Latest news with #DefenceDepartment
Economist
7 days ago
- Science
- Economist
Why armies are using laser weapons to zap things out of the sky
The Economist explains | Beam them down Your browser does not support this video. ARMIES HAVE dreamt of firing laser weapons for a long time. A lab funded by America's Defence Department demonstrated one in 1960. But decades of development failed to produce a practical weapon, and the ambition waned. Now it is back. Last year America reportedly used a high-energy laser (HEL) to down drones aimed at its forces in the Middle East. Israel and Russia have both recently used HELs to foil drone attacks. Ukraine may soon do the same. Why are laser weapons suddenly useful? And what role could they play in future wars? The Martians had a heat ray that could destroy the Royal Navy's battleships, but that was in 'The War of the Worlds', a 19th-century work of science fiction. HELs are not high-energy enough for that. To seriously damage a warship or tank would require megawatts of power–a noticeable proportion of the output of a conventional power plant. HELs produce kilowatts, ie, thousandths of a megawatt. Even aircraft can survive bombardment by HELs. For a while missiles looked like potential prey. They have thin skins and are packed with fuel and explosives. Merely damaging the shell of a supersonic missile can create drag, causing it to tumble out of control. And, no matter how fast the missile, laser beams, which travel at the speed of light, can catch up to it. President John F. Kennedy gave a laser-missile-defence project the highest national-security priority after the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. But missiles turned out to be difficult targets. They're not as fast as lasers, yet they are still hard to intercept. In 1973 a laser downed an aerial target at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, but it was something a little slower than a missile, perhaps a small radio-controlled aircraft. The advent of the small drone as a weapon in the 2010s has given lasers a target they can handle. The Russian and Ukrainian armed forces have launched attack drones, as have the Houthi militia in Yemen. They are becoming ubiquitous in war. Conventional air defences can shoot them down, but many of the missiles these systems fire cost millions of dollars and are in short supply. Lasers, on the other hand, cost just a few dollars per shot and their ammunition is limited only by their power supply. Advocates say they're the ideal drone killers. Your browser does not support this video. America fielded a laser system in the Persian Gulf in as early as 2014, to destroy small boats and other 'asymmetric threats', but did not use it. It probably first fired one in battle last year. A 20-kilowatt LOCUST system, the size of a small garden shed and weighing some 1,500kg, reportedly downed drones launched at a military base in the Middle East, probably by an Iran-backed militia. This year Israel released video of its lasers shooting down drones fired by Hizbullah, a Lebanon-based militia. The Israel Defence Forces claim that they have taken out 'dozens' of drones. Analysts believe that Israel is using the Keren Or (Lite Beam) system made by Rafael, an Israeli firm. It's a ten-kilowatt little brother to the 50-kilowatt Iron Beam system, which is being developed to supplement the conventional Iron Dome anti-missile system. Meanwhile, Russia has released a video purporting to show an HEL engaging a Ukrainian drone. The weapon looks identical to a Chinese-made Shen Nung, with an output of more than 30 kilowatts. Ukraine has also released footage of its 50-kilowatt Trident laser destroying drones in tests. Its commanders are eager to field Trident to defend against nightly waves of Iranian-designed Shahed drones fired from Russia. Though trendy, HELs have drawbacks. Even though one blast is cheap, installing a system is not. The British Royal Navy's Dragonfire HELs will cost £100m ($135m) apiece. Today's lasers have relatively short ranges (of up to a few miles) and can be hampered by smoke, dust, haze or fog. In theory they can be carried around by planes or Jeeps, but get the power they need more easily from ships or on the ground. Lasers also have competition in the form of old-fashioned anti-aircraft guns, which are relatively cheap and can take on lots of targets. Attack drones are here to stay. The question is whether beams or bullets will blast them.
CBC
25-07-2025
- Business
- CBC
Royal Canadian Navy to retire 8 warships before the end of the year
The Royal Canadian Navy plans to retire some of its older warships this fall. The navy confirmed Thursday that eight of its 12 Kingston-class vessels will be removed from service following "paying off" ceremonies in Halifax and Esquimalt, B.C. Officially known as Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels, these small ships were built and launched in the 1990s. Each is 55 metres long, weighs about 970 tonnes and has a crew of about 40. "There is no loss of capability for the (navy) as a result of the divestment of the Kingston-class," the Department of National Defence said in a statement. "Their missions and tasks will be redistributed to other existing ships and assets, and taken on by new systems being introduced." The ships, powered by diesel-electric motors, are primarily used for coastal patrols, search and rescue, law enforcement, mine detection, and training. They have been deployed to operations in the eastern Pacific, Caribbean, off West Africa and in European waters, as well as many missions across Canada's three oceans. Other vessels to take over duties Meanwhile, the Defence Department says the Kingston-class key mine-sweeping and counter-measures functions will be handled by the navy's fleet diving units and remote and autonomous systems operated from other navy vessels. As well, the navy's relatively new Arctic and offshore patrol vessels will take on Kingston-class roles, such as counter-narcotics operations. And the training role will be shifted to the navy's smaller Orca-class vessels. The navy is also moving ahead with replacing its retired Iroquois-class destroyers and its existing Halifax-class patrol frigates with 15 River-class destroyers. The new warships will be built by Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding Inc. The federal government said in March the first three ships will cost a total of $22.2 billion. The project has been described as the largest and most complex shipbuilding initiative in Canada since the Second World War. Paying off ceremonies As for the "paying off" ceremony for the Kingston-class ships, that tradition comes from the British practice of paying a crew their wages once a ship has completed its voyage. In the Canadian navy, paying off refers to the formal ceremony where the ship's flags and commissioning pennant are removed and the crew departs the ship for the last time. Ceremonies will be held in Halifax this fall for HMCS Shawinigan, HMCS Summerside, HMCS Goose Bay, HMCS Glace Bay and HMCS Kingston. Ceremonies will also be held in Esquimalt for HMCS Saskatoon, HMCS Whitehorse and HMCS Brandon. The navy's four remaining operational Kingston-class vessels — HMCS Moncton, HMCS Yellowknife, HMCS Edmonton and HMCS Nanaimo — will operate out of Halifax. They will be retired over the next three years. "Kingston-class vessels have provided the Royal Canadian Navy with a significant capability throughout their many years of service," Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee, commander Royal Canadian Navy, said in a statement. "As we move towards the future of the Royal Canadian Navy, I want to recognize the service of these ships and extend my tremendous gratitude to all who have sailed within them."
Sydney Morning Herald
23-07-2025
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
Australia quietly pays US another $800 million for AUKUS despite review
Washington: Australia has quietly paid the United States another $800 million towards the AUKUS submarine deal, taking the total to $1.6 billion, despite the Trump administration placing the agreement under a review. This masthead confirmed the second payment was made in the second quarter of this year, per the agreed schedule. By the end of 2025, Canberra will have paid $US2 billion, or just over $3 billion, to the American shipbuilding industry to boost submarine production. A Defence Department spokesperson said Australia had been clear since March 2023 that it would make a 'proportionate contribution' to the American industrial base under the AUKUS agreement. 'Australia's contribution is about accelerating US production rates and maintenance to enable the delivery of Australia's future Virginia class submarines,' the spokesperson said. 'The payments are occurring in line with Australia's commitment to contribute US$2 billion by the end of 2025, which underscores our commitment to the successful delivery of AUKUS Pillar I outcomes.' The government was unfazed by the Pentagon's review of the AUKUS agreement and said it was natural that a new US administration would want to examine the progress of key initiatives. 'All three countries are continuing to progress the AUKUS pathway at pace, ensuring it meets national and trilateral objectives,' the Defence spokesperson said. While Australia's first $800 million payment was announced with fanfare in February, when Defence Minister Richard Marles met his US counterpart, Pete Hegseth, in Washington, the second payment was not announced.
The Age
23-07-2025
- Business
- The Age
Australia quietly pays US another $800 million for AUKUS despite review
Washington: Australia has quietly paid the United States another $800 million towards the AUKUS submarine deal, taking the total to $1.6 billion, despite the Trump administration placing the agreement under a review. This masthead confirmed the second payment was made in the second quarter of this year, per the agreed schedule. By the end of 2025, Canberra will have paid $US2 billion, or just over $3 billion, to the American shipbuilding industry to boost submarine production. A Defence Department spokesperson said Australia had been clear since March 2023 that it would make a 'proportionate contribution' to the American industrial base under the AUKUS agreement. 'Australia's contribution is about accelerating US production rates and maintenance to enable the delivery of Australia's future Virginia class submarines,' the spokesperson said. 'The payments are occurring in line with Australia's commitment to contribute US$2 billion by the end of 2025, which underscores our commitment to the successful delivery of AUKUS Pillar I outcomes.' The government was unfazed by the Pentagon's review of the AUKUS agreement and said it was natural that a new US administration would want to examine the progress of key initiatives. 'All three countries are continuing to progress the AUKUS pathway at pace, ensuring it meets national and trilateral objectives,' the Defence spokesperson said. While Australia's first $800 million payment was announced with fanfare in February, when Defence Minister Richard Marles met his US counterpart, Pete Hegseth, in Washington, the second payment was not announced.
The Age
17-07-2025
- Politics
- The Age
More work needed on how money is spent on defence
To submit a letter to The Age, email letters@ Please include your home address and telephone number. No attachments, please include your letter in the body of the email. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published. Bravo Ross Gittins (Comment, 16/7). The question of defence spending is not a stand-alone one. As Gittins points out, the money spent on defence could alternatively be spent on something else ... health, education and climate change for instance, all of which we are told are in need of funding, or it could reduce our national debt, agreed to be another worthy goal. Also, who do we rely on, and more particularly who do we trust, to advise on the amount to be spent on defence? And on what items the money is to be spent? Have Defence Department experts advised? Has the Foreign Affairs Department? What input from academic defence experts? Has the general public been told the alternative ways that this money could be spent? That a politician, with no specific expertise, clearly being pressured by a foreign government and with a forward view of three years, makes these decisions that shape a 40-year national future, seems unlikely to produce a sound result. More work needed. Peter Moore, Clifton Hill There will always be a use for the sword Not to make light of Ross Gittins' excellent suggestion that we shouldn't spend too much on useless military hardware when there are more pressing needs at home, has there ever been a time when a more powerful neighbour, human nature being what it is, has decided not to plunder its neighbour's undefended assets when they seem there for the taking? One might offer educational opportunities or trade deals or bribes in exchange for ″protection″, but sooner or later hard reality dawns and just like at the end of the Bronze Age when the hill fort on the other side of the valley acquires cutting edge technology, there comes a time when you need to upgrade to your own iron swords and spear tips if you don't want to become a footnote of history. Claude Miller, Castlemaine Happy to pay more tax for peace of mind Spending whatever is necessary to make us feel safe in our own backyard can never be a waste of money. The thought of being a sitting duck to an attack and not having the America fully engaged in our defence is something that should not sit well with all Australians. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese should be taking orders from Donald Trump on our defence spending and I am happy to pay higher taxes to ensure my grandchildren don't have to look over their shoulders in years to come. You can't put a price on peace of mind. Steve Naumovski, Southbank Relationship with China is important to us Thank you Ross Gittins for a balanced and much needed article regarding the constant warmongering, sabre-rattling and the calls from the United States for NATO countries and Australia to dramatically increase their defence spending. Australia needs to continue to forge a strong relationship with China. It is our most important trading partner, with the health of their economy being intrinsically linked to ours. Gittins is right to point out the ″glee with which our defenceniks″ those with vested interests, accept calls of increased spending. Continuing a Cold War mentality approach, sold through the virtues of misplaced nationalism and irrational fear, certainly lines the coffers of many. As for looking to recent history as a guide for war and aggression, it is interesting to note, that since the end of the Vietnam war, the United States have conducted conventional bombing campaigns of more than 20 countries including, Cambodia, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia and Sudan to name a few, while China has conducted none. Craig Jory, Albury, NSW THE FORUM Trade and money for us Columnist Shaun Carney, writing of our national values, suggests change can be hard to accept in assessing our relationship with the United States under Donald Trump (″ Trump or Xi for Albo? Maybe both ″, 17/7). With our lax defence spending it is clear we are happy to be a nation of freeloaders on security and one that values trade and the economy ahead of traditional democratic freedoms that evades a billion or so Chinese. We expect our AUKUS security partners to do most of the heavy defence lifting while we pursue national wealth and prosperity through better economic relations with a communist dictatorship that has an abysmal human rights record and an open policy of eventually taking its neighbour by force. Sadly, if Anthony Albanese's assessment of ″public sentiment″ is correct, we now stand for a combination of trade, money and not much else. Good luck, Taiwan. Brian O'Neil, Heidelberg Heights Reality check on care Thank you Dr Jacqueline Wilson (' I survived care, my brother didn't ', 16/7) for describing such a heart-wrenchingly sad journey you and your brother faced in the child welfare system from such a young age. For those of us who haven't experienced such difficult childhoods it's a disturbing reality check on how life can be so hard and unsatisfactory for all too many young children and adolescents caught up so powerlessly in the care of the state. It's good to know that some former wards of state have also kept this issue in the public eye and had some compensation, albeit small, but it seems little has changed despite many reports and recommendations for future improvements in the child welfare and protection systems. I was a social worker in the 1970s and am ashamed to say I didn't want to work in that area as even then, it was woefully under-resourced. It seems little has changed. Let's hope things do change for the better so that all your grit and determination ending up working in a similar field and as well, so that a life like your brother's hasn't been lost in vain. Kerin Tulloch, Hawthorn Grateful commuter Carriage comes off the rails at Clifton Hill on Sunday evening, two train lines are suspended and major delays ensue for north-east commuters. On Wednesday morning I braced for the worst, radio news telling me bus trips would be long, uncomfortable and trips delayed. Walking to Heidelberg Station I hoped there would be information and that my wait for a bus would not be long. I was greeted by PTV staff who were friendly, guiding commuters to the bus services. I quickly joined the queue for the express bus to Parliament and five minutes later a bus arrived to take me into the city. The journey was quick, free and pleasant. My trip home took a little longer due to peak-hour traffic, however it was just as pleasant as my morning commute. Plenty of PTV staff were in place to guide and assist passengers and I thanked them all as I began my short walk home. It's not all doom and gloom, leave a little earlier, know it will take a little longer but know that when things don't always go to plan, there are people doing their best to get us all to where we need to go as quickly as possible. I, for one, am grateful. Franca Mosca, Ivanhoe
