Selected Directed Energy Research and Development for U.S. Air Force Aircraft Applications: A Workshop Summary (2013)

3

Synopsis of Workshop Sessions

SESSION 1
FEBRUARY 27-28, 2013
WASHINGTON, D.C.

For Session 1, the workshop planning committee sent all presenters the following guidance on the desired format and content of presentations:

Tables of potentially rewarding high-energy laser (HEL) and high-power microwave (HPM) technologies and systems that are being developed that could be relevant to the Air Force, particularly for defensive applications. For each technology and system, a brief description and its expected performance. Please also provide the period (time line) of R&D [research and development] and testing and when a decision about deployment might occur. If available, please also provide the suggested number of systems that would need to be acquired and the cost of such a system (including development costs).

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Welcome and Introductions

Gen Ronald E. Keys (USAF, Ret.), Session Chair

Gen Ronald Keys opened the meeting with an overview of the terms of reference for the workshop (Appendix B). He suggested that the workshop objective be viewed as providing useful input to the Air Force on the following key questions:

• What is the root cause, or causes, for why directed-energy weapon (DEW) systems are not being adopted for Air Force applications? Why are the products from R&D programs not being operationalized? Is it, for example, because:
  — The technology is not yet ready;
  — The DEW alternatives are not sufficiently better than other options (e.g., projectiles); and/or the DEW alternatives are not competitively affordable (including the cost of engineering them into current platforms, etc.)?
• Does the technology work in the “mud, blood, and beer” of real-world operations, not just in the laboratory?

• What kinds of issues need to be addressed to facilitate adoption?
  — Tactical issues—the technology works but is not tactically useful (superior to alternatives)
  — Cost issues
  — Intellectual acceptance issues—operational practitioners do not understand the benefits, do not see DEW solutions as a better way of operating

In Gen Keys’s opinion, DEW technology has to win its way onto the battlefield. It must add value by doing something better than non-DEW options can, or something that they cannot, do. It has to have a reasonable cost structure and offer affordable capability. Proponents must answer the questions: “Where does it fit?” and “What Department of Defense (DoD) capability gap does it fix?”

Air Force Champion’s Vision for Directed Energy

Dr. Janet S Fender, Chief Scientist, Air Combat Command (ACC)
Dr. David Robie, Office of the Chief Scientist, ACC

Dr. Fender and Dr. Robie prepared abstracts of their presentations for inclusion in this report, which have been incorporated below as Box 3-1 and Box 3-2, respectively.

Rapporteur Comments: In addition to the points made in Dr. Fender’s abstract above, her presentation and the interactions during and after it with other workshop participants raised the following points that are of particular relevance for themes that emerged during this session and the workshop as a whole (see Chapter 2).

• Have the Air Force and the DEW R&D community taken advantage of the unique advantages and capabilities of directed energy—not viewing it as simply a bullet-replacement?
• Have Air Force programs been addressing the most critical operational challenges and national challenges? For example, aircraft self-defense, although important in the long term, may not be the biggest national/Air Force challenge in the near term.
  — Dr. Fender and several other participants suggested that DEW technology development aim at high-priority missions.
  — Another suggestion, made by Gen Keys and seconded by several other participants’ comments, was that the R&D community ought to seek functional requirements for which DEW systems are best option. For example, do not seek a general requirement to integrate [high-energy] lasers into aircraft. Rather, according to this line of thought, the community would do better by making the case for DEW as a solution for an important functional requirement.
• Dr. Fender’s point that successful demonstrations have been viewed as stepping stones to a next generation of technology advancement, rather than leading to an operational capability, evoked many comments and related discussion. A number of participants agreed with one participant’s response that the DEW R&D community needs to get products operational, not just “continue kicking the can down the road

Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Initiatives

Dr. Robert Peterkin, Chief Scientist, Directed Energy Directorate, AFRL

In his introduction, Dr. Peterkin noted that his presentation does not cover AFRL work on Blue Force defense against Red Force DEW threats. The concepts for employment he presented for the near, mid-, and far term are based on developing a fundamental understanding of targets’ vulnerability to directed energy. He described how AFRL works from measures of effectiveness for a potential system (objective system), derives subsystem technical performance measures by decomposing the full system into subsystems, and establishes science and technology (S&T) programs to solve problems in achieving those performance measures. Transitioning the AFRL results to products requires working with industry, and AFRL needs help in transitioning results into near-term DEW products.

In the area of narrow-band HPM systems for counter-electronics applications, Dr. Peterkin discussed the Counter-electronics HPM Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) Joint Concept Technology Demonstration (JCTD) and its SuperChamp follow-on. The key to a long-range counter-electronics application is to concentrate the energy in a narrow frequency range in short pulses. He described how AFRL uses the Joint RF Effective Model (JREM) to optimize firing location and aim-point and to predict probability of kill (pK) for targets. JREM was used in developing CHAMP prior to the system’s flight testing. A single CHAMP missile can engage multiple targets and achieve multiple functional kills. In the CHAMP JCTD, the recharge time between engagements was on the order of tens of seconds. Among the concepts studied was the use of multiple engagement passes (fly-bys) to increase the functional effects on the same target. SuperChamp, the follow-on work to the CHAMP JCTD, has a near-term objective of extending the CHAMP counter-electronics capability to operationally relevant ranges. Its midterm and far-term objectives are to deliver frequency-agile counter-electronics and cyber/electronic effects from greater distances using other platforms.

MAXPOWER is AFRL’s high-average-power HPM system for counter-improvised explosive device (IED) use. The objective is to detonate all classes of IEDs at safe ranges from mobile systems, without prior knowledge of IED location. A test version was deployed to theater for a 1-year operational evaluation. Dr. Peterkin also discussed the use of a quasi-continuous wave (CW) millimeter-wave system as a counter-personnel (nonlethal) active denial system (ADS), for use in driving ground-based personnel away from a clear zone around ground-based assets without employing lethal force.

Turning to HEL systems, Dr. Peterkin presented and discussed a conceptual graph of the timeline for technical risk reduction for airborne HEL concepts versus the relative sophistication and specific power of each application (Figure 3-1).

FIGURE 3-1 AFRL laser system concepts and timelines. SOURCE: Robert Peterkin, Chief Scientist, Directed Energy, Air Force Research Laboratory, “Assessment of Directed Energy Research and Development for U.S. Air Force Applications,” presentation to the workshop on February 27, 2013.

For “hard kill” laser lethality, the important concept is fluence (energy per unit of area irradiated), rather than power of the emitted beam (kilowatts) or the irradiance (power per unit of area irradiated). Irradiance may be relevant to sensor kill when the laser beam is within the working frequency band of the sensor (in-band sensor kill). Beam quality, spot size, and dwell time are all relevant to pK for hard-kill lethality. Dr. Peterkin discussed how these parameters relate to the challenges for development of antimissile laser defense systems for aircraft and surface ships. Imaging anti-aircraft missiles present a more sophisticated and more difficult-to-counter threat than EO/IR missiles.

AFRL and DARPA are collaborating on a concept for a high-energy electric laser on a large aircraft. This program was enabled by substantial DARPA investment in the HELLADS program. AFRL is also participating in the first four industry efforts of the Robust Electric Laser Initiative (RELI), led by the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office (HEL-JTO).

High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office Initiatives

Mr. Donald Seeley, Acting Director, HEL-JTO

Mr. Seeley prepared an abstract of his presentation for inclusion in this report; it is incorporated below as Box 3-3.

U.S. Army DEW Initiatives at ARDEC

Mr. Charlie Freund, Acting Chief, Directed Energy Branch, U.S. Army Research and Development Command, Armaments Research, Development and Engineering Center

Mr. Freund’s presentation provided an overview of DEW efforts at the U.S. Army Armaments Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC). The Sparrow Sentry System for Personnel is an HPM application for screening people at portal control points for personnel-borne IEDs. It resulted from a series of down-scopes to the original concept, which was for a IED route-clearing role. The system was 100 percent effective in testing, but in 3 years of deployment there was never an active detonation (individuals were warned of the screening system’s presence). ARDEC is also working on a portable version to screen vehicles at entry control points for IEDs or vehicle bombs and a miniaturized version for screening personnel. Another route-clearing concept in development is the Laser Induced Plasma Channel technology, which works by ionizing air in a channel to an IED target, along which an electrical discharge is sent to detonate the IED from a safe standoff distance.

Solid State Active Denial Technology (SS-ADT) uses a 95 GHz HPM beam to drive personnel away from an area to be protected by heating their skin to an intolerable level. The technology is being considered for both fixed-site and vehicle-mounted applications. SS-ADT has considerable SWaP advantages over the Army’s current Active Denial System. A handheld version of the technology is also under development. Funding for the SS-ADT technology is from the Joint Nonlethal Weapons Directorate (JNWD).

U.S. Army DEW Initiatives at the Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC)

Dr. Kip Kendrick, Chief, Directed Energy Division, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, Army Forces Strategic Command

Dr. Kendrick described work on a RELI-class HEL system (35 percent laser efficiency) with an advanced beam control system that allows it to fit on a Stryker-class Army vehicle for base defense against rocket, artillery, and mortar fire (counter-RAM). RELI uses a fiber bundle solid-state laser that has the advantage that repairs can be done in the field. The concept for this system was included in the recent Indirect Fires Protection Capabilities II (IFPC II) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for the base-defense counter-RAM role. Dr. Kendrick described how this technology has evolved from previous Army involvement in the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) and Joint High Power Solid State Laser (JHPSSL) programs. He then discussed the Army’s ongoing role in the HEL-JTO’s RELI program and the Army roadmap for HEL R&D.

The IFPC II AoA resulted in selection of a missile system even though the HEL system scored well. In light of that choice by the Army Training and Doctrine Command, the workshop participants discussed with Dr. Kendrick his views on the hesitance of the warfighter community to move forward with operationalizing DEW concepts. He emphasized the importance of developing credibility with the warfighter community while development is ongoing. DEW is a paradigm shift for the user, he said, and the S&T community needs to address warfighters’ concerns on issues such as supportability and reliability. In response to a question, he said it is important to address doctrine and concept of operations (CONOPS) for a DEW application.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Initiatives

Dr. Richard Bagnell, Strategic Technology Office, DARPA

Dr. Bagnell’s presentation described DARPA programs for the High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS) and for the Laser Weapon System Module (LWSM) of HELLADS. A key point he made about the LWSM is that the system’s footprint is driven by the power and thermal management subsystems necessary to meet the duty cycle and magazine requirements.

Discussion of Day 1 Presentations

Gen Ronald E. Keys (USAF, Ret.), Session Chair

Gen Keys asked the participants to comment on the day’s presentations, going in a clockwise direction around the table from his left. After Session 1, the rapporteur organized his notes on this discussion under the following five emerging themes of the workshop:

• Are the right applications and CONOPS for DEW being considered?
• Does DEW have credibility with the warfighter? Does the warfighter understand and accept the opportunities that DEW systems might provide?
• The Air Force DEW R&D community may need to stop kicking the operational capability can down the road.

• What are the potential paths forward for transitioning Air Force DEW science and technology products to operations?
• What are the priority R&D opportunities?

The first three of these themes subsequently became Themes 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4, respectively, in the overview of themes and major points from the workshop as a whole (see Chapter 2). The fourth theme evolved into Theme 3 in the overview, and the fifth theme became Theme 3.1 in the overview. Individual participants’ comments related to these five themes are represented in the overview.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Welcome and Introductions

Gen Ronald E. Keys (USAF, Ret.), Session Chair

In his comments to open the second day of presentations and discussion, Gen Keys offered the following observations:

• DEW proponents should be careful to differentiate between early adopters and beta testers. Based on his experience, Air Force warfighters may have been scared off DEW by too often being used as unwitting beta testers, when they thought they were being early adopters of an operational capability. (See Theme 1.3.)
• It will be important to get the right CONOPS that fit the capability of a DEW technology or system. As an example, he recalled how a HEL system demonstrated for the B-1 bomber and became irrelevant when the CONOPS for the B1 changed from the original design for low altitude and high speed to the current CONOPS of flying at medium to high altitude. (See Theme 1.1.)
• It is okay, he suggested, to present an HEL program as a technology maturation program, but do not sell it as leading to a fieldable weapon system if that is not a likely direct outcome if the proposed program is successful. (Relevant to Themes 1.2 and 1.3.)
• Air base defense is a natural good fit for a big-laser (i.e., large size, weight and power, or SWaP) defense system. Another key application could be anti-access. (In subsequent discussions, particularly during Session 2 and 3, Gen Keys emphasized that air base defense is not currently seen by ACC and others as an Air Force mission. See Theme 2.)

OSD Initiatives

Dr. Spiro Lekoudis, Research Directorate, Defense Research and Engineering, OSD

Dr. Lekoudis prepared an abstract of his presentation for inclusion in this report; it is incorporated below as Box 3-4.

Department of Energy (DOE) Initiatives

Dr. Vance Behr, Deputy Director for Military Systems and Technologies, Integrated Military Systems Center, Sandia National Laboratories

Dr. Behr prepared an abstract of his presentation for inclusion in this report; it is incorporated below as Box 3-5.

U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Initiatives

Dr. Steve Post, Laser Technology Program Manager, MDA

Dr. Post began by reviewing the chronology of the Airborne Laser (ABL) program. He noted that the ABL system was incredibly complex, in part because the chemical-oxygen-iodine laser (COIL) required a lot of safety systems on the aircraft. Among the lessons learned from this demonstration program, he noted that it successfully engaged both solid and liquid boosters representing long-range ballistic missile targets. In his opinion, the ABL laser system would work for area defense. The system was sold as ready for transitioning to an operational capability (“ready for prime time”), but in fact most of the technology subsystems were one-of-a-kind integrations. Next, Dr. Post described MDA’s continuing program in DEW defensive systems, including the Diode Pumped Alkaline Laser System (DPALS) and systems carried on remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), and the Fiber Combining Laser (FCL) program. In response to a question on MDA collaboration with the HEL-JTO, Dr. Post said there were informal synergies across programs, rather than formal collaborations.

Lincoln Laboratory Initiatives

Dr. Daniel Ripin, Assistant Leader, Laser Technology and Applications Group, MIT Lincoln Laboratory

Dr. Ripin described the status of the technology for combined fiber lasers, including advances in beam-combining technologies and quantum cascade lasers. Lincoln Laboratory is

investigating hybrid beam-combining techniques (using both wavelength beam combining and coherent beam combining), which could be used to combine a hundred to a thousand single fiber lasers. Dr. Ripin sees fiber amplifier evolution, as in the DARPA goal to produce a 3 kW single-fiber laser, as a good example of laboratory-industry partnering. The DARPA program is currently achieving 5 kg/kW for the Excalibur laser system mounted on a Reaper RPA. Excalibur uses eight 3-kW fibers in the laser array.

Office of Studies and Analyses, Assessments and Lessons Learned, Headquarters U.S. Air Force

Directed Energy Implications for Future Force Structure

Mr. Jeffrey Saling, Chief, Mission Analyses Division

This presentation reviewed recent force structure analyses by the Office of Studies and Analyses, Assessments and Lessons Learned, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, including the 2009 Directed Energy Net Assessment and the 2013 Directed Energy Force Application Study. The purpose of the 2009 assessment was to study in depth the effects of projected adversary directed energy air defenses on U.S. air combat missions. The key question it sought to answer was “How will directed energy challenge or marginalize our advantage in air and space?” The analysis indicated that anticipated Red Force defensive DEW capabilities, including both HPM and HEL systems, could substantially compromise the effectiveness of Blue Force air attacks. From the modeling and simulation of representative scenarios, the conclusion was that a Red Force integrated air defense system infused with DEW defensive anti-air systems poses a significant risk to Blue Force strike mission success, but it was difficult to fully assess the impact on Blue Force systems without additional susceptibility testing to feed into the models.

The second part of the briefing reviewed a 2011 presentation that Mr. Saling and Dr. Robie had prepared on Blue Force DEW systems as an enabling concept for future mission scenarios. The DEW concepts that were included in that presentation were long-range air superiority (LRAS) using DEW systems for both offensive counter-air and defensive counter-air roles, a next-generation tactical laser weapon (assuming a 150 kW solid-state laser) for nonkinetic attack with low potential for collateral damage, combat ID using a synthetic aperture LADAR employed as a cued sensor, nonkinetic counter electronics (a CHAMP-like air-launched cruise missile), and a Laser Strike Fighter concept for both offensive (engaging tactical air targets and ground targets) and defensive (counter-SAM and counter air-to-air missile) roles.

The third part of the briefing was the 2013 Directed Energy Force Application Study, which ACC had requested. This study included aircraft-based DEW concepts for offensive and defensive counter-air in air mission scenarios run with the Brawler scenario simulation system. The concepts studied included LRAS with a large (1.5 MW) COIL mounted in a wide-body aircraft and a Laser Strike Fighter configured as an F-35 B equipped with a 150 kW solid-state laser. The defensive counter-air scenario with the LRAS concept showed increased Blue Force survivability and increased Red Force attrition compared with the no-LRAS scenario. Similarly, the longer-term Laser Strike Fighter concept showed an increase in Blue Force survivability and an increase in Red Force attrition relative to the same counter-air scenario run with a Joint Strike Fighter without the HEL weapon system.

Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD)

Ms. Susan Levine, Principal Deputy Director (Policy and Strategy), JNLWD

Ms. Levine said that, although JNLWD is heavily invested in directed-energy options, the nonlethal weapons for Air Force roles are limited to applications for air base security forces. She reviewed the JNLWD program management structure and the DoD-wide and Air Force-specific budgets for nonlethal weapons. She discussed the Joint Non-Lethal Effects capability gaps and the top tasks included in the counter-personnel and counter-materiel Initial Capability Documents. Ms. Levine discussed active denial systems and roles with the workshop participants, including HPM and HEL applications like those discussed by Mr. Freund for crowd dispersion, boundary protection, stopping ground vehicles, and stopping small boats.

Discussion of Day 2 Presentations and Planning for Session 2

Gen Ronald E. Keys (USAF, Ret.), Session Chair

For this wrap-up discussion of the first session, Gen Keys suggested that the participants address the following four questions:

• What are the three DEW mission areas for the Air Force to play in?
• What are the three technically mature systems that can go into the field in the near term?
• What are the three most important process improvements to allow transition of mature capability?
• What are the three critical challenges or fatal flaws that could kill success?

After Session 1, the rapporteur aligned the individual participant’s comments under these four headings. In many cases, the comments did not directly answer one of the four questions posed but were in some way relevant to the topic suggested by the question. In preparing the workshop overview (Chapter 2), the first question and comments related to it were integrated with Theme 1.1. The second question and comments related to it became Theme 3.2. The third question was integrated with Theme 1.5. Comments related to the fourth question were integrated with comments relevant to one of the five subthemes under Theme 1.

SESSION 2
MARCH 18-19, 2013,
WASHINGTON D.C.

Monday, March 18, 2013

Welcome and Introductions

Gen Ronald E. Keys (USAF, Ret.), Session Chair

Gen Keys opened the meeting and described a meeting he had with ACC staff, including Gen Hostage, ACC commander, after the first workshop session. A key point made by Gen Hostage was that air base defense is mandated by U.S. statute to be an Army responsibility. Gen Keys discussed with the workshop participants whether this legal stricture would apply to all airborne threats to an overseas Air Force base, as well as to protection from threats “just outside the fence,” which has traditionally been the kind of defense provided by the Army for overseas air bases. Various participants mentioned cruise missiles, longer range ballistic missiles, and RPAs as potential future threats to Air Force bases that might be beyond the capability of existing or planned Army base defense systems.

With respect to the status of CHAMP, Gen Keys said that an important issue for real-world CONOPS was whether a non-kinetic counter-electronics (NKCE) missile such as CHAMP would be in the inventory for raid-type operations versus campaign-level operations. Even the maximum number of CHAMP missiles that potentially could be produced from the available conventional cruise missiles being removed from the Air Force inventory would only provide enough NKCE missiles for raid-like operations. For the CHAMP rapid acquisition program to proceed, he said, one or more combatant commanders would have to make it priority, which would mean giving up something else on their priority list. Dr. Janet Fender, ACC chief scientist, who participated in the morning discussions by telephone, agreed with Gen Keys’s account of his ACC meeting and added that Gen Hostage had said CHAMP would have to be a priority for a COCOM for ACC to proceed with either of the production options.

Discussion of Key Themes and Points from Session 1

Dr. Robert Katt, Rapporteur

Dr. Katt reviewed with the workshop participants a draft of highlights (key themes and points made by individual participants) from the first workshop session on February 27-28. Gen Keys and other participants offered comments, which were captured for incorporation with the participants’ comments from the first session. Among the new comments were the following, which are particularly relevant to the content of the overview (Chapter 2).

• Gen Keys expanded on his rationale for his initial suggestion that the workshop should try to shed light on why DEW systems are not yet being used by the Air Force. He suggested that participants try to address the status of directed-energy capabilities in development, what might be needed for them to win acceptance as

• operational systems, and how to address the cost issues associated with moving to an operational capability. What are the issues for practical use of DEW by the Air Force?

• With respect to Red Force use of DEW systems, Gen Keys noted that an adversary would likely have an asymmetric advantage in that large, heavy DEW systems can protect fixed bases, whereas the U.S. Air Force has to address difficult SWaP issues to have DEW systems that are practical for use on aircraft. “Directed-energy weapons are an away game for us, a home advantage for the other side,” he said.
• Several participants offered suggestions on how to move DEW development forward to operational capability for some application(s). Support from an Air Force Major Command (MAJCOM) or a Joint Combatant Command (COCOM) was mentioned several times. Maj Gen David Scott, a member of the workshop planning committee, suggested that a good answer would be needed when a Combat Commander asks, “What is DEW going to do to help me win the fight?”

Barriers to Transitioning Technologies for Operational Environment

Mr. Terry Jaggers, Director, Air Force Studies Board, National Research Council; Former Deputy Assistant Director of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering

Mr. Jaggers began his presentation by reminding the participants that the aim of the workshop is to gather ideas for the Air Force to consider, not to advocate which particular applications should go forward. Based on his previous position in Air Force acquisition, he described the kind of environment and appropriate drivers to support the transition of a DEW technology to a fielded capability. Successful transition has occurred in the past, he said, when (1) scientists and engineers understand the operational environment, (2) program managers can see a balance between high- and low-risk options with the laboratories and industry partners, and (3) warfighters are involved from the start and throughout in the concept, system design, and test.

Several other participants commented on issues with getting warfighter involvement to the degree Mr. Jaggers suggested would be needed. Again, several participants favored involvement and backing from one or more COCOMs. The importance of being on a COCOM’s Integrated Priority List was discussed. Another comment was that something like a Joint Urgent Operational Need and a rapid fielding mechanism might be needed to overcome obstacles in the usual acquisition process. Mr. Jaggers discussed institutional processes that need to be considered in order to get a MAJCOM to “make a bet” on transitioning DEW technology. Several participants commented on their views of challenges to DEW transition because of these institutional processes (see Theme 1.5 in Chapter 2 for illustrative examples). There was extended discussion of difficulties in getting from DEW demonstration projects to prototypes that might interest the operational Air Force enough to win investments in operational capability. Which DEW applications might be ripe for moving to a prototype, in addition to CHAMP, was another topic of discussion (see Theme 3.1).

Results from a Directed Energy Task Force (Directed Energy Senior Advisor Group)

Maj Gen David J. Scott (USAF, Ret.), Workshop Planning Committee Member

Maj Gen Scott described the role of the Directed Energy Senior Advisor Group (DESAG) and its latest meeting on April 11, 2012. The value of a group like the DESAG, he said, is that it helps to address the problem of maintaining continuity of key players as leaders move to new postings. At the April 2012 meeting, the DESAG discussed the merit of conducting an AoA for a counter-electronic warfare application of HPM. In response to a question, he said there has not been an analysis of alternatives done for any HEL application.

In Gen Scott’s opinion, DEW is not currently “on the radar screen” for senior Air Force leadership. There are DEW capabilities already out there for certain applications, he said, but what would be something useful that can be suggested? If the right DEW capability can be identified and be supported by knowledgeable advocates, he continued, it will still need to go through the Air Force Requirements Oversight Council (AFROC) or the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) to move forward with an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) or JCTD, respectively. Dr. Fender commented (by telephone) that Gen Hostage, the ACC Commander, is interested in what the workshop’s participants have to say about what directions make sense for DEW. Aircraft self-defense is no longer necessarily his top priority, she added.

U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM)

Mr. Ken Bruner, S&T Advisor, PACOM

Mr. Bruner commented on the CHAMP Joint Concept Technology Demonstration (JCTD), for which PACOM was the proponent, and on how the demonstration is viewed from a COCOM perspective. To verify the simulation models, two flight demonstrations were initially planned, but only one flight demonstration was actually flown. The results were even better than indicated by the earlier ground testing of the system. The missile flew as planned and was successfully guided, HPM was successfully pointed by rolling the missile, and the payload worked. Most of the effects on the targeted electronic systems were temporary, Mr. Bruner said, but the cyber realm liked that because it forced shut down and restart of the systems at a given time. From PACOM’s perspective, he continued, the system would be useful in various Pacific Air-Sea Battle scenarios.

PACOM is also interested in testing CHAMP against big-ship electronics and favors going forward with the proposed rapid acquisition program for 32 missiles, plus full life-cycle cost funding and contractor logistical support for 10 years. In general, PACOM is supportive of where ACC is going with CHAMP and other HPM capabilities, including in-band options. When asked about PACOM interest in HEL capabilities, Mr. Bruner mentioned LaserComm, a pulsed illuminator for missile defense, and long-range IRST as HEL concepts of interest. IRST, he said, could give both a combat ID capability (including a solution for long-range counter-DRFM) and in-band sensor blinding, particularly to defeat air-to-air missiles.

Navy DEW Initiatives

Mr. Peter Morrison, Research Program Office, Office of Naval Research (ONR)

ONR handles 6.1 to 6.3 programs, Mr. Morrison said, with some 6.4 that is directed to transitions to acquisition programs. ONR’s DEW focus for the near term is on solid-state lasers. The Navy’s work on the Free Energy Laser (FEL), which is a longer-term prospect, is in collaboration with the Department of Energy national laboratories. The Naval Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) has a new focus on DEWs for Navy applications, he said. Operators from NECC participate on the Navy’s Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), and review and acceptance by an IPT is important to give feedback to the S&T community or to move forward into transition and acquisition.

DEW is seen as important as a counter to RPAs and small boats, Mr. Morrison continued. Because DEW is seen as having a major role in providing “magazine depth” for certain threats, including RPA and small boat swarms, it is viewed as putting Navy defensive systems against these threats on the good side of the capability versus cost curve. The Navy sees HEL as a nearer-term solution than high-power radio frequency radiation to counter the small boat/RPA threat. He listed HEL benefits to naval warfare and discussed ONR’s Laser Technology Roadmap. ONR sees the Navy’s solid state lasers as being at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5; they need to get to TRL 6 for transition, he said. FEL, which ONR views as a long-term possibility, gives capability for agile, narrowband capability in which both atmospheric particulate and moisture absorption of the laser beam can be minimized. FEL would have to be on an aircraft carrier-size hull. Mr. Morrison agreed that DEW R&D is being pushed toward delivering prototypes and not just concept/technology demonstrations. Feasibility studies indicate that a DDG-51 hull would have space to mount a 100 kW solid-state HEL system. Another concept that ONR is exploring is a high-energy fiber laser (HEFL) system mounted in a marine helicopter for applications such as mine-clearing. For use by the Marine Corps, ONR is looking at ground-based air defense with a mobile HEL system, and Mr. Morrison discussed the trade-offs between HEL and kinetic weapons for air defense. The current CONOPS for a ground-based air defense HEL is “shoot and scoot,” where the vehicle-mounted system stops to shoot, then moves. He also discussed ONR interests in counter-DEW warfare.

Discussion of Day 1 Presentations

Gen Ronald E. Keys (USAF, Ret.), Session Chair

The participants began the Day 1 discussion session with comments comparing the directions and relative progress of Navy work on DEW with Air Force directions and work status. One representative comment was that, overall, the operational Navy seems to have accepted DEW applications more than the operational Air Force has. Several participants observed that the Navy appears further along in fieldable development for its focal DEW applications, such as responding to small-boat swarms, air/land-to-sea missile swarms, or mine clearing, which do not have the SWaP constraints that apply to potentially important Air Force roles for DEW. With respect to differences between the Navy and Air Force in general programmatic and technology development approaches, several participants noted a greater emphasis in the Navy’s programs on getting to prototypes. One participant noted that the

SWaP constraints are very important. The SWaP constraints for the Army and Navy applications can be met with current technology, whereas the Air Force constraints [essentially, feasibility for an airborne weapons subsystem] are not met with current technology.

Another participant said that, other than HPM applications [such as the CHAMP counter-electronics role], he did not see a clear focus yet for Air Force DEW applications. As an example, he questioned whether the Air Force really needs to have a HEL system on large aircraft for self-protection: “What is the requirement?” he asked. However, another participant countered that HEL applications such as advanced Directed Infrared Countermeasures (DIRCM) and counter Digital Radio Frequency Memory (counter-DRFM) were reasonable near-term airborne applications that could be important to the Air Force.

Many of the participants in this discussion made comments in favor of the importance of a ground-based HEL system for air base defense as a near-term DEW application. However, as several of them added, base defense is a mission assigned to the Army and is not an Air Force mission. (See Theme 2.) Gen Keys summarized his perception of the extended discussion on this topic as follows, “Recognition of assigned roles and missions in a joint context are important; however, the Air Force has a vital interest in air base defense and should therefore provide support to ensure that the DE base defense capability on which the Army is working will provide operational systems that cover Air Force needs.” There was a range of views on how the Air Force could best pursue this “vital interest.” During the third-session review of this discussion, a participant disagreed with the implication that the Air Force should “provide support” [i.e., provide funding] and noted that doing so would dilute Air Force resources on Army missions. A specific suggestion from one participant during the second-session discussion was that the Air Force might ensure that the Army’s target set for base defense includes RPAs, particularly in swarms that could present a threat to aircraft parked at an airfield. There was discussion (plus additional comments from Session 3 participants) of whether the RPA swarm threat or other air attacks (cruise missiles and intermediate range ballistic missiles were specifically mentioned) might be something that the Air Force would need to address itself, if Army-supplied systems were not demonstrably effective against such threats. Several participants expressed interest in hearing more about the Army’s HEL program for defense against airborne threats to ground bases (the Army C-RAM mission) and more about the DARPA HEL program. Presentations on both of these programs were included in the third session.

The chair wrapped up the discussion during this session with the comment, “It seems [to me] that the Navy sees clear and present threats that DEW can help defeat. For the Air Force, other than CHAMP [the nonkinetic, counter-electronics mission], there is not a clear requirement or threat that is best defeated by directed energy.” To the point made by another participant that perhaps there was an operational need for directed energy to defeat RPAs and other airborne assets, the chair replied that, at least for a DEW system carried on a fighter aircraft, directed energy does not yet provide a deep magazine capability. “A comparison of alternatives for a HEL weapon system [as one of the alternatives] on a fighter has not been done,” he added, “so [HEL] seems to be a solution looking for a problem.” This view from the chair of the direction of the discussion was considered further in the opening and wrap-up discussions on the second day. During the third-session review of discussion highlights from prior sessions, several participants expressed agreement with the chair’s summary of the discussion or with specific portions of it. But one third-session participant noted that the DARPA

presentation on the ENDURANCE program [given during the third session] was a good example of a pod-based HEL system that could be carried on a Reaper RPA or other aircraft. Another counter-comment was that, during a simulation-based analysis of alternative self-protect systems for the F-15, a HEL system was assessed to be more effective than a gun system.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Session 2, Day 2: Welcome and Recap of Day 1

Gen Ronald E. Keys (USAF, Ret.), Session Chair

Gen Keys welcomed the participants to the second day of Session 2 of the Workshop on Assessment of Directed Energy Research and Development for U.S. Air Force Applications. He noted the presentations that had been given on Day 1 and summarized highlights of the participants’ discussions. Returning to the issue raised in the Day 1 wrap-up discussion of what might be the key DEW applications—and particularly HEL weapons—for nearer-term Air Force applications, a participant noted that aircraft-carried HEL systems for antisensor and combat ID applications had not been discussed yet in Sessions 1 and 2. The chair agreed with the point and added that the participants also needed to think about counter surface-to-air-missile (counter-SAM) applications, applications to counter surface-to-air aiming subsystems and counter-optics, and counter-sensor applications generally. For those applications, he explained, the energy and power for effectiveness does not need to be as high as for vehicle-skin defeat mechanisms. A HEL in the 25-30 kW range might suffice, he said, but adequate stand-off range would be a critical requirement.

In the third-session review of Session 2 highlights, several participants agreed with the chair’s comment that the counter-sensor and combat ID applications for HEL are good missions for the Air Force. One participant noted that the range for such “lower-power” HEL systems might be even lower, perhaps down to 10 kW. Another comment on the last statement was that weather (e.g., clouds) remains an issue [in addition to stand-off range], and a third participant suggested that critical requirements would be “adequate range, tracking, and pointing.”

Boeing DEW Initiatives: CHAMP JCTD Overview and Follow-on Next Steps

Mr. Keith Coleman, CHAMP Program Manager, Phantom Works, Boeing

Mr. Coleman prepared an abstract of his presentation for inclusion in this report; it is incorporated below as Box 3-6.

Raytheon DEW Initiatives: CHAMP Payload and Effects Testing

Dr. Peter Duselis, Raytheon Company

Dr. Duselis began by noting that the CHAMP payload in the 2012 flight test was at TRL 7. The current HPM source used in CHAMP, ACES, requires a vacuum pump to maintain the system, and the vacuum condition in the system is the critical factor for system shelf life. It will hold a vacuum for a year, then requires 24 hours to pump down to the working pressure. Dr. Duselis also described the software modification that would allow CHAMP to used the onboard power of the B-52 carrying it before release. He reviewed the flight test results, which Mr. Bruner and Mr. Coleman had also covered, but provided more detail on the level of effects on the target electronic systems. Dr. Duselis then reviewed the major components of the proposed CHAMP payload improvements and explained their value. Overall, the proposed upgrades would provide higher effective radiated power, eliminate or simplify subsystems, and multiple pulses on target. For the proposed two-pulse option, pulses could be as close together as 10 ms.

HPM effects testing is necessary to answer questions about HPM effectiveness against potential targets. In June 2011, Raytheon and AFRL entered into a cooperative research and

development agreement (CRADA) to enhance the existing database for HPM effects. Dr. Duselis presented details of the effects testing done at White Sands Missile Range, including the effects of the ACES-derived HPM beam on various targets of interest for Air Force counter-electronics attack. The workshop participants and Dr. Duselis discussed potential uses and CONOPS for a CHAMP-like counter-electronics capability.

General Atomics DEW Initiatives

Dr. Chris Pehrson, General Atomics

Dr. Pehrson presented the briefing for Dr. Michael Perry, Vice President, Laser and Electro-optics, General Atomics, who had a last-minute schedule conflict. The presentation began with an overview of the emergence of electrical power systems suitable for DEW systems on jet-powered armed reconnaissance RPAs such as Predator and Avenger. The second topic was the integration of optical radar (LIDAR) into widely deployed EO/IR turrets. The third topic was on the emergence of tactical laser weapons in the DARPA HELLADS program, including the second-generation HEL Avenger system and the third-generation Laser Weapon Systems Module (LWSM).

Dr. Pehrson described the evolution of Predator/Avenger RPAs and characteristics of the latest generation. He then presented characteristics of the Spi-3D LIDAR and its use of three-dimensional (3D) voxels to get precise ranging and targeting data over the entire field of view of the LIDAR, enabling real-time precsion-targeting of multiple targets. This capability can be installed in existing Predator airframes with only minor modification to the sensor ball. On electric lasers for tactical laser weapon applications, Dr. Pehrson noted both advantages (ultra-precise effects, deep magazine, low cost per shot) and constraints (aimpoint must be maintained on moving target for 3-4 seconds, not an all-weather capability) of tactical laser weapons. He contrasted the SWaP requirements of the new distributed-gain electric lasers with the SWaP requirements of the Airborne Tactical Laser. This new electrical laser would potentially fit entirely within the internal bay of an Avenger RPA and has an output of 100 kW. The recharge time is 2-4 minutes versus more than an hour for the ATL, and the magazine depth is unlimited.

Next, Dr. Pehrson discussed the DARPA High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS), which aims to take a distributed gain solid-state tactical laser system from concept to weapon system demonstration with a 150 kW output power objective. A HELLADS Demonstrator Laser Weapon System (DLWS) with 150 kW output is now complete and is scheduled to be delivered to White Sands Missile Range on June 30, 2013.

RELI is a second-generation HELLADS that is now undergoing laser performance validation. First light for the laser head, Dr. Pehrson reported, was on March 19, 2013. Its size and weight are small enough to enable it to be carried under a Predator C Avenger RPA (the HEL Avenger concept), and its output power is about 100 kW. Unit cost of the HEL Avenger laser system will be about $20 million to $22 million. Dr. Pehrson presented information on modeling and analysis tools that will be used to model efficacy of the RELI system, when mounted on an airborne platform, against a range of potential targets. The next generation beyond the RELI unit cell in the HEL Avenger system will be a 150 kW HELLADS DLWS laser,

incorporated in the Airborne LWSM. The long-term objective for Airborne LWSM is to successfully attack and take out an integrated air defense system.

Navy Initiatives (China Lake)

Mr. Tom Glover, Head, Emergent Weapon Systems, Directed Energy Weapons, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)

Mr. Glover gave his briefing by telephone, with briefing slides displayed at the workshop meeting room. He reviewed the NAVAIR roadmap for HEL weapons R&D and transition. The roadmap projects reductions over time in the SWaP for different tactical platforms. A key issue for reducing SWaP is the ruggedization needed so that systems can withstand carrier-based take-off and landing. Multiple departments within NAVAIR are involved in work on integrated laser systems for different Navy platforms. Mr. Glover also reviewed the NAVAIR roadmap for HPM weapons R&D. For the Navy, HPM is a niche application, compared with HEL weapon systems, which are seen as being used on many platforms for different applications.

Turning to countermeasures development, Mr. Glover discussed anticipated near-, mid-, and far-term HEL and HPM weapon systems that potential adversaries may have. The NAVAIR countermeasures group has developed a “laser technology landscape,” which Mr. Glover presented. He discussed laser threats to Navy sensors and NAVAIR’s plans to work with AFRL on sensor protection. He also discussed hardening required to defend electronics against an HPM threat environment, including NAVAIR plans for live fire test and evaluation for survivability against HPM attack. He closed the presentation with a summary of joint Air Force/NAVAIR activities.

Technological Assessment of Foreign Directed Energy

Mr. Michael H. Bernard, Senior Intelligence Analyst, AFRL

This assessment covered both radio frequency weapons (RFW) such as HPM and HEL weapons. Mr. Bernard described what is known about the technical status of work in specific foreign R&D institutes on both RFW and HEL weapons.

Discussion of Day 2 Presentations and Plan for Session 3

Gen Ronald E. Keys (USAF, Ret.), Session Chair

The following high-level points were suggested by one or more of the Session 3 participants who were present for this final discussion. Elements of these points have been incorporated in the thematic overview in Chapter 2.

• Many of these participants who spoke agreed that some DEW technologies are ready for tactical application, in the sense that some capability does work and could have operational value. The Army and Navy have demonstrated prototypes. What is missing is what some described as a capabilities-based assessment and others described as “an operational need backed up by an Analysis of Alternatives.” They agreed that the focus of this assessment, however structured, should be to

• determine how DEW capability could complement, expand, or replace kinetic weapon alternatives.
  — Several emphasized that this assessment, however done, should focus on what can be done now and what can move now from demonstration to prototypes. (See Theme 3.1 for more on this point.)
  — Many participants thought the compelling missions for DEW need to be identified. One suggested that an important area to consider is the potential integration of kinetic weapons and DEWs—for example, in a campaign-level analysis of how they would work together. A specific example suggested by a participant was target marking, with a DEW to prepare and mark a target for a follow-up kinetic attack (this was not intended to mean just a laser-designation application). Another participant mentioned counter-sensor and combat ID roles as mission area where DEW and kinetic weapons could work together.

• With respect to HPM weapons, many of these participants thought it important to go forward with CHAMP acquisition.
  — For example, one participant suggested taking advantage of the interest in CHAMP from at least one COCOM—get an initial capability out there and then look at how to improve it.
  — Several participants who favored going forward on CHAMP did not favor doing all of the proposed upgrades as part of an initial buy. One of them explained that the upgrades, although valuable, introduced technical and programmatic/schedule risks that were best avoided at this point. A block-buy evolution of capability was suggested by one participant.
• There was considerable discussion, with a range of views expressed, about the near-term prospects for laser DEW capabilities. The views expressed on this topic are represented in the Chapter 2 discussion of Themes 1.2, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4.
• With respect to Blue Force defense against Red Force DEW systems, a number of these participants suggested that an assessment (again, a capabilities-based assessment or something like an Analysis of Alternatives) was needed of counter-DEW options. What is (are) the most effective way(s) to counter Red Force DE capability, either offensive or defensive?
  — An important issue for counter-DEW, several agreed, is the relative cost of alternatives, including kinetic as well as nonkinetic (DEW) alternatives. As one participant expressed this issue, “What other capability would be worth giving up to get a DEW capability for counter-DEW?”
  — In the context of Blue Force airborne DEW weapons to counter Red Force defensive, ground-based DEW weapons, several comments suggested that an open question is whether airborne DEW weapons would be successful in “jousting” with the larger, more powerful Red Force systems. Other comments suggested that countering Red Force defensive DEW systems might be best done by CONOPS that combined DEW and kinetic weapon capabilities.

SESSION 3
APRIL 24-25, 2013
WASHINGTON D.C.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

For this session, the workshop planning committee developed guidance specific to individual invited presenters on questions to be answered or topics to be addressed. The guidance given for the presentations from the Air Force Air-Sea Battle Office, the Army, and DARPA was specific to each of those topics and is included in the synopses below. The three presenters from industry (Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing) were given the same guidance:

Describe fairly near-term (5 years or less) laser DEW concepts that address Air Force missions. Include effectiveness for Air Force missions and CONOPS thoughts. To this end, the workshop participants do not need details about the technology, per se. These missions could involve low-to-medium power lasers (e.g., 10 or 10s of kilowatt power levels). NOTE: HEL-JTO, MDA, AFRL, MIT/LL, DARPA HELLADS, Army SMDC, Navy ONR, ACC, and General Atomics have already provided briefings. The workshop participants would prefer that the briefing not be proprietary since a summary of the briefing will go into a National Academy document. The presentation can be up to the Secret level.

Welcome and Introductions

Gen Ronald E. Keys (USAF, Ret.), Session Chair

Gen Keys opened the meeting and asked the participants to introduce themselves. He then proceeded directly to the first topic, which was to discuss and comment on the rapporteur’s draft themes and major points from the first two sessions.

Discussion of Themes and Points from Sessions 1 and 2

Dr. Robert Katt, Rapporteur

As he did at the beginning of Session 2, Dr. Katt reviewed with the Session 3 participants a draft of highlights (key themes and points made by individual participants) from the previous two sessions. The participants’ comments were captured for incorporation into the final version of themes presented in Chapter 2 of this workshop report.

Air-Sea Battle Concept of Operations

Col Jordan Thomas, HAF/A5X

The specific guidance sent to Col Thomas was to address the following questions:

1. Which service has the lead for protecting such fixed bases as Guam?

2. Has this [protection of fixed bases] been coordinated with the Army for their base protection [mission]?

3. Are directed energy weapons (DEW) being considered in the trade space for that protection?

4. What Air-Sea Battle operational needs could potentially be met by DEW?

5. Have any threats been identified by [the Air-Sea Battle organization] that suggest potential Blue Force DEW applications?

Col Thomas noted that Air-Sea Battle is not new for either the Air Force or Joint forces, but it has not been updated since about 2000. With respect to question 1, he said that, according to JP-3-10 doctrine, the lead service for protecting a fixed base depends on the command structure set up by the responsible COCOM. There is no single executive agent for area air defense coordination. He then described some of the current planning for defense of Guam. On question 2, Col Thomas said that the Army and Navy have their own DEW programs. There is no coordination between them and the Air Force.

With respect to question 3, Col Thomas said that DEW is not included in the defensive solutions being considered by the Air-Sea Battle Office. He agreed that it could be a capability of interest. Base defense is the number-2 priority, and the Air-Sea Battle Office sees a need for a capabilities-based assessment for base defense. But to his knowledge, neither the Air Force nor the Joint Staff have done or considered such an assessment that includes DEW. In response to a later question, he said that DEW capabilities are not included in Air Force and Joint wargaming. In response to question 4, Col Thomas said that the principal long-term threat for his office is A2AD (anti-access/area denial) by an adversary. The trend toward higher precision in Red Force offensive systems means that A2AD is becoming a concern with respect to an increasing array of potential adversaries. In response to a question, he said that nearer-term threats, such as having to operate in Southwest Asia or South Asia, are also a concern. Col Thomas also highlighted the key principles that the Air-Sea Battle office is applying to planning for various scenarios. He responded to participants’ questions about how specific DEW capabilities might be useful.

Results of Army DEW Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)

Dr. Kip Kendrick, Chief, Directed Energy Division, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, Army Forces Strategic Command

For this briefing, Dr. Kendrick was sent the following guidance from the workshop planning committee:

1. Describe the AoA that was done for the counter rocket, artillery, and mortar base defense mission and the outcome of the AoA.

2. Why was the final decision for the go-ahead not the alternative that came out on top for the AoA?

3. Summarize what the AoA found were the advantages of DEW over alternative kinetic solutions.

Dr. Kendrick started by providing more background on the IFPC II AoA than he had given in his presentation to Session 1, including the motivation and the specific scenario and

parameters that had to be addressed. One requirement was to provide complete life-cycle cost estimates for two battalions of each alternative capability. The DEW options did well on cost because they did not have to replace bullets or missiles. With respect to the ratio of threat kills to the total number of threat targets presented, the 100 kW HEL system had the highest score, followed by the EAPS missile option and the 50 kW HEL option. For the HEL systems, the beam control system and laser head were identified as having moderate technical risk, given their developmental status. Also, the DEW options were viewed as unsuccessful in fog, rain, and sandstorms.

Since the AoA, the Army has expressed increased interest in cruise missile defense as part of defending a FOB. To Dr. Kendrick’s knowledge, HEL systems were not included in the Army’s analysis of cruise missile defense alternatives, although he offered to provide data to them. In response to participants’ questions about his sense of the Army leadership’s resistance to HEL for base defense, Dr. Kendrick recounted the story of how the Army refused to consider main battle tanks in World War I. The Army was not interested until after Winston Churchill set up the Land Ship Commission and successfully deployed British tanks in trench warfare. He sees DEW systems as in an analogous position, with no specific formal requirement and no acquisition program. Dr. Kendrick is working on requirements for a couple of DEW platoons for the Army. To get to an advanced prototype, he needs an advanced beam control system. He is looking for funding to do a full-up prototype system for a Joint prototype demonstration with Air Force and Navy support, but not a JCTD.

DARPA Airborne DEW Initiatives

Dr. Joseph Mangano, Program Manager, Advanced Lithograph Program, Microsystems Technology Office, DARPA

The specific guidance sent to Dr. Mangano for this briefing was as follows:

1. Describe your laser program, including its progress to date and its future plans, as well as its relevance to the Air Force.

2. Provide examples of Air Force operational needs that could possibly be met by low-and/or medium-power lasers.

Dr. Mangano’s presentation focused on the DARPA Endurance and Flash programs, both of which use fiber laser arrays. The technological objective is to achieve “ultra-low SWaP” at 2 kg/kW specific power and a size of 1 m³ per 100 kW. The SWaP is critical for both these programs, he said, and the integrated system must be conformal to aircraft platform constraints. As applications of interest, he mentioned aircraft self-defense and mid-course ballistic missile defense.

In both technologies, the light reflected from the target (the return) is used to tune the combined multiple beams from 3-kW laser fibers. The individual 3 kW fibers operate at 35 percent wall-plug efficiency. This works well enough that the beam at the target is close to the diffraction-limited spot size. Although Dr. Mangano said the limits of scalability for this beam-combining approach are not clear, he can do a hundred or more fibers together and believes the technology is scalable to a 1 MW output beam.

The Endurance program is aimed at defeating EO/IR guided surface-to-air missiles that threaten airborne platforms at altitudes up to 50,000 feet. Dr. Mangano described what he sees as the capabilities of current state-of-practice Red Force surface-to-air missiles, as well as some of the emerging threat capabilities, and he discussed how an Endurance system would likely perform against these threats. The program is planning to use a HEL pod that is small and light enough to fly on legacy aircraft as well as advanced next-generation aircraft.

The Flash program is focused on defeating existing EO/IR guided air-to-air missiles, as well as surface-to-air missiles, with a beam power of up to 300 kW. The Excalibur program was the predecessor of Flash. Dr. Mangano described the key technologies and the program roadmap to go from the current Excalibur program to Flash capability that includes a 30-shot magazine. In closing, Dr. Mangano gave the current milestones for the Endurance and Flash programs between FY 2014 and FY 2017.

Lockheed Martin HEL Efforts

Mr. Thomas Burris, Lead Systems Engineer, Directed Energy Program, Lockheed Martin

Mr. Burris prepared an abstract of his presentation for inclusion in this report; it is incorporated below as Box 3-7.

Northrop Grumman Laser Efforts

Mr. Kenton Ho, Director, Laser Products Directed Energy, Northrop Grumman

Mr. Ho began with an overview of Northrop Grumman’s current (2013) HEL programs. Northrop Grumman is now working with solid-state lasers in the 100 kW class. He described the

Maritime Laser Demonstration, which involved engaging small-boat threat scenarios out to 6,000 yards. He also described the attack performance of a 10 kW HEL pod mounted on a RPA.

The presentation included an overview of Northrop Grumman studies of HEL weapon systems on tactical aircraft for defense against surface-to-air missiles in an A2AD scenario. HEL systems from 25 kW to 150 kW were considered and were evaluated against low-observability alternatives. Mr. Ho emphasized the increase in aircraft “autonomy” and flexibility provided by a multiuse tactical HEL weapon system. In closing Mr. Ho said that ACC needs to give industry a clear requirement, then let industry work out the best, most affordable way to meet it.

Boeing Airborne DEW Systems

Dr. Harold Schall, Boeing; Mr. Michael Black, Boeing

Dr. Schall prepared an abstract of his presentation for inclusion in this report; it is incorporated below as Box 3-8.

General Discussion on Day 1 Presentations

Gen Ronald E. Keys (USAF, Ret.), Session Chair

Gen Keys asked the participants for comments on the Day 1 presentations. The participants’ comments have been selectively incorporated in the rapporteur’s overview of workshop themes (see Chapter 2).

A Retrospective Look at the Northrop Grumman Laser Weapon System Initiative (LWSI)

Dr. Thomas Romesser, Independent Consultant, Member of the Workshop Planning Committee

To provide the workshop with a historical perspective on the degree to which technology HEL status forecasts and envisioned DEW applications have (or have not) changed in the past decade, Dr. Romesser presented and discussed a PowerPoint briefing he had prepared on the Northrop Grumman Laser Weapon System Initiative (LWSI) in 2003.

ACC Draft Briefing on CHAMP

Dr. David Robie, Office of the Chief Scientist, ACC

Dr. Robie prepared an abstract of his presentation for inclusion in this report; it is incorporated below as Box 3-9.

Discussion of Potential Workshop Themes and Key Points

Gen Ronald E. Keys (USAF, Ret.), Session Chair

Gen Keys asked the participants for their general reflections on this session and the workshop as a whole (for those who had attended other sessions). He also asked for any additional comments they had on the draft themes and major points that had been presented and discussed on Day 1 of this session. The participants’ comments have been selectively incorporated in the rapporteur’s overview of workshop themes (see Chapter 2).