the
department and to accelerate the commercialization of such technologies. As part of
this program, the committee expects that the Secretary of Defense would also establish
updated policies and new acquisition and management practices that would speed the
delivery of offset technologies into operational use.
The provision would authorize $400.0 million for fiscal year 2016 for the initiative, of
which $200.0 million would be authorized specifically for directed energy technology.
Accordingly, the provision would mandate the Secretary to develop a directed energy
strategy to ensure that appropriate technologies are developed and deployed at an
accelerated pace, and update it every 2 years. The committee expects that this strategy
would include a recommendation on rationalizing the roles and authorities of the Joint
Technology Office for High Energy Lasers. The provision would further direct the
Secretary to submit this strategy to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the
House Armed Services Committee no later than 90 days after completing the strategy,
and biennially thereafter.
To speed up the development of these vitally needed national security capabilities, the
committee directs that the Secretary of Defense shall consider all appropriate flexible
acquisition authorities granted in law and in this Act. These should include the management
structure and streamlined procedures for rapid prototyping outlined in section 803 of this Act
on the middle tier of acquisition for rapid prototyping and rapid fielding, and the procedures
and authorities to be considered under section 805 of this Act on use of alternative
acquisition paths to acquire critical national security capabilities to include other
transactions, rapid acquisition, and commercial item authorities.
The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense would keep the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services regularly updated on progress
of activities under this technology offsets initiative. (Pages 44-46)

FY2016 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 2685/S. 1558)
House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 114-139 of June 5, 2015) on H.R.
2685, recommends increasing by $5 million the Navy’s FY2016 funding request for PE
0602114N, with the increase being for “Program increase—force protection research” (page 234,
line 4), approving the Navy’s FY2016 funding request for 0603114N (page 226, line 15), and
reducing by $12.124 million the Navy’s FY2016 funding request for 0603925N, with the
reduction being for “Railgun excess support” ($6 million) and “Program execution” ($6.124
million) (page 236, line 73).

Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 114-63 of June 1 2015) on S. 1558,
recommends increasing by $18 million the Navy’s FY2016 funding request for PE 0602114N,

Congressional Research Service

32

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

with the increase being for “Program increase” (page 162, line 4), approving the Navy’s FY2016
funding request for 0603114N (page 158, line 15), and reducing by $27.1 million the Navy’s
FY2016 funding request for 0603925N, with the reduction being for “Restoring acquisition
accountability: Long lead materials for non-competitive test event in fiscal year 2019” (page 163,
line 73). (As discussed on pages 165-166 of the committee’s report, the test event relates to the
electromagnetic railgun.)

Congressional Research Service

33

Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense

Appendix A. Laser Power Levels Required to
Counter Targets
Table A-1 shows two Navy perspectives, a Defense Science Board (DSB) task force perspective,
and two industry perspectives on approximate laser power levels needed to affect various
categories of targets. As can be seen in the table, these perspectives differ somewhat regarding the
power levels needed to counter certain targets, perhaps because of differing assumptions about
beam quality (BQ) and other factors.
Table A-1. Approximate Laser Power Levels Needed to Affect Certain Targets
Multiple perspectives that may reflect varying assumptions about BQ and other factors
Beam power measured in kilowatts (kW) or megawatts (MW)
Source

~10 kW

Tens of
kW

~100
kW

Hundreds of kW

MW

UAVs
One Navy
briefing (2010)

Small boats
Missiles (starting at 500 kW)
Short-range operations
against UAVs, RAM,
MANPADS (50 kW100kW; low BQ)

Another Navy
briefing (2010)

Industry
briefing (2010)
Defense
Science Board
(DSB) report
(2007)

Northrop
Grumman
research paper
(2005)

Soft UAVs
at short
range

Extended-range operations
against UAVs, RAM,
MANPADS, ASCMs flying a
crossing path (>100 kW,
BQ of ~2)

Operations against
supersonic, highly
maneuverable ASCMs,
transonic air-to-surface
missiles, and ballistic
missiles (>1 MW)

UAVs and
small boats
(50 kW)

RAM (100+ kW), subsonic ASCMs (300
kW), manned aircraft (500 kW)

Supersonic ASCMs and
ballistic missiles

Surface
threats at
1-2 km

Ground-based air and
missile defense, and
countering rockets,
artillery, and mortars, at 510 kma

“Battle group defense” at
5-20 km (1-3 MW)

Aircraft
and cruise
missiles at
short
range

Soft
UAVs at
long
range

Aircraft and cruise missiles
at long range, and artillery
rockets (lower hundreds of
kW)
Artillery shells and terminal
defense against very short
range ballistic missiles
(higher 100s of kW)

Source: One Navy briefing: Briefing slide entitled “HEL [High-Energy Laser] Missions,” in briefing entitled
“Directed Energy Warfare Office (DEWO) Overview,” July 23, 2010. Another Navy briefing: Briefing slide
entitled “Surface Navy Laser Vision

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41526. Public record. Not legal advice.