Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Congressional research reportJan 12, 2026
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and
Issues for Congress
Updated January 12, 2026
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R44175
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Summary
This report provides background information and issues for Congress on shipboard solid state
lasers (SSLs) that the Navy is developing for surface-ship self-defense.
The Navy installed its first prototype SSL capable of countering surface craft and unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs) on a Navy ship in 2014. The Navy since then has been developing and
installing additional SSL prototypes with improved capability for countering surface craft and
UAVs. SSLs with higher beam powers that are being developed by the Navy could have a
capability for countering anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs). Navy efforts to develop SSLs have
included
•
•
•
•
the Solid State Laser Technology Maturation (SSL-TM) effort;
the Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN);
the Surface Navy Laser Weapon System (SNLWS) Increment 1, also known as
the high-energy laser with integrated optical dazzler and surveillance (HELIOS);
and
the High Energy Laser Counter-ASCM Program (HELCAP).
On December 22, 2025, the Trump Administration announced a proposed program to build a new
class of guided missile battleships (BBG[X]s) for the Navy. The first BBG(X) would reportedly
be procured in the early 2030s. The Navy states that the BBG(X) is to be armed with, among
other things, two lasers, each with a beam power of 300 kilowatts (kW) or 600 kW. Lasers with
such beam power (particularly 600 kW) could be capable of countering at least some types of
ASCMs.
The issue for Congress is whether to modify, reject, or approve the Navy’s acquisition strategies
and funding requests for shipboard laser development programs. Decisions that Congress makes
on this issue could affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements and the defense technology
and industrial base.
Congressional Research Service
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Issue for Congress ..................................................................................................................... 1
Earlier Coverage of EMRG and GLGP/HVP Programs ........................................................... 1
CRS Reports on Other DOD Efforts to Develop Lasers ........................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Strategic and Budgetary Context............................................................................................... 2
Concern About Survivability of Navy Surface Ships ......................................................... 2
Depth of Magazine and Cost Exchange Ratio .................................................................... 2
Navy Shipboard Solid State Lasers (SSLs) in General ............................................................. 4
Overview ............................................................................................................................. 4
Earlier Developments.......................................................................................................... 5
Development Roadmap ....................................................................................................... 5
Current and Recent Navy SSL Development Efforts ................................................................ 6
SSL-TM .............................................................................................................................. 6
ODIN ................................................................................................................................ 12
SNLWS Increment 1 (HELIOS) ....................................................................................... 15
HELCAP ........................................................................................................................... 19
Layered Laser Defense (LLD) System ............................................................................. 19
Navy Role in OUSD R&E High Energy Laser Scaling Initiative (HELSI) ...................... 21
Directed Energy Components for High Energy Lasers ..................................................... 21
Remaining Development Challenges ................................................................................ 22
Lasers Included in Proposed BBG(X) Guided Missile Battleship .......................................... 23
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 23
Figures
Figure 1. Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on USS Ponce ................................................................ 6
Figure 2. Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on USS Ponce ................................................................ 7
Figure 3. Navy Laser Weapon Development Approach as of May 16, 2024 .................................. 8
Figure 4. Navy Laser Weapon Development Approach as of August 17, 2022 .............................. 8
Figure 5. ONR Graphic of SSL-TM Laser System ......................................................................... 9
Figure 6. Navy Graphic of SSL-TM Laser System ....................................................................... 10
Figure 7. Reported SSL-TM Laser Being Transported ................................................................. 10
Figure 8. Reported SSL-TM Laser Being Transported ..................................................................11
Figure 9. Reported SSL-TM Laser Being Transported ..................................................................11
Figure 10. Reported ODIN System on USS Stockdale ................................................................. 13
Figure 11. Reported ODIN System at Naval Support Facility Dahlgren ...................................... 14
Figure 12. HELIOS System on DDG-51 Destroyer ...................................................................... 15
Figure 13. HELIOS System on DDG-51 Destroyer ...................................................................... 16
Congressional Research Service
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendixes
Appendix A. Potential Advantages, Limitations, Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness of
Shipboard Lasers ........................................................................................................................ 26
Appendix B. Navy Missiles Fired in 2023-2025 Operations in Red Sea and Gulf of Aden ......... 30
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 34
Congressional Research Service
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
Issue for Congress
This report provides background information and issues for Congress on shipboard solid state
lasers (SSLs) that the Navy is developing for surface-ship self-defense.
The issue for Congress is whether to modify, reject, or approve the Navy’s acquisition strategies
and funding requests for shipboard laser development programs. Decisions that Congress makes
on this issue could affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements and the defense technology
and industrial base.
This CRS report supersedes an earlier CRS report that provided an introduction to potential Navy
shipboard lasers.1
Earlier Coverage of EMRG and GLGP/HVP Programs
This CRS report previously included coverage of Navy efforts to develop two other potential
shipboard weapons—the electromagnetic railgun (EMRG) and the gun-launched guided
projectile (GLGP), also known as the hypervelocity projectile (HVP). As part of its FY2022
budget submission, the Navy proposed suspending further work on the EMRG and GLGP
programs and requested no research and development funding for them. For background
information on the EMRG and GLGP programs, see the April 1, 2022, version or earlier versions
of this CRS report.2
CRS Reports on Other DOD Efforts to Develop Lasers
SSLs (and other directed energy weapons) are being developed by multiple parts of the
Department of Defense (DOD), not just the Navy,3 and have potential application to military
aircraft and ground forces equipment, not just surface ships. Other CRS reports cover some of
these other efforts.4
1 CRS Report R41526, Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. This earlier CRS report was archived following its final update on June 12, 2015, and
remains available as a supplementary reference source on potential Navy shipboard lasers.
2 The title of the April 1, 2022, version and earlier versions of this report was Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Gun-Launched
Guided Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress.
3 For a discussion of Army laser development programs, see CRS Report R45098, U.S. Army Weapons-Related
Directed Energy (DE) Programs: Background and Potential Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
4 See CRS In Focus IF11882, Defense Primer: Directed-Energy Weapons, by Kelley M. Sayler; CRS Report R46925,
Department of Defense Directed Energy Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress, coordinated by Kelley M.
Sayler; and CRS Report R45098, U.S. Army Weapons-Related Directed Energy (DE) Programs: Background and
Potential Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
Congressional Research Service
1
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Background
Strategic and Budgetary Context
Concern About Survivability of Navy Surface Ships
Although Navy surface ships have a number of means for defending themselves against surface
craft, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and anti-ship missiles,5 some observers are concerned
about the survivability of Navy surface ships in potential combat situations against adversaries,
such as China, that are armed with large numbers of UAVs and anti-ship missiles, including
advanced models.6 Concern about this issue has led some observers to conclude that the Navy’s
surface fleet in coming years might need to avoid operating in waters that are within range of
these weapons. Views on whether Navy surface ships can adequately defend themselves against
UAVs and anti-ship missiles might influence perspectives on whether it would be cost effective to
spend money on the procurement and operation of such ships.
Depth of Magazine and Cost Exchange Ratio
Overview
Two key limitations that Navy surface ships currently have in defending themselves against
UAVs and anti-ship missiles are limited depth of magazine and unfavorable cost exchange ratios.
Limited depth of magazine refers to the fact that Navy surface ships can use surface-to-air
missiles (SAMs) and their Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) Gatling guns to shoot down only a
certain number of enemy UAVs and anti-ship missiles before running out of SAMs and CIWS
ammunition7—a situation (sometimes called “going Winchester”) that can require a ship to
5 These include the following: operating ships in ways that make it hard for others to detect and accurately track Navy
ships; jamming or destroying enemy targeting sensors; interfering with the transmission of targeting data from sensors
to weapon launchers; attacking missile launchers (which can be land-based launchers, ships, submarines, or aircraft);
and countering missiles and UAVs headed toward Navy ships. Navy measures for countering missiles and UAVs
headed toward Navy ships include the following: jamming a missile’s or UAV’s sensor or guidance system; using
decoys of various kinds to lure enemy missiles away from Navy ships; and shooting down enemy missiles and UAVs
with surface-to-air missiles and the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS), which is essentially a radar-controlled
Gatling gun. Employing all these measures reflects a long-standing Navy approach of creating a multi-layered defense
against enemy missiles, and of attacking the enemy’s “kill chain” at multiple points so as to increase the chances of
breaking the chain. (The kill chain is the sequence of steps that an enemy must complete to conduct a successful missile
attack on a Navy ship. Interfering with any step in the sequence can break the kill chain and thereby prevent or defeat
the attack.)
6 For more on China’s anti-ship missiles and UAVs, see CRS Report RL33153, China Naval Modernization:
Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. Enemy missiles
are not the only reasons that some observers are concerned about the future survivability of U.S. Navy surface ships in
combat situations; observers are also concerned about threats to U.S. Navy surface ships posed by small boats, mines,
and torpedoes.
7 Navy cruisers have 122 missile cells; Navy destroyers have 90 or 96 missile cells. Some of these cells are used for
storing and launching Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles or anti-submarine rockets. The remainder are available for
storing and launching SAMs. A Navy cruiser or destroyer might thus be armed with a few dozen or several dozen
SAMs for countering missiles and UAVs. Countering missiles and UAVs with SAMs might sometimes require
shooting two SAMs at each enemy missile.
Congressional Research Service
2
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
withdraw from battle, spend time travelling to a safe reloading location (which can be hundreds
of miles away),8 and then spend more time traveling back to the battle area.
Unfavorable cost exchange ratios refer to the fact that a SAM used to shoot down a UAV or antiship missile can cost the Navy more (perhaps much more) to procure than it cost the adversary to
build or acquire the UAV or anti-ship missile. Procurement costs for Navy air-defense missiles
range from several hundred thousand dollars to several million dollars per missile, depending on
the type. In combat scenarios against an adversary with a limited number of UAVs or anti-ship
missiles, an unfavorable cost exchange ratio can be acceptable because it saves the lives of Navy
sailors and prevents very expensive damage to Navy ships. But in combat scenarios (or an
ongoing military capabilities competition) against a country such as China that has many UAVs
and anti-ship missiles and a capacity for building or acquiring many more, an unfavorable cost
exchange ratio can become a very expensive—and potentially unaffordable—approach to
defending Navy surface ships against UAVs and anti-ship missiles, particularly in a context of
constraints on U.S. defense spending and competing demands for finite U.S. defense funds.
SSLs offer a potential for dramatically improving depth of magazine and the cost exchange ratio:
•
•
Depth of magazine. SSLs are electrically powered, drawing their power from
the ship’s overall electrical supply, and can be fired over and over, indefinitely, as
long as the laser continues to work and the ship has fuel to generate electricity.
Cost exchange ratio. Depending on its beam power, an SSL can be fired for an
estimated marginal (i.e., recurring) cost of about $1 to less than $10 per shot,
much of which simply is the cost of the fuel needed to generate the electricity
used in the shot.9
SSLs that have enough beam power to counter small boats and UAVs, but not enough to counter
anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), could nevertheless indirectly improve a ship’s ability to
counter ASCMs by permitting the ship to use fewer of its SAMs for countering UAVs, and more
of them for countering ASCMs.10
Navy Operations in Red Sea and Gulf of Aden in 2023-2025 Spotlighted Depth of
Magazine and Cost Exchange Ratio
Operations by U.S. and allied warships ships in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden in 2023-2025
to defend commercial cargo ships (and themselves) from attacks by Houthi forces in Yemen using
drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles11 spotlighted the above-discussed considerations of
depth of magazine and cost exchange ratios, particularly for shooting down substantial numbers
of drones, and drew attention to the potential ability of lasers (and high-power microwave [HPM]
8 The missile cells on a Navy cruiser or destroyers are clustered together in an installation called a Vertical Launch
System (VLS). VLS cells cannot be reloaded while the ship is underway; a ship needs to return to a port or a calm
anchorage to reload its VLS.
9 Source: Navy information paper on shipboard lasers dated October 20, 2021, provided to CRS by Navy Office of
Legislative Affairs on November 17, 2021.
10 For a press report about the use of lasers in countering UAVs, see Lara Jakes, “The Hottest New Defense Against
Drones? Lasers,” New York Times, September 18, 2025. See also Joseph Trevithick, “China’s Imposing LY-1 HighPower Laser Weapon Unveiled At Huge Military Parade, The LY-1 Is Reportedly Designed Primarily for Protecting
Ships against Drones and Missiles, but Appears to Also Have a Role on Land,” The War Zone, September 3, 2025.
11 For general background on these attacks, see CRS Insight IN12301, Houthi Attacks in the Red Sea: Issues for
Congress, by Jeremy M. Sharp.
Congressional Research Service
3
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
weapons)12 to counter drones while using fewer of a ship’s finite number of air-defense missiles
and with a more favorable (i.e., more affordable) cost exchange ratio.13 For examples of reports of
numbers of Navy missiles and other munitions fired in these operations, and the costs of these
missiles, see Appendix B.
Navy Shipboard Solid State Lasers (SSLs) in General
Overview
The Navy over the past 15 to 20 years has leveraged both significant advancements in industrial
SSLs and decades of research and development work on military lasers done by other parts of
DOD to make substantial progress toward deploying high-energy lasers (HELs)14 on Navy
surface ships. Navy surface ships would use high-energy SSLs initially for jamming or confusing
(i.e., “dazzling”) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) sensors, for countering
small boats and UAVs, and potentially in the future for countering enemy anti-ship missiles as
well. High-energy SSLs on Navy ships would generally be short-range defensive weapons—they
would generally counter targets at ranges of about one mile to perhaps eventually a few miles.
In addition to a low marginal cost per shot and deep magazine, potential advantages of shipboard
lasers include fast engagement times, an ability to counter radically maneuvering missiles, an
ability to conduct precision engagements, and an ability to use lasers for graduated responses
ranging from detecting and monitoring targets to causing disabling damage. Potential limitations
of shipboard lasers relate to line of sight; atmospheric absorption, scattering, and turbulence
(which prevent shipboard lasers from being all-weather weapons); an effect known as thermal
blooming that can reduce laser effectiveness; countering saturation attacks; possible adversary
use of hardened targets and countermeasures; and risk of collateral damage, including damage to
12 For more on HPM weapons, see CRS In Focus IF11882, Defense Primer: Directed-Energy Weapons, by Kelley M.
Sayler; CRS Report R46925, Department of Defense Directed Energy Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress,
coordinated by Kelley M. Sayler.
13 See, for example, Brad Dress, “Houthi Fight Extracts Heavy Cost from Pentagon,” The Hill, March 2, 2024; Todd
South, “Cost Drain and Weapon Stockpile Drawdowns Worry Marine General,” Marine Corps Times, February 16,
2024; Justin Katz, “Munitions Stockpile Issue Persists 2 Years into Ukraine Conflict: Marine Corps General,” Breaking
Defense, February 14, 2024; Wes Rumbaugh, “Cost and Value in Air and Missile Defense Intercepts,” Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), February 13, 2024; Brad Howard, “How Chaos in the Red Sea Is Putting the
U.S. Navy to the Test,” CNBC, January 24 (updated January 25), 2024; Colin Demarest, Megan Eckstein, and Geoff
Ziezulewicz, “Amid Red Sea Clashes, Navy Leaders Ask: Where Are Our Ship Lasers?” Defense News, January 22,
2024; Geoff Ziezulewicz, “What the Navy Is Learning from Its Fight in the Red Sea,” Military Times, January 18,
2024; Eugene Gholz, “The US Military Role in the Red Sea—Now Turning Offensive—Is a Bad Deal,” Cato Institute,
January 12, 2024; Rudy Ruitenberg, “French Navy Defends Use of Million-Euro Missiles to Down Houthi Drones,”
Defense News, January 11, 2024; Rich Abott, “SWO BOSS Wants Accelerated Directed Energy Weapons,” Defense
Daily, January 9, 2024; Sam LaGrone, “New SWOBOSS Wants More Directed Energy Weapons on Warships as LowCost Threats Expand,” USNI News, January 9, 2024; Nick Wilson, “Navy Looks to Field Directed-Energy Weapons to
Counter Increasingly Cheap and Prevalent Drones,” Inside Defense, January 9, 2024; Brad Lendon, “How US
Warships Are Shooting Down Houthi Drones in the Red Sea, and What Might Come Next,” CNN, December 20, 2023;
Doug Cameron, “Pentagon Eyes Microwave Weapons to Tackle Drone Threat,” Wall Street Journal, December 19,
2020; Lara Seligman and Matt Berg, “A $2M Missile vs. a $2,000 Drone: Pentagon Worried over Cost of Houthi
Attacks,” Politico, December 19 (updated December 20), 2023.
14 In discussions of potential Navy shipboard lasers, a high-energy laser is generally considered to be a laser with a
beam power of at least 10 kW. In addition to developing SSLs, the Navy has also performed research and development
work on a different kind of laser, called the free electron laser (FEL). For background information on the FEL, see CRS
Report R41526, Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
4
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
aircraft and satellites and permanent damage to human eyesight, including blinding. These
potential advantages and limitations are discussed in greater detail in the Appendix A.
Earlier Developments
Earlier developments in the Navy’s efforts to develop high-energy SSLs include the following:
•
•
•
•
Between 2009 and 2012, the Navy successfully tested a prototype SSL called the
Laser Weapon System (LaWS) against UAVs in a series of engagements that took
place initially on land and subsequently on a Navy ship at sea. LaWS had a
reported beam power of 30 kilowatts (kW).15
Between 2010 and 2011, the Navy tested another prototype SSL called the
Maritime Laser Demonstration (MLD) in a series of tests that culminated with an
MLD installed on a Navy ship successfully engaging a small boat.
In August 2014, the Navy installed LaWS on the USS Ponce (pronounced ponSAY)—a converted amphibious ship that operated in the Persian Gulf as an
interim Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB[I])16—to conduct evaluation of
shipboard lasers in an operational setting against swarming boats and swarming
UAVs (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
In December 2014, the Navy declared LaWS on the Ponce to be an “operational”
system.17 Ponce remained in the Persian Gulf until it was relieved in September
2017 by its replacement, the new-construction Expeditionary Sea Base ship
Lewis B. Puller (ESB-3). Ponce returned to the United States and was
decommissioned in October 2017, at which point LaWS was removed from
Ponce. LaWS was to be refurbished to serve as a land-based test asset for the
HELIOS effort discussed below.18
Development Roadmap
The Navy is developing SSLs with improved capability for countering surface craft and UAVs,
and potentially an eventual capability for countering ASCMs. Navy efforts to develop these more
capable lasers have included
•
•
the Solid State Laser Technology Maturation (SSL-TM) effort;
the Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN);
15 See, for example, Mike McCarthy, “Navy Authorized to Use Ship-Based Laser in Battle,” Defense Daily, December
11, 2014: 3.
16 As an interim AFSB, Ponce operated in the Persian Gulf as a “mother ship” for Navy helicopter and small boat
operations. Ships referred to as AFSBs are now referred to as Expeditionary Sea Base ships (ESBs).
17 Mike McCarthy, “Navy Authorized to Use Ship-Based Laser in Battle,” Defense Daily, December 11, 2014: 3; Sam
LaGrone, “U.S. Navy Allowed to Use Persian Gulf Laser for Defense,” USNI News, December 10, 2014; Philip Ewing,
“Navy Declares Laser Weapon ‘Operational,’” Politico Pro (Pro Defense Report), December 10, 2014; Statement of
Rear Admiral Mathias W. Winter, United States Navy, Chief of Naval Research, Before the Emerging Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on The Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request,
February 24, 2016, p. 15.
18 Source: Navy briefing to CRS and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on SNLWS program, April 27, 2018. For
additional discussion of LaWS, see U.S. Navy, U.S. Navy Program Guide 2017, pp. 180-181, which refers to LaWS as
the SSL-QRC (solid state laser—quick reaction capability).
Congressional Research Service
5
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
•
•
the Surface Navy Laser Weapon System (SNLWS) Increment 1, also known as
the high-energy laser with integrated optical dazzler and surveillance (HELIOS);
and
the High Energy Laser Counter-ASCM Program (HELCAP).
Figure 1. Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on USS Ponce
Source: Navy photograph dated November 16, 2014, accompanying David Smalley, “Historic Leap: Navy
Shipboard Laser Operates in Arabian Gulf,” Navy News Service, December 10, 2014.
Figure 3 shows the Navy’s approach for developing shipboard high-energy lasers as of May 16,
2024. As shown in Figure 3, first three efforts above are included in what the Navy calls the
Navy Laser Family of Systems (NFLoS). (The fourth NFLoS effort shown in Figure 3, the
Ruggedized High Energy Laser [RHEL] effort, is now completed.) Figure 4 shows the Navy’s
approach for developing shipboard high-energy lasers as of August 17, 2022. Compared with the
older Figure 4 from August 2022, the newer Figure 3 from May 2024 does not show SNLWS
Increment 2 and SNLWS Increment 3 as future development efforts, and does not show an ASCM
defense capability and a subsequent improved ASCM defense capability as future fleet
capabilities.
Current and Recent Navy SSL Development Efforts
SSL-TM
The SSL Technology Maturation (SSL-TM) program developed a prototype shipboard laser
called the Laser Weapons System Demonstrator (LWSD) “to address known capability gaps
against asymmetric threats (UAS [unmanned aerial systems], small boats, and ISR sensors) and
Congressional Research Service
6
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
will inform future acquisition strategies, system designs, integration architectures, and fielding
plans for laser weapon systems.”19 Industry teams led by BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and
Raytheon, among others, competed to develop an LWSD with a beam power of up to 150 kW. On
October 22, 2015, DOD announced that it had selected Northrop Grumman as the winner of the
SSL-TM competition.20
Figure 2. Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on USS Ponce
Source: Navy photograph dated November 17, 2014, accompanying David Smalley, “Historic Leap: Navy
Shipboard Laser Operates in Arabian Gulf,” Navy News Service, December 10, 2014.
The Navy announced in January 2018 that it intended to install LWSD on the amphibious ship
Portland (LPD-27).21 The system reportedly was installed on the ship in the fall of 2019.22 On
May 22, 2020, the Navy announced that Portland had used its LWSD to successfully disable a
UAV in an at-sea test that was conducted on May 16, 2020.23
19 Department of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book Volume 2 of 5, Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, March 2023, p. 182 (PDF page 250 of 1568).
20 DOD contract award announcements for October 22, 2015. See also “US Navy Selects Northrop Grumman to Design
and Produce Shipboard Laser Weapon System Demonstrator,” December 22, 2015. See also Richard Scott, “Northrop
Grumman to Build on MLD for SSL Demonstrator,” IHS Jane’s International Defence Review, February 2016: 5;
Michael Fabey and Kris Osborn, “Navy to Fire 150Kw Ship Laser Weapon from Destroyers, Carriers,” Scout Warrior,
January 23, 2017.
21 Megan Eckstein, “LPD Portland Will Host ONR Laser Weapon Demonstrator, Serve as RIMPAC 2018 Flagship,”
USNI News, January 10, 2018; Richard Abott, “Next Navy Amphib Will Feature Laser Weapon Demo, Chosen as
Flagship for RIMPAC 2018,” Defense Daily, January 11, 2018.
22 Christopher P. Cavas, “Lasers Sprout in San Diego,” Defense & Aerospace Report, March 1, 2020.
23 Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Public Affairs, “USS Portland Conducts Laser Weapon System Demonstrator Test,”
Navy News Service, May 22, 2020. See also Megan Eckstein, “VIDEO: USS Portland Fires Laser Weapon, Downs
Drone in First At-Sea Test,” USNI News, May 22, 2020; Paul McLeary, “US Warship Fries Drone with Powerful New
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 3. Navy Laser Weapon Development Approach as of May 16, 2024
Source: Navy briefing slide provided by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs to CRS on May 16, 2024. N96 is the
Surface Warfare Division of the Office of Chief of Naval Operations. N94 is the Innovation, Technology
Missions, and Test and Evaluation Division.
Figure 4. Navy Laser Weapon Development Approach as of August 17, 2022
Source: Navy briefing slide provided by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs to CRS on August 17, 2022. N96 is the
Surface Warfare Division of the Office of Chief of Naval Operations. N94 is the Innovation, Technology
Missions, and Test and Evaluation Division.
Laser,” Breaking Defense, May 22, 2020; Geoff Ziezulewicz, “Watch This Ship-Mounted Navy Laser Shoot Down a
Drone,” Navy Times, May 26, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
8
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 5 is an Office of Naval Research (ONR) graphic illustration of the SSL-TM system and its
components if it had been installed on the Navy’s Self Defense Test Ship (the ex-USS Paul F.
Foster [DD-964], an old Spruance [DD-963] class destroyer). Figure 6 is a Navy graphic
illustration of the SSL-TM system on Portland. An October 18, 2019, blog post included
photographs (Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9) of a device the blog post identified as the SSLTM laser being transported from Redondo Beach to San Diego for installation on Portland.24
The Navy’s FY2025 budget submission stated that SSL-TM deinstallation, final report, program
closeout, and hardware disposition began in the second quarter of FY2023 and were scheduled to
be completed in the fourth quarter of FY2024.25
Figure 5. ONR Graphic of SSL-TM Laser System
Artist’s rendering of installation on Navy’s Self Defense Test Ship
Source: Slide from February 2016 ONR briefing to CRS on SSL-TM program, received from Navy Office of
Legislative Affairs February 26, 2016.
24 Tyler Rogoway, “Mysterious Object Northrop Is Barging from Redondo Beach Is a High-Power Naval Laser,” The
Drive, October 18, 2019.
25 Department of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book Volume 2 of 5, Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, Budget Activity 4, March 2024, pp. 180, 185, 186 (PDF pages 256, 261, 262 of
1520).
Congressional Research Service
9
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 6. Navy Graphic of SSL-TM Laser System
Artist’s rendering of installation on USS Portland
Source: Navy briefing slide accompanying Tyler Rogoway, “Mysterious Object Northrop Is Barging from
Redondo Beach Is a High-Power Naval Laser,” The Drive, October 18, 2019. The blog post credits the slide to
the Navy and describes it as a “recent slide.”
Figure 7. Reported SSL-TM Laser Being Transported
Source: Photograph accompanying Tyler Rogoway, “Mysterious Object Northrop Is Barging from Redondo
Beach Is a High-Power Naval Laser,” The Drive, October 18, 2019. The photograph is a cropped version of a
photograph printed in full elsewhere in the blog post. The uncropped version is credited to “Matt
Hartman/ShoreAloneFilms.com.”
Congressional Research Service
10
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 8. Reported SSL-TM Laser Being Transported
Source: Photograph accompanying Tyler Rogoway, “Mysterious Object Northrop Is Barging from Redondo
Beach Is a High-Power Naval Laser,” The Drive, October 18, 2019. The photograph is credited to “KABC CH7
Screencap.”
Figure 9. Reported SSL-TM Laser Being Transported
Source: Photograph accompanying Tyler Rogoway, “Mysterious Object Northrop Is Barging from Redondo
Beach Is a High-Power Naval Laser,” The Drive, October 18, 2019. The photograph is credited to “Matt
Hartman/ShoreAloneFilms.com.”
Congressional Research Service
11
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
ODIN
Overview
Optical Dazzler Interdictor Navy (ODIN) systems have been installed on eight Arleigh Burke
(DDG-51) class destroyers. Figure 10 and Figure 11 reportedly show an ODIN system. The first
ODIN installation reportedly was done on the destroyer Dewey (DDG-105) in 2019.26 The Navy’s
FY2026 budget submission states,
Optical Dazzler Interdictor Navy (ODIN) development provides directed energy,
shipboard Counter-Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C-ISR) capabilities to
the Fleet to dazzle Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) and other platforms that address the
Urgent Operational Needs (UONs) statement provided by the Fleet. ODIN, as a nonProgram of Record, was developed and fielded with RDT&E,N [Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Navy account] funding and was initially envisioned as a NonPermanent Change (NPC). FY 2018 was the first year of funding which supported the
design, development, procurement, and installation of 8 ODIN standalone units deployed
on DDG 51 Flt IIA [Flight IIA] surface combatants. Eight (8) ODIN units are now
operational in the Fleet. Project 9823 R&D funding [for ODIN] converted to OPN [Other
Procurement, Navy account funding] in FY25 & FY26 and O&MN [Operation and
Maintenance, Navy account funding] FY24 - FY26 for the sustainment of 8 ODIN units.27
Press Reports
A March 1, 2020, press report stated
Little official information was available about the Dewey’s system until Feb. 20, [2020,]
when NAVSEA issued a release describing the Dewey’s Optical Dazzling Interdictor,
Navy (ODIN) system as “a laser weapon system that allows a ship to counter unmanned
aerial systems.”
According to the release, the ODIN system was approved in early 2017 based on an urgent
need requirement from US Pacific Command. It was developed by Naval Surface Warfare
Dahlgren, Virginia and installed after two and half years. The system, NAVSEA said, “will
be the first operational employment of the stand-alone system that functions as a dazzler.
The system allows the Navy to rapidly deploy an important, new capability to the Navy’s
surface force in combating Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) threats.”
ODIN is the first operational deployment of a laser dazzler, a Navy official said, adding
that the stand-alone system is equipped with a laser that can temporarily degrade
intelligence-0gathering capabilities of unmanned aerial systems.
Capt. Danny Hernandez, spokesman for the Navy’s acquisition directorate, noted that the
laser can “temporarily degrade intelligence-gathering capabilities of unmanned aerial
systems,” but he did not provide more information about the ODIN system, including its
power, lethality and future plans….
26 Hope Hodge Seck, “The Navy Has Installed the First Drone-Stopping Laser on a Destroyer,” Military.com, February
21, 2020; Justin Katz, “Navy Installs Laser on Destroyer to Counter Unmanned Intelligence Drones,” Inside Defense,
February 21, 2020; Christopher P. Cavas, “Lasers Sprout in San Diego,” Defense & Aerospace Report, March 1, 2020;
Kris Osborn, “New Destroyer-Fired Laser Weapons Might Stop Hypersonic Missile Attacks,” Warrior Maven, March
1, 2020, which was republished as Kris Osborn, “Could Naval Lasers Be the Solution to China’s Hypersonic Missile
Threat?” National Interest, March 7, 2020.
27 Department of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book Volume 2 of 5, Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, Budget Activity 4, June 2025, p. 1009 (PDF page 1083 of 1690).
Congressional Research Service
12
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
The NAVSEA release notes that, “within the next couple of years, the ODIN program will
have all [ODIN] units operational within the fleet providing a safer and more technically
advanced capability to the US Navy. Lessons learned from ODIN’s installation on Dewey
will inform installation on future vessels and further development and implementation of
Surface Navy Laser Weapon Systems.”…
ODIN is not the first laser system fitted to the Dewey. A prototype LaWS system was
installed on the ship’s flight deck in 2012, but that system, also developed by ONR, was
never intended to be permanent and was removed after tests.28
Figure 10. Reported ODIN System on USS Stockdale
Source: Photograph accompanying Brett Tingley, “Here’s Our Best Look Yet at the Navy’s New Laser Dazzler
System,” The Drive, July 13, 2021. The photograph as printed in the blog post includes the enlarged inset and the
red arrow. The article credits the photograph (and a similar second photograph used for the inset) to the Navy.
A May 26, 2020, press report stated,
ODIN took just two and a half years for the Navy to move the system from an approved
idea through design, construction and testing to actual installation aboard the Dewey—a
notable achievement in defense program development.
“The Pacific Fleet Commander identified this urgent counter-intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance need, and the chief of naval operations directed us to fill it as quickly as
possible,” said Cmdr. David Wolfe, head of the directed energy program within the
Integrated Warfare Systems program executive office.29
28 Christopher P. Cavas, “Lasers Sprout in San Diego,” Defense & Aerospace Report, March 1, 2020. See also Kris
Osborn, “New Destroyer-Fired Laser Weapons Might Stop Hypersonic Missile Attacks,” Warrior Maven, March 1,
2020, which was republished as Kris Osborn, “Could Naval Lasers Be the Solution to China’s Hypersonic Missile
Threat?” National Interest, March 7, 2020.
29 Daniel P. Taylor, “The ODIN Shipboard Laser: Science Fiction No More,” Seapower, May 26, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
13
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 11. Reported ODIN System at Naval Support Facility Dahlgren
Source: Photograph accompanying Brett Tingley, “Here’s Our Best Look Yet at the Navy’s New Laser Dazzler
System,” The Drive, July 13, 2021. The caption to the photo states that it shows “OSIN being tested at Naval
Support Facility Dahlgren [VA] in 2020.” The article credits the photograph to the Navy.
An April 7, 2021, press report stated,
“ODIN is unique because it’s a government-designed, -built, -tested, -installed system,
which I think allowed us to go fairly quickly and meet that urgent need that came from the
fleet,” Rear Adm. Seiko Okano told USNI News last week.
ODIN is already installed on three Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers and will
be installed on two more this year and three more in the coming years, for a total of eight
DDGs that will help test out the system during the course of their training and operations,
Okano said.
She said the ODIN capability is definitely something the Navy wants for the fleet—the
ability to counter intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance activities from an adversary
by using a nonlethal dazzler against pesky drones, rather than shooting them down—but
ODIN’s current form factor won’t be the final tool fielded broadly in the fleet.
Testing aboard the eight destroyers will help ensure the whole operational sequence
works—from the sailor detecting an unmanned aerial vehicle to targeting it with the dazzler
to successfully rendering the UAV useless. That capability, once fully tested, will then be
moved over to the HELIOS program [see next section] to serve as the “optical-dazzler” in
the program’s full name.30
30 Megan Eckstein, “Navy Installing More Directed Energy Weapons on DDGs, Conducting Land-Based Laser Testing
This Year,” USNI News, April 7, 2021.
Congressional Research Service
14
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
SNLWS Increment 1 (HELIOS)
Overview
SNLWS Increment 1 is called HELIOS, an acronym meaning high-energy laser with integrated
optical dazzler and surveillance. The HELIOS effort was focused on rapid development and rapid
fielding of a 60 kW-class high-energy laser (with growth potential to 150 kW) and dazzler in an
integrated weapon system, for use in countering UAVs, small boats, and ISR sensors, and for
combat identification and battle damage assessment. In August 2022, it was reported that the first
HELIOS system had been delivered to the Navy.31 The system was installed on USS Preble
(DDG-88).32 Figure 12 and Figure 13 show renderings of HELIOS installed on a DDG-51.
Figure 12. HELIOS System on DDG-51 Destroyer
Artist’s rendering
Source: Lockheed Martin image taken from “Lockheed Martin Receives $150 Million Contract to Deliver
Integrated High Energy Laser Weapon Systems to U.S. Navy,” Lockheed Martin, March 1, 2018.
The Navy’s FY2026 budget submission states,
The High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-Dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS)
system provides a low cost-per-shot capability to address Anti-Surface Warfare and
31 “Lockheed Martin Delivers Integrated Multi-Mission Laser Weapon System to the Navy,” Lockheed Martin, August
18, 2022; Justin Katz, “Lockheed Delivers High-Energy Laser Four Years in the Making to US Navy,” Breaking
Defense, August 18, 2022; Rich Abott, “Lockheed Martin Delivers HELIOS Laser to Navy,” Defense Daily, August
18, 2022; Seapower Staff, “Lockheed Martin Delivers Integrated Multi-Mission Laser Weapon System to the Navy,”
Seapower, August 22, 2022.
32 Department of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book Volume 2 of 5, Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, March 2023, p. 971 (PDF page 1039 of 1568).
Congressional Research Service
15
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Counter-Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C-ISR) gaps with the ability to
dazzle and destroy Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and defeat Fast Inshore Attack Craft
(FIAC) while integrated into the AEGIS Combat System on a Flt IIA Destroyer. SNLWS,
a Non-Program of Record (POR), provided an industry-developed and government
integrated capability to the Fleet in as short a timeframe as possible, thereby addressing the
NDS direction to foster a culture of innovation. SNLWS included the development of a
laser weapon system in the 60 kW class. SNLWS leveraged technology available at that
time to deliver an initial laser weapon system capability to the Fleet. Mk 5 Mod 0 HELIOS
development leveraged the previous AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System (LaWS) and the
Mk 2 Mod 0 Laser Weapon System Demonstrator (LWSD) efforts.33
The Navy’s FY2026 budget submission states that HELIOS testing and fleet sustainment began in
the first quarter of FY2024 and ended in the fourth quarter of FY2025.34
Figure 13. HELIOS System on DDG-51 Destroyer
Detail from artist’s rendering
Source: Detail from Lockheed Martin image taken from “Lockheed Martin Receives $150 Million Contract to
Deliver Integrated High Energy Laser Weapon Systems to U.S. Navy,” Lockheed Martin, March 1, 2018.
Press Reports
A March 21, 2019, press report states,
33 Department of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book Volume 2 of 5, Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, Budget Activity 4, June 2025, p. 993 (PDF page 1067 of 1690).
34 Department of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book Volume 2 of 5, Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, Budget Activity 4, June 2025, p. 1003 (PDF page 1077 of 1690).
Congressional Research Service
16
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
The Lockheed Martin [LMT] HELIOS will consist of a 60-150 kW single laser beam that
can target unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and small boats....
The weapon will also feed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) data into the
ship’s combat system and provide a counter-UAS (C-UAS) ISR dazzler capability. The
dazzler uses a lower power setting to confuse or reduce ISR capabilities of a hostile UAS....
The first HELIOS going on a destroyer will go on a Flight IIA [DDG-51 class] ship, but
the Flight III [DDG-51 design] [h]as a downside [in] that it uses almost the same hull but
focuses more [electrical] power generation on the new AN/SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense
Radar (AMDR). The AMDR will better detect air and missile threats, but [Rear Adm. Ron
Boxall, director of Navy Surface Warfare said] “we are out of schlitz with regard to
[electrical] power [in the Flight III design]. We used a lot of power for that [SPY-6 radar]
and we don’t have as much” extra for additional functions.
Boxall said to get a HELIOS on a DDG-51 Flight III [ship], the Navy will have to either
remove something or look at “very aggressive power management.”...
Last year, the Navy awarded Lockheed Martin a $150 million contract to develop two
HELIOS systems in early 2018, with one to integrate on a DDG-51 and one for land-based
testing….
However, the FY ’19 defense authorization bill restricted the Navy to only one HELIOS
per fiscal year without first receiving a detailed contracting and acquisition strategy
report.35
On January 11, 2021, it was reported that Lockheed had delivered its production HELIOS laser to
the Navy for installation on a DDG-51 Flight IIA destroyer later in 2021, and that Lockheed had
found that the system is capable of providing not only self-defense (i.e., defense of the ship on
which it is installed) but also some degree of area defense (i.e., defense of other ships in the
area).36 A January 15, 2021, press report stated that HELIOS
is slated to be permanently deployed aboard a Flight IIA DDG Arleigh Burke destroyer
and integrated with its Aegis combat system....
HELIOS is a 60-kilowatt solid-state laser capable of scalable effects, which can “dazzle”
and blind sensors, but at high power it can “put a hole” through unmanned aerial vehicles,
low flying aircraft, and in some cases, missiles, [Joe Ottaviano, Lockheed Martin business
development director for advanced product solutions] said.
Lockheed Martin went under contract to deliver the integrated system in 2018. It spent
2020 carrying out a critical design review and factory qualification tests.37
An April 7, 2021, press report states that
35 Rich Abott, “Navy to ‘Burn The Boats’ with Laser for Destroyer in 2021, Needs Bigger LSC for Lasers,” Defense
Daily, March 21, 2019. See also Sam LaGrone, “Navy Ready to ‘Burn the Boats’ with 2021 Laser Installation on a
Destroyer,” USNI News, March 20, 2019; Kyle Mizokami, “The Navy Plans to Put HELIOS Laser Weapon on
Destroyer by 2021,” Popular Mechanics, March 21, 2019; Justin Katz, “HELIOS Set for Critical Design Review in
2020, Delivery in May 2021,” Inside Defense, May 2, 2019; Marc Selinger, “US Navy Tweaks Destroyer-Based Laser
Effort,” Shephard Media, May 8, 2019.
36 See for example, Rich Abott, “Lockheed Martin Delivers HELIOS to Navy, Boasts Additional Capability,” Defense
Daily, January 11, 2021; Jason Sherman, “Lockheed: HELIOS Laser Shows Early Potential for Area Defense;
Exceeding Ship Self-Defense Objective,” Inside Defense, January 11, 2021; Seapower Staff, “Lockheed Martin
Delivers HELIOS Laser Weapon System to Navy for Testing,” Seapower, January 11, 2021; Ed Adamczyk, “Lockheed
Martin Delivers HELIOS Laser Weapon to U.S. Navy,” United Press International, January 11, 2021.
37 Stew Magnuson, “Navy to Fully Integrate Laser into Aegis Combat System (Updated),” National Defense, February
15, 2021.
Congressional Research Service
17
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
[Rear Admiral Seiko Okano] said HELIOS began land-based testing a few weeks ago and
will be installed on destroyer USS Preble (DDG-88) in December [2021].
Unlike ODIN, which is a bolt-on capability, HELIOS is fully integrated into the ship’s
combat system and will be more complicated to install but also more capable due to the
integration....
Asked whether HELIOS will be the directed energy system of the future for the fleet or if
it’s too soon to tell, Okano said it will depend how lethal the laser beam proves to be during
upcoming testing….
[Okano] said the Navy is on a natural path to get there, increasing the capability of its
directed energy systems with each new product it fields for testing—but it’s unclear yet if
HELIOS can go the distance and provide that cruise missile defense capability for the fleet
or if it will be an intermediate step on the way to that final vision.38
A January 11, 2022, press report stated
Lockheed Martin is preparing to send its latest directed energy weapon to San Diego for
installation onboard an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer following successful testing at a
Navy facility last year.
Jeanine Matthews, a Lockheed Martin executive overseeing integrated warfare systems,
told reporters today the High-Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and
Surveillance, dubbed HELIOS, completed several tests at Wallops Island, Va., in the fall.
She said the company expects the weapon to be onboard the Preble (DDG 88) and out to
sea later this year....
Lockheed has been under contract to develop and produce HELIOS for three years and has
a contract with the Navy that includes options for up to nine production units.39
An April 29, 2022, press report states
HELIOS laser system components are being prepped and shipped from Wallops Island,
Virginia, to San Diego, California, to be integrated in Preble , according to Tyler Griffin,
director of Lockheed Martin Advanced Product Solutions Strategy & Business
development.
The shipping and integration come after the system completes a series of tests at Wallops
Island, Griffin told Janes during Navy League Sea-Air-Space 2022 Exposition at National
Harbor, Maryland, during the first week of April.
The tests culminated in October 2021 when the laser system “received a track of a
challenging, high-speed target from the Aegis combat system, achieved optical track of the
target, and engaged the target with a high-energy laser”, he said. “This demonstration
outcome effectively showcased the system has foundational capabilities against more
stressing threats.”
The system arrived in Wallops in December 2020, he said.
The 60 KW laser would be effective against UASs as well as small boats, he added. “If it’s
a UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle], you can dazzle it with a laser. With the aimpoint
precision of the laser weapon system, the operator can aim for the UAV optical sensor. Or,
if you want, you can bring the whole UAV down.”40
38 Megan Eckstein, “Navy Installing More Directed Energy Weapons on DDGs, Conducting Land-Based Laser Testing
This Year,” USNI News, April 7, 2021.
39 Justin Katz, “Destroyer Preble to Get Lockheed High-Energy Laser in 2022,” Breaking Defense, January 11, 2022.
40 Michael Fabey, “US Navy Accelerates Laser Acquisition, HELIOS Work Advances,” Jane’s Navy International,
April 29, 2022.
Congressional Research Service
18
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
HELCAP
The Navy’s FY2026 budget submission states that the High Energy Laser Counter-ASCM
Program (HELCAP)
will accelerate the integration of High Energy Laser (HEL) technologies and prototype
HEL weapon systems through demonstrations of critical technologies integral to defeating
Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (ASCM) targets with non-kinetic weapon systems. HELCAP has
developed a High Energy Laser (HEL) source capable of ASCM defeat while also enabling
target acquisition, identification, and atmospheric correction abilities through advanced
beam control subsystem maturation. The Directed Energy Testing Against Missiles
(DETAM) effort will utilize the Laser Weapon Testbed (LWT) and other Directed Energy
(DE) assets to initiate a Test & Evaluation (T&E) campaign focused on transitioning Naval
HEL technologies to operational use by evaluating them in a realistic operating
environment. DETAM will promote advanced laser component development while testing
prototype weapon systems against surrogate ASCMs and advanced operational threats to
ensure rapid integration of HEL weapon systems with the Naval Fleet….
The acquisition strategy permits accelerated fielding of laser weapon systems in the Fleet
and provides a demand signal for the industrial base to expand the capacity to develop and
manufacture this advanced technology. The acquisition strategy of this Non-Program of
Record (POR) consists of the use of existing contracts and key warfare centers, FFRDCs,
and national Test Ranges to conduct the Directed Energy Testing Against Missiles
(DETAM) effort. DETAM will allow for industry-developed technology insertions to be
integrated with government Directed Energy (DE) capabilities in short timeframes to
modernize High Energy Laser (HEL) technology. The acquisition structure will address
the National Defense Strategy and foster a culture of affordability in HEL system testing,
evaluation, and advanced component development. DETAM uses the prior established
LWT coupled with T&E assets to demonstrate this capability. Competition was utilized for
all system development and production efforts.41
Layered Laser Defense (LLD) System
An additional Navy laser development effort that is not shown in Figure 3 is called the Layered
Laser Defense (LLD) system. A March 9, 2020, DOD contract award announcement stated
Lockheed Martin Corp., Baltimore, Maryland, is awarded a $22,436,852 letter contract for
the integration, demonstration, testing and operation of the Layered Laser Defense (LLD)
weapon system prototype onboard a Navy littoral combat ship [LCS] while that vessel is
underway.… Key areas of work to be performed include development of a prototype
structure and enclosure to protect the LLD from ships motion and maritime environment
in a mission module format; system integration and test with government-furnished
equipment; platform integration and system operational verification and test; systems
engineering; test planning; data collection and analysis support; and operational
demonstration. Work is expected to be complete by July 2021.42
A January 13, 2020, press report stated
The Navy will put a laser weapon on a Littoral Combat Ship for the first time this year,
amid efforts to boost the LCS’s lethality and to develop and field a family of laser systems.
41 Department of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book Volume 2 of 5, Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, Budget Activity 4, June 2025, pp. 983, 984-985 (PDF pages 1057, 1058-1059
of 1690).
42 Department of Defense, “Contracts for March 9, 2020.” See also Rich Abott, “Lockheed Martin Nabs $22 Million
Contract for Layered Laser Defense Prototype on LCS,” Defense Daily, March 16, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
19
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
USS Little Rock (LCS-9) will receive a laser weapon during its upcoming deployment,
Commander of Naval Surface Forces Vice Adm. Richard Brown told reporters. The ship
will likely deploy to U.S. 4th Fleet, where sister ship USS Detroit is currently operating.
USNI News understands that Little Rock would be taking on a Lockheed Martin-made
150-kilowatt high energy laser, as part of a risk reduction effort between the company, the
Office of Naval Research and the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare
Systems. The effort would contribute to a larger layered laser defense effort, a source told
USNI News.
The laser weapon would aid the LCS in its surface warfare mission to counter fast-attack
craft and unmanned aerial systems and detect incoming targets….
A source told USNI News that, because Lockheed Martin makes the Freedom-variant LCS,
it was able to design its 150kw laser with the right interfaces and margins in mind to make
it compatible for this kind of at-sea LCS demonstration.43
An April 13, 2022, press report states
The ground-based laser system homed in on the red drone flying by, shooting a high-energy
beam invisible to the naked eye. Suddenly, a fiery orange glow flared on the drone, smoke
poured from its engine and a parachute opened as the craft tumbled downward, disabled
by the laser beam.
The February [2022] demonstration marked the first time the U.S. Navy used an allelectric, high-energy laser weapon to defeat a target representing a subsonic cruise missile
in flight.
Known as the Layered Laser Defense (LLD), the weapon was designed and built by
Lockheed Martin to serve as a multi-domain, multi-platform demonstration system. It can
counter unmanned aerial systems and fast-attack boats with a high-power laser—and also
use its high-resolution telescope to track in-bound air threats, support combat identification
and conduct battle damage assessment of engaged targets.
The drone shoot-down by the LLD was part of a recent test sponsored by the Office of
Naval Research (ONR) at the U.S. Army’s High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility at
White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The demonstration was a partnership between
ONR, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering) and
Lockheed Martin....
Although there’s no plan to field the LLD, it offers a glimpse into the future of laser
weapons. It is compact and powerful, yet more efficient than previous systems. It has
specialized optics to observe a target and focus laser beams to maximum effect, while also
incorporating artificial intelligence to improve tracking and targeting....
During the recent test at White Sands, the LLD tracked or shot down an array of targets—
including unmanned fixed-wing aerial vehicles, quadcopters and high-speed drones
representative of subsonic cruise missiles.44
A January 18, 2023, press report states
43 Megan Eckstein, “Littoral Combat Ship Will Field Laser Weapon as Part of Lockheed Martin, Navy Test,” USNI
News, January 13, 2020.
44 Warren Duffie, “Laser Trailblazer: Navy Conducts Historic Test of New Laser Weapon System,” Defense Visual
Information Distribution Service (DVIDS), April 13, 2022. See also Justin Katz, “In Electric-Powered Laser Test, Navy
Shoots Down Cruise Missile Analog,” Breaking Defense, April 14, 2022; Steve Trimble, “Lockheed Laser Shoots
Down Aerial Targets for U.S. Navy Demo,” Aviation Week, April 14, 2022; Maritime Executive, “In a First, U.S. Navy
Shoots Down Cruise Missile with a Laser System,” Maritime Executive, April 18, 2022; Michael Fabey, “US Navy
Accelerates Laser Acquisition, HELIOS Work Advances,” Jane’s Navy International, April 29, 2022.
Congressional Research Service
20
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Lockheed Martin is developing a version of its Layered Laser Defense weapon system
designed to be installed onboard a Littoral Combat Ship, and floating the capability as
potentially part of a future upgrade program still being developed by the US Navy.
The company worked with the Office of Naval Research last year to modify and package
the laser so it could be installed onboard a ship and conducted test shots against targets at
White Sands Missile Range, Chris Minster, program director for combatant ships,
integration and test, told Breaking Defense last week during the Surface Navy
Association’s annual symposium.45
Navy Role in OUSD R&E High Energy Laser Scaling Initiative (HELSI)
Also not shown in Figure 3 is the Navy’s role in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering’s (OUSD R&E’s) High Energy Laser Scaling Initiative (HELSI). DOD
stated on April 28, 2020, that
On April 10, 2020, the Department of Defense selected General Atomics as a third prime
contractor to join previously selected prime contractors Lockheed Martin, and
nLight/Nutronics in building high energy lasers for the High Energy Laser Scaling
Initiative (HELSI). Each developer will produce a 300 kW class high energy laser (HEL)
source prototype with an architecture scalable to 500 kW or beyond, using a unique
technology approach. The focus is on common, multi-Service/Agency needs for HEL (high
energy laser) improvements....
Awards were made to the following:
—nLight/Photonics [nLight/Nutronics], $48 million award: The performer will develop a
300 kW class HEL device based on coherent beam combined technology.
—Lockheed-Martin, $83 million award: The performer will develop a spectral beam
combined fiber laser prototype.
—General Atomics, $47 million: The performer will develop a distributed gain laser
prototype.46
A September 15, 2022, press report states that within HELSI, “The Army has sponsored
Lockheed Martin’s 300-kilowatt laser, which will be used for the Indirect Fire Protection
Capability-High Energy Laser (IFPC-HEL) program, while the other HELSI vendors include
Nutronics Inc. sponsored by the Navy and General Atomics by the Air Force.”47
Directed Energy Components for High Energy Lasers
The Navy’s FY2023 budget submission included a new research and development project called
Directed Energy Components for High Energy Lasers. The Navy’s FY2026 budget submission
states that this project
Supports Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS) program efforts for the
improvement of the production capability of the industrial base in order to produce Laser
Weapon Beam Director (LWBD) components and sub-systems; reduce production lead
45 Justin Katz, “Lockheed Floats Laser Weapon LLD for Future LCS Upgrade Package,” Breaking Defense, January
18, 2023.
46 Department of Defense Research & Engineering Enterprise, “Defense Department Invests Additional $47 Million in
High Energy Laser Scaling Initiative,” April 28, 2022, accessed December 19, 2022, at https://rt.cto.mil/defensedepartment-invests-additional-47-million-in-high-energy-laser-scaling-initiative/, with the text of the statement
continued at https://www.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020_Laser_Award_Announcement.pdf.
47 Matthew Beinart, “Lockheed Martin Delivers 300KW Laser to DoD, Sees Opportunity for Power Beyond 500KW,”
Defense Daily, September 15, 2022.
Congressional Research Service
21
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
times of Laser Weapon System Optics; improve quality and reduce production times of
Fast Steering Mirror (FSM) and deformable mirrors.….
The effort utilized Other Transaction Authority (OTA) vehicles in order to obtain personnel
with the requisite experience and expertise required to develop the production capability
enhancements. The successful OTA contractor(s) could be utilized as supplier(s) for these
highly critical, difficult to manufacture components in future laser acquisition contracts.48
The Navy’s FY2025 budget submission further states that work on the project ended in the third
quarter of FY2025.49
Remaining Development Challenges
In addition to achieving higher beam powers, developing high-energy SSLs for surface ship selfdefense poses a number of other technical challenges. Skeptics sometimes note that proponents of
high-energy military lasers over the years have made numerous predictions about when lasers
might enter service with DOD, and that these predictions repeatedly have not come to pass.
Viewing this record of unfulfilled predictions, skeptics have sometimes stated, half-jokingly, that
“lasers are X years in the future—and always will be.”
Laser proponents acknowledge the record of past unfulfilled predictions, but argue that the
situation has now changed because of rapid advancements in SSL technology and a shift from
earlier ambitious goals (such as developing megawatt-power lasers for countering targets at tens
or hundreds of miles) to more realistic goals (such as developing kilowatt-power lasers for
countering targets at no more than a few miles). Laser proponents might argue that laser skeptics
are vulnerable to what might be called “cold plate syndrome” (i.e., a cat that sits on a hot plate
will not sit on a hot plate again—but it will not sit on a cold plate, either).
A January 11, 2024, press report states,
The Navy and industry need to be more intellectually honest when discussing laser weapon
systems, according to an admiral overseeing the technology’s development. And speaking
plainly and honestly about developing that tech, “It’s hard,” he added.
“Sometimes we have a tendency to over promise and under deliver,” Rear Adm. Fred Pyle
told attendees at the Surface Navy Association’s annual symposium on Wednesday. “We
need to flip that to where, when we’re intellectually honest, when we’re honest with
ourselves from a technology capability, that we have an agreed upon sight picture of what
it’s going to look like to deliver that capability.”
Speaking to reporters following his remarks onstage, Pyle added, “I can go back to the
Arabian Gulf and probably 15 years ago, we had a ship called the Ponce that had a laser on
it. … We’re still working on that technology.”…
“We continue to invest in directed energy capabilities,” Pyle said. “It requires space,
weight, power and cooling, which can be a challenge on our current surface combatants.”50
48 Department of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book Volume 2 of 5, Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, Budget Activity 4, June 2025, p. 1004, 1005 (PDF pages 1078, 1079 of 1690).
49 Department of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book Volume 2 of 5, Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy, Budget Activity 4, June 2025, p. 1008 (PDF page 1082 of 1690).
50 Justin Katz, “‘It’s Hard’: Navy Needs to Be Realistic About Laser Weapons, Admiral Says,” Breaking Defense,
January 11, 2024.
Congressional Research Service
22
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Lasers Included in Proposed BBG(X) Guided Missile Battleship
On December 22, 2025, the Trump Administration announced a proposed program to build a new
class of guided missile battleships (BBG[X]s) for the Navy. The first BBG(X) would reportedly
be procured in the early 2030s. The Navy states that the BBG(X) is to be armed with, among
other things, two lasers, each with a beam power of 300 kW or 600 kW.51 Lasers with such beam
power (particularly 600 kW) could be capable of countering at least some types of ASCMs.
Issues for Congress
Issues for Congress regarding SSLs include the following:
•
•
•
•
whether the Navy is moving too quickly, too slowly, or at about the right speed in
its efforts to develop these weapons;
the Navy’s plans for transitioning SSLs from development to procurement and
fielding of production models aboard Navy ships;
whether Navy the Navy’s shipbuilding plans include ships other than the
BBG(X) with appropriate amounts of space, weight, electrical power, and
cooling capacity to accommodate SSLs; and
whether the technology for lasers with a beam power of 300 kW or 600 kW can
be matured in time to support the installation of such lasers as original equipment
on a BBG(X) procured in the early 2030s.
Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Using currently available air-defense weapons, how well could Navy surface
ships defend themselves in a combat scenario against an adversary such as China
that has or could have large numbers of UAVs and anti-ship missiles? How
would this situation change if Navy surface ships in coming years were equipped
with SSLs? How cost effective would SSLs be as surface ship self-defense
weapons compared to other Navy surface ship self-defense measures?
How significant are the remaining development challenges for SSLs?
Does the Navy no longer intend to pursue SNLWS Increment 2 and SNLWS
Increment 3 as future development efforts, or a laser-based ASCM defense
capability, as might be suggested by Figure 3 when compared to Figure 4? If
that is the case, what was the basis for that change in intention?
When does the Navy anticipate issuing a roadmap detailing its plans for
procuring and installing production versions of SSLs on specific Navy ships
(other than the BBG[X]) by specific dates?
Will surface ships that the Navy plans to procure in coming years (other than
BBG[X]s) have sufficient space, weight, electrical power, and cooling capability
to take full advantage of SSLs? What changes, if any, would need to be made in
Navy plans for procuring destroyers and cruisers or other Navy ships to take full
advantage of SSLs?
51 For more on the BBG(X), see CRS In Focus IF13142, Navy Guided Missile Battleship (BBG[X]) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. For planned design features of the BBG(X), including two
lasers, each with a beam power of 300 kW or 600 kW, see “Technical Specifications” in U.S. Navy, “Golden Fleet,”
accessed January 10, 2026, at https://www.goldenfleet.navy.mil/.
Congressional Research Service
23
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
•
What are the technical challenges involved in developing technologies for lasers
with a beam power of 300 kW or 600 kW? Can these technologies be matured in
time to support the installation of such lasers as original equipment on a BBG(X)
procured in the early 2030s, or does the Navy plan to instead backfit such lasers
onto the ship sometime after the ship enters service? Will Navy budget
submissions for FY2027 and subsequent years include annual research and
development funding levels sufficient to support the development of such lasers
at a pace consistent with the Navy’s envisaged schedule for procuring BBG(X)s?
How would the absence of such lasers on a BBG(X) affect the ship’s capabilities?
An April 17, 2025, press report stated:
While the Arleigh Burke-class USS Preble (DDG-88) has been testing the Lockheed
Martin [LMT] High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance
(HELIOS), “I’m not ready to go all in yet on buying these things until I can have a relatively
sure output in an action,” Adm. James Kilby, acting Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and
Vice CNO, told reporters here at the annual 2025 Sea-Air-Space expo.
Kilby added there is no push to immediately deploy lasers, but he wants them to develop
to the right level.52
A January 15, 2025, article states,
A top Navy fleet commander says the service should be “embarrassed” by the fact it hasn’t
managed yet to scale directed energy weapons onboard its ships despite having
experimented with the technology since the Reagan administration.
“There’s been many a thesis and dissertation written on building lasers on ships, but we’ve
not transitioned that into a place where that’s an acceptable way to actually take out missile
systems,” Adm. Daryl Caudle, commander of US Fleet Forces Command, told a group of
reporters today at the Surface Navy Association’s annual symposium.
“These things are based on renewable energy, so I can recharge the system … I don’t have
to worry about payload [or] volume with directed energy. All those things are appealing to
a navy, [but] we just haven’t really matriculated that into a place … that’s ready for prime
time,” he continued….
Pressed for what needs to change, Caudle was candid that it’s not clear to him what is
continuing to go wrong.
“I just think sometimes something can stare us right in the face, but we just don’t go do it,”
he said. “Directed energy is one of those things that either industry, politically, leadership
— we’re just not on the same page of getting behind it with a sense of urgency and making
it ready to go.”53
A February 15, 2023, press report states,
An Office of Naval Research (ONR) official this week said the Navy is moving “very
cautiously” on directed energy (DE) laser weapons because the eventual first program of
record could cost up to $1 billion.
“The Navy is definitely interested. However, they are not at this point willing to press the
ka-ching machine and get a lot of cash because it’s going to be about a billion dollars,
52 Rich Abott, “Acting CNO: Need To Be More Sure Of Laser Output Before Going All-In, F/A-XX At Higher
Levels,” Defense Daily, April 17, 2025.
53 Justin Katz, “State of Navy’s Shipboard Laser Efforts Is Embarrassing, Says Top Fleet Commander,” Breaking
Defense, January 15, 2025. See also By Cal Biesecker, “Still Unhappy With Progress On Directed Energy Weapons,
SWO Boss Wants More Land Based Testing To Speed Use On Ships,” Defense Daily, January 14, 2025.
Congressional Research Service
24
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
roughly give or take, to field the first true program of record laser. And that’s why we’ve
been experimenting so much,” David Kiel, Director of the Directed Energy Warfare Office
at ONR, said during a Feb. 14 panel at the annual WEST 2023 conference.54
An April 2023 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on DOD directed energy
programs states,
The Department of Defense (DOD) is currently developing directed energy weapons with
the goal of defeating a range of threats, including drones and missiles. However, GAO
found that, even as DOD makes progress developing these capabilities, its efforts to
transition prototypes to acquisition programs face challenges.
DOD and the military departments have efforts underway to develop directed energy
weapons. For example, DOD and military departments developed multiple laser weapon
system demonstrators and prototypes, which have been used in live fire demonstrations to
successfully shoot down drones. DOD and the military departments are also developing
higher-powered laser weapons to counter bigger threats. Additionally, the departments
developed a range of high power microwave capabilities for purposes such as engaging
missile or drone swarm attacks against a military base....
However, DOD has long noted a gap—sometimes called “the valley of death”—between
its development and its acquisition communities that impede technology transition. For
example, the acquisition community may require a higher level of technology maturity than
the development community is able to produce.
For prototypes that a military department expects to eventually transition to a new or
existing acquisition program, it needs to identify a transition partner that can support the
further development of the new technology. To support transition, the Army developed a
detailed plan describing schedules and stakeholder roles to build supporting activities
around the use of directed energy weapons and early capabilities documents. However,
while the Navy fielded several directed energy weapon prototypes and identified a potential
transition partner, it does not have documented transition agreements for the directed
energy programs that GAO reviewed. The Air Force has not consistently prioritized
establishing transition partners, which makes planning for future transition even more
challenging. Without these transition planning steps, the Navy and Air Force risk
developing directed energy weapons that may be misaligned with operational needs.55
54 Rich Abott, “Navy Cautious on Lasers Because First Program of Record Could Cost $1 Billion, ONR Official Says,”
Defense Daily, February 15, 2023.
55 Government Accountability Office (GAO), Directed Energy Weapons: DOD Should Focus on Transition Planning,
GAO 23-105868, April 2023, highlights page.
Congressional Research Service
25
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendix A. Potential Advantages, Limitations,
Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness of Shipboard Lasers
This appendix presents additional information on potential advantages and limitations of
shipboard lasers.
Potential Advantages
In addition to a low marginal cost per shot and deep magazine, potential advantages of shipboard
lasers include the following:
•
•
•
•
Fast engagement times. Light from a laser beam can reach a target almost
instantly (eliminating the need to calculate an intercept course, as there is with
interceptor missiles) and, by remaining focused on a particular spot on the target,
cause disabling damage to the target within seconds. After disabling one target, a
laser can be redirected in several seconds to another target.
Ability to counter radically maneuvering missiles. Lasers can follow and
maintain their beam on radically maneuvering missiles that might stress the
maneuvering capabilities of Navy SAMs.
Precision engagements. Lasers are precision-engagement weapons—the light
spot from a laser, which might be several inches in diameter, affects what it hits,
while generally not affecting (at least not directly) separate nearby objects.
Graduated responses. Lasers can perform functions other than destroying
targets, including detecting and monitoring targets and producing nonlethal
effects, including reversible jamming of electro-optic (EO) sensors. Lasers offer
the potential for graduated responses that range from warning targets to
reversibly jamming their systems, to causing limited but not disabling damage (as
a further warning), and then finally causing disabling damage.
Potential Limitations
Potential limitations of shipboard lasers include the following:
•
•
Line of sight. Since laser light tends to fly through the atmosphere on an
essentially straight path, shipboard lasers would be limited to line-of-sight
engagements, and consequently could not counter over-the-horizon targets or
targets that are obscured by intervening objects. This limits in particular potential
engagement ranges against small boats, which can be obscured by higher waves,
or low-flying targets. Even so, lasers can rapidly reacquire boats obscured by
periodic swells.
Atmospheric absorption, scattering, and turbulence. Substances in the
atmosphere—particularly water vapor, but also things such as sand, dust, salt
particles, smoke, and other air pollution—absorb and scatter light from a
shipboard laser, and atmospheric turbulence can defocus a laser beam. These
effects can reduce the effective range of a laser. Absorption by water vapor is a
particular consideration for shipboard lasers because marine environments
feature substantial amounts of water vapor in the air. There are certain
wavelengths of light (i.e., “sweet spots” in the electromagnetic spectrum) where
atmospheric absorption by water vapor is markedly reduced. Lasers can be
Congressional Research Service
26
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
•
•
•
•
designed to emit light at or near those sweet spots, so as to maximize their
potential effectiveness. Absorption generally grows with distance to target,
making it in general less of a potential problem for short-range operations than
for longer-range operations. Adaptive optics, which make rapid, fine adjustments
to a laser beam on a continuous basis in response to observed turbulence, can
counteract the effects of atmospheric turbulence. Even so, lasers might not work
well, or at all, in rain or fog, preventing lasers from being an all-weather solution.
Thermal blooming. A laser that continues firing in the same exact direction for a
certain amount of time can heat up the air it is passing through, which in turn can
defocus the laser beam, reducing its ability to disable the intended target. This
effect, called thermal blooming, can make lasers less effective for countering
targets that are coming straight at the ship, on a constant bearing (i.e., “down-thethroat” shots). Other surface 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-thethroat” shots. In general, thermal blooming becomes more of a concern as the
power of the laser beam increases.
Saturation attacks. Since a laser can attack only one target at a time, requires
several seconds to disable it, and several more seconds to be redirected to the
next target, a laser can disable only so many targets within a given period of time.
This places an upper limit on the ability of an individual laser to deal with
saturation attacks—attacks by multiple weapons that approach the ship
simultaneously or within a few seconds of one another. This limitation can be
mitigated by installing more than one laser on the ship, similar to how the Navy
installs multiple CIWS systems on certain ships.
Hardened targets and countermeasures. Less-powerful lasers—that is, lasers
with beam powers measured in kilowatts rather than megawatts—can have less
effectiveness against targets that incorporate shielding, ablative material, or
highly reflective surfaces, or that rotate rapidly (so that the laser spot does not
remain continuously on a single location on the target’s surface) or tumble. Small
boats (or other units) could employ smoke or other obscurants to reduce their
susceptibility to laser attack.56 Measures such as these, however, can increase the
cost and/or weight of a weapon, and obscurants could make it more difficult for
small boat operators to see what is around them, reducing their ability to use their
boats effectively.
Risk of collateral damage to aircraft, satellites, and human eyesight. Since
light from an upward-pointing laser that does not hit the target would continue
flying upward in a straight line, it could pose a risk of causing unwanted
collateral damage to aircraft and satellites. The light emitted by SSLs being
developed by the Navy is of a frequency that can cause permanent damage to
human eyesight, including blinding. Blinding can occur at ranges much greater
than ranges for damaging targeted objects. Scattering of laser light off the target
or off fog or particulates in the air can pose a risk to exposed eyes.57
56 See, for example, Kelsey D. Atherton, “China Plans to Defeat American Lasers with Smoke,” Popular Science, May
3, 2016.
57 The United States in 1995 ratified the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restriction on the Use of Certain
Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. An
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
27
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Potential Costs and Cost-Effectiveness Compared with
Other Systems
An October 2021 Navy information paper on the potential unit procurement costs of shipboard
lasers and their potential cost-effectiveness relative to other Navy shipboard weapon systems
states
The Navy anticipates that laser weapon systems will augment other weapons (kinetic and
non-kinetic), sensors, and the overall combat system in complex ways that do not facilitate
direct allocation of a specific “combat value” to the contribution of each individual
platform. Furthermore, adding to the complexity is the multi-mission nature of laser
weapon systems, the evolution of advanced threats, the doctrinal approach the Navy takes
in the near-peer fight, and uncertainties in projecting the acquisition and total life-cycle
costs of laser weapon systems in future production. However, the Navy recognizes that it
must refine the understanding of laser costs and establish measures for contribution to the
defense of the Fleet in order to support programmatic decisions. With this in mind, the
explanation below outlines the current assessment of relative weapon system costs and
associated caveats, along with a path forward for determination of a meaningful measure
of combat value.
The Navy has been working to develop cost estimates for procurement of future laser
weapon systems in order to support Navy programmatic considerations. The fidelity of cost
analysis for future laser weapons is limited by the following factors:
— There are no previous programs of record for shipboard laser weapon systems in the
Department of Defense from which to draw historical comparisons, particularly in the
area of logistics and life-cycle cost.
— Technologies for laser weapons beyond the current state-of-the-art are still in
development with S&T [science and technology] and BA-4 [Budget Activity 4] R&D
[research and development] funding.
— Besides the Navy contract with Lockheed Martin for the Mk 5 Mod 0 HELIOS, there
are no other current major procurement contracts that can be used to benchmark cost
models for moderate to high rates of production.
— The industrial base for major sub-systems and components for laser weapon systems
is not yet mature when it comes to production capacity.
Given the above caveats and based on current HELIOS data, the Navy estimates the perunit cost of a 60 kW class laser with relatively mature beam control and combat system
integration at moderate production rates will be approximately $100M [million] in limited
quantities. For weapons at greater power and/or beam control complexity, the estimates
range up to $200M/unit for lasers in the 250 kW class (inclusive of laser, beam director,
beam control, power and thermal management, combat system integration, and
installation) but with significant uncertainty bounds based on numerous assumptions.
international review of the convention began in 1994 and concluded in May 1996 with the adoption of, among other
things, a new Protocol IV on blinding laser weapons. The protocol prohibits the employment of lasers that are
specifically designed to cause permanent blindness to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The
United States ratified Protocol IV on December 23, 2008, and it entered into force for the United States on July 21,
2009. DOD views the protocol as fully consistent with DOD policy. DOD believes the lasers discussed in this report
are consistent with DOD policy of prohibiting the use of lasers specifically designed to cause permanent blindness to
the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. For further discussion, see Appendix I (“Protocol on
Blinding Lasers”) in CRS Report R41526, Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background
and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
28
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
From a procurement cost perspective, kinetic and non-kinetic weapon system costs are
relatively comparable to those of laser systems, ranging from $70M to $150M, with
installation costs that vary, depending on whether they are [for] new construction [ships]
or back fit [onto existing ships]. After procurement, the costs for engagements by laser
weapons are substantially lower than any comparable kinetic system, with estimates
ranging from single dollars ($1.15 – 60 kW) to at most several 10’s of dollars per shot
(estimated $9.20 for 480 kW).
As the Navy continues to mature Laser Weapon Systems and analyze their integration into
the overall combat system, the cost per kill metrics will be refined to specify adequate
return on investment. Given the current uncertainty in relative contributions of the various
systems being evaluated and the sensitivity to doctrinal implementation and logistic
assumptions, it is too early to assign a meaningful value that can be attributed purely to the
implementation of laser weapon systems.58
Earlier CRS Report
For additional background information on potential Navy shipboard SSLs, see CRS Report
R41526, Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
58 Source: Navy information paper on shipboard lasers dated October 20, 2021, provided to CRS by Navy Office of
Legislative Affairs on November 17, 2021.
Congressional Research Service
29
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendix B. Navy Missiles Fired in 2023-2025
Operations in Red Sea and Gulf of Aden
This appendix provides examples of press report reports of numbers of missiles and other
munitions fired by U.S. Navy ships in operations in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden in 20232025 to defend commercial cargo ships (and themselves) from attacks by Houthi forces in Yemen
using drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.
On February 13, 2024, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, reportedly stated
that as of that date, five Navy destroyers operating in the area had collectively shot down 14 antiship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), 7 cruise missiles, and more than 70 drones—a total of more than
91 targets—and that the shootdowns of the ASBMs were the Navy’s first in an operational (as
opposed to a development or test) setting.59 Many of these 91-plus shootdowns might have been
done with SAMs; some might have involved the use of more than one SAM for an individual
target (so as to help ensure that the target would be shot down); and additional SAMs might have
been used in engagements other than the 91-plus listed above (i.e., engagements in which the
targets were not shot down).
A February 18, 2024, news broadcast stated: “We learned that so far, the Navy has fired more
than 100 of their Standard surface-to-air missiles, that can cost as much as $4 million each.”60
An April 16, 2024, press report stated,
The U.S. Navy is nearly $1 billion in the hole after defending Israel from Iranian missiles
last weekend and fighting off Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping since October, the
service’s secretary said Tuesday [April 16] in a bid to convince House lawmakers to
approve $95 billion in supplemental funding.
“I would argue that the President’s budget numbers are adequate, but that’s also prior to
the attacks that we've just had this weekend alone, for example. So we are now closely
approaching $1 billion in expenditures for munitions that we need paid back by the
supplemental,” Carlos Del Toro told senators during a Senate Appropriations [Defense]
subcommittee hearing.
“We've been firing SM-2s, we've been firing SM-6s, and—just over the weekend—SM-3s
to actually counter the ballistic missile threat that’s coming from Iran. So we need this
supplemental to pass this week,” Del Toro said.61
59 Geoff Ziezulewicz, “Why the Navy Says Its Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Battles Are Historic,” Military Times,
February 13, 2024. See also Jonathan Lehrfeld, Diana Stancy, and Geoff Ziezulewicz, “All the Houthi-US Navy
Incidents in the Middle East (That We Know Of),” Military Times, February 12, 2024. Bernat Armangue and Tara
Copp, “On the USS Eisenhower, 4 Months of Combat at Sea Facing Houthi Missiles and a New Sea Threat,”
Associated Press, February 15, 2024, which states that “as of Wednesday [February 14], the carrier strike group—
which includes the cruiser USS Philippine Sea, the destroyers USS Mason and Gravely, and additional U.S. Navy
assets in the region, including the destroyers USS Laboon and USS Carney—has conducted more than 95 intercepts of
drones, anti-ship ballistic missiles and anti-ship cruise missiles….”
For more on the Navy’s ballistic missile defense program, see CRS Report RL33745, Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile
Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
60 Norah O'Donnell, “Navy Counters Houthi Red Sea Attacks in Its First Major Battle at Sea of the 21st Century,” 60
Minutes (CBS News), February 18 (updated June 23), 2024. See also Joseph Trevithick, “Navy Has Fired Around 100
Standard Series Missiles At Houthi Drones, Missiles: Report,” The War Zone, February 19, 2024.
61 Lauren C. Williams, “Mideast Missile Duels Have Cost US Navy Nearly $1B, Secretary Says,” Defense One, April
16, 2024. See also Svetlana Shkolnikova, “Navy Seeks Urgent Replenishment of $1B in Munitions Spent Countering
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
30
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
An April 25, 2024, press report stated,
The price tag for weapons and munitions used to destroy drones must come down, as the
costs are “getting too expensive” and uncrewed systems are expected to saturate
battlefields, according to the Pentagon’s acquisition boss….
Bill LaPlante, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, said April 24
during a conference hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank
in Washington that “cost curve matters” in counter-drone operations.
The goal is to get the cost down to approximately tens of thousands of dollars per round,
he added, noting a price exceeding $100,000 a shot is “getting too expensive.”62
A May 1, 2024, press report stated,
Downing Iranian-supplied missiles and drones with multi-million dollar SM-2 [Standard
Missile 2] missiles to protect shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden is a bad exchange
that must change, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Wednesday [May 1].
“It has been an air-defense fight” in which the Navy and Air Force, along with allies and
partners in Operation Prosperity Guardian, have largely prevailed in demonstrating “how
we bring defense in depth,” Adm. Christopher Grady said during a U.S. Naval InstituteCSIS Maritime Security Dialogue.
To change the cost-benefit equation, he wants more directed energy systems deployed
“where a drop of fuel becomes a weapon” to destroy attacking unmanned systems.63
A May 15 2024, press report stated,
The toll of expending expensive surface fleet weapons to take out cheap Houthi drones,
anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles in the Red Sea has pushed the US Navy to speed its
exploration of cheaper alternatives and “disruptive capabilities” like Replicator drone
swarms that the service hopes could do the job much more cheaply, according to one of
the Navy’s most senior officials.
The navy “absolutely” needs to invest in cheaper equipment to down drones, said Rear
Adm. Fred Pyle, director of surface warfare, during a discussion at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies in Washington on Tuesday [May 14].
“We’re working towards that end, and we have some solutions that I can’t go into, but we
are going to get after finding more cost-effective ways to address those lower-end threats,”
he explained, later singling out the Pentagon’s new, secretive Replicator as one example
of an initiative developing that “more cost-effective” technology.64
A May 16, 2024, press report stated,
The Navy will increase funding for directed energy solutions, like lasers, to reduce the cost
of intercepting enemy missiles, service secretary Carlos Del Toro said Thursday [May
16]—a month after he told lawmakers that shooting down drones and missiles in the Red
Iran-Led Attacks in Middle East,” Stars and Stripes, April 16, 2024; Nick Wilson, “SECNAV: Navy Needs
Supplemental to Replace Nearly $1 Billion in Expended Munitions,” Inside Defense, April 16, 2024.
62 Colin Demarest, “Drone-Killing Costs Must Come Down, Says Pentagon’s Chief Weapons Buyer,” C4ISRNet, April
25, 2024. See also Nicholas Slayton, “US Needs Cheaper Ways to Shoot Down Drones, Pentagon Acquisition Chief
Says,” Task & Purpose, April 28, 2024.
63 John Grady, “Navy Air Defense Mission in the Red Sea Makes Case for Directed Energy Weapons, Says VCJCS
Grady,” USNI News, May 1, 2024.
64 Tim Martin, “High Price of Red Sea Shootdowns Speeds Navy’s Pursuit of ‘Cost-Effective’ Solutions,” Breaking
Defense, May 15, 2024. See also Abby Shepherd, “Cost-Effective Method of Battling Houthis Poses Challenge, Pyle
Says,” Inside Defense, May 14, 2024.
Congressional Research Service
31
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Sea had cost the service nearly $1 billion. And, Del Toro said, he wants to see “aggressive”
deployment in five to 10 years….
In March, U.S. Central Command leader Gen. Erik Kurilla told lawmakers: “I would love
to have the Navy produce more directed energy that can shoot down a drone so I don't have
to use an expensive missile to shoot it down. But what’s worse than not having that
expensive missile shoot it down is hitting that $2 billion ship with 300 sailors on it.”…
When [Senator Angus] King asked Del Toro [at a hearing before the Senate Armed
Services Committee on the Department of the Navy’s FY2025 budget] if the Navy could
commit to increasing its fund for directed energy research, the Navy secretary said yes,
with a caveat.
“To the extent that I have authority to do so in POM 2026,65 I will absolutely do so…I
thought that we needed to invest far more significantly in laser and high directed energy
systems. I regret that we haven't done that for the past 30 years or so. We need to do that
moving forward. There’s no question in my mind to get to a place perhaps five to 10 years
from now where we could actually start aggressively employing those capabilities on our
ships early.”66
A July 15, 2024, U.S. Navy news release stated that during combat operations in the Middle East
from November 2023 to June 2024, ships from a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the
aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) launched 155 standard missiles (though not all
of these were necessarily used for countering missiles or unmanned air, surface, or underwater
vehicles), and that carrier-based aircraft from the strike group expended nearly 60 air-to-air
missiles.67
A January 14, 2025, press report stated:
The U.S. Navy’s surface fleet has fired nearly 400 individual munitions while battling Iranbacked Houthi rebels in the Red Sea over the past 15 months. That includes the firing of
120 SM-2 missiles, 80 SM-6 missiles, 160 rounds from destroyers and cruisers’ five-inch
main guns, as well as a combined 20 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM) and SM-3
missiles.68
65 This is a reference to the Program Objective Memorandum 2026—an internal DOD document used for preparing
DOD’s FY2026 budget submission, which will be submitted to Congress in 2025.
66 Patrick Tucker, “Navy Secretary Vows More Money for Anti-Drone Lasers,” Defense One, May 16, 2024.
67 U.S. Navy, “Unprecedented: Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group Returns from Combat Deployment,” news
release dated July 15, 2024, which states: “In total, IKECSG [Eisenhower (aka Ike) Carrier Strike Group] warships
launched 155 standard missiles, and 135 TLAMs [Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles] from their vertical launch
system across self-defense and pre-planned strikes. IKECSG aircraft expended nearly 60 air-to-air missiles and
released 420 air-to-surface weapons.”
See also Wes Rumbaugh, “Did the U.S. Defense of Israel from Missile Attacks Meaningfully Deplete Its Interceptor
Inventory?” Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), December 4, 2024; Chris Panella and Jake Epstein,
“The Navy’s Top Ballistic Missile Interceptor Comes with a Heavy Price Tag, But the US Can’t Afford to Go to War
Without It,” Business Insider, November 2, 2024; Jake Epstein, “The U.S. Navy Fired Nearly $2 Billion in Weapons
Over a Year of Fighting in the Middle East,” Business Insider, October 31, 2024; Nancy A. Youssef and Gordon
Lubold, “Pentagon Runs Low on Air-Defense Missiles as Demand Surges,” Wall Street Journal, October 29, 2024;
Jake Epstein and Chris Panella, “The US Navy Is Burning Through Missiles in the Middle East that It Would Need in a
War With China,” Business Insider, October 11, 2024; Jake Epstein, “A US Navy Carrier Strike Group and a Few
Other Warships Fired $1.16 Billion in Weapons Battling the Houthis in the Red Sea,” Business Insider, August 28,
2024; Patrick Tucker, “Navy Still Bullish on Lasers But Widely-Deployed Directed-Energy Ship Defense Remains
Years Away,” Defense One, August 8, 2024; Frank Wolfe, “Laser and Non-Kinetic Advances Sought by 5th Fleet,”
Defense Daily, August 8, 2024.
68 Geoff Ziezulewicz, “Navy Just Revealed Tally Of Surface-To-Air Missiles Fired In Ongoing Red Sea Fight,” The
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
32
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
War Zone, January 14, 2025. See also Frank Wolfe, “Navy Examining Ship Self-Protection Measures,” Defense Daily,
January 14, 2025; Konstantin Toropin, “Navy’s Fight in Red Sea Used 220 Missiles, But Officials Say That’s
Changing,” Military.com, January 15, 2025; Jeff Schogol, “In 15 Months, the Navy Fired More Air Defense Missiles
than it Did in the Last 30 Years,” Task & Purpose, March 5, 2025.
Congressional Research Service
33
Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress
Author Information
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service
R44175 · VERSION 115 · UPDATED
34
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.