Russell Coker via luv-talk wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 July 2018 12:53:14 PM AEST Anthony via luv-talk wrote:
Where light sources aren't visible, the usual safety instincts may not kick in (which is why it's always important to wear suitable eye protection when dealing with devices such as lasers). Even where instincts do kick in, they're not foolproof.
One of the Tom Clancy books features CIA agents downing a Japanese military aircraft by shining a bright light at the pilots. Some people have suggested that a better option for the CIA agents in that scenario would be to use an IR LASER to blind pilots without them even noticing the light (which of course gives the difficult problem of how to line up an invisible LASER with a tiny target at a distance).
Maybe handheld devices can't be aimed that well, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1 It was a 747 with an --- as they say --- "frickin laser beam attached to its head", and it lased ballistic missiles, and it was a Real Thing. (I think it was defunded because the USA only attacks poor people, who can't afford the expensive toys YAL-1 was designed to counter.) Note the independent target-painting laser. One of AQ's publications suggested putting broken glass on your (flattish) roof, to confuse UAV/UCAV drones optics. I can't offhand think of anything interesting in between those two extremes... logically some active jammers ought to work in the manner you describe, but on the aircraft ELINT rather than the Mk. I eyeball. Oh, also, ASW searchlights were A Thing, although I think they couldn't be "aimed" independently of the aircraft's axis of travel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_light Oh, double-also, aiming a laser is in principle _easier_ than normal, because you don't have to lead the target. If the rangefinder is correctly zeroed, you point the weapon system straight at the target. Keeping it there is presumably equivalent to using a first-generation MANPAD. (I haven't read any FMs for those, so that's just speculation.) I think the real issue with accuracy would be relative to the size of the beam -- if it's 10 metres across at the target, and you're pointing it at a JASDF UH-60 that's debarking troops 600m away, it's should be feasible. If OTOH you're trying to hit an orbiting E-2 (AWACS) on the other side of Mt. Fuji and the beam is 10cm across... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASDF#Current_inventory) For comparison, M24 acceptance requires 0.8 MOA, which translates to reliably hitting about a 2.3cm target at 100m. I dunno how to math that out to 600m range, but I guess it'd be about man-sized, so if your beam is that wide, at that distance, a trained human should be able to keep it on-target. (As opposed to their arm muscles making it wobble too much.)