Highway to HEL

HELMA-P, HELIOS, HELCAP, SSL-TM, ODIN, these acronyms represent just a sample of the multiple ongoing High Energy Laser (HEL) programmes in France and the US. Many other programmes – such as, DragonFire in the UK – are progressing worldwide, albeit at varying paces, in a bid to outpace potential opponents on the road to HELs.

HEL weapons’ popularity is driven by the numerous advantages they seem to offer. From the ease of target tracking and engagement, to the very appealing ratio of low engagement cost to magazine depth. Several navies see these weapons as a critical capability for future naval warfare. Yet HEL programmes’ varying levels of progress worldwide also indicate that several challenges persist, be it at the physics level, the organisational level or both, and nowhere is this more evident than in the US Navy (USN).

So the question remains: are HELs a battlefield revolution, or simply an evolution in layered defence?

HEL 101

HELs are one of three primary types of Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) in mainstream development, which also include High-Power Microwaves (HPMs) and Millimetre Wave Weapons (MWWs). The latter are very similar to HPMs, but operate at higher frequencies, and with a narrower beam. Each type of weapon leverages different regions of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum to produce various effects. Other types and sub-types of DEWs exist, such as particle beams and Masers, but these are not yet known to be part of mainstream DEW research and development efforts.

In the naval domain, preference has overwhelmingly gone toward HEL programmes for two reasons.

Firstly, concentrated light beams such as HELs, as opposed to dispersed beams as with HPMs and MWWs, allows its user to either counter targets at greater extended – albeit still within line of sight (LoS) – ranges, or pierce a wider variety of materials. This range can be further extended by raising the level of energy used to power a HEL, which increases the weapon’s range and intensity. It should be noted that increasing the power of HPMs and MWWs would also increase their effective ranges.

Second, as Arnault Gagnepain, responsible for CILAS’ laser division, told ESD: “[HEL’s concentrated light beam] means these weapons are generally simple and easy to integrate onboard because there is no dispersion cone, and therefore no interference with other equipment.” The same cannot be said about HPMs and MWWs. Accordingly, expectations for HEL weapons are high at the operational level.

The bright side of HEL – Operational benefits

As noted in the Annex of the Congressional Research Services (CRS) report, ‘Department of Defense Directed Energy Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress’, published in August 2023, HEL weapons are expected to present four main advantages over conventional alternatives.

Firstly: short engagement times. The time-on-target of a HEL weapon is almost instant, meaning that compared to traditional ammunition, there is no need to factor in ballistics to calculate an intercept course. In practice, this should also translate into the possibility of engaging multiple targets within short timeframes since there is no need to reload or do another set of calculations.

A second significant advantage of HEL weapons is their expected ability to counter manoeuvring or agile targets. Since these weapons function by maintaining their beam on their targets, they are designed to follow them until the threat is neutralised (incapacitated or destroyed). In a January 2024 article published in Physics Today titled, ‘The new laser weapons’, Thomas Karr and James Trebes explain that a 300 kW HEL can defeat an aluminium-shelled target in about 2.5 seconds and a plastic one in less than a second.

Third, HELs’ light beams make them highly precise weapons. “The weapon will hit what the operator aims at,” Gagnepain explained, consequently eliminating not only ballistics concerns but also significantly reducing collateral damage risks.

Finally, using a light beam with adjustable intensity allows armed forces to have scalable effects in one weapon system. From non-lethal effects such as dazzling of optronic sensors, to limited damage such as burning out optical sensors, to complete neutralisation of the target, HEL weapons promise the ideal scalable response.

Consequently, the US armed forces, as well as other armed forces around the world, are working on HEL development programmes to counter a wide range of threats, from Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and potentially Uncrewed Surface Vehicles (USV) to ballistic and hypersonic missile defence. However, these programmes’ timelines and ambition levels vary significantly as armed forces grapple with HEL weapons’ well-documented limitations in very different ways.

European temperance – French and British HEL

For all their expected operational advantages, HEL weapons also present a number of limitations. These limitations have been well documented by several decades of ongoing HEL development programmes, particularly in the US.

One of the main limitations of HELs, at least to date, is their range. This is primarily because, inherently, a light beam can only operate within LoS ranges. Beyond this, these systems are susceptible to atmospheric conditions, because HELs function on the infrared end of the EM wavelength spectrum. Consequently, as noted in the CRS report: “Substances in the atmosphere – particularly water vapour, but also sand, dust, salt particles, smoke, and other air pollution – absorb and scatter light, and atmospheric turbulence can defocus a laser beam.”

Shipboard systems is particular may have to contend with the problem of water vapor, which also absorbs the light, more than their land-based counterparts. However, as these systems develop, navies will be able to find solutions to mitigate these effects – the CRS report, for instance, mentions the possibility of designing the laser to emit light at a wavelength less affected by water vapour – but the overall performance will continue to be reduced. The report also mentions the use of adaptive optics to make continuous rapid adjustments to the beam in response to atmospheric disturbances, preserving the beam’s power in a wider range of conditions.

Another critical limitation to date is Size, Weight and Power (SWaP). For a HEL weapon to successfully disable and/or neutralise large and potentially hardened targets, more power is required to emit a stronger light beam. Yet more power will inevitably impact the size and weight of the system itself and, in turn, its footprint – real estate and power demands – on the host platform.

These well-known limitations explain why, to date, European programmes such as the French HELMA-P and the British DragonFire, are primarily focused on beams in the >100kW class, for the neutralisation of smaller targets such as UAVs, rockets, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

Speaking with ESD about the HELMA-P, Gagnepain explained that currently, the system consists of three blocks of approximately 1m³ each: the laser generator with all the electrical installations, the cooling system, and the turret – which is admittedly even smaller than 1m³. It draws power and cooling directly from the ship’s systems.

“In practice, this means that our system is very easily integrated onboard any ship, from corvettes up to aircraft carriers,” Gagnepain noted. Once it has received the target designation from a ship’s Command and Control (C2) system, it can autonomously track, engage, and neutralise threats – always with a man-in-the-loop.

At present, the system is dedicated to countering small- and micro-UAVs. Anything beyond this would require far more power and would, inevitably, result in significant power surges that not all ships can sustain – or at least, not when all other systems are a go. “But we are working very closely with the French Navy and other armed services to continue scaling up our system so that it can tackle bigger, more hardened targets,” Gagnepain concluded. This would, for instance, include USVs, missiles, and potentially (eventually) using lasers against satellites.

The HELMA-P was successfully demonstrated to the French procurement agency (Direction Générale de l’Armement; DGA) in June 2023 when it was installed and operated from the Horizon class frigate Forbin (D620). The first systems are scheduled for delivery by mid-2025, and though Gagnepain could not comment on whether the French Navy would receive any, he mentioned that “there is enough for all services to begin with.” CILAS is working on this with Ariane Group and is ready to scale up production.

In the UK, the DragonFire programme is also moving forward, with the MoD recently announcing its renewed commitment to fielding the weapon before the 2030s. The DragonFire is a 50 kW class HEL demonstrator developed by an MBDA-led consortium, including Leonardo (responsible for the beam director) and Qinetiq (responsible for the laser source), that will likely be fitted to both land and naval platforms.

Similarly to the HELMA-P, the DragonFire demonstrator comprises three separate units: a C2 cabin, a thermal plant and a laser effector container. The size of these units remains unknown, though it appears to have a slightly larger footprint – as a demonstrator – than the French system. According to a related MoD press release, the DragonFire demonstrator was successfully tested in the MoD’s Hebrides Range in late 2023, demonstrating its ability “to track moving air and sea targets with very high accuracy at range.”

No precise delivery dates have been announced yet, though the MoD has stated its intention to move the operationalisation date forward from the initial 2030s. To date, there are also no definite plans as to which ships will be fitted with these weapons, but the Royal Navy’s (RN’s) Type 45 destroyers and the Type 26 frigates have been floated as likely candidates.

So, both European programmes are progressing at pace and moving to start fielding >100 kW class HEL weapons over the short- (FR) and medium- (UK) terms. This indicates a desire to start operationalising HELs as soon as possible as a complementary weapon system, part of a layered defence. It will also contribute to developing CONOPS progressively.

Go big or go home – USN HEL dilemmas

Across the Atlantic, the HEL landscape is somewhat different, and the many years – and millions of dollars spent – on ongoing development have attracted significant criticism. During the Surface Navy Association event in DC in January 2024, Read Admiral Fred Pyle, USN director of surface warfare requirements, made the headlines by stating: “I am not content with the pace of directed energy weapons. We must deliver on the promise this technology gives us.”

The USN’s lack of steady progress in fielding HEL weapons to its many surface ships best exemplifies the limitations related to these weapons programmes. These are well documented in a US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, ‘Directed Energy Weapons – DoD Should Focus on Transition Planning’, published in April 2023, and are perhaps best summarised by the sentence: “For decades, DoD has prioritized investing in early-stage research and development of technologies.” This has resulted in a lack of foresight and, consequently, difficulties competing for funds against well-established acquisition programmes.

This has, in turn, resulted in representatives within the defence industrial base raising concerns about investing in developing HEL technologies without a clear government commitment. The main issue at stake, as the GAO report notes, is the inability to leverage commercial products due to the lack of commercial applications for DEWs or critical technologies. This inevitably results in high development costs for industry partners.

By contrast, the DragonFire consortium in the UK has been communicating that it is leveraging COTS to move forward and will subsequently work to ruggedise the material or find alternatives – thus moving the programme along.

Lack of foresight in the transition efforts has also resulted in a lack of DoD stable funding for DE weapons programmes and strengthening of the industrial base. This issue is evident across multiple defence sectors worldwide. It was exemplified in a paper published in the MIT Technology Review on 30 July 2024, “How the US and its allies can rebuild economic security”. Basing their analysis on drone manufacturing – another ‘hot’ technology at the moment – Edlyn V. Levine & Fiona Murray explained that many European countries have led their manufacturing base slide East, much to the detriment of their capacity to produce critical capabilities.

Another issue is the USN’s process for developing and transitioning HEL technologies. Based on a partnership between the Navy science and technology community and the Program Executive Office (PEO), Integrated Warfare Systems, this partnership has only informally recorded data on weapon usage for the development community. Combined with the fact that tactics and concepts of operation (CONOPS) for these weapons are still being developed, a lack of formal records about development iterations between developers and users could significantly slow industrialisation and adoption.

Many of these issues are primarily rooted in the fact that the USN is seeking to achieve higher-powered HELs, but is failing to successfully integrate the demonstrators onboard ships. Simultaneously, industrial capacity is lacking to ramp up production activities on those systems that did prove useful. Consequently, to date, the USN has experienced four HEL programmes with limited reach and, at times, impact.

The Solid State Laser Technology Maturation (SSL-TM) culminated in installing the 150 kW class Laser Weapons System Demonstrator (LWSD) on USS Portland in 2019, and the programme was due to close in 2024. The Optical Dazzling Interceptor, Navy (ODIN), designed to dazzle UAVs with a 60 kW class laser, has only been deployed on seven Arleigh Burke Flight IIA destroyers. The High-Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS), another 60 kW class laser, albeit intended for both dazzling and interception – with potential for growth to 120kW – was installed on an Arleigh Burke class destroyer, the USS Preble, in 2022 and conducted sea trials in 2023, but is planned to undergo continued testing till 2028.

Finally, the High Energy Laser Counter ASCM (anti-ship cruise missile) Project (HELCAP), intended to reach power levels of 300 kW, will undergo experimentation until 2028 and has not yet been installed on any ship. Consequently, questions about the feasibility of such large power and cooling demands remain largely unknown.

Highway to HEL

HEL weapons may hold a lot of promise, but the limitations they are still facing mean that the most sensible path forward is that of incremental evolution. As the French and the British programme demonstrate, working to operationalise smaller HELs onto more platforms, using them as part of a layered defence approach, offers more time for adaptation – for industry, the armed forces, and their platforms.

A further notable example would be Israeli Company Rafael’s Iron Beam HEL, a 100 kW class weapon which is intended to complement Israel’s air and missile defence system at the lower tier. It may be the closest of all those mentioned to operational deployment, with the manufacturer anticipating its fielding by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) toward the end of 2025.

The USN, as well as the other US service branches, may have its eyes on bigger systems that are expected to provide a silver bullet to the ballistic missile threat – an expectation that has yet to prove correct – but in the meantime it has failed to properly field existing technologies. As such, not only are CONOPS not advancing, but the country’s industrial base is not ready to address its Navy’s demands.

“Today we are working on the deployment of laser weapons, while also preparing for the future as we look into giving them more power and integrating them on more platforms,” Gagnepain concluded. Perhaps this ‘slowly but surely’ approach is indeed the most assured highway to HEL.

Alix Valenti