Mobile Lasers: HEL MD

The High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator, one of the Army's newest development projects, has used directed energy technology to take down mortars and drones in tests. Photo via Army.

The Army continues to develop anti-drone technology, announcing recent successes with the High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD). It has reportedly taken down dozens of low-velocity targets such as mortars and unmanned aerial vehicles at its test location in the White Sands Missile Range. Developed by Boeing, the HEL MD uses a radar system to track aerial targets and a directed energy weapon to neutralize them. There are several directed-energy weapons and defense systems being developed by Boeing currently; click here to read more about the Tactical Relay Mirror System, Mk 38 Tactical Laser System, the Free Electron Laser, and the HEL MD.

The Emblem of the White Sands Missile Range, via the White Sands Missile Range.

The HEL MD joins its sibling technology, the LCS-mounted LaWS, and its less-directly-related HPRF cousin, as yet another major development in anti-unmanned systems technology. While all of these technologies can be used to disable explosive devices, the common link between them is that they have all been tested against and specifically reported as being effective against drones and other unmanned systems. The High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) in the White Sands Missile Range is working on even more powerful directed-energy weaponry, and claims to have the most powerful laser "in the Western Hemisphere" called the MIRACL (Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser). In fact, HELSTF claims that most of its 'demonstration' devices such as the HEL MD are designed for missions that "do not need the full power of the MIRACL." Surely we will see lasers continue to become more and more powerful, and it seems we will continue to see an increasing demand for counter-drone technology.

EMP Stops Car Bombs & Drones

High powered electromagnetic weapons (also known as high power radiofrequency weapons, or HPRFs) are currently being tested by NATO in Norway for non-lethal disabling of cars, bombs, sea vehicles, and unmanned aerial vehicles. This scientific breakthrough is significant for numerous reasons, one being that it can completely power down almost any kind of vehicle without injuring the driver. That means that even a car packed with explosives speeding toward a blockade can be powered down to a full stop and the driver can be apprehended without a bullet fired. Another reason it is an important military technology breakthrough is that it can be highly targeted,disabling only a particular vehicle or device without destroying all electronics in the area. Unlike other directed energy weapons, they can also be operated in poor weather.

An antenna is used to direct the energy generated from a given power source. That power is absorbed by the electronics inside the target and causes operational failure. Research and photo via George H. Baker, 2011.

The military is taking interest in EMPs and directed energy weapons as they are both a valuable asset as well as a threat to critical operational systems and vehicles. Like NATO's car-disabling HPRF, the Laser Weapons System is another directed energy weapons being implemented by the military as soon as 2014. HPRFs are limited by their antenna, and portability is a concern, but they are simple enough that they can feasibly be built from spare microwave oven parts. The Army has been preparing vehicles such as the Abrams tank to withstand EMPs, and more counter-EMP technology will be researched as this counter-technology becomes a more significant threat to critical systems. Research into HPRFs indicates yet another strong counter-drone technological trend among the military and the international community, as these directed energy weapons can cripple any unmanned system within their range. It also brings the world closer to directed-energy weapons making appearances in modern warfare, and the inevitable need to build technologies that can counter directed-energy blasts.

An EMP device is hung above an M1 Abrams tank to test its ability to withstand EMP pulses at the White Sands Missile Range. Such pulses can be generated by HRPFs or nuclear blasts. Photo via US Army.

Drone Hunters

"Whereas, many Western communities in rural America provide monetary incentives (bounties) for the killing of predators that are injurious to Man and his interests, the Town of Deer Trail likewise establishes hunting licenses and bounties for the killing of unmanned aerial vehicles, in keeping with the Western traditions of sovereignty and freedom." - Phil Steel, 'Ordinance to Defend the Sovereign Airspace of the Town of Deer Trail, Colorado.'

Deer Trail, Colorado has postponed voting on an ordinance that would award licenses and bounties to citizens who "kill" federal drones flying above their property, or anywhere in the town until spring of 2014. The ordinance was written and proposed by Phil Steel, a resident of the under-600-resident town who hopes to create a system that would grant drone hunting-licenses for citizens to shoot down unmanned aerial vehicles in the "sovereign airspace of the town of Deer Trail, Colorado." There are a number of legal violations involved in shooting down government aircraft, but the ordinance is more of an emotional stand against the invasion of privacy rather than a stand for establishing a viable drone-hunting protocols.

A prototype 'Drone Hunting License' posted online by the Professional Drone Hunters. Image via Droneshooters.com

The wording of the ordinance is highly emotionally charged, displaying a passionate yet logically flawed explanation for the imminent need for Deer Trail's citizens to "kill" drones. The introduction to the ordinance is a lenghty portrayal of the town of Deer Trail as the last holdout of liberty against tyrannical government forces, non-government organizations, and 'powerful corporate interests'. In the eyes of its author, these evil organizations used covert and aggressive forces to such a point that Deer Trail's residents must now fight for their very existence. Steel, the author, unabashedly claims the citizens of his town "have and maintain a distinctive way of life that emphasizes independence, freedom, and social/political/economic self-determination" that is currently under threat from surveillance and privacy invasion of unmanned aerial systems. He proposes that the motion to pass this ordinance rests on the historical abuse of government abuse of the residents of his town. Steel writes,

"State and federal governmental entities, non-governmental organizations and powerful corporate interests have previously encroached on the freedoms and liberties of the Town of Deer Trail and its citizens, even to the extent of conducting violent armed assaults against targeted members of our community while jeopardizing the lives and safety of members of the community."

It should be noted that there is no mention of any governmental maliciousness or violence toward the town on the Deer Field public websites, nor in any historical references located online. Still, the ordinance continues with even more hyperbolic statements, saying that world governments, and international interests are all threatened by Deer Trail's "traditional American ideas of Liberty and Freedom." Steel even equates the intentions of the government and of corporations to terrorist groups, referring to them all in the same statements that put Deer Trail on the opposite end of the "Tyranny - Liberty" spectrum.

"State and Federal entities, non-governmental organizations, international interests, state and non-state actors, terrorists and others are threatened by traditional American ideas of Liberty and Freedom, and heritage of such principles remains inherent in the common way of life by ranchers, farmers, cowboys and Indians, as well as contemporary citizens of the Town of Deer Trail." (Drone Ordinance)

The practicality of catching and taking down a drone over such a small tract of land seems unlikely, but if Deer Trail is successful, other towns that are equally afraid of unmanned air systems will likely raise their barrels to the sky. Image via City Data.

In an unexpected twist of levelheadedness, Phil Steele's counter-drone ordinance does take into account several safety precautions so that the 'drone hunters' and bystanders are as protected from harm as much as possible. The ordinance calls for public education of drone configuration and capabilities so that citizens may distinguish militarized drones from commercial 'toy' unmanned air vehicles; accidental engagement with toy aircraft will result in the shooter fully reimbursing the toy owner. To control for the spread of pellets and to protect bystanders, gun sizes and ammunition types are limited. Such regulations include:

• Shotguns 12 gauge or smaller, having a barrel length of 18+ inches
• Shot sizes between 2 and 7.5 may be used (90-350 pellets per ounce)
• Shots may be lead, steel, depeleted uranium, or any other metal alloy commonly used in shotgun ammunition
• Exploding ammunition may NOT be used

Interestingly, the ordinance stipulates that the drone education program's annual funding must not exceed $10,000 and that the majority of efforts must come from volunteer teachers. (DroneShooter ordinance, point f) The limited amount of funds and reliance on volunteer efforts might be effective for the town of Deer Trail, but other towns of larger populations will have to structure counter-drone programs differently in order to sustain their efforts. Considering Deer Trail is only a population of five-hundred, the cost per citizen will be roughly $20 in taxes per person per year, not including the cost of 'drone hunting accessories' such as drone-hunting licenses ($25), gun registration fees, range-finding devices, weapons, and munitions. These are not trivial costs and should be taken into account as each citizen decides how much finance he or she is willing to put into personal counter-drone technologies.

Occupational demographics show that virtually everyone in Deer Trail works in a blue collar industry. The majority of men are truck drivers and mechanics, while women are mostly in 'other management' besides farming. Information via City Data.

When compared with the state of Colorado, Deer Trail's average education level is significantly lower. Information via City Data.

Deer Trail's demographics reveal a side of the story left untold by most media reports on the town. This town has under 600 residents, with an estimated mean household income of $49,000; the town is so small that the number of non-white residents amount to less than 30 citizens. This means that Deer Trail is potentially small enough to raise serious concerns about elected officials being biased toward proposed legislative motions. Though a District Court judge in Colorado recently rejected a legal claim that the town clerk responsible for bringing the drone-shooting law to a vote was 'biased,' it is still entirely possible that this act was used as a political maneuver. The town government consists of a mayor and six trustees, and there are two full-time government employees. Other ordinances in the hands of the eight elected officials include three different medical marijuana prohibitory laws, three nuisance ordinance amendments, a curfew for minors, and fence regulations, to name a few. The town seems to be tackling a great deal of personal initiatives and is heavily concerned with morality- and privacy- centric social issues, while it is less concerned with its clear education gap. When it comes to marijuana or being a minor, the town government of Deer Trail has no problem being heavily involved in peoples' private lives, but when it comes to drones, Phil Steel and certain townspeople fear for their last shreds of privacy.

The town is almost split down the middle when it comes to national party politics, indicating there is a diversity of opinion among this small group. Info via City Data.

The fundamental question for DroneShooter supporters is: even without drone surveillance, how much privacy can you have in a town of less than 600 people?

New Combat Ship Comes Home

After nine months of testing at sea, a new addition to the Navy's family has returned to home port. Littoral combat ships (LCS) are a new class of warship being introduced to the Navy, and they possess several advantages over other ship models in coastal (littoral means coastal) operations. The LCS uses waterjets instead of propellors to move through the water, which will save the Navy roughly $100 million in dry dock costs alone. They are faster than most destroyers, and they are highly customizable. Weapons systems and rescue technologies can be installed, moved, and adjusted to fit mission requirements; these are referred to as mission modules. They can carry two Seahawk helicopters and an assortment of vehicles for deploying forces. The LCS is also adept at minesweeping and deployment of unmanned air and maritime systems, making it an ideal replacement vessel for aging minesweeper ships.

USS Freedom, the LCS that returned to home port in San Diego on December 24. Photo taken by MC1 James R. Evans, US Navy. Hosted by Stars and Stripes.

LCS models have been identified as early candidates for the Laser Weapons Systems (LaWS) designed by the Navy to take down aircraft with high-powered lasers instead of bullets. This makes it a strong counter-drone technology for coastal combat. It is admittedly weaker at surface-to-air combat than most destroyers, but its ability to deal with shallower waters provides more mission versatility than other boats with landing pads.

The USS Independence, the second of the first two LCS in the Navy's ranks. Photo via Wikipedia.

The LCS is cited by the Navy as primarily being a surveillance and anti-access technology. This means that it will primarily take out small vessels, such as speedboats, submarines, and drones. The development of this boat should come as no surprise, as the military has frequently mentioned the need to control the growing development of drone technologies in China and generally in the Pacific Theater. Possessing the ability to deploy its own unmanned systems, as well as the potential for a LaWS installation, the LCS could be the cornerstone to a new counter-drone strategy.

Laser Weapons Systems

The Laser Weapons System (LaWS) is a directed-energy weapon that is capable of locking onto and terminating aircraft without firing bullets or ballistics. It uses a series of laser beams to lock onto the craft, disable any cameras or recording devices, then cause a tremendous amount of concentrated heat to burn the target out of the sky. While it is ineffective in poor weather conditions and is currently unable to take down rapid missiles and fighter jets, it is extremely effective against small aircraft and boats.

The blue beam tracks the location of the target, while the red beam disables any cameras or monitoring equipment mounted below. This would make it highly effective against drone technologies.

The heat generated by the main laser beam causes the visionless plane to combust.

There are a range of benefits to utilizing the LaWS system over surface to air missiles. LaWS is limited by its energy capacity, rather than the amount of ammunition supplied on a ship. Utilizing LaWS means that a ship would need to carry less ammunition, both freeing up space on board as well as lowering the amount of weight (and thus energy needed for transportation) aboard the vessel. While laser technologies are still in prototype phases, they promise to significantly cut costs on ammunition and will be utilized by the Navy in the near future. Rear Admiral and Chief of Naval Research Matthew Klunder says that, although the technology cost the government $40 million to develop, it costs "less than one US dollar" to fire a LaWS blast, as opposed to thousands and "sometimes millions" spent per smart bomb or missile. The first system will be installed and utilized to disable patrol boats and spy planes in the Persian Gulf in 2014.

Maybe one of the most effective uses of this technology is in counter-intelligence and the ability to disable cameras and vehicles without injuring passengers. As opposed to the heavily destructive impact of missiles, LaWS can be adjusted to blind and disable cameras, engines, and more without harming the vehicle's operators. This is a major advancement for naval non-lethal weapons technology, and hopefully it will cut down on war casualties.