DIRCM Vs. human eye

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2010, 12:52
by Neno
I'm asking if the (enemy) pilot''s eyes are well protected against laser light beam.
If not, an F-22 or F-35 equipped with DIRCM could blink every pilot in a dogfight.

RE: DIRCM Vs. human eye

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2010, 20:30
by dragorv
Well.. I wouldn't know about the protection, but it sounds like it would be hard to shine a laser miles away and hit a target the size of a human eye. A ballistic missile? Sure... and eye in a moving cockpit? I don't think so.

RE: DIRCM Vs. human eye

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2010, 20:38
by shep1978
I would hope the eyes would be protected. I know and I've certainly read about police forces taking the threat of handheld laser pen beams to their chopper pilots very seriously so I imagine airforces would take the threat seriously too.
I doubt we'd (as in western nations) use the systems to purpousfully blind the opponent though as such devices are outlawed as far as i know by some convention.
I remember reading a few tales about this system http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stingray.htm
burning iraqi tank crews eyes out as they looked through their gun sights but i guess thats BS, certainly according to the link its BS anyway. Perhaps it was just a theory that it'd burn or pop eyeballs??

Re: RE: DIRCM Vs. human eye

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2010, 20:43
by shep1978
dragorv wrote:Well.. I wouldn't know about the protection, but it sounds like it would be hard to shine a laser miles away and hit a target the size of a human eye. A ballistic missile? Sure... and eye in a moving cockpit? I don't think so.


I'm not convinced it is so tough to do. Consider that many many police helicopter pilots have been successfully harrassed by simple handheld laser pens/pointers that are aimed by nothing more than human judgement.
A dedicated system designed to target a small area (like a cockpit) from many miles away sounds feasable to me, especially when you consider how accurately an laser designator pod can be even from many thousands of metres in the air.

On the poilice issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7990013.stm

Quote FTA: "You can't miss it. A sharp green beam of light shoots up from the ground, flashing around the helicopter, dazzling anyone on whom it scores a 'direct hit'," said Mr Briggs.

And thats just from handheld pointers...

Re: RE: DIRCM Vs. human eye

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2010, 21:59
by Guysmiley
dragorv wrote:Well.. I wouldn't know about the protection, but it sounds like it would be hard to shine a laser miles away and hit a target the size of a human eye. A ballistic missile? Sure... and eye in a moving cockpit? I don't think so.


It would be very easy to do from a targeting point of view. Note that ABM lasers don't just hit the general area of a ballistic missile, they need to hit a precise spot on a target and *hold* the beam on that spot for multiple seconds.

The use of blinding laser weapons with the designed purpose of being employed against unaided human vision in combat is prohibited by the UN CCW convention. "Collateral" damage from laser weaponry intended to target optics systems is not covered in that treaty however.

Re: RE: DIRCM Vs. human eye

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2010, 22:55
by Neno
Guysmiley wrote:The use of blinding laser weapons with the designed purpose of being employed against unaided human vision in combat is prohibited by the UN CCW convention. "Collateral" damage from laser weaponry intended to target optics systems is not covered in that treaty however.


C'mon guy.. in a dog-fight the purpose is to KILL the other pilot... Kill, terminate, destroy.. !!

It's more realistic to me think that any air force implements some protection against it.

RE: Re: RE: DIRCM Vs. human eye

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2010, 01:33
by shep1978
Its a facsinating subject this though i'm not sure its in the right forum section here, anyway:

http://www.defensereview.com/zm-87-anti ... us-troops/

I find this plausable and imagine it did happen. Seems as if weapons conventions only apply to us fools in the west...

RE: Re: RE: DIRCM Vs. human eye

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2010, 17:07
by Mechanic
Current targeting pods are eye dangerous to several dozen kilometers when using full combat power. It's nice to know exact range of an incoming enemy fighter by constantly lasing it, eh?

RE: Re: RE: DIRCM Vs. human eye

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2010, 18:01
by SpudmanWP
From: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives ... index.html

Every F-35 pilot will wear the same Gen II HMD. The lens of the visor is made of strong polycarbonate for impact protection. Pilots will also be able to wear one of two outer visors: a darker, sun-screening visor for a bright day or one with protection against laser eye damage.

RE: Re: RE: DIRCM Vs. human eye

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2010, 18:16
by Meteor
Offensive and defensive weapons attacking the human eye have been around for awhile. The Royal Navy used ship-mounted weapons to blind attacking Argentine pilots during the Falklands / Malvinas War. The Russian Army used weapons mounted on tracked vehicles to blind Afghan personnel during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. The technologies and capabilities of anti-ocular weapons have advanced considerably since then.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2010, 01:11
by em745
Pshaw on all this hi-tech laser wizardry.

If you really want to attack your opponent's eyes, all you have to do is project a giant image of Rosie O'Donnell in a thong.

Game, set, match. 8)

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2010, 03:15
by Guysmiley
Ohhhh duuuuude. Talk about war crimes violations.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2010, 05:28
by em745
Guysmiley wrote:Ohhhh duuuuude. Talk about war crimes violations.

No kidding. :twisted:

Speaking of, am I understanding this correctly? The UN CCW prohibits the use of lasers to blind an opponent (because it's what, too "barbarous??"), but sending a slammer up his (ahem) "tailpipe" is perfectly hunky-dory?? Blinding lasers are a no-no, but small arms fire is okay? Sharpnel from a grenade?...

Someone please explain the logic here, coz I sure as hell don't get it. I can think of scenarios where laser blinding could be used to thwart (with precision) an attacker and likely even spare civilian lives where conventional weaponry may not be as effective and/or would cause significani collateral damage.

Some of these wartime ROE's are a joke. Frankly, I'm surprised the UN hasn't outlawed VLO aircraft for wielding too unfair an advantage. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2010, 06:44
by Guysmiley
I think the problem is it's REALLY easy to set up something that will mass blind thousands of soldiers, much easier than actually having to hit all of em with actual ordnance.

The wording of the rule makes it "OK", as Mechanic said, to 'collaterally' blind someone with a ranging laser. But deploying an AN/PEQ-1 Mass Eyeball Cooker is not OK according to that treaty. I'm sure when the treaty was set up it was intended between nations (NATO vs. Warsaw Pact), we didn't imagine going up against a bunch of religious extremist nutballs.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2010, 09:56
by discofishing
I'm with Mechanic on this one. The laser in an Apache's TADS/MTADS will cause irreversible eye damage at distance. I imagine the lasers in LANTIRN, SNIPER, and LITENING (and all the others) targeting pods are the same class and can do the same damage. These laser beams aren't like the ones on the end of guns and rifles or pointing devices. Their width can be measured in feet. They're not tiny little laser beams. Here's the only decent demo I can find showing how big some targeting lasers actually are: start watching at 2:06

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eznHtJ1E7Ko

Looking at the beam compared to the 5" rocket will give an idea of how big the beam is.

The further out the beam goes, the wider its radius becomes. Sounds like a calculus word problem. :roll:

I'd say as long as an aircraft has a targeting pod it has the capability to harass the opposing pilot. Overall, I think I'd rather fire AMRAAMs and Sidewinders at the eye balls of enemy aircrew than lasers. Then again, if we can vaporize the whole entire plane with a laser, I'm all for it. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQfUgnH ... re=related

watch the last minute of the video...pretty cool stuff.

Re: RE: Re: RE: DIRCM Vs. human eye

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2010, 15:11
by Neno
SpudmanWP wrote:From: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives ... index.html

Every F-35 pilot will wear the same Gen II HMD. The lens of the visor is made of strong polycarbonate for impact protection. Pilots will also be able to wear one of two outer visors: a darker, sun-screening visor for a bright day or one with protection against laser eye damage.


Ok, here's the answer i was looking for.
Thank's a lot !

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: DIRCM Vs. human eye

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2010, 14:12
by shep1978
Two choices, Sun visor or Laser Visor? So, am I just being stupid here or does that imply that an F-35 pilot could during daylight hours, if wearing his sun visor be hit and harmed by a laser beam?
This sounds utterly insane, god I hope i'm confused and wrong!

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2010, 15:13
by outlaw162
Interesting subject.

Awhile back, I was involved in some testing with lasers in a civil aviation context. This picture might give some perspective on laser versus human eye.

I believe that the picture shows the 50 microwatt (uW) level. We also tested various phases of flight (takeoff, departure, approach, & landing) at the 5 & 15 microwatt levels. This is a civil transport aircraft simulator, although this is how a laser of relatively low strength would affect a typical air-lifter or tanker, for example, a KC-135. Sparkle, obscured visual references, potential temporary flash blindness, etc.

Anything under 1 milliwatt (mW), which is equal to 1000 microwatts, is supposedly eye safe, meaning that no permanent damage will result from a direct exposure. However, anything over 1 mW has the potential to do more than just water your eyes.

My eyes may hold the record for the number of fiber-optic laser hits on unprotected eyes.

OL

(Strangely, laser effects on my unprotected eyes now allow me to see through certain substances like various types of cloth used in clothes.)

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2010, 06:33
by madrat
outlaw162 wrote:(Strangely, laser effects on my unprotected eyes now allow me to see through certain substances like various types of cloth used in clothes.)


Probably less from lasers and you passing through the Red Sun named Rao.

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2010, 14:52
by outlaw162
Heh, heh.

I have been faster than a speeding bullet, but I’m still working on the tall building thing.

The real problem is, with all the cell phones now, it’s hard to find a phone booth when you need one.

OL

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2010, 17:03
by madrat
LOL

I'm thinking that DIRCM will evolve quickly to the point where its like a mini-CiWS against manpads operators. The F-35, with the way it sensors are fused cohesively, just might make it possible to use the DIRCM offensively and proactively. The way computers have so quickly evolved judging shape recognition you could conceivably automatically single out the manpads operator before he can launch and the pilot just has to give the affirmation to blanket laser designate a 1m^2 area at about eye level. Not an option today, but would be an efficient way to utilize it.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2010, 10:38
by wdc
..signed up so I could post this ....
The answer is very simple. DIRCM laser wavelengths are in the short-wave and mid-wave IR (infrared) region. These wavelengths are not passed by the cornea so they are no threat to the eye (retina). Power levels are very low, would need to be within a few meters range for laser hazard.