This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Directed energy weapons are technically controversial, politically sensitive, tactically needed, potentially revolutionary in the employment of naval forces, and unproven in practical application. Until the middle of the past decade, even the term “directed energy weapons” was classified.1 Now, when there are advocates and critics at the extremes, the challenge is to reach an objective assessment of the application of these weapons in the maritime environment.
Characteristics: Directed energy weapon is an umbrella term covering several methods of applying high energy radiation levels by various types as weapons; they are less frequently known as radiant energy weapons. High-energy lasers, charged and neutral particle beams, and electromagnetic pulse weapons are included under the umbrella term.
A laser beam is a coherent, highly focused, and concentrated stream of electromagnetic radiation that deposits enormous amounts of photons on a target. A laser can operate in two modes, continuous or pulsed. The former destroys a target by a rapid buildup of heat to very high levels resulting from dwelling on the target. The latter method adds a shock wave effect to damage already caused by the melting of the target's surface. The most benign environment for operation of a high-energy laser weapon in terms of delivering destructive or degrading amounts of energy on a target at long ranges is the vacuum of space. Next most suitable are the higher altitudes, 40,000 to 50.000 feet and up, in the atmosphere. The most difficult environment is that near the surface of the earth. The near surface offers all of the elements that contribute to the atmospheric absorption phenomena known as thermal blooming or spreading of the beam. Rain, fog, mist, clouds, winds, particulate material, and the heavy air molecules and atmospheric aerosols found from sea level to the lower altitudes must be compensated for by various means.
Charged particle beams are streams of highly accelerated atomic or subatomic particles such as electrons, protons, neutrons, or heavier ions. They move at close to the speed of light and destroy or damage targets by either penetrating the target with the concentrated energy mass of the particles or by secondary radiation effects. Unlike lasers, particle beams are not affected by clouds or mist and thus have an all-weather potential. (Magnetic storms are an exception, because they cause the earth's magnetic field to fluctuate in an erratic fashion.) Moreover, these beams can penetrate a target without burning a hole in it, so the destruction would be instantaneous. There are two major considerations regarding charged particle beams in space, aside from a propagation question, since all efforts up to now concerning that matter have been either computer modeling or theoretical. They are the bending of the beam by the earth’s magnetic field and the rapid diffusion in the vacuum of space because of the particles repelling one another. These considerations indicate that a practical beam weapon in space will require neutral particles. This beam is formed by negatively charging hydrogen atoms, accelerating them, and then neutralizing them by passing the beam through a charge-exchange cell, thereby stripping off the extra electrons. This process negates the effect of the earth’s magnetic field on bending the beam and the beam diffusion resulting from the repulsive action of the particles.
Electromagnetic pulse weapons apply high-intensity bursts of radio-frequency or microwave radiation from very high peak power microwave generators, directed by an antenna system, to disrupt or destroy electronic components of communications networks, computer installations, or electro-opd' cally guided munitions.2 Little is known, in a coffi- parative sense, about the critical parameters, limitations, and advantages and disadvantages of such devices. What is known is that the Soviet Union <s actively pursuing development of needed generators. U. S. research is relatively small in this area.
Naval Applications of Lasers: There has been no lack of open discussion and claims regarding what lasers could, should, and in some instances, perhaps are now doing. In the near term, which could con' ceivably mean any time prior to the middle of th|S decade, tactical laser applications of direct interes1 to naval forces will probably include communica' tions, antiair warfare (both antiaircraft and antiship missile), antisubmarine warfare, antitorpedo dC' fense, minesweeping, laser-guided projectiles, la$er radar, missile guidance systems, fire control point' ing and tracking systems, meteorology, and env1' ronmental modification such as burning through °r away fog. This list is not purported to be all-inclusive. It includes only those suggested uses that practical and have been mentioned in magazines ^ periodicals.
Long-term potential applications, those attainable by 1990 or thereabouts, do not divide neatly inI° tactical and strategic weapons. There tends to & some overlap. Ground or sea-based high-energy |a’ sers could perform missile defense, anti-satell|ie warfare, and tracking of high-altitude targets. Sat' ellite-based lasers could defend other satellites, a*' tack or gradually degrade other satellites, proviye air defense against high-altitude bombers or baflisIlC missiles, and destroy maritime targets.3 Used conjunction with other forms of technology, sUC as particle beams, lasers could enhance their Pef formance by burning a channel to extend partic ^ beam ranges or improve acquisition, pointing. afl tracking accuracies and speeds.
Some of the foregoing applications require or deserve amplification. Lasercom, the acronym for aser communications system, offers secure direc- ,l0nal transmission of vast amounts of data rapidly ar|d with considerable jam resistance. This capability could provide near real-time targeting informa- ■°n from a satellite or aircraft surveillance sensor 0 a submarine, aircraft, or surface ship. Submarine- inched ballistic missiles or guided missiles from >s or aircraft could be retargeted almost instan- ar|eously, even while in flight. Initial tests of la- s|Tcom have successfully transmitted data through atmosphere at good quality and high rate.
The close-in air defense role, particularly for high- value ships, is rapidly emerging as both the most needed and most promising new near-term directed ^nergy weapon application. According to former ecretary of Defense Harold Brown, even the ad- ^nced Aegis shipboard air defense system may not ea match fora massed attack by “Backfire” bomb- and cruise missiles.4 Although a first-generation lrected energy application, a shipboard laser eaPon promises to be more than a match against , ,ch an attack. Why? The answer is the speed and 'gh firepower of the laser. It delivers its lethal en- ,r8y on a target one mile away in the time that a l^'Personic missile traveling at Mach 6 would move vSs than an inch. “Reload” or “refire” times are tyT raPid. constrained almost exclusively by the time on the target.
|. ‘here are limitations on performance of shipboard jper defenses; weather is one, and range is another the adversary chooses to employ nuclear weap- a-ns; However, technical issues such as pointing and (|lrtl'ng, or the size and weight of the power package, n°t constrain laser defense of ships against large $Urf*3ers °f conventional missiles launched from naCe> subsurface, and/or airborne platforms.5 The eatest limitation is a more mundane problem of
funding support for research and development. Fortunately, high-energy laser weapon development is sufficiently advanced so as not to be seriously sensitive to funding cuts, at least in terms of their currently scheduled rate of progress. However, introduction of these weapons to the fleet even a few years earlier than planned would require additional funds now.
Antitorpedo defense or minesweeping could be enhanced with available laser technology. For example, more definite detection, localization, and identification capabilities for antisubmarine warfare purposes are possible with lasers rather than sound technology being used for future sonars.6 The Soviets have not ignored the antisubmarine application of lasers. A Russian article describes laser scanning of the ocean to a depth of 130 meters.7
,nf?s / November 1981
49
Hunting for submarines with lasers has strategic as well as tactical implications if those ships are ballistic missile submarines. However, the vacuum of space is the high-energy laser weapon’s true operational environment and, if ballistic missile defense is the raison d’etre for system development, space application should be considered. Public information provides a wide range of time frames in which a conceptual, prototype, or operational space-based anti-ballistic missile laser system might be available. One can build a case for such a system appearing as early as 1983 or as late as 1990. Since some shipboard laser weapon system technology is aprecursor to space-based application, funding constraints affect both, even if intended to affect only
one. Likewise, particle beam technology development is also hampered, because it draws upon knowledge gained from the more advanced laser research effort.
The required technologies and efforts for systems to be used from space have been detailed in trade journals such as Aviation Week & Space Technology, Electronic Warfare/Defettse Electronics, and industry newsletters such as Aerospace Daily. Both Aerospace Daily and Aviation Week have published articles stating that the Soviet Union may have already conducted laser tests in space. Naval ramifications are at least twofold. A powerful laser in orbit could have the capability of attacking ships at sea. A group of laser-equipped satellites could negate submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Since submarines cannot launch all their missiles at the same time and since all such submarines are seldom at sea at the same time, the ability of those missiles to saturate and therefore penetrate a space-based laser system is extremely doubtful. This system, because of its capability for quick response, would also aid in defending against Soviet submarine- launched missiles fired on low trajectories from launch points only a few hundred miles off the coast. Land-based ballistic missiles, however, could (theoretically, at least) be launched simultaneously, and by sheer number, some would penetrate the laser satellite grouping.
Naval Applications of Particle Beam Weapons: Particle beam weapons offer potential application in many of the same roles for naval employment as lasers. These devices, however, are not necessarily competitors. Several factors could cause the two technologies to diverge, but as long as it is recognized and accepted that particle beams have some potentially novel and unique applications in the atmosphere; that lasers must fill the antiair defense role for high-value ships until particle beam technology is perfected; and that this near-term air- defense application of lasers is a precursor to perfecting the technical requirements for both space laser and neutral particle beam operations; there should be no bureaucratic, technical, or personality- bred inhibitions to cross-talk among the technical communities involved. The administrative coordination, education, and exchange of information associated with the directed energy effort, like all other broad-based advanced technology efforts, was
This pointer-tracker test device has been used by the Navy in its development program for high-energy laser weapons to defend against antiship missiles.
initially cumbersome, but efficient channels are now well defined.8
Although the missions of charged particle beam weapons and lasers are similar in terms of ship defense, the ability of a particle beam to provide allweather protection, a high degree of insensitivity to countermeasures, increased range, and instantaneous destruction are crucial differences. Some of the properties that permit charged particle beam operation in the atmosphere during foul weather at extended ranges are the same that would require a neutralized beam for space use. We should therefore bear in mind the close interrelationship between particle beam air defense capabilities and the sig' nificance of the rapidly improving size and capabilities of Soviet forces which we must defend against’
If the Navy is to retain a tactical option to operate within range of enemy land-based aircraft—and the spread of Soviet bases around the world enhances that possibility—then our existing systems, and even projected ones such as Aegis, could easily be overcome by sheer numbers of missiles. Ship defense, for example, could easily require defense against multiple, simultaneous attacks by hyper' sonic missiles. A charged particle beam weapm1 would have the ability in all weather conditions to engage several targets in a matter of a few millisec' onds and would be essentially incapable of saturation.9 Further, the potential for increased range of defense, both directly and indirectly, is dependent to a large extent on interaction with laser techno1'
°gy. Because of the great distances involved in some sPace applications, and because particle beams, unlike lasers, propagate at slightly less than the speed °f light, a means of tracking the beam after it leaves lhe stripping cell at the end of the accelerator is required. A combined application of laser, infrared sensor, and particle beam technology may provide the pointing accuracies needed to lead a distant target for a hit.
There are also potential offensive applications of Particle beam weapons. One example is weather Modification based on projecting electron beams lnto the atmosphere. A large negative electric charge disposed into the atmosphere would theoretically release a large X-ray flash, producing many pairs of Positive and negative ions, thus creating channels °f high electrical conductivity. These greatly in- leased electrical fields enhance precipitation and thundercloud electrification. Conversely, increasing the electrical conductivity of the air could be used 0r lightning suppression or to trigger artificial cloud- to-cloud or cloud-to-ground discharges.10 A naval tactical application would flow from causing electrical storms which would be disruptive of an adVersary’s communications and electronic equipments. This would be potentially useful against an mrerny heavily reliant on centralized command, con- r°l. and coordination of maritime forces.
Given the conservative approach of our nation to h's technology, both philosophically and in our Practical efforts, it is again necessary to turn to the 0viets for a glimpse of what the long-term future Jjmy hold for particle beam weapons. The Soviet legation to the U. S.-U.S.S.R. conference of the °nimittee on Disarmament working group on ra- >°logicaI weapons/mass destruction weapons ex- P.'mssed the concept that particle beams could pos- ‘hly lead to mass destruction weapons. The Soviets Pf°posed a ban on the development and manufac- Ufc of weapons using charged or neutral particles 0 affect biological targets. By pressing the tech- °'°gy, a particle beam could be propagated through e atmosphere to produce a penetrating radiation °ne that would irradiate large areas of the earth ^nd kill without blast damage." Used in this manner 0 Irradiate a task force, a battle group, a convoy, jT^n aircraft carrier, there are obvious implications r Maritime superiority.
[, ^as the Soviet proposal a psychological ploy in |,L arms control/disarmament arena? Given the j/gely theoretical nature of particle beam weapons, ^ c°uld well have been. But Soviet scientists have JjCn aggressively—and apparently with reasonable ccess—pursuing this technology. Since 1977, Ration Week has provided detailed coverage of ^viet efforts, including experimental work, possi- VtCSts ant* test fac*l't'es’ Power generation, and Aching technology. It has also carried reports on prominent physicists, their research specialty affiliations, and estimates of Soviet funding. One point comes through loud and clear. The Soviets are not as constrained as we by either philosophy or funding in determining the feasibility of particle beam weapons. They are serious.
Naval Applications of Electromagnetic Pulse Weapons: Considerable thought and experimentation are currently being devoted by the Navy Department to electromagnetic pulse weapons. Such weapons could conceivably have applications in weakening or detonating torpedoes and mines. However, there is very little publicly available literature from which to derive more than tentative conclusions regarding the future use of these weapons.
Conclusions and Recommendations: The naval applications and ramifications of directed energy weapons technology are far-reaching. With the advent of this technology in the military sphere, the Navy stands to gain or lose substantially in the balance of maritime superiority. A navy or a nation that starts out in a weakened or unprepared condition invites devastation and defeat. The Soviet Union experienced that lesson firsthand during World War II and took it to heart. The devastation possible through today’s technology could be far more complete than it was then. Missiles have to a large extent replaced aircraft, including our 30- year-old heavy bombers, and now threaten the survival of both the Navy and the nation. The nation has no ballistic missile defense. The carrier must be able to defend herself against high-Mach, high-performance smart missiles. Existing and planned surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles simply cannot do the job.
51
R* / November 1981
There are two critical factors to keep in mind about directed energy weapons. First, they have the potential to do the air defense job far better than conventional missiles. Lasers work. Live firings against drones, helicopters, planes, missiles, and containers similar to ballistic missile boosters have established that fact. Particle beam research and development to date have not found such devices limited by anything more than time and funding. The development pace for particle beam weapons is not now especially sensitive to funding. A few years could be saved by concurrent research and development and prototyping work. However, given the high risk technology involved, an overriding need would have to be established to justify such concurrency, particularly because additional money does not automatically translate into accelerated progress. Second, laser and particle beam technologies are synergistically interactive, which enhances system performance and assists the progress
from first to. second to third generation weapons. Directed energy weapons, as a family, can poten: tially perform air defense, satellite warfare, torpedo defense, weather modification, and maritime superiority functions. What distinguishes lasers are such applications as communications, minesweeping, antisubmarine warfare, radar, missile guidance and acquisition, pointing and tracking systems which particle beams cannot provide. On the other hand, particle beams would offer significantly enhanced air defense capabilities and an offensive weather modification capability.
Despite a great many valid historical precedents and hard evidence of a Soviet military buildup that exceeds the Nazi military buildup prior to World War II, the U. S. Government remains tied to a mutual assured destruction (MAD) philosophy and strategy. That MAD strategy is based on the premise that nuclear war is insane. The Soviet “combined arms” program, however, aims at providing overwhelming military superiority, a ballistic missile defense system that can negate most of an adversary’s nuclear weapons, and an active civil defense effort resulting in perceived synergism of the balance that makes nuclear war decidedly more insane for the United States.
The U. S. Navy, no less than the nation itself, has remained tied to weapon systems that need protection and to defensive systems that will not be able to measure up. Of the many contrasts between the U. S. Navy and the Soviet Navy, two stand out. First, in the Soviet Union new weapon systems are not open to public discussion. Soviet naval developments therefore are subject to speculation, sometimes until a completed ship puts to sea. Even then, detailed analyses leave open the question of directed energy weapons on board new classes of Soviet warships, such as the cruiser Kirov. The ship has been to sea and has the size and power generation capacity to employ directed energy weapons. But to date, only conjecture is available concerning the tube-like protrusions which run three-quarters of the length of the hull on both sides. The second contrast lies in how the two navies have integrated new technology to arrive at current force structures. The Soviet Navy emerges as understanding both the importance of numbers and the implications of adapting its force structure to technological change. The
U. S. Navy’s force structure today, and for the last 35 years, largely reflects the capabilities demonstrated by carrier, submarine, and amphibious forces in the war against Japan.12 Reactivation of the Iowa (BB-61 )-class battleships, for example- would restore a punch to the fleet, missing for some years now, and possibly add to conventional antisubmarine and antiair capabilities, but they could also be equipped with directed energy systems.
The Navy and the nation must recognize and adapt at a more rapid pace to the realities implied in the combined effect of advanced technology weapons, the Soviet quest for military superiority, and historical Russian expansionism. Neither time nor our industrial base is on our side in meeting this challenge.
Mr. Beane was graduated from Georgetown University. Washington. D.C., with a bachelor of science degree in foreign service in 1961 and received his master's degree in government fr0,n the same university in 1979. He has also participated in the Naval War College off-campus program. Mr. Beane works as a program analys*in the Department of the Navy’s Strategic System[1] [2] Projects Office. He lives in Gaithersburg. Maryland.
----------------------------------- The Sounds of Battle -----------------------------------
Shortly after sundown a destroyer in the Pacific was practicing firing her guns. Personnel on an aircraft carrier on the horizon could see the flashes, but couldn't hear the sounds. A newly commissioned ensign aboard the carrier, trying to show his adroitness, asked the signalman on duty, "What are they saying?”
The signalman replied in a serious voice: "Boom! Boom! Boom!”
Herm Albright
'This article is based upon material drawn from unclassified publication* and from the author's unclassified interviews with people working in *" field of directed energy weapons.
’“Soviets Study Potential of Electromagnetic Pulse WeaponsAerosp“ct Daily, 28 November 1979. p. 129.
’“Long-term” or ”1990" is used to avoid some of the more contention* aspects of directed energy weapons. Some devices may well be avails® in fewer rather than more years. The point is what they can do. how faS they can do it. and what both mean to naval tactics and strategy. ’George C. Wilson, “Brown Draws Bleak Picture of Perilous World.' Washington Post, 30 January 1980, p. A-2.
’Interview with Capt. Alfred Skolnick, Project Manager. High Ene9j’ Laser Project. Department of Navy, Washington, D.C., 10 March 198 ■ ‘Lawrence Griswold, "Lasers: Harnessed Lightning," Sea Power. SePtember 1975, p. 16.
’Norman Polmar. "Soviet ASW: Highly Capable or Irrelevant?.” In,er national Defense Review, No. 5/1979. p. 727.
"Interview with Dr. Joseph Mangano, Assistant Director. Directed Enerf Office. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Washington. 0- "
[2] March 1980. , .
’Lieutenant Commander William E. Wright, USN. "Charged PaU'f. Beam Weapons: Should We? Could We?." Proceedings, November I* ' P- 34.
I0F. Winterberg, "Electric Cloud and Weather Modification with Inle Relativistic Electron Beams,” Nature, February 1974. p. 271.
"“U. S. Eyes Soviet Offensive Beam Weapons Plans," Aviation ^ee ' 13 November 1978, p. 19.
'’Commander J. S. Hurlburt, USN. review of The Soviets as Novol ponents 1941-1945, Naval War College Review, January-February p. 108.