Pentagon planning warfare at the speed of light

The drones were seen flying low near the Rio Grande Valley in Texas last week when the Locust shot them from the sky. It was the first time the US Army had used its new laser weapon in anger, destroying targets it claimed were flying in support of Mexican drug cartels. While previously the idea of laser beams replacing surface-to-air missile interceptors was considered to be a science fiction fantasy, laser warfare is becoming a reality. The Pentagon is spending about $1 billion this year on developing a variety of “directed-energy” systems, and several are already operational after more than two decades of research. The relatively low cost of laser defences is the driving factor. The Locust, whose name stands for “Low-Cost UAV Simulation Testing,” was recently sent to Texas to arm the 8,000-strong, Joint Task Force Southern Border, with a “Multipurpose High Energy Laser.” Built by AeroVironment, a defence company based in Arlington, Virginia, the vehicle-mounted weapon is capable of firing 20-kilowatt beams that can physically burn through targets. “Neutralising threats at the speed of light” is how AeroVironment promotes the weapon in a video on its website, showing animated quadcopters tumbling from the sky. The military did not reveal details about its use last week, or whether the drones were shot down over American or Mexican territory. But it stated that the unmanned aircraft had presented “a physical threat” to US military and US Customs and Border Protection personnel. The US Marine Corps has acquired the same mobile Locust system for operational use against small drones, and it has also been mounted on the aircraft carrier, USS George HW Bush, which conducted a successful sea test in October last year. “Using directed-energy weapons, such as this, is part of the future of warfare, and it’s better than us firing a $2 million missile at a [cheap] drone,” a Pentagon official said. Dozens of countries are trying to develop similar directed-energy weapons. The UK has a laser weapon called DragonFire which could be on Royal Navy warships by 2027. China has deployed a truck-mounted laser system and has also put laser weapons on amphibious warships. Russia has a portable anti-drone laser weapon which has been tested in combat conditions. Israel’s 100-kilowatt Iron Beam laser weapon is known to have shot down drones launched by Hezbollah in Lebanon during the current crisis in the Middle East.For the Pentagon, which has used a large proportion of its most expensive weapon systems in the war with Iran, in particular its stocks of anti-missile and anti-drone interceptors, the availability of directed energy weapons has become a priority. Instead of shooting down a $30,000 long-range armed drone with a multi-million-dollar, top-end interceptor like the army’s Patriot system or the navy’s Standard SM-3 missile, one shot from a laser weapon could theoretically cost a few dollars. In its overview of the last defence budget, the Department of War admitted that “peer adversaries” had succeeded in outpacing the US “kinetic weapon magazine depth and production capability with UAS [unmanned aerial systems], missiles, and advanced sensors”. “As threat vectors evolve, directed energy technologies redefine defence, delivering scalable precision and unmatched cost efficiency to secure the battlespace of tomorrow,” the Pentagon said. As well as testing the high-power Locust, the US Navy is already equipping its Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with ODIN (optical dazzling interdictor) and HELIOS (high-energy laser with integrated optical dazzler and surveillance) low-energy weapons, which are designed to blind the sensors and cameras of a drone rather than destroying it. But the ambition is for more power - of a kind that could quickly take out a cruise missile, a large drone or anti-ship missile. The Pentagon’s SCADE CTA (scaled directed energy critical technology areas) programme is aiming to develop a laser of 150 to 500 kilowatts in strength. Admiral Daryl Caudle, US Chief of Naval Operations, said recently he envisaged a megawatt-sized (1,000 kilowatts) laser weapon for the new Trump-class warships announced by the president in December last year. “I don’t think a one-megawatt laser is beyond what should be on that battery,” he said, referring to the battleships. In May, Trump himself posted an AI-generated image of a warship painted with a US flag lasering a drone with an Iranian flag, with the caption: “Lasers: Bing, Bing, GONE!!!” - although there is no such confirmed use of the technology this year. The potential for powerful laser beams to burn through fast-moving targets also poses new challenges, however, including how that power can be focussed and sustained. “One big problem is that weather patterns, such as fog and mist, can affect the tracking and the laser accuracy, and there’s nothing you can do about that,” said Mark Cancian, a former colonel who served three decades in the US Marine Corps and is a senior adviser to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “It’s basic physics. Fog and mist and dust can physically interfere with the beam. Lasers are seen as the long-term solution for counter-drone warfare because the price per shot is so low, compared with the huge cost of the systems we currently use to shoot them down. But it has been difficult to operationalise,” he said. “The other challenge is power. The army has a mobile power system but the navy would face a greater demand for power to keep the laser stable over a longer period,” Cancian said. “It’s harder to have an effective laser on a ship because it’s more often the case that the navy would be dealing with a larger missile which means they have to track over an extended time. The laser beam has to be spot on for a long time, whereas the army, for example, might be tracking a quadcopter which can be taken down quickly [like the three drug cartel drones],” he said. Trump is not the first president to enthuse about laser technology. In his famous “Star Wars” speech on March 23, 1983, President Ronald Reagan appealed to America’s scientists to come up with an anti-missile shield in space and on the ground to protect the US from a Soviet nuclear attack. His vision was to have exotic systems, including X-ray and chemical lasers and neutral particle beams positioned on space platforms, to target and burn up incoming nuclear warheads. Ultimately that vision was unaffordable. Trump breathed new life into Reagan’s dream, however, when he ordered the Pentagon to devise a “Golden Dome” missile shield over the US, including the the idea of space-based interceptors. Cost estimates of the Golden Dome have varied from $185 billion over ten years, according to the Pentagon, to $1 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.