The first two are only published applications and have not been reviewed by the US Patent Office yet. The third is a patent that issued after being rejected for non-enablement (essentially the patent office saying the theory may be interesting but you haven’t taught how to really do it). I only took a quick peek at the file history, but it appears the Navy relied on an affidavit from an expert, which the Examiner initially argued wasn’t sufficient. Ultimately appealed and the Examiner caved, allowing the patent to issue based on the arguments made in an appeal brief by the applicant.
Bottom line - let’s see someone make it.
I was involved in evaluating a technology submitted to the Marine Corps for guiding artillery projectiles. It was completely useless and would never have guided anything - it included a "down sensor" in a projectile that was rotating at about 10,000 RPM.
I recommended that the inventor come in to explain his system but he declined. Some years later that "inventor" sued the Navy and the Army for not accepting his purported guidance system, thereby "causing him not to get lucrative foreign contracts".
The Navy called me as their expert witness and when I explained the problems with his useless design, the whole court had a great laugh and he lost his suit.
Probably would have helped him a bit if he had ever actually seen an artillery weapon system before and learned how it worked. Or maybe not.
Why is this even being made public? To motivate the Russians and ChiComs to focus resources more into this research?