It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lasers Aimed At Aircraft

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Any ideas or thoughts on why so many reports of lasers being aimed at aircraft, is it just pranks being played or are people actually attempting to bring down aircraft? I read somwhere that terroism has been ruled out, so what gives?

Found a link, that says NASA used a laser to control an unmanned flight and is there anything to do with the 9/11 aircraft, probably not. Just like to know what anyone else may think about all the reports on lasers being aimed at aircraft? To many incidents to be coincidental is my thinking. Or is there more to this than meets the eye?


www.equipped.com...

www.uavworld.com...

Or maybe it has something to do with the military using lasers to warn aircraft that they have strayed into restricted airspace?

www.washingtonpost.com...

[edit on 8-3-2006 by Zero_057]




posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I ran across a thread here on ATS recently where someone suggested using a laser to signal, or communicate with, UFOs. If enough people are actually attempting this (somewhat foolish IMO) activity, it may account for some of these reports.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I cant recall reading of any attempts to communicate with UFO's using lasers. but I sure couldnt rule out the possibilty of it being tried. I just find it hard to believe that its not being investigated more as there are a lot of lives involved should one of these lasers actually bring down an aircraft. But then again it may be under more investigation than we know about. I'll have to check out lasers and UFO's though.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saltman
I ran across a thread here on ATS recently where someone suggested using a laser to signal, or communicate with, UFOs. If enough people are actually attempting this (somewhat foolish IMO) activity, it may account for some of these reports.


I have a thread about trying to contact Ebe's and I did suggest a laser pointer but it was not my intention to actually use one.....I think a good 1,000,000 candlepower spotlight or high powered LED would work just as well.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Some advanced low altitude SAM systems such as the British Starstreak and the Swedish RBS-70 use laser guidance. That doesn't account for the reports but it does make laser tracking somewhat concerning, especially since these systems are man portable.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Zero_057,

It's not new. It must be assumed deliberate when it happens near airports. It is effective.

www.fas.org...
www.fas.org...

While laser rangers on tanks and aircraft have long been known to be potential eye hazards requiring crews to be outside even a scintillance zone /near/ the vehicle, the first I heard of them being specifically used for deliberate attacks was in the PGW-1.

Desert Storm saw many similar incidents, chiefly against helicopter crews I believe, with pilots receiving alerts from their AVR-2 warning systems having little alternative but to withdraw.

'In Theory' you can put filtering coatings and even LCD like active fenestration on the inside of canopies and helmet visors. The Swedes also have an active smoke grenade projector system which seems to work for helicopters.

In truth, the only real hope for fast movers, especially at ranges under 10nm, is to fly sealed cockpit. Even excluding deliberate weaponization as with the ATL, the wattage (necessary to provide extended 20-25nm lasing for high altitude smart bomb work) is just getting too high for anything else.

Everyone knows it and everyone 'politely looks the other way' with attitudes ranging from (Luftwaffe MiG-29) unacknowledged deactivation of laser rangers to legislative efforts against systems specifically designed to eye-blind. None of which has a hope in hell of working so long as lasers /for other purposes/ retain a legitimate presence on the battlefield. And laser attacks on cockpits have higher mission-kill effects than missiles facing Western EW.

>>
Any ideas or thoughts on why so many reports of lasers being aimed at aircraft, is it just pranks being played or are people actually attempting to bring down aircraft? I read somewhere that terrorism has been ruled out, so what gives?
>>

In the above LINKS, it's clear one aircraft, 90nm downrange and 31,000ft high was simply an inadvertent victim. In others, specifically near airports where the potential for interference with visual approach/flare judgments can only serve to put the entire aircraft and cabin occupants at risk, one can only assume that the objective is a mass casualty. And punish accordingly.

It's not as soft shoe as is being made out in your articles.

Of note as well, one of the ways in which airports may be defended against MANPADS is to station DIRCM like devices (which may actually be hardkill by now) at a central coverage point rather than try to equip every airliner.

The question then becomes whether a system capable enough to engage a missile could be used as well to disable light aircraft. It's very clear that QRA type systems failed utterly to stop (in the time alloted before terminal penetration, let alone nudet 'proximity kills') a Cessna so that 'warning strobes' had no push-off or lethal backup.

And mechanical intercept poses the risk of weapon fallout as well as public intimidation factors of a launcher installation.


KPl.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
the first I heard of them being specifically used for deliberate attacks was in the PGW-1.
An uncharactristically concise and on topic post by KPI. Good stuff!

But to add to what you've said, Soviet naval vessels routinely dazzled NATO recce aircraft with their powerful range finding lazers during the cold cat and mouse game.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I don't think a centralised DIRCM would work. DIRCM targets the missile seeker, and thus needs a fairly specific angle to be able achieve this. This is why a MAWS with a fine angle of arrival indication is important to cue the DIRCM. Even multiple DIRCMs spread out would be ineffective. You need to be between the seeker and the aircraft to be an effective DIRCM. Also, with newer systems coming on line, and some talk of imaging MANPADs, DIRCM alone may not be enough. Now, a centralised IR jammer of some description is likely to be more effective against the earlier generation MANPADs which proliferate now, but once systems such as SA-18 become the standard, well, I guess life wasn't meant to be easy! Other than that, great post KPI! Lasers are a huge threat. With regards to the Russian lasers, there are plenty of stories around regarding Russian Trawlers using laser dazzlers on maritime patrol aircraft off the US. Also, there have been press reports here in Australia that there were 12 reported laser incidents at Australian airports in 2005, all of the laser dazzler variety.




top topics



 
0

log in

join