U.S. Navy to Test Epirus’ Drone-disabling HPM Technology
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2024
- The U.S. Navy will test Epirus' long-pulse High-Power Microwave (HPM) technology to disable small vessels powered by outboard motors.
The tests will take place during the 2024 Advanced Naval Technology Exercise Coastal Trident Program (ANTX-CT24).
The U.S. Navy’s decision to test Epirus’ HPM technology follows the U.S. Army’s awarding Epirus a $66.1 million contract in support of the Indirect Fire Protection Capability-High-Power Microwave Program (IFPC-HPM).
Interview recorded during Sea Air Space 2024.
Read more: www.navalnews.com/event-news/...
=====================
For new videos every week, subscribe here! ua-cam.com/users/NavalNews?su...
Follow us on Twitter: / navalnewscom
Follow us on LinkedIn: / navalnews
Like us on Facebook: navalnewscom
Check out our daily naval defense news coverage at: www.navalnews.com/
NAVAL NEWS is fully focused on naval topics. We cover the latest naval defense shows & events. We also report on naval technology from all over the world. Navalnews.com is updated daily with in-depth features, industry, and naval forces news round-ups, event coverage, video reports and more. Our top of the line site is responsive across all mobile and desktop devices.
Honestly congrats to them for such a badass system. I thought microwave was already used for self-defense at the Naval level but it doesn't seem like it. I thought the SEWIP Block III for example might have been microwave based but from the TWZ article, it seems to be a different approach, mostly just RF (?). Microwave makes a lot of sense to just outright fry electronics. A ship with high powered lasers + microwave + SEWIP Block III + SPY-6's ability to counter too + all the other decoy systems, seems like it will be incredibly difficult to ever actually hit, let alone approach. The spokesman is right; it can't just be down to spending millions per missile to hit something costing a few thousand. I hope our future destroyer has all that integrated but powering it all might be an insane task.
I think the Israeli Sa'ar 6 has a similar weapon.
Range is a big question for a directed energy weapon like this. Damaging the guidance system of an affector when it's already on a terminal trajectory isn't a safe option. It needs to have the range to disrupt guidance electronics before the terminal stage, which means in practice a cruising altitude of around 40,000 feet or 12 km.
You’re missing the point. No USV is flying anywhere near 40,000 feet. And USVs have proven to be a major threat.
@@LikeMano-sd3hq Allegedly, Iran's Shahed-171 has a flight ceiling of 40,000 feet. If the Epirus HPM's effective range is exactly 12 km, you wouldn't be able affect it until it's directly above the warship. That's just an example of today's drone technology produced by an adversary that can't even be considered a peer of the western nations that it's being marketed to.
Group 4/5 drones pose a unique threat but 12Km is not impossible. Point is still to not have to use expensive missiles on cheap drones Save them for the group 4-5.
@@LikeMano-sd3hq Correct. Different tools for different purposes.
Similar system is shown in the movie Batman Begins and is weaponized by Rhas Al Ghoul
👏👍🤙
Rotating sensor no longer appeal to me. Non-rotating sensors however have all the benefits particularly for constructs in a salt air environment that moves in multiple axes. With AESA technology now available it makes no sense to build moving parts in a corrosive environment having to deal with motion in so many axes..
AESA can steer their beams on 120° arc. So, you'd need 3 to cover 360°.
Or, you can have 1 rotating system.
There are pros and cons of each.
the dome radar on the de m-shorad comes to mind.
@@Awesomes007 Mostly $$$s. If you want to survive at sea you do not have rotating antennas. The equation for supersonic sea-skimming Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles is '45 seconds to impact' from detection to them exploding on your hull.
RakHine
Why does it say GAYLORD NATIONAL, before press show more of description
That's the name of the venue, in National Harbor just outside Washington DC
I think Epirus needs a new slideshow guy. I had to look at that slide like 10 times to figure what point it was trying to make. At first I thought they were trying to say that a $20,000 drone has the same kinetic effect as a $100,000,000 Tomahawk missile. That would be ridiculous enough in and of itself, because drones aren't doing the same level of damage as a Tomahawk does, but claiming that a Tomahawk missile costs $100,000,000 just makes it so much worse. I'm assuming the number they meant to put on the slide was $1,000,000, which is the approximate cost of a Tomahawk.
However, that slide is actually even worse than that, because I THINK what they were TRYING to depict was the cost discrepancy between a commercial drone and the AIR DEFENSE missiles used to shoot them down. So not only did the guy (or girl) who made that slide claim that an individual Tomahawk missile costs $100,000,000, but they didn't even use the right missile! The Tomahawk is a cruise missile. Not an air defense missile. You aren't shooting down ANY drones with a Tomahawk unless the Tomahawk crashes into one by random chance when launched from a ship's VLS. What they were presumably looking to depict there would be an SM-2 missile...and an SM-2 is way more than a million bucks. One of those is like $2,500,000. They also could've used an ESSM...which is a ridiculously expensive missile as well at over $1,500,000 each.
So...yeah. Definitely time to find someone a little brighter to make their important slideshows because that slide is a disaster.
Very confusing slide but I think the point is $100m to take out 100 drones.
I think the left slide shows that a cheap drone could be as efficient as an expensive missile with a 1:1 ratio.
The slide on the right, having in mind that a cheap drone could be as efficient as a missile shows how many drones could be intercepted with only 1 Leonidas.
I don't think it's a money comparison,