Laser Weapons

The Dawn of a
New Military Age
 Laser Weapons
The Dawn of a
New Military Age

Major General Bengt Anderberg

and
Dr. Myron L. Wolbarsht

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Anderberg, Bengt.
Laser weapons: the dawn of a new military age / Bengt Anderberg and Myron L.
Wolbarsht.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.

1. Lasers—Military applications. I. Wolbarsht, Myron. II. Title.

UG486.A53 1992 92-19697
623.4'46—dc20 CIP

ISBN 978-0-306-44329-9 ISBN 978-1-4899-6094-8 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4899-6094-8

© 1992 Bengt Anderberg and Myron L. Wolbarsht

Originally published by Plenum Press, New York in 1992
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1992

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher
 To Professor Dr. Bjorn Tengroth,
a pioneer who continues to inspire all who work
with laser safety. He encouraged both of us in our
work and was always helpful.
 Preface

The Persian Gulf war demonstrated to a huge television audience

the effect of modern laser-assisted weapons. Everyone watching
could see bombs and missiles scoring bull's-eyes when hitting and
blowing up bridges, buildings, aircraft shelters, and various types
of military equipment.
Almost every kind of laser device mentioned in this book,
except laser weaponry, was used in large numbers during the
conflict. Laser range finders of many kinds supplied vital informa-
tion for soldiers and weapon systems. Laser target designators
carried on aircraft, helicopters, and other vehicles, or hand-held
by infantry soldiers, were used to direct Precision Guided Muni-
tions (PGMs) such as the GBU-12 SOD-pound bomb and the Hellfire
missile.
One of the main objectives during the air campaign besides
hitting the enemy forces was to minimize civilian losses and
damage to nonmilitary facilities. To accomplish this, the Coalition
forces used PGMs. The attacks against populated areas such as
Baghdad by the Stealth F-117 aircraft demonstrate the ability of
lasers to assist in the destruction of military targets while mini-
mizing civilian casualties.
Hellfire laser-guided missiles were used with devastating
effect against tanks, vehicles, fortified bunkers, and radar sites.
vii
viii Preface

During one night, eight Apache helicopters armed with Hellfires

destroyed two radar sites deep in western Iraq. They fired 27
missiles in what was reported as the first hostile action of Opera-
tion Desert Storm. The success of this action opened a radar-free
corridor that the aircraft of the Coalition could fly through un-
scathed to bomb the Baghdad area.
Approximately 20,000 PGMs were expended during the war.
More than 60% of them were laser guided. The Persian Gulf war
demonstrated the usefulness of different laser devices on the
battlefield in assisting weapon systems, commanders, and sol-
diers. It must be left to the future, however, to find out how lasers
may be used in their own capacity to destroy targets with the
energy contained in their beams.
 Acknowledgments

We thank Bengt Anderberg's wife, Margit, for her forbearance

while he toiled on the initial version of the manuscript. We thank
Ove Bring for educating us in the international law involved in a
possible ban on the use of antipersonnel lasers as weapons and in
war.
Many of our colleagues helped us form our opinions, but
none should be held accountable for any misstatements made in
this book or for the presentation of the details of any particular
laser system.
This book is based entirely on public sources; see Appendix I.

ix
 Contents

Introduction 1

1. Laser Technology 11

2. Current Military Applications 43

3. Laser Safety 65

4. The Laser as a Weapon 89

5. High-Energy Laser (HEL) Weapons 107

6. Low-Energy Antipersonnel and Antisensor Laser (LEL)

Weapons 139
xi
xii Contents

7. Protection and Countermeasures 177

8. Laser Weapons and International Law 203

9. Conclusions and Consequences 215

Appendix 1. Recommended Readings 231

Appendix II. Metric-English Systems

Comparisons 233

Index 237
 Introduction

Most battlefield weapons are extremely noisy and give off a flash
as well as some smoke when fired, thus giving the soldier's
position away and exposing him to immediate counterfire from
the enemy. The ammunition from the weapons currently used by
combat units has a curved trajectory with an appreciable time of
flight; accordingly, adjustments must be made for this-aiming
above the target to allow for the drop of the projectile and in front
of moving targets. The path of the bullet (trajectory) is never flat;
even very fast projectiles have some degree of curvature in their
path to the target. All this makes it mandatory for the gunner to
know the distance to his target more or less exactly as well as the
speed of its movement. This is a fire control problem, and, in order
to achieve the desired results, the effective number of grenades,
shells, or bullets to be fired against each target often must be
increased. Some of these fire control problems may be avoided by
supplying the soldier with a missile with a guidance system.
However, only high technology can give effective guidance to
most missiles; this is very expensive and does not always work
better than other solutions. The consumption of huge amounts of
ammunition leads to logistical problems. Ammunition is very
heavy and bulky, and there always is some risk of premature
detonation when it is stored or transported. Against this back-
1
2 Introduction

ground, it would clearly be advantageous if a different class of

weapons could be fielded, specifically weapons that use ammuni-
tion with an extremely flat trajectory, are very speedy, and have
only limited logistical problems. If such weapons are also invisible
or less detectable when fired, as well as being silent, they would
certainly also be more effective. At present, there is an option
which seems to meet these requirements-the laser weapon. A
laser beam has the speed of light, is absolutely straight, may
contain a lot of energy, and, in most cases, is silent and invisible.
Even cost-effectiveness is a possibility.
Laser technology is only 30 years old, but it is very diver-
sified. There are already a variety of military applications, al-
though there are many limitations restricting the use of lasers.
Today, the armed forces in most countries routinely use a wide
range of laser devices such as laser range finders and designators.
In some countries, work is proceeding on more imaginative laser
weapon concepts that will eventually fulfill realistic, yet very
precise, military requirements.
The design of a specific laser weapon is heavily influenced by
the characteristics of the intended target. If the desired effect of
the weapon is to neutralize aircraft, helicopters, or missiles by
burning holes through them or tanks by putting many miniature
cracks (crazing) in the glass vision blocks to make them appear to
be frosted, a very high energy laser has to be used with a power
output on the order of several megawatts (MW). Such a laser
would be a true antimah~riel weapon. However, if the target is a
sensitive electro-optical system or some other type of sensor
system which has to be jammed or destroyed by a laser operating
in a countermeasure mode, the choice will be a low-energy laser
operating within the frequency bandwidth of the target sensor.
This use of a laser can also be considered antimateriel. If the target
is a soldier, there is one part of his body that is extremely sensitive
to laser radiation-his eyes. It is sufficient to use a low-energy
laser operating in the visible or near-infrared (near-IR) part of the
spectrum to damage the soldier's eyes and, in effect, cause blind-
ness. If the laser is to cause burn injuries to the soldier's skin or to
 Introduction 3

set fire to his uniform, a high-energy laser is required. In either

case, if the purpose of the laser is to blind or burn the soldier, it will
obviously be antipersonnel.

THE HIGH-ENERGY LASER WEAPON (HELW)

The dominant effect of a high-energy laser weapon on the

target is thermal. The transfer of energy from the laser to the target
causes a succession of events: heating/melting and the evaporation
of the target area depending on the reflectance of the target as well
as its absorption and thermal characteristics. A very high energy
level is required to cause this effect on a target several kilometers
from the laser. The average beam power must be several megawatts
during the required engagement time of up to a second or two.
High-energy laser weapons are now being studied mainly for
antiaircraft and antimissile use. The advantages of using a laser
against low-flying targets are obvious, as the warning and engage-
ment times for such targets are very short, depending on the
terrain and target speed. With conventional antiaircraft guns or
missiles, there is always a risk that the enemy will penetrate the
defense. The laser weapon, with its speed, straight line of sight,
and short engagement time for each target, is expected to reduce
or even eliminate such penetrations. Work has been going on in
some countries for several years on different experimental high-
energy laser weapons for general air defense and, in particular, for
use by naval craft against sea-skimming missiles. If, in the end,
anyone system turns out to be successful, it could have the
capability to engage five to ten targets up to a distance of ten
kilometers away, within seconds of each other. The military advan-
tages are obvious. Such a weapon would certainly be more effec-
tive than a conventional battery of guns or missiles. However,
there are a number of disadvantages and complications. Any
high-energy laser weapon will be bulky, costly, and noisy and will
send out a large amount of heat in a characteristic fashion-a so-
called thermal signature. This type of laser may consume compar-
4 Introduction

atively large amounts of fuel. Another major problem is that the

atmosphere will absorb a sizable fraction of the energy in the laser
beam and be heated, which will make the laser beam wider and
difficult to keep in focus on the target. To date, many attempts
have been made to get around all these problems, and there seems
to be some chance of success.
A high-energy laser may also be used against personnel,
more or less in the same way as a very long range flamethrower.
The beam could set fire to the soldier's uniform and other equip-
ment and cause severe burns to the skin and eyes. However, the
systematic use of very expensive high-energy laser weapons
against personnel is not very cost-effective. The use of such high-
energy systems will probably be limited to the protection of costly
high-technology targets such as air bases, naval bases, high-level
command posts, and aircraft carriers.

THE LOW-ENERGY LASER WEAPON (LELW)

A low-energy laser cannot burn through structures made

from metal or other materials, even at the shortest distances on the
battlefield. In spite of this limitation, low-energy laser systems
may become even more useful as weapons than the high-energy
ones.
Low-energy lasers designed for nonweapon use are already
deployed by the thousands in armed forces. In range finding, the
distance to the target is calculated from the time the reflected light
takes to return to the emitting laser. This was one of the first
military applications of laser technology, with field-deployed
range finders from several countries being seen as early as the
mid-1960s. Today, most armored fighting vehicles, armed helicop-
ters, and ships and many aircraft have fire control systems which
include a laser range finder or a laser target designator to guide a
missile, smart bomb, or rocket to the target. An increasing num-
ber of artillery observers and soldiers associated with antitank
weapons are equipped with small hand-held laser range finders.
 Introduction 5

Furthermore, low-energy lasers are widely used in weapon sim-

ulation systems for training, in communication systems, in laser
gyros for guidance, in fusing devices, and in radar systems.
In the near future, low-energy laser weapons will become an
increasingly important portion of the electro-optical devices devel-
oped and actually fielded. Low-energy laser systems will be used
in two main modes: in an antimatereriel mode against sensors and
in an antipersonnel mode against the human eye. There are many
sensors on the battlefield that are sensitive to laser light. Antisen-
sor laser weapons will be designed to destroy or blind image
intensifiers, low-light televisions, and thermal sights-all essen-
tial for modern fire control systems. They may also be used to
block or trick the sensors in missiles and smart munitions before
these hostile projectiles can reach their target. However, the big-
gest impact that low-energy lasers may have on the battlefield in
the future is the widespread use of anti-eye laser weapons.

THE EYE AS A LASER TARGET

The possibility of using a low-energy laser as an antiperson-

nel weapon is due to the high susceptibility of the eye to damage
by a laser, since the eye's optics greatly magnify the brightness of
the laser beam. This damage is even greater when any magnifying
or light-collecting optical system is placed in front of the eye.
Already, most of the existing military laser devices, such as range
finders and target designators, are dangerous to the eye. The
hazardous range for these devices is several miles, at least, and
may be tens of miles if anyone in the target area is using binocu-
lars.
An anti-eye laser weapon can have two main applications:
temporary visual impairment such as flash blindness, discomfort,
or veiling glare, or more permanent vision damage. As an illustra-
tion of the potential utility of an anti-eye laser weapon, a pilot who
is flash blinded for 20 to 30 seconds or more during the final phase
of an attack will most certainly have to eject from the aircraft or
6 Introduction

crash. Long-lasting damage inside the eye can occur through

direct thermal damage (burns) or as a result of blood from a
hemorrhage.
A laser weapon based on these principles will certainly have a
dramatic impact on the probability of visually disabling an adver-
sary, and it will certainly be a very effective weapon on the
battlefield. An anti-eye low-energy laser weapon designed to blind
enemy soldiers may very well be hand-held. It may be used alone
or in combination with a rifle, machine gun, or any other weapon
that uses a direct line of sight. Small hand-held anti-eye laser
weapons would be comparatively cheap and certainly very cost-
effective; the ammunition is stored energy in batteries. The bat-
teries are certainly not expensive and would be readily available.
Even the maintenance requirements of the laser system may be
very small. However, these weapons will not only cause perma-
nent injury and severe medical problems to large numbers of
soldiers but will also have a marked psychological effect on the
remaining personnel.

PROTECTION

One of the most important ways of blocking a laser beam

from reaching the eyes or a sensor is by using a filter. However, the
transmission of useful light through such filters is an important
problem from a military standpoint. The ability to see adequately
in a life-threatening situation is, of course, vital to the soldier.
Visibility is already poor on the battlefield because of the smoke,
haze, and terrain features and is even more limited at night, dawn,
and dusk. Thus, the use of laser protective filters that further limit
vision because of their low transmission of light is not a desirable
feature militarily. A filter suitable for protection against frequency-
agile laser weapons could make it more or less impossible for the
soldier to see well enough to fight. At the moment, no safer
alternatives for preventing eye damage exist that will not also
hamper the soldier's effectiveness. Although other types of laser
 Introduction 7

protection may become available, it is highly unlikely that any will

be suitable for infantry use.
The impact of laser weapons on the future battlefield will be
considerable. They will affect both operational methods and battle
techniques. The use of an anti-eye laser as a common weapon on
the battlefield will radically change the situation for the infantry-
man, as there will be a new, silent, and less detectable threat for
him to both use and guard against. In these respects, the antiper-
sonnellaser weapon differs from other weapons. It will be neces-
sary to include this type of laser threat in the training of most
combat units. All armed forces will need to prepare new training
manuals and design training devices based on new battle doc-
trines adapted to the laser environment.
The question of medical treatment and medical resources.is
perhaps one of the most difficult and important issues to consider.
The number of laser eye injuries will quickly rise to a level at which
the present number of eye doctors and qualified surgical facilities
will be totally inadequate. If large economic resources have not
been directed toward this medical field in peace time, there will
not be sufficient medical resources available for the injured sol-
diers. Another very difficult problem is the extent to which the
soldier's morale will be affected. The psychological impact on
soldiers will be significant once they realize that observing the
enemy may entail a significant risk of being blinded. If the medical
resources are inadequate, the problem will become even worse, as
few will risk losing their eyesight when adequate treatment is
lacking. Furthermore, to these medical and psychological prob-
lems, we may add the inevitable postwar consequences of laser
weapons. After all wars, there have been many disabled soldiers,
including some with severe visual impairment. This is a fact that
any nation has to take into consideration. There is even some
evidence that it is a more severe handicap to be disabled visually
than to lose a limb or even to have severe multiple injuries. After
any war in which anti-eye laser weapons have been utilized, the
human and social costs of the resulting mass blindness will
certainly be tremendous. This aspect of anti-eye laser weapons has
8 Introduction

already been the basis for questioning their military necessity on

humanitarian grounds. Regardless of the final decision, the laser
may change the face of war more than anyone ever imagined.
Desert Storm publicized a new sophisticated technology as-
sociated with modern warfare in a dramatic and almost unreal
fashion. The public was shown the hardware that their high
military budgets had purchased over many years. Many of these
new weapon systems were supported by lasers. These lasers have
many different roles to play. They are used to improve the accuracy
of more conventional weapons, to find out what the enemy is
doing, to defend against enemy weapons, and as components in
communications systems. In this book, we have attempted to
show the reader how lasers can fulfill these many seemingly
contradictory functions and to explain the rationale behind each of
the different uses, as well as their advantages and disadvantages.
We have tried to project into the future as well as cover those lasers
already tested on the battlefield. Some of these laser systems seem
too fanciful to be real, as if some military procurement officer had
mixed the sheets from a science fiction adventure in with his
specifications for a weapons system to be put into production, but
some such imaginative laser systems are already operational, and
more will be in the future. However, it is our feeling that the laser
which will have the greatest effect on the battlefield is a rather
simple and quite unsophisticated one, namely, an antipersonnel
laser weapon by which infantrymen can blind each other with an
attachment to their rifles.
There have been vigorous debates in some countries about
whether such weapons should not be deemed inhuman and their
development ceased. The International Red Cross organized a
number of meetings for the purpose of bringing together experts
to evaluate the problems raised by the widespread use of anti-eye
laser weapons in relation to international law. This is part of an
international discussion now in progress on the subject of whether
anti-eye laser weapons should be allowed. This subject is covered
in detail in Chapter 8. Perhaps, this may lead to an international
ban or some other type of restriction on the use of anti-eye lasers.
 Introduction 9

Some notes on terminology are appropriate here. In the

military and scientific environment, the metric system is used in
various forms (CGS, MKS, 51). Many quantities can be expressed
as easily in the English (American) system (feet, yards, miles,
pounds, and seconds), especially weapon ranges and weights. For
these quantities, values in the English system will be given.
However, the wavelength of light and other small dimensions are
usually clearer when expressed in the metric system. A table of
conversions is given in Appendix II.
 ONE

Laser Technology

In this chapter, we will describe the physical principles that make

lasers possible. Some laser applications will be mentioned briefly,
but these descriptions will be expanded in later chapters. Laser
technology is a very young science, only about 30 years old, but it
has certainly had a very rapid development. A substantial part of
the research and development in this field has been paid for by the
military, and military requirements have, in many cases, guided
the design of various lasers. However, the overall research and
development (R&D) program has also resulted in broad-based
civilian laser applications. Lasers are increasingly used in indus-
try, medicine, and research and even are found in many homes.
Perhaps the most common of all is the laser inside the mass-
produced. compact disc player, certainly numbering over 50 mil-
lion.
There are many different types of lasers now in use, and even
more will emerge from present R&D programs. All the various
types of lasers have different properties; thus, can all of these
many lasers do different things? Many already are used for
various military applications, and more will be. To understand
how lasers may be used for certain purposes and not for others, it
is necessary to know something about basic laser technology. This
is even more the case when it comes to laser weapons. It is not only
11
12 One

necessary to know why lasers do not vaporize people and pulver-

ize buildings but also what lasers can do in today's military
situations and what they may realistically be anticipated to do in
the future with the expected advances in technology. Understand-
ing current laser technology is a prerequisite for understanding
the possibilities of laser weapons.

ORIGINS OF LASERS

Laser is an acronym for light amplification by stimulated

emission of radiation. Stimulated emission occurs when an atom
or molecule holds onto excess energy until it is stimulated by
external energy, such as an impinging photon or electron, to emit
its bound energy as light. This means that the light from a laser is
different from the light that is normally seen in nature. Light from
the sun or from light bulbs is emitted mostly spontaneously when
atoms or molecules lose excess energy without any outside inter-
vention.
The physical principles governing laser technology were ex-
plained as early as the beginning of the 20th century by the Danish
physicist Niels Bohr. He showed in his quantum theory of 1911 that
atoms lose energy (emit) only when electrons orbiting the nucleus
move from a higher energy orbit to a lower one. They do not
change energy in a stationary orbit. Albert Einstein suggested in a
paper published in 1917 that an atom or molecule could be stimu-
lated to emit light of a particular wavelength when outside light of
that wavelength reached it. This was called stimulated emission.
In 1928, R. Ladenburg proved that Einstein's theory was correct.
However, it took many years before physicists discovered situa-
tions in which the stimulated emission was not overtaken by the
spontaneous emission. The research work to make stimulated
emission dominate in a given case was not accomplished until after
the Second World War.
Physicists began looking for techniques to control how
groups of atoms or molecules could be stimulated together to
 Laser Technology 13

amplify light to much higher intensities. Charles Hard Townes of

Columbia University was among the first to succeed. He worked
in the early fifties on the problems of amplification of microwaves.
Compared to light, microwaves have much longer wavelengths. In
1953, he completed the first maser, an acronym for microwave
amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. Parallel work
was performed in the USSR by Nikolai G. Basov and Aleksander
M. Prochorov.
In 1957, Townes and Arthur Schawlow of the Bell Telephone
Laboratories published a description of what they called an "opti-
cal maser." They described the conditions necessary to amplify
stimulated emission of visible light. This meant an amplification
of much shorter wavelengths than in the case of microwaves and
was the final basis for the development of the laser. Gordon Gould,
a graduate student at Columbia University, had a similar idea at
about the same time, and many are still arguing about who
deserves credit for the concept of the laser. Gould had to take his
case to court and did not get the last of his patents issued in the
U.S. Court of Patent Appeals until November 1987. However,
Townes and the two Soviets, Basov and Prochorov, shared the 1964
Nobel Prize in physics for their work on the "maserllaser princi-
ple."
Townes and Schawlow's paper stimulated scientists in many
quarters to try to construct the first working laser. In 1960, The-
odore Maiman, a physicist working for Hughes Research Labora-
tories in Malibu, California, built and used the first laser. It was a
ruby laser giving an extremely intense, short, red flash of light at a
wavelength of 694 nanometers. Ruby is aluminum oxide with a
trace of chromium oxide, which gives it a red color we call "ruby."
The laser emission was pulsed. In the same year, a gas laser
(helium-neon) generating a continuous beam of coherent light
was developed at the Bell laboratories by D. R. Harriot, A. Javan,
and W. R. Bennet.
Since 1960, the laser field has developed extremely rapidly.
Today, in designing a laser for a particular purpose, it is possible to
choose among many materials and methods. As a consequence,
14 One

lasers differ greatly in power, wavelength, timing, and size. Lasers

are now used for many different purposes in medicine, for mass
machining of materials, for playing compact discs, for reading
product codes in supermarkets, for measurement and inspection,
in computer printers, and in a myriad of other civilian and military
applications. This also means that there is a large and, in most
cases, prosperous laser industry in many countries. This industry
is, certainly, also the base for most military applications and a
prerequisite for the worldwide proliferation of laser weapons.
From the very moment the first practical lasers appeared in
1960, their p03sible military uses were investigated. Since then,
lasers have found ever increasing military applications. Lasers are
widely used for range finding, for target designating, for guiding
missiles (beam riding), and for many other purposes. So far, lasers
have been used operationally in large numbers to support conven-
tional weapons. Also, much R&D work has been done on antisen-
sor, antisatellite, antiaircraft, and antimissile laser weapons. The
possibility of designing and fielding antipersonnel laser weapons
is also becoming a reality. As this book will show, there are many
indications that anti-eye laser weapons are now well along the way
to becoming operational on a worldwide basis. There is even good
evidence that an anti-eye laser weapon may have already been
used in field exercises and actual combat for some time in the
British naval forces.

LIGHT

In the usual visual environment, many different colors are

seen. This means that the human eye detects a variety of different
wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum, which covers the
range from extremely short gamma rays (below 3 x 10- 11 meter) to
very long, low-frequency waves (more than 3 x 104 meters) (Fig.
1.1). However, the human eye can only see a very narrow part of
the electromagnetic spectrum. This should not suggest that there
are actually sharp ends of the visible spectrum; there is rather a
 Laser Technology 15
Energy per Frequency
quantum (EV) (Hz) Wavelength (m)
10· 3 x 10'
10' 3 X 10'
10·" 10' 3 X 10' 3Mm -Commercial power (60 Hz)
10 3 3 x 10'
~TelePhone
10' 3 x 10'
-Diathermy (13.56 KHz)
10·' 10' 3 103
:=::::::::-
X

10' 3 x 10' AM Broadcast (535-1605 KHz)

10' 3 x 10'
10·' -Diathermy (27.12 MHz)
10' 3 x 10· 3m

3 x 10·'
~ Diathermy (40.68 MHz)
10'
FM Broadcast (88.108 MHz)
10" 3 x 10·' Television broadcast
10. 3 3 X 10.3 Radar
10"
10" 3 x 10·'

}
10" 3 x 10·' Infrared

'""
10· ~
10" 3 X 10·' Q)

'"'" Visible (light) Optical

10" 3 x 10. 7 -'
radiation
10" 3 x 10·'

3. 1
10 3 10" 3 x 10·' 3nm Ultraviolet
10" 3 x 10·"
10" 3 x 10·"
10' 10'· 3 x 10·" 3 pm X Rays
"} Medical X rays
Cosmic rays

FIGURE 1.1. The electromagnetic spectrum. Optical radiation, including visible

light, is a small part in the middle of the entire spectrum. The band covered by
lasers extends roughly from 3 millimeters down through the ultraviolet and into
the beginning of the X-ray region.

decreasing sensitivity at each end. Lasers, and thus laser weap-

ons, emit radiation in that part of the spectrum corresponding to
optical radiation (see Fig. 1.1), which includes the ultraviolet,
visible, and infrared portions of the spectrum.
Electromagnetic radiation may be thought of as energy in
transit. It is helpful to visualize energy in transit as extremely high
velocity particles or packets of waves. In the case of optical energy,
the particle is called a photon. The photon is also called a quantum
of energy. The shorter the wavelength and, thus, the higher the
16 One

frequency of the waves, the more energy is carried by the photon.

However, light does not behave only as a stream of particles but
also as waves. The electromagnetic wave motion is characterized
by photon energy, wavelength, or frequency. Wavelength is the
distance between the peaks of two consecutive waves or between
any two identical parts of the wave. Frequency is the number of
wave peaks passing a certain point per second. Frequency is
measured in hertz (Hz). If a wave repeats itself at a rate of 10 times
per second, its frequency is 10 Hz. The wavelength equals the
speed of light divided by the frequency. The speed of light in a
vacuum is a universal constant, 186,282 miles per second (3.3 x
108 yards per second).
Electromagnetic radiation is emitted whenever a charged
particle loses energy in an electric field. In atoms, the charged
particles-electrons-move in orbits around the nucleus. Accord-
ing to the quantum theory of Niels Bohr, atoms emit radiation in
the form of photons only when electrons move from a higher
energy orbit to a lower one. When energy is absorbed by the atom,
the opposite transitions take place. When the electrons are in a
stable orbit, they do not change energy.
In any particular atom, the electrons can occupy only specific
and very well defined orbits. Thus, the single electron in a hydro-
gen atom may only occupy one of its six different orbits. The more
distant the orbit from the nucleus, the more energy is stored in the
atom. The lowest possible orbit in the atom is called the ground
state. When an atom absorbs energy, if any electron gets more
energy than is represented by the most distant orbit, it escapes
from the atom completely-a process called ionization. The elec-
trons fill in orbits from the innermost to the outermost orbit until
there are as many electrons in orbit as protons in the nucleus. It
must be remembered that under normal conditions there are more
electrons in the ground state orbit than in any other level. Also,
molecules have electronic energy levels due to their potential
compression and expansion motions, which increase in complex-
ity with the number of atoms and electrons in the molecule.
A transition of an electron to a lower energy level-that is, a
lower orbit-releases energy at wavelengths typical of the specific
 Laser Technology 17

substance. If energy is absorbed by the atom, the electron moves

in the opposite direction, to a higher energy level. The light that
we normally see in nature is the result of electrons dropping
spontaneously and randomly to lower energy levels. This is the
case even with man-made light sources such as incandescent and
fluorescent lamps and television sets. This spontaneous emission
is certainly not sufficient to cause laser action. For laser action, it is
necessary to stimulate the emission by photons of exactly the right
energy.
The simplest way to get a photon with the right energy, at the
right place, and at the right time is to use the photon from an
excited identical atom or molecule. However, to initiate a new
transition, it is necessary that the receiving atom be in an excited
state; otherwise, the photon would simply be absorbed and would
not stimulate the emission of an identical photon. Thus, the atoms
must be in an upper energy level. The greater the number of atoms
in the upper energy level compared to that in the lower level, the
greater will be the number of photons that can stimulate further
emission than being absorbed. This is the inverse of the normal
situation, in which more atoms are in the lower level than in the
higher level. For this reason, the whole situation is called a
population inversion.
There are two ways to accomplish a population inversion.
One way is to enrich the higher orbits with electrons, and the other
is to depopulate the lowest energy levels. If too many atoms or
molecules are in a low level, this can end the population inversion
and, thus, put an end to laser action. It is, therefore, necessary to
both populate the upper level and depopulate the lower level at the
same time if the laser is to operate continuously and not only with
very short pulses. When a population inversion has been
achieved, it must have a very "long" lifetime. In this context, long
may be only a microsecond or millisecond, but this is much longer
than is normal with spontaneous emission, in which case the
lifetime of the excited state is On the order of nanoseconds. This
long-lived excited state or level is called a metastable level.
Light and electricity are the most common ways to cause
excitation to a higher level. When atoms absorb energy, they
18 One

normally first reach a highly excited level and then spontaneously

drop to the metastable level. When emission is stimulated from
the metastable level to an empty lower energy orbit, the atom's
energy level drops to a new and lower level above the ground state.
This is a very simplified description of the whole process, but it
will serve as a background for the following presentation of how
different lasers work.

BASIC LASER FUNCTION AND LASER COMPONENTS

Only three basic components are really necessary for laser

action: a lasing medium, a pumping system which supplies
energy to the lasing medium, and a resonant optical cavity.
Lenses, mirrors, shutters, saturable absorbers, and other accesso-
ries may be added to the system to obtain more power, shorter
pulses, or special beam shapes. There are many solid, liquid, and
gas materials which may serve as a lasing medium. The important
thing is that the material must have atoms with at least one
metastable level that lasts long enough for the population inver-
sion to take place. Although laser action is possible with stimu-
lated emission between two levels-a metastable energy level and
the ground energy level-most lasers use more levels. Some lasers
can simultaneously operate on many slightly different wave-
lengths, as the upper and lower energy levels may be divided into
several sublevels. This is the case with the carbon dioxide (C0 2)
laser, which is important in the high-energy laser weapons field.
The energy source may furnish energy to the laser-often
called pumping-by optical, electrical, chemical, or nuclear
methods. When the pumping system supplies energy to the
lasing medium, the energy is stored in the form of electrons
trapped in the metastable energy levels until a population inver-
sion exists that is sufficient to enable laser action.
The pumping method that was originally used and is proba-
bly the least complicated is optical pumping. Theodore Maiman
used it in the first laser ever built. Optical pumping is the use of
 Laser Technology 19

photons for excitation. Optical pumping can use an electron

flashtube filled with xenon gas or another laser or any other very
strong source of light such as the sun. The lasing medium is
exposed to light at the right wavelength to raise the atoms or
molecules from the ground energy level to an excited energy level.
Many lasers may be optically pumped with a flashtube, which
emits a wide range of wavelengths. On the other hand, some
lasers require pumping with photons in a very narrow range or
band of energies, which can be accomplished by using another
laser, generally of shorter wavelength than the one being pumped.
Although flashtube pumping sources produce only pulses of laser
action, continuous light sources can produce continuous-wave
(CW) laser output.
Electron collision pumping (electrical pumping) is achieved
by passing an electric current through the lasing medium. Lasers
in which the lasing medium is a gas often use electrical pumping.
When the electric current passes through the gas, it excites atoms
and molecules, raising them to the excited energy level. Some gas
lasers that use electrical pumping can produce beams that have
CW laser output as long as the current passes through the gas.
Electron collision pumping is also used to excite semiconductor
action to produce laser action.
Chemical pumping is based on energy that is released in the
making and breaking of chemical bonds, that is, in chemical
reactions. Nuclear pumping means that the atoms and molecules
capture the energy produced by nuclear reactions. Another quite
different energy source is used in free-electron lasers, where a
beam of electrons has energy taken from it as it passes through an
array of magnets. All of these methods differ greatly from conven-
tional optical and electrical pumping.
When population inversion is reached with the help of the
pumping system, a few electrons decay spontaneously from the
metastable level to a lower energy level and emit photons. A chain
reaction starts when these photons hit other atoms or molecules
and stimulate them to make the transition to lower energy levels,
emitting photons of precisely the same wavelength, phase, and
20 One

direction. To make this possible, the reaction must take place in a

resonant optical cavity formed by mirrors that bounce the energy
back and forth in a precisely regulated fashion. This helps amplify
stimulated emission by reflecting some of the photons back into
the lasing medium, which is achieved by using a mirror at each
end of the cavity so that the beam passes through the lasing
medium many times, and, thereby, the number of emitted pho-
tons is increased at each passage. To allow the laser beam to be
transmitted out of the cavity, one of the mirrors is only partially
reflecting and thus splits the light into one part reflected back into
the cavity and another which is emitted as the laser beam.
The shape and arrangement of the mirrors in the optical
cavity can differ among the various lasers. Two flat and parallel
mirrors may seem to be a simple solution. However, these mirrors
have to be parallel within a very high degree of precision in order
to reflect the light rays back and forth between the mirrors without
the unnecessary losses caused by even a slight misalignment. One
way to avoid this problem is to use one or two curved mirrors. This
method not only has the advantage of coping with misalignment,
because the curvature focuses the light back to the other mirror,
but even has the advantage of making use of light rays that are not
exactly parallel to the axis of the cavity, as the curved mirror
reflects most of the rays back into the cavity.
It should be noted that there are many solid, liquid, and gas
materials which may serve as a lasing medium and many ways to
provide energy to the lasing medium by optical, electrical, chemi-
cal, and nuclear methods. Furthermore, it is possible to arrange
the resonant optical cavity in widely different ways. The possi-
bility of choosing among these different materials and methods
has led to the development of many types of lasers, and, as a
consequence, laser beams may differ greatly in power, wave-
length, detectability, and timing characteristics.
The selection of these materials and methods is critical when
it comes to the design of laser weapons. The conditions within the
resonant optical cavity affect the distribution of energy within the
 Laser Technology 21

laser beam, which in turn determines how the laser beam will
penetrate the atmosphere while traveling to its target. These
factors will be discussed more fully in the following sections.

THE LASER BEAM

The laser beam has many unique qualities which can be

manipulated in many ways by the use of different accessories that
are added to the basic laser. The beam is characterized by its
collimation, coherence, monochromaticity, speed, and intensity.
Although beams from other light sources may possess some of
these to a high degree, only the laser beam can possess all at the
same time. This unique combination is the basis for many types of
laser weapons and other military applications.
Collimation in a laser can be very high, which means that the
radiation emitted by most lasers is confined to a very narrow
beam which slowly diverges or fans out as the beam moves away
from the laser source. The beam divergence is usually measured
starting from the output end of the laser cavity. Calculating the
beam size is a matter of elementary geometrical considerations.
The beam divergence is normally a small enough angle so that the
approximation holds that the sine and the tangent of the diver-
gence angle have the same value, with the angle itself expressed in
milliradians. The spreading out or divergence of most laser beams
within battlefield distances is very small and is usually expressed
as an angle from the source in milliradians (a milliradian diver-
gence would mean that a beam would be 1 yard wide at 1,000 yards
range, 2 yards wide at 2,000 yards, and so forth). Due to the wave
nature of light, it is not possible to construct a laser that produces a
perfectly collimated beam, that is, with no divergence. However,
the divergence of a laser beam may be made much smaller than is
possible with any other source of optical radiation now available.
If the laser designer wants this laser beam to be focused as
much as possible on a small spot at long distances, the reciprocal
22 One

relationship between divergence and the size of the output optics

is used. When a beam with a very small divergence is required,
large lenses must be used on the output of the laser. However, it is
not possible to focus a laser beam to an exact point by using any
real lenses. With ordinary lenses, the focal spot may not be smaller
than a few times the wavelength of light. For most military
purposes, this is certainly more than sufficient. In some high-
energy laser weapon systems, a concave mirror is used to focus as
much energy on the target as possible. As will be described in a
later chapter, this is not without its own difficulties.
The laser is an excellent producer of coherent light compared
to other light sources. The laser beam consists of an intense
stream of electromagnetic waves, all of which have exactly the
same frequency, phase, and direction of motion. This is due to the
chain reaction whereby photons hit atoms or molecules, stimulat-
ing them to make the transition to lower energy levels, and the
stimulated emission itself yields new photons of very nearly the
same wavelength, phase, and direction. However, there are small
variations in wavelength which, after a comparatively long dis-
tance, cause the temporal coherence to change significantly. The
time over which the phase does not change is called the temporal
coherence time. For laser beams, this may be kilometers or more.
In different parts of the laser beam, the light waves may not have
the same starting point, which disturbs the spatial coherence. The
property of spatial coherence is essential to weapons applications,
because a beam of light must be intense and well collimated in
order to cause damage.
Laser light is often said to be monochromatic, that is, nearly
of a single wavelength, and thus consists of a single color. How-
ever, there are usually small variations in wavelength (about a
central one) which, after a comparatively long time, cause the
temporal coherence or phase to change significantly. The time over
which the phase does not change is called the temporal coherence
time, and, if it is multiplied by the speed of light, the temporal
coherence length is obtained. For laser beams, this may be kilome-
ters or more. This slight variation is not important for any military
 Laser Technology 23

application at present. Nevertheless, most lasers emit light over a

range of wavelengths. It is up to the user to decide what opera-
tional requirements are necessary to determine exactly which
laser wavelength among those possible is really needed. The
designer of the specific laser may then, by using the appropriate
laser optics, limit the emitted wavelengths to only one and, thus,
make a monochromatic laser. It is possible to design lasers which
emit laser energy at several wavelengths simultaneously. It is also
possible to have a laser that is tunable continuously within a band,
which could be important for some future laser weapon applica-
tions where any protective or countermeasures depend upon the
laser wavelength being known beforehand with a high degree of
accuracy.
The dye laser is one type of laser which may be tuned within a
specific part of the optical radiation band. The tuning band for a
specific dye may be found within the visible or the near-infrared
part of the spectrum. There may be only a rather narrow tuning
range for each specific dye used in the laser, typically, 50-100
nanometers. For example, one dye may allow tuning of the laser
within the orange part of the spectrum, but obtaining a wave-
length in another part of the spectrum requires changing the dye.
Another way to change the wavelength in a laser is to use the
principle discovered by the physicist C. V. Raman. Although most
of the light in a laser beam that is reflected from atoms or
molecules is of unchanged frequency, a small part of the light has a
different frequency. This fluctuation is created by combining en-
ergy such as the heat absorbed from the environment with the
original energy from the pump. This change in wavelength is
referred to as Raman shifting. In some laser applications, a
Raman-shifted wavelength may be selected' and emphasized.
There are other laser applications that also allow for the selection
or tuning of one wavelength among a variety of others that may be
possible for a given laser medium.
The speed of the laser beam is enormous; the energy moves
within the beam at the speed of light, which is roughly 180,000
miles (300 million meters) per second. For purposes of compari-
24 One

son, a supersonic missile has a speed of between 1,200 and 1,300

yards (1,100 and 1,200 meters) per second, while an attacking
aircraft flies at 275-330 yards (250 to 300 meters) per second, and a
helicopter at something like 100 yards per second. For this reason,
the laser beam in a weapon may be considered to take a negligible
time to arrive at the target or is spoken of as a zero-time-of-flight
weapon. Speed is certainly one of the main advantages of the laser
in weapons applications.
Lasers can operate in the continuous-wave (CW) mode or the
pulsed mode. The mode of operation depends on whether the
pump energy is CW or pulsed. A CW mode laser emits light
steadily as long as it is turned on. A pulsed mode laser can have
either one single pulse or repeated pulses, possibly on a regular
basis in a train. The pulse repetition frequency (PRF) is the
number of pulses a laser produces in a given time. The duration of
the pulse (or pulse width) and the PRF may vary immensely
between different lasers. Lasers are available with a PRF as high as
several hundreds of thousands or millions of pulses per second. In
a visible beam, such a pulsation will not be seen by the human
eye, and the beam will appear to be CWO
One of the most important factors to a designer and user of
laser weapons is the energy level delivered by the laser beam.
Energy is the power emitted by a laser within a given time. The
following equation can be used to calculate the intensity of the
beam:

E=Pxt
where E is the energy in joules, P is power in watts, and t is time in
seconds. The energy of repetitively pulsed lasers is calculated
using the average power level emitted over a standard interval,
which is usually one second. However, the energy level differs
greatly among lasers. A high-energy laser weapon designed to
down aircraft from several miles away may have several megawatts
of power, while a low-energy helium-neon laser such as is used in
a lecture hall pointer or a supermarket scanner usually has only a
 Laser Technology 25

milliwatt or less of average CW power, although the CW power of a

helium-neon laser can be as much as 50 milliwatts.
The highest level of power-the peak power-of each pulse
can be considerably increased by rotating one end of a mirror or
placing a shutter in front of it. The laser medium becomes excited,
and a population inversion is produced which will not be depleted
in a laser pulse until the mirror is unblocked. This means that the
beam can be turned on for a few nanoseconds to a few micro-
seconds. The total energy in every pulse is less than if the laser
was operating with a longer pulse, but the energy is delivered in
such a short time that the peak power of the pulse will be much
higher than the laser could otherwise produce. This procedure is
normally called Q-switching. Q-switched lasers can deliver very
high peak powers-several megawatts or even gigawatts. A tech-
nique called mode locking produces even shorter pulses of a few
nanoseconds. This means that a mode-locked laser will deliver a
much higher peak power than a Q-switched laser with the same
energy per pulse.
The laser beam is not homogeneous. The intensity drops off
with distance from the center of the beam, and there are areas
within the beam where the power level is much greater than the
average across the beam. These areas are called hot spots, and the
power level in these areas may, under some conditions, be 100
times higher than the average beam power level. Hot spots may be
caused by inhomogeneities in the laser cavity, imperfections in
the mirrors and lenses, or certain atmospheric conditions. The
weather has an influence on the laser beam, and its effect is
dependent upon the specific atmospheric conditions, laser proper-
ties, and energy level.
It should be kept in mind that the characteristics of a laser
beam may vary enormously. This is very important when it comes
to designing laser weapons of different types. For example, in an
antipersonnel laser, the interaction of laser radiation with a biolog-
ical system may make the pulsed-mode characteristics the more
desirable choice. One way to change the characteristics of the laser
beam is by changing the laser material.
26 One

TYPES OF LASERS

A laser is often classified according to the type of material

used in its optical cavity. A solid-state laser uses crystalline or
glass material, while a gas laser uses a pure gas or a mixture of
gases. A semiconductor (diode) laser uses a specialized semicon-
ductor material, and a liquid laser uses an organic or other type of
dye in a liquid solution. Free-electron lasers (FEL) and X-ray lasers
are other important laser designs. It is important to understand
how these various lasers work, as the possibilities of designing
and fielding laser weapons are tightly bound with the wide array
of technology offered by different lasers. Those who want to have
a closer look at the technical aspects of lasers may find it useful
to read, for example, Understanding Lasers by Jeff Hecht published
in 1988 by Howard W. Sams Company, Indianapolis, or Safety
with Lasers and Other Optical Sources by D. H. Sliney and M. L.
Wolbarsht, published in 1980 by Plenum Publishing Corporation,
New York.

Solid-State Lasers
Solid-state lasers use a solid rod made up of the crystal or
special glass that contains (or is "doped with") the atoms that
absorb. The pump energy causes the population inversion and
stimulates laser action. The characteristics of the different solid-
state lasers depend on the active material used as well as on the
substrate or host material. There are many suitable active mate-
rials such as the elements chromium, neodymium, erbium,
holmium, cerium, cobalt, and titanium in a solid host material
such as glass or an artificial crystal, for example, types of garnet or
sapphires. In a ruby laser, chromium is the active material just as
in the natural ruby gemstone. So far, neodymium is the active
material that has found the most widespread applications. The
solid-state laser almost always employs optical pumping by a flash
lamp, arc lamp, or another laser. If the laser is pumped by a lamp,
 Laser Technology 27

all the walls of the cavity are reflective and contain both the rod
and the lamp. Q-switching is often used to shorten the pulses.
The very first laser was made from a synthetic ruby. The ruby
was made by doping aluminum oxide with 0.01-0.5% chromium.
The aluminum oxide crystal is the same material as the mineral
clear sapphire, and the chromium atoms color it red or pink.
Chemically, the ruby laser rod is the same as the mineral or
gemstone ruby. The ruby laser emits a laser beam with a visible
wavelength of 693.4 nanometers and produces a deep red light.
The ruby laser is often Q-switched and produces short pulses of
15-20 nanoseconds duration with a pulse energy of something
like 10-15 joules. The pulse repetition frequency is low, somewhat
limiting the types of applications, but the laser may be made rather
small and handy. Thus, ruby lasers found useful military applica-
tions as range finders in the early sixties and are still used for that
purpose today.
The ruby rod has been replaced in many solid-state laser
designs by neodymium atoms in a glass or crystalline material.
Neodymium is the most common material used in solid-state
lasers. Two of the most common lasers are Nd:YAG and Nd:glass
lasers. The former is used more often and contains yttrium-
aluminum garnet (YAG), which is a hard and brittle crystal, as the
host material. Neodymium-doped glass is the second most used
design. The wavelengths for the different neodymium lasers may
vary slightly.
It is possible to use the neodymium laser for many military
and civilian purposes by adding a variety of accessories. The
wavelength and the pulse duration can be varied considerably.
Certain types of interactions between the laser energy and various
crystalline materials double the laser electromagnetic frequency.
Doubling the frequency is the same as halving the Wavelength,
and thus the laser emission shifts from 1,064 .nanometers (infra-
red) to 532 nanometers (green). The laser wavelength is thus
moved from the near-infrared part of the spectrum to the visible. It
is possible in this way to divide the wavelength also by three down
to 354.7 nanometers and by four down to 266 nanometers, well
28 One

within the ultraviolet part of the spectrum. These possibilities

certainly make neodymium lasers usable for a tremendous variety
of applications. Q-switching is often used in Nd:YAG lasers to
achieve short pulses (10-20 nanoseconds) with high peak power
(over 100 megawatts).
Neodymium lasers are widely used for military purposes as
range finders and target designators. They are particularly well
suited to these functions, since they can be made battery-
powered, small, and handy. Furthermore, such devices can meet
most rigorous military requirements such as reliability for outdoor
use and resistance to temperature variations and other battlefield
hardships.
Some solid-state lasers are tunable over a range of many
wavelengths, as they emit laser energy whenever an excited atom
drops from the upper level to a closely spaced group of lower
levels above the ground state, usually called vibronic bands.
Vibronic solid-state lasers are significant from a military stand-
point, since their tunability is of critical importance when it comes
to low-energy anti-eye laser weapons.
A good example of this type of laser is the alexandrite laser.
Alexandrite lasers have been used mainly for research, with no
widespread applications as yet. The basic host material is a syn-
thetic form of a mineral known as alexandrite, and the active
material added to the host is chromium. Alexandrite lasers can be
tuned to wavelengths between 700 and 830 nanometers in the
near-infrared part of the spectrum, and Raman shifting can effi-
ciently convert this output to wavelengths within the visible part
of the spectrum. This laser may be pulsed or operated continu-
ously. The average power in a pulsed configuration may reach 100
watts. Some possible uses will be discussed in later chapters.
Another tunable solid-state laser is titanium in a sapphire
host, termed a Ti-sapphire laser. The basic host material, alumi-
num oxide, is codoped with titanium and chromium. This laser
can be operated in either the pulsed or the CW mode and is
tunable from 660 nanometers in the visible up to 1,160 nanometers
in the infrared. With frequency doubling, even shorter wave-
 Laser Technology 29

lengths can be generated. The output power has been reported to

be around 15 watts.
A list of solid-state lasers and their typical operating wave-
lengths is given in Table 1.1. These are lasers commonly used in
range finders and target designators.

Gas Lasers
Gas lasers use a pure gas or a mixture of gases to produce a
beam, and there are many varieties on the market with very
different properties. The emitted power can range from a thou-
sandth of a watt up to millions of watts in pulses or CW form. The
wavelengths produced by these lasers range from the ultraviolet-
where an argon fluoride excimer laser emits at 193 nanometers-
and continues through the visible and far into the infrared portion
of the spectrum, where lasers can be found in the 30,000-
1,000,000 nanometer region. The gas laser family includes a car-
bon dioxide laser (9,000-11,000 nanometers or 9-11 micrometers)

TABLE 1.1. Solid-State Lasers

Wavelength
Name (nanometers) Typical operation
Alexandrite 700-830 PulsedlCW tunable
Erbium 850/1230/1540/1730/2900 Pulsed
Holmium: glass 1950 Pulsed
Neodymium 1064/11231131811370 Pulsed
Quad 266 Pulsed
Trip 354.7 Pulsed
Doubled 532 Pulsed
Neodymium: glass 1060 Pulsed
Neodymium: YAG 1064.5 PulsedlCW
Ruby 694.3 Pulsed
Quad 173.6 Pulsed
llip 231.4 Pulsed
Titanium-sapphire 660-1060 PulsedlCW tunable
30 One

which for many years has been one of the crucial high-energy
lasers used in R&D for high-energy laser weapon applications.
The common gas laser is built around a tube which contains
the gas. Mirrors are placed at each end of the tube. As in other
lasers, one mirror is totally reflecting, while the other transmits
slightly in order to allow the laser beam to leave the tube cavity.
Most gas lasers use electron collision pumping, with an electric
current passing through the gas. However, some gas lasers use
optical pumping with flash lamps, and others use the energy
generated by chemical reactions. A wide range of different pure
gases and mixtures of gases are suitable for laser operation. It is
only necessary that the gas have energy levels that are capable of
achieving population inversion.
One of the best-known gas lasers on the market is the helium-
neon (HeNe) laser. It produces a low-power, bright-red continuous
beam with a wavelength of 632.8 nanometers. The power range is
in the region of 0.1-50 milliwatts. Also, a HeNe laser emitting at a
wavelength of 543.0 nanometers and with a power range of 0.1-1.0
milliwatts has recently become commercially available. It is also
possible to design HeNe lasers with many other output wave-
lengths in the red and near-infrared portions of the spectrum.
There are many reasons for the popularity of the HeNe lasers with
a wavelength of 532 nanometer, the most usual one. They are
simple, cheap, and can be cost-effective for many tasks. The lasers
can work continuously for thousands of hours. Scanning HeNe
lasers are used to read the standard International Product Code,
which is increasingly used to mark packages in retail stores.
Alignment and measurements at construction sites and in survey-
ing are other common uses. Universities and schools train stu-
dents in optical laboratories with HeNe lasers. The HeNe lasers do
not have widespread military use but are found in ring laser
gyroscopes, which are used to stabilize military aircraft and
helicopters and to aid in the navigation of submarines. Such laser
gyros may be made small enough to be suitable to control
precision-guided munitions.
Argon (Ar) and krypton (Kr) lasers are very similar to HeNe
 Laser Technology 31

lasers. They have the same basic design, with electron collision
pumping of the gas, but in this case the lasers use the rare gases
argon and krypton and operate in the CW mode. Argon and
krypton lasers differ from HeNe lasers in that they require active
cooling and other modifications to give them higher power, up to
500 or 1,000 times more than that of HeNe lasers, and they are,
therefore, .quite a bit more expensive than HeNe lasers. The higher
power possibility is one of their main advantages over HeNe
lasers; another is emission at shorter wavelengths, which is neces-
sary for some medical and industrial applications. Argon and
krypton lasers allow for the selection of several wavelengths from
the near-ultraviolet range through the visible region and down
into the near-infrared part of the spectrum. They are used in
medicine by ophthalmologists, mainly for the retina but also for
glaucoma in other parts of the eye, and on the skin by dermatolo-
gists to remove birthmarks and tattoos. A common popular use of
both argon and krypton lasers is to entertain audiences at light
shows. From a laser weapons standpoint, argon lasers must be
considered as possible low-energy anti-eye lasers which can blind
temporarily with flash blindness or permanently by inducing laser
lesions or hemorrhaging.
Helium-cadmium (He Cd) gas lasers use a vaporized metal as
the lasing medium, and they can deliver a CW beam at power
levels between 1.0 and 50.0 milliwatts. There are two possible
wavelengths, 325 nanometers in the ultraviolet and 441.6 nanome-
ters in the blue part of the visible spectrum. The design of the laser
is similar to that of HeNe lasers except that it is necessary to heat
the metal to produce a vapor. These lasers are not very expensive
and have a considerably longer lifetime than argon lasers. There
are other kinds of metal vapor lasers, especially copper and gold,
which do not emit in the CW mode but only in the pulsed mode;
these can have a high average power of between 1 and 50 watts.
The copper vapor laser has two wavelengths, 511 nanometers in
the green and 578 nanometers in the yellow, and the gold vapor
laser has one at 628 nanometers in the red.
The earliest really high power laser was of the gas type, the
32 One

carbon dioxide (C0 2) laser. The first one was built and demon-
strated at Bell Telephone Laboratories by C. Kumar N. Patel in
1961. A CO2 laser produces a beam in the infrared part of the
spectrum at various wavelengths between 9,000 and 12,000
nanometers in either a CW or a pulsed mode. Although the CO 2
laser can operate on many of those wavelengths at the same time
or be confined to a single wavelength, the most often used variety
emits at a single wavelength of 10,600 nm. The efficiency of this
CO2 laser is extremely high compared to that of most other lasers,
as high as 20%, with output powers from a tenth of a watt up to
several megawatts. There are several possible types of CO2 lasers
with different properties, some of which are listed in Table 1.2.
The more powerful CO2 laser types are used for welding, cutting,
and drilling metals and other materials. The high energy attained
by CO2 lasers has encouraged the military to try and develop

TABLE 1.2. Different Types of CO 2 Lasers

Type Design Power Type of output
Sealed-tube A sealed tube; electric <100 W CW
pumping
Waveguide A small tube 1-2 mm <SOW CW
across functions as a
waveguide; gas flow
Longitudinal flow A flow of fresh gas along Several CW
the cavity; electric hundred
pumping watts
Transverse flow A flow of fresh gas 10,000 W CW
transverse to the axis of
the cavity; electric
pumping
Gas dynamic See page 33 Megawatt CW or pulsed
Transversely excited A pulsed electric Pulsed
discharge is passed
through the gas
transversely
 Laser Technology 33

high-energy laser weapons. The gas dynamic CO2 laser has been
and still is the basis for many such military projects.
The CO2 laser differs from most other gas lasers by burning
fuel in oxygen or nitrous oxide instead of passing an electric
current through a gas. This fuel may be a common hydrocarbon
such as kerosene or methane, and the hot gas flows through a
comb of nozzles, expands quickly, and achieves the population
inversion required to amplify the energy. The gas then flows at
supersonic speed through an optical resonator, where stimulated
emission occurs, and the energy is emitted as a laser beam. The
spent gas mixture is released through a diffuser into the atmo-
sphere. The theory is rather simple, but putting it into practice
may be complex. A compact turbine, a many-bladed fan, may
supply the heated gas, while the spent gas carries off most of the
stray heat at the same time. The overall function can be compared
to that of a rocket motor in which the fuel and oxygen are forced
into the combustion chamber under pressure and burned, and
then the waste gases leave under a low pressure and absorb energy
as they expand. In real life, there are a lot of difficulties involved
in the design of a high-energy CO 2 laser weapon-the size
and shape of the nozzles, the gas flow exit, and, not least, how to
get the beam through the atmosphere focused directly on the
target.
Another promising gas laser is the carbon monoxide (CO)
laser. It operates in the wavelength region between 4,800 and 8,000
nanometers at about 70 different wavelengths and is still in the
research phase. There are some difficult practical design problems
to solve before a CO laser will reach the market. A CO laser would
use a continuous beam with high power, and it would, in theory,
be more efficient than a CO 2 laser in converting pump energy into
laser power.
The excimer laser is an important new type of gas laser that
was developed during the mid 1970s. The lasing medium consists
of a mixture of noble gas (neon, argon, xenon, krypton, etc.) and a
halogen (fluorine, chlorine, bromine, etc.). When the two gases
are in the ground state, their atoms exist separately in the mixture.
34 One

When the atoms are excited to the upper level useful for lasers,
molecules are formed, consisting of one atom from each gas. The
laser is pumped with an electric current in short pulses. In
general, an excimer laser beam has a wavelength in the ultraviolet
and operates with short pulses, often less than a nanosecond in
duration. The average power output may be over one hundred
watts. Some typical excimer lasers are the argon fluoride excimer
(ArF) at 193 nanometers, the krypton fluoride excimer (KrF) at 249
nanometers, and the xenon fluoride excimer (XeF) at 350 nanome-
ters. Among other things, this new family of gas lasers is used for
medical applications-ocular and vascular surgery-and in the
electronics manufacturing process. These lasers find widespread
military use in communication systems. One of their advantages
is that they operate on a wavelength suitable for communications
with submerged submarines. The excimer laser has also been a
candidate within the Strategic Defense Initiative (SOl) program for
use from the ground against targets in space with the help of relay
mirrors positioned in space.
The chemical laser is similar to the CO2 laser in that the laser
action is fueled by the combustion of hydrogen with fluorine (HF)
or deuterium with fluorine (OF). The vibrationally excited mole-
cules emit photons, between 2,600 and 3,300 nanometers at more
than 15 different wavelengths in the case of the HF laser and
between 3,800 and 4,200 nanometers at about 25 wavelengths in
the case of the OF laser. A chemical laser can operate in the CW
mode, although the operational time is dependent upon how long
it is possible to have gases flowing rapidly through the laser's
cavity. Chemical lasers are similar to the CO2 and other gas
dynamic lasers and may also be compared with rocket engines.
There is a great deal of military interest in chemical lasers, as it is
possible to generate very high energy. In one concept called
MlRACL (Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser), the U.S. Navy is
said to have reached an output energy of 2.2 megawatts. However,
in spite of reports that MIRACL has destroyed flying target drones,
there are still huge practical problems to overcome.
There are some other gas types of lasers, such as the nitrogen
 Laser Technology 35

laser and the far-infrared lasers, which have wavelengths longer

than 20,000 nm. The nitrogen lasers are similar in type to the
excimer lasers but have a more limited pulse energy. The far-
infrared lasers seem to have very few practical applications.
A list of some of the more common gas lasers and their
properties is given in Table 1.3. It may be noted that the most
powerful lasers are in the infrared-to some extent, the further in
the infrared, the more powerful the laser.

Semiconductor Lasers (Diode Lasers)

lIansistors and solid-state (not gas or liquid) diodes are
examples of conductors that are familiar to all because of their
widespread use in television and radio sets. Under some condi-
tions, certain types of semiconductor diodes can be used in lasers;
when an electric current flows through the junction between the
two materials forming the diode, the electrons are raised into an

TABLE 1.3. Some Typical Gas Lasers and Their Usual Power Ranges
Wavelength Typical
Name (nanometers) Power (watts) operation
Helium-neon 543 0.0001-0.001 CW
632.8 0.0001-0.05 CW
Krypton 350-647 0.001-6.0 CW
Argon 350-514.5 0.001-20.0 CW
Xenon fluoride 351 0.5-30.0 CW
excimer
Argon fluoride 193 0.5-30.0 Pulsed
excimer
Krypton fluoride 249 7.0-100.0 Pulsed
excimer
Deuterium fluoride 3,800-4,200 0.01-100.0 (Megawatts) Pulsed or CW
chemical
Hydrogen fluoride 2,600-3,000 0.01-150.0 (Megawatts) Pulsed or CW
chemical
Carbon dioxide 9,000-12,000 0.1-15,000 (Megawatts) Pulsed or CW
36 One

excited state that will emit light. The technical details of semicon-
ductors are a vast scientific field in itself and are far beyond the
scope of this book.
One of the differences between a semiconductor diode laser
and the types of lasers already discussed in this chapter is that the
beam of a diode laser is rectangular rather than round in cross
section, and it diverges and expands very rapidly. That makes this
laser beam more similar to an incoherent source such as a
searchlight than to a laser, and other optical elements can be
added to focus the beam according to the requirements of a
particular application. A semiconductor laser offers a choice of
wavelengths from 330 nanometers (zinc sulfide) up to 30,000
nanometers (lead salt). Table 1.4 presents an overview of semicon-
d uctor lasers.
Semiconductor lasers are used in huge numbers for compact
disc audio players. They are also used in optical fiber systems such
as telecommunications. New technological developments promise
widespread availability of these lasers with an average power
output from tens to several thousands of milliwatts and at lower
prices. Semiconductor lasers may even be used in weapon guid-
ance systems, in military communications, and in low-power
antipersonnel (anti-eye) weapons.
The most common diode lasers are made of gallium arsenide.
The basic model emits at a wavelength of 904 nanometers. It is
possible to get shorter wavelengths, down to 750 nanometers, by
using aluminum in the mixture. These lasers are of a very well
known design; they are easy to use, and the low-power varieties
are simple and cheap to manufacture. It is possible that gallium
arsenide lasers in the near future will be efficiently frequency
doubled and will thus generate wavelengths in the visible spec-
trum between 400 and 450 nanometers.
The indium gallium arsenide phosphide (InGaAsP) laser was
developed to meet the requirements for longer wavelengths in
conjunction with optical fiber technology. Such a laser may emit a
wavelength somewhere between 1,000 and 1,700 nanometers. The
most common versions have a wavelength of 1,300 nanometers.
A semiconductor laser that may replace the HeNe gas laser in
 Laser Technology 37

TABLE 1.4. Some Typical Semiconductor Lasers

Wavelength
Name (nanometers) Operation Comments
GaInP 670-680
GaAlAs 750-900 Pulsed Best developed; highest power
Lead salt 2,700-30,000

some applications such as reading postal zip codes or product bar

codes at stores is the gallium indium phosphide laser, which emits
in the visible region of the spectrum between 670 and 680 nanome-
ters. It has a long lifetime, estimated at thousands of hours, and it
may ultimately be cheaper and much more rugged than the HeNe
gas laser.

Dye (Liquid) Lasers

One form of tunable laser uses an organic dye in a liquid
solution as the lasing medium. A dye laser may also be pumped
by another laser, for example, an argon, krypton, Nd:YAG, or
nitrogen laser. A flash-lamp-pumped dye laser emits pulses with
a duration from about a microsecond up to 500 microseconds.
Laser-pumped dye lasers can be operated in either the pulsed or
the CW mode, depending upon the mode of operation of the
pumping laser. Each dye laser is tunable within a specific band,
usually in the visible spectrum. If it is necessary to cover a broad
part of the visible spectrum, then a combination of several dyes
has to be used. A dye laser pumped by a pulsed nitrogen (N2)
laser may be tuned between 360 and 650 nanometers, while a CW
argon pump laser allows tuning between 560 and 640 nanometers.
The fundamental output wavelength of the dye laser may be
frequency doubled or tripled as with other laser types. By using
special techniques, a dye laser can emit ultrashort pulses down to
the femtosecond range (10- 15 second). Dye lasers are widely used
in medicine and in research. The medical lasers may be used to
38 One

treat birthmarks or eye problems, and also to shatter kidney

stones. From a military point of view, it is necessary to discuss
under what circumstances these tunable lasers in the visible
spectrum are useful as anti-eye weapons.

Free-Electron Lasers
We can understand the free-electron laser (FEL) by compar-
ing it to other electronic devices which share some common parts.
The basic principle of an FEL is, to a large extent, similar to that
used in a high-voltage linear particle accelerator, in which a beam
of electrons is accelerated to a very high speed by an electric field.
These electrons are alone and free of any atoms. When the
electrons have been sufficiently accelerated, they are passed
through a magnetic field produced by placing a series of magnets
in a row, with every other magnet of reversed polarity. This
magnetic field causes the electron beam and the electrons in it to
wiggle or change direction sharply. As the electrons change direc-
tion, they emit and absorb energy. If the design of the laser is
proper, the electrons will emit more energy than they absorb. The
electrons, after changing directions but before emitting energy,
can be thought of, for comparison purposes, as the population-
inverted energy levels of a conventional laser, and, by stimulated
emission, the "excited" electrons will emit coherent radiation.
This energy output is formed into a laser beam in a conventional
way by the use of mirrors in a resonator cavity.
FEL technology is still very much in a research phase. If all
practical difficulties can be solved, the main advantages will be
extremely high efficiency, tunability over a very broad part of the
spectrum, and high intensity. M. Foley, a researcher at Los Alamos
National Laboratory, estimates the efficiency of a highly developed
FEL as 20-24 %, which is really a very high efficiency compared to
that of other tunable lasers. In theory, the wavelength' range
extends all the way from the microwave region to the ultraviolet,
but any particular FEL is limited to only a specific part of that
range. However, even so, this range is much broader than what is
 Laser Technology 39

available with any other tunable laser. The wavelength may be

tuned by changing either the magnet spacing or the speed of the
electron beam. However, the property that has triggered the large
funding for R&D of these lasers is the possibility of generating
extremely high powers which could be used in laser weapons
within the SOl program.
Many difficulties and practical problems have to be solved
before PELs can be considered completely successful. So far,
ultrahigh power levels have not been reached in any of the desir-
able wavelength regions. However, it seems likely that an PEL will
be able to emit an average beam power of several million watts.
The pulse length of an PEL may be very short, in the picosecond
(10- 12 seconds) region. As yet, existing PELs are quite big and
heavy. This means that an PEL weapon cannot be placed in space
but has to be stationary on the ground; therefore, mirrors in space
must redirect the beams onto the incoming target. Current pro-
grams are aimed at designing a much smaller and more compact
PEL that could be tuned between about 1,000 and 10,000 nano-
meters.
PEL technology is far from mature, and it will certainly take
some years before a useful PEL is fielded. However, the PEL's
promise of high power, efficiency, and tunability will certainly put
pressure on those developing PEL technology to make it work.

Miscellaneous Lasers
There are some very specific laser projects whose goal is to
produce very short wavelengths in the X-ray region. One such
project is the development of an X-ray laser pumped by a nuclear
explosion or eventually with an extremely powerful laser operat-
ing with very short pulses. Another possibility, at an even shorter
wavelength, is the gamma-ray laser. These efforts have been made
within the SOl program in response to the military's requirell\ent
for a space-based laser with the ability to kill missiles thousands of
kilometers away. A tremendous number of practical problems
need to be solved before any of these concepts can be considered
40 One

even a limited success. Furthermore, these lasers require pump-

ing by a nuclear explosion or by a giant laser. At this time, none of
the designs can be considered suitable for battlefield laser
weapons. However, a lot of money has been relegated to such laser
projects for "space war," and certainly more will be in the future.

CIVILIAN LASER APPLICATIONS

Lasers are being used to an ever increasing extent in everyday

civilian life. The reason for this is the availability of suitable and
cost-effective lasers for many applications. The opportunity to
choose a wavelength, mode of operation, and power requirement
all suited to a very specific task is now a reality. Below, some
examples are presented that illustrate how frequently lasers are
now used outside of the military. The laser industry is a massive,
worldwide phenomenon that is steadily growing. All highly in-
dustrialized countries have some R&D programs, in addition to
their own well-developed laser manufacturing facilities, while
almost all other countries have the beginnings of some kind of
laser industry.
Lasers are used in medicine for many delicate tasks. The use
of lasers for the treatment of various diseases in the eye is perhaps
one of the more commonly known applications. Ophthalmologists
may repair a detached retina, photo coagulate large portions of the
retina to control diabetic vascular pathology, seal leaking blood
vessels, photocoagulate the eye to lower the intraocular pressure
in glaucoma, or puncture a doudy membrane. In the future,
perhaps, the cornea may be sculptured to correct refractive errors
with the help of a laser. This could eliminate the need for most
spectacles and contact lenses. For these different treatments, CO 2 ,
argon, neodymium, dye, and excimer lasers can be used. Sur-
geons may use a laser as a surgical knife, removing tissue with, for
example, a CO2 laser beam. Birthmarks may be removed by
dermatologists using an argon or dye laser. Kidney stones can be
shattered by a pulsed dye laser, with the energy carried through
 Laser Technology 41

an optical fiber to the kidney stone. Other medical uses are

destruction of some cancer cells and treatment of bleeding ulcers
in the stomach as well as in various types of diagnostic work. This
is only a brief sample of a myriad of medical applications for
lasers. There will certainly be even more as new applications
constantly emerge in the field of laser treatments.
Lasers are also used in construction for alignment, leveling,
and surveying. Alignment lasers may be used in mining, tunnel
construction, pipe installation, and road work. The lasers used for
this purpose are normally HeNe lasers with a visible red beam,
but semiconductor diode lasers may supplant most of these.
Lasers can be used industrially for precision drilling, mark-
ing, and welding and cutting of many metals, plastics, and even
diamonds. The properties of the specific laser that should be used
in each case are dependent upon the task and the material that is
being worked with. The effect of the laser is usually thermal,
which means that it is necessary to use a laser with a wavelength
that is heavily absorbed by the target material. For a given mate-
rial, the differences in absorption between various wavelengths
are often quite large. As an example, for copper as the target
material, the argon laser is absorbed 56% at 500 nanometers, the
ruby laser 17% at 694 nanometers, the Nd:YAG laser 10% at 1,064
nanometers, and the CO2 laser 1.5% at 10,600 nanometers.
Lasers are also used in the printing industry, in the manufac-
ture of electronics, in reading information on reflective compact
discs and video discs, in optical fiber communication, in optical
computers, in laser displays and laser art, and in supermarkets to
read the International Standard Product Code on packages.

SUMMARY

Present-day laser technology is very extensive and diver-

sified, and, within certain limits, it allows for many civilian as well
as military applications. Military staff, defense research insti-
tutes, and defense industries are constantly looking for new laser
42 One

concepts that are suitable for military application and that will
fulfill the very tough but realistic battlefield requirements. Many
new military laser systems will most certainly be designed and
fielded, and most countries already have a laser industry to back
up their military needs. Thus, if and when realistic battlefield laser
weapons concepts pass through the research and development
phase, there will be a strong laser industry already in existence to
mass-produce these weapons.
 TWO

Current Military Applications

The scientific work during the 1950s that led to the invention of the
laser was followed closely by work in military research institutes
all over the world. Much of the industrial and academic work was
financed through military budgets and directed by military staffs. '
As soon as Theodore Maiman presented the first demonstration of
a working laser, military staff officers and planners tried to investi-
gate what military advantages could be gained from the new
invention. Although in the beginning quite a few of them thought
that they had a possible new weapon, it soon became clear that the
available lasers were more likely to be used as tools for improving
the efficiency of conventional weapons on the battlefield. That is
exactly what happened at first. Lasers have found many military
applications, not as new weapons, but rather as the supporting
technology to enhance the performance of other weapons.
It was not until the 1970s that the possibility of laser weapons
again captured the imagination of military planners. High-energy
lasers finally became a reality, and the possibility of using them for
laser weapons has been investigated vigorously ever since.

43
44 Two

MILITARY LASER RANGE FINDERS

Range finding was the first military application of the new

laser technology. Operational range finders were introduced into
the armed forces as early as the mid-sixties, only five years after
Theodore Maiman presented the first working laser. Many of
these early field-model laser range finders are still in use today.
Since then, thousands and thousands of laser range finders have
been delivered to the defense forces in many countries all over the
world. Today, laser range finders are a necessary part of most
modern fire control systems, and a hand-held version is an indis-
pensable aid to the modern infantry.
The availability of accurate and quick information on what the
distance is between the target and weapon is essential to achieve a
high hit probability with direct-line-of-sight weapons including
tank and antitank guns, antiaircraft guns, and many weapons and
guns carried on airplanes and ships. The probability of hitting the
target with the first round fired is substantially higher if the firing
distance is known accurately rather than if the gun crew has to act
on information that contains some degree of error. Of course, the
laser is not the only range-finding method available. Before the
laser, optical type range finders were extensively used, but they
are simply not as reliable or as accurate as laser range finders.
Optical range finders are also difficult to operate, slow, and rather
expensive compared to laser range finders. Radar is another
possible method but again is more expensive and certainly bulkier
and somewhat less accurate than a laser range finder. Laser range
finders are small, highly accurate, low in weight, and, at least in
some versions, comparatively cheap. For these reasons, they are
completely replacing the older optical range finders. Lasers are
used for range finding in all military service branches, on land, at
sea, and in the air-even replacing radar in many cases.
The principle behind laser range finders is rather simple. A
very short laser pulse-about 10 to 30 nanoseconds-is emitted
toward the target, and the time is measured until a reflected signal
is returned. As the speed of the laser pulse is known precisely, it is
 Current Military Applications 45

possible to calculate the distance to the target with great accuracy.

When the trigger of the laser is pulled, a storage capacitor provides
energy to the laser and also gives a reference pulse of light to be
used as a start signal by the high-speed calculator. The laser beam
is reflected from the target, and a tiny fraction of that reflected
energy reaches the collecting optics (a telescope) and is focused on
a laser detector. The resulting signal from the detector is amplified
and compared to a reference standard to determine whether or not
the signal is strong enough to be the "true" echo. Otherwise, the
ambient light that reaches the detector could trigger a false signal.
The calculator gives the time between outgoing and incoming laser
light by counting the pulses from a quartz-controlled clock. The
distance calculated by this procedure is usually within one per-
cent of the true value.
Almost all laser range finders on the battlefield today are
based on solid-state laser technology. A flash-lamp-pumped solid-
state laser generates a train of pulses, each lasting several micro-
seconds. This type of output is almost useless for range finding,
and the lasers therefore have to be Q-switched to get even shorter
pulses-approximately 10 nanoseconds long. The first laser range
finder used a single-pulsed ruby laser operating at a wavelength of
694.3 nanometers. Although ruby lasers, both single and repeti-
tively pulsed, are still used fairly often in tanks and in other
weapon systems, the most common range finder in use today
employs an Nd:YAG or Nd:glass laser with an output wavelength
of 1,064 nanometers.
One of the disadvantages of both the ruby and the Nd:YAG
range finder is the hazard to the human eye. This danger will be
described in detail in Chapter 6 in the context of possible anti-eye
laser weapons. The eye hazard makes it difficult or impossible to
use ruby and neodymium lasers. These lasers can only be used on
closed rifle or artillery ranges or within military training areas
using very strict range-type safety regulations similar to those
used in the firing of direct-line-of-sight weapons such as rifles,
machine guns, and antitank guns. This limitation has resulted in
the R&D of several varieties of laser range finders that are safe to
46 Two

the eye for use where range-type safety regulations cannot be

enforced. One example is the CO 2 range finder at 10,600 nanome-
ters, which, at power levels adequate for range finding, is per-
fectly safe to the eye. The CO2 laser range finder also has other
advantages such as better penetration through smoke and better
spectral compatibility with the increasingly employed infrared
sensors. Special amplifiers for the detector signal extend the range
but are expensive options. The major drawbacks to the CO2 laser
range finders are their high cost and limited range for ground-to-
ground use due to the reduced transmission through the moist air
layer next to the ground. The high cost is due not only to the high
procurement price but also to their complexity, which raises
maintenance costs sharply. The CO2 laser will not completely
replace the Nd:YAG laser. Still, CO2 laser range finders will proba-
bly be fielded, for example, in tanks as an integrated part of the
fire control equipment, which also contains a thermal sight that
can use the CO2 laser to illuminate or mark the target.
Other options for eye-safe lasers in addition to the CO2 laser
are the erbium:YAG laser, a solid-state laser at 1,540 nanometers,
and a Raman-shifted Nd:YAG laser whose wavelength is changed
by a pressurized gas cell from 1,064 to 1,540 nanometers. The latter
wavelength is in a region safe for the human eye in low-energy
applications. Another alternative is a semiconductor laser emitting
between 1,500 and 1,600 nanometers. None of these alternatives is
as efficient as an Nd:YAG laser, but when the amount of energy
used to supply the range finder is of little or no significance,
erbium or similar laser types may be used. However, for battlefield
tasks that require a laser range finder with high pulse repetition
frequency, there is really no alternative to the Nd:YAG laser at
present.
Laser range finders made today are used separately or are
integrated into larger, more sophisticated fire control equipment.
Small hand-held laser range finders, the size and shape of an
ordinary pair of binoculars, are now in use. An excellent example
of such a laser is the British Laser Gage LP 7. It is an Nd:YAG laser
which can measure up to 6 miles with a resolution of 5 yards. It is
 Current Military Applications 47

battery driven and is said to be able to fire at least 600 ranging

shots without a battery change. This laser range finder is being
used in many countries in increasing numbers by infantry for-
ward scouts and forward artillery controllers. Fire control teams
that direct mortar and artillery action, antitank weapon crews, and
many others on the battlefield need to know the distance to
various targets as well as important terrain features. The LP 7 is
proof that it is possible to mass-produce laser equipment which
fulfills rigid military requirements. Other hand-held range finders
similar in function and quality to the LP 7 are also available such as
the US. AN/GVS5 and the Yugoslavian RLD.
Even bigger lasers that have more power than the hand-held
models, yet still can be classified as portable, may be used on a
vehicle or placed on the ground on a tripod. One example of such a
laser is the Soviet KTD-1 Nd:YAG laser range finder. This range
finder is reported to be capable of measuring distances between
100 and 10,000 meters depending on the target. With a target area
of 0.2 square yards, the range will be nearly H miles. For a target
the size of a tank, the range will be something like 5 miles, and a
building will be reliably ranged out to about 10 miles. Further-
more, this particular range finder is reported as being capable of
working in temperatures ranging from -40° toJ45°F and from sea
level up to 21 miles. Its laser is said to have a lifetime of 100,000
measurements. Similar laser range finders are produced in the
West, and these are mostly used by artillery control teams.
Modern fire control and surveillance systems often combine
laser range finders with direct sighting systems such as television
cameras or night vision equipment. This means that most armored
fighting vehicles and helicopters, warships, and aircraft will have
systems which include a laser range finder. Swedish tanks, similar
to many other tanks, have Nd:YAG range finders. Older tanks
such as the US. M60 have ruby laser range finders, and the latest
tank designs incorporate CO2 laser range finders. The UK. Royal
Air Force has a Laser Ranger and Marked Target Seeker (LRMTS)
in service on the Harrier and Jaguar attack aircraft. The LRMTS
includes a Nd:YAG laser range finder which offers the pilot a
48 Two

maximum measuring distance of 5! miles. This is just one of many

integrated fire control systems for aircraft that also includes a laser
range finder.

LASER TRACKERS

Most laser range finders operate with a single-shot tech-

nique-the operator finds the distance to the target by aiming the
range finder, pressing the trigger, and watching as the measured
distance appears on his display. This is fine for a stationary or
slowly moving target such as a tank, but it is not satisfactory when
it comes to a rapidly moving enemy aircraft, missile, or helicopter.
It is necessary to track such targets and to get nearly continuous
information on the distance to the target as it quickly changes. To
get real-time information on the engagement range, it is necessary
to update the information at least 10 to 20 times a second. This
problem can be solved by using a high-repetition-rate laser range
finder. High-repetition-rate range finders pose some design prob-
lems as compared to the single-shot range finders. The rather
simple single-shot device has to make comparatively few shots
during its entire lifetime, while the high-repetition-rate laser
range finder will make millions. For example, a 20 pulse per
second high-repetition-rate range finder in one hour of continuous
use will emit 72,000 pulses, as opposed to about 100 pulses for a
single-shot range finder. The design of such range finders is,
therefore, much more sophisticated. Also, the high-repetition-rate
laser needs a longer range in order to follow fast-moving enemy
targets at distances of more than six miles. Thus, if the laser range
finder is to have the same reliability as the rest of the fire control
system, its expense will be much higher than that of the single-
shot hand-held device.
The high-repetition-rate laser is used in antiaircraft and anti-
missile systems, especially to track and shoot down low-flying
aircraft and sea-skimming missiles. This has led to the design of a
laser range finder that can help in tracking this special type of
 Current Military Applications 49

target. The laser detector is split into four quadrants to give the
strength of the incoming signal from the target relative to the laser
beam. The angular direction information is used to direct the
platform upon which the fire control equipment is placed. The
tracking accuracy is better than 0:3 milliradians at ranges of up to
3l miles. It is highly probable that the laser missile tracking
technique will be developed further, allowing longer engagement
distances for very small and fast targets. The present trackers
have, in bad weather at least, a rather limited maximum range for
tracking these small and elusive targets.

LASER TARGET DESIGNATORS

There has always been a military need for weapons capable of

pinpoint accuracy. This is especially true when the target is small
and well defended. Until now, there have only been two alterna-
tive ways to deal with this kind of military situation-either get
close enough to the target to make certain of a hit or use some kind
of blanket bombing or shelling over a fairly large area. Closing in
on the target may be extremely dangerous if it is well defended
and could lead to a high casualty rate. On the other hand,
bombing or shelling may not be effective in destroying the target
or may require excessive amounts of ammunition. This has forced
the military into the development of smart bombs or shells which
can easily pinpoint specific targets. The laser target designator is
an important part of most of these sophisticated munitions sys-
tems.
In smart munitions systems, a coded laser beam from the
laser target designator is directed at the target. The reflected
pulses from the target are scattered in many directions. They are
detected by the missile's laser target seeker, which is a sensor on
the head of the missile that responds to the same code as in the
beam. The missile, which normally is fired from a completely
different place, will thus home in on the target and destroy it. The
missile or bomb does not follow the beam from the designator to
50 Two

the target but rather sees a reflection from the target; that is, the
system is not a beam riding type. The coding of the laser beam is
of vital importance. The only equipment that should be able to
read the code is the target seeker in the actual munition. Other-
wise, it would be possible for the enemy to steer the missile away
from the target with its own laser beam. The coded beam also has
the advantage of allowing simultaneous marking or designation of
several different targets in the same area, each with its own
designated missile and each with a different code to prevent
interference between them.
In most cases, the laser used in the target designators is a
pulsed Nd:YAG laser with a very high pulse repetition frequency.
The CO2 laser is an alternative to the Nd:YAG laser, especially
when penetration through smoke and haze is taken into consid-
eration. However, the CO2 laser system is relatively expensive, not
only because of the cost of the laser but also because of the cost of
the laser detector in the missile, which means that the Nd:YAG
laser designator will be the favored choice for a long time.
The laser target designator may be mounted on a tripod to be
portable for use by infantry, as in the case of the British lightweight
ground designator from GEC Ferranti Defense Systems (Fig. 2.1),
or it may be integrated into a more complex stationary fire control
system. Many weapons are already fielded in army, navy, and air
force applications and are guided by laser target designators. The
US. Army uses an antitank missile called Hellfire and an artillery-
delivered antitank shell called Copperhead. The US. Air Force has
several types of laser-guided bombs (LGB) and missiles as does
the US. Navy. Many other countries have also developed these
types of weapons-for example, the French have the Laser
Guided Bomb (BGL) family.
A vast amount of money has been spent on the R&D of
airborne laser target designators. The first version fielded was PAVE
LIGHT, designed in response to the difficulties that US. aircraft
had in hitting targets in North Vietnam from the air. This was the
first target designator. It was operated visually from the back seat
of a Phantom aircraft which had to circle the target and keep the
 Current Military Applications 51

FIGURE 2.1. British lightweight ground designator FERRANTI INfERNATIONAL,

type 306. Photograph courtesy of GEe Ferranti Defense Systems, Limited.

beam directed onto the target while other aircraft dropped their
laser-guided bombs. Development proceeded rapidly to a target
designator contained within a pod mounted on the wing com-
bined with a television tracker and a laser range finder. Later
versions also operated at night, giving a 24-hour capability. The
latest U. S. system is called LANTIRN and consists of a navigational
pod and a targeting pod which have a modern laser target
52 Two

designator/ranger and an automatic tracker, with a Forward Look-

ing Infrared (FUR) imaging system. Automatic tracking and laser
target designation allow the aircrew to concentrate on countering
threats and getting the aircraft out of the danger area. Meanwhile,
the tracker and stabilization system keep the laser beam on the
target accurately to ensure a high hit probability.
There are similar airborne target designator systems in other
countries. A Thermal Imaging Airborne Laser Designator (TIALD)
is placed in the British Tornado aircraft. It offers a day/night
capability for target acquisition with identification and laser desig-
nation for laser-guided bombs. In France, the Convertible Laser
Designator Pod (CLOP) is currently under development. It has
been tested together with an AS.30 L laser-guided missile in
darkness at a distance of 5 miles from the launch to the target. The
aircraft was at a height of less than 300 yards and had a speed of
560 miles per hour. Most modern systems allow operation by the
pilot in a single-crew aircraft. There can be no doubt that a similar
development of airborne laser target designators is going on in the
remnants of the Soviet Union and other countries.
Laser target designators may also be used on helicopters,
warships, armored vehicles, and remotely piloted vehicles (RPV)
and in various other applications. Their development has been
rapid, and the number of designators, both those integrated in
weapons systems such as in aircraft and those carried by soldiers,
is gradually increasing.
One of the arguments sometimes put forward against the
battlefield laser weapon concept is the difficulty of hitting the
target with the laser beam. However, the results of the latest
combat tests to date studying the efficiency of laser target designa-
tors prove that this is not the case. Placing an invisible laser beam
on a small target is completely possible even from a fast-moving
jet aircraft, and it is certainly much easier for a soldier on the
ground, in a stationary position, to direct the beam at even smaller
targets. The only important limitation is that the target has to be in
the line of sight of both the target designator and the airborne
munition seeking the target simultaneously. This, however, gives
 Current Military Applications 53

the enemy two visible targets at which to aim in order to knock out
the weapons system. The target designator is especially vulner-
able, because it will move relatively slowly, if at all, and must
remain on longer. This limitation on the use of the target designa-
tors will not be a limitation in the case of laser weapons which
depend only upon the effect of the beam itself and are on for much
shorter durations.

BEAM RIDERS

Another way to use the laser beam for weapons guidance is to

literally let the missile stay withfn the beam all the way to the
target. Such a beam rider system differs from a target designator
in that the missile can be steered during flight, and also a much
less sophisticated detector is needed. The operator aims the laser
beam at the target and then launches the missile, which has a rear-
facing infrared, sensor to determine the deviation between the
beam and the missile. A great advantage of beam riding systems
is that the beam is difficult to deflect by any electronic counter-
measures, and, as the beam detector is at the rear of the missile, it
is less vulnerable to overload by enemy activity.
The first operational beam rider system was the Swedish anti-
air missile Rb 70, used in the daytime. This was soon followed
by the day/night version, known as Rb 90. Another beam rider is
the Swiss ground-to-air and antitank missile system, ADATS, and
there are more systems in the R&D phase in other countries,
induding the high-velocity missile (HVM) system of the United
States.
The first generation of beam riders used a semiconductor
laser such as a pulsed GaAs laser, which operates in the near-
infrared part of the spectrum at approximately 900 nanometers.
New beam riding systems such as the ADATS use a CO 2 laser. There
are several advantages associated with the longer wavelength of
the CO 2 laser (10,600 nanometers). The transmission through the
atmosphere is better, turbulence is not as much of a problem, and a
54 Two

higher average power is available, all of which means better

performance in most situations and especially in bad weather.
Another advantage of the CO 2 laser is its compatibility with FUR
systems in the 8,000- to 13,OOO-nanometer band. The CO2 laser is
presently the first choice for the laser guidance of the new Ameri-
can HVM system, which is designed as an antitank system.
The beam riding technique is on the battlefield to stay. There
will undoubtedly be new beam riding systems fielded in the
future, most of them using the longer wavelengths and more
powerful outputs.

SIMULATORS

One of the difficult budget problems common to all armed

forces is the cost of training with live ammunition. The cost of an
antitank missile, for instance, may be in the neighborhood of
$10,000, which means that a missile operator only can fire a very
limited number of missiles during his training and peacetime
duty-in some armies, perhaps none. Live firing also involves a
risk of accidents, and the firing can only be done at an artillery
range or in one-sided engagements against artificial targets. The
restricted number of ranges suitable for firing missiles limits the
possibility of using the right tactics and strategy, mostly because
of a lack of space and safety considerations. For many years, this
problem has been solved for rifles and machine guns by using
blank ammunition during field exercise. However, the use of
blanks does not give a very realistic simulation of the live muni-
tions situation, and the simulation of more sophisticated ammuni-
tion, such as missiles and smart ammunition in this way is not
possible. Moreover, the use of blanks does not give any indication
of the gunner's ability to hit the target and often may not affect the
response on future action by the targets after they are supposedly
hit.
The cure for this age-old problem is to use laser systems
which simulate the firing of missiles, projectiles, or rockets, evalu-
 Current Military Applications 55

ate the effects, and illustrate the results to both the gunner and the
target. A laser is an ideal training aid for all sorts of firing, as a
laser pulse will be sent to the target instead of a bullet, projectile,
or missile. Basically, laser weapon simulators may be used for two
training purposes-first, to give the soldier basic training with the
weapon in question and, second, for training in two-sided field
exercises where combat units with different weapon systems use
their weapons against live targets. The ultimate training is when
two large combat units, brigades or divisions, can fight each other
in the field using laser weapon simulators on all levels from the
infantry to tanks, helicopters, and aircraft. This is already being
done in some countries today, including the United States.
In these laser systems, it is possible to simulate every single
part of a live firing situation and, thus, ensure that the personnel
trained in this way are doing everything exactly right. The cost of
each laser shot is negligible. After the investment in the laser
weapon simulator has been made, each soldier may literally be
able to shoot hundreds and maybe even thousands of times, each
time receiving complete information on what was done right or
wrong. To a large extent, this is the state of the art in present
training practice.
The laser used in the simulators is normally a very low power
semiconductor laser. These lasers are small, easy to maintain and
use, and relatively cheap. A semiconductor laser makes it possible
to determine the three spatial coordinates of the simulated projec-
tile and its position in relation to the target with very high
precision. It is, of course, an absolute necessity that the laser used
be completely safe to the eye. This is a requirement for two-sided
exercises as well as for basic training, as most simulators work by
reflecting the laser beam from the target using a retroreflector.
There are many laser simulation systems in use all over the
world. A good example is the U.S. MILES system for small-arms
training. It is used as a firing simulator on the automatic weapons
of the infantry soldier. A target detector is fastened on the helmet
as an indicator to tell the soldier when he is hit. Also, his weapon
may be disabled when he is hit in a two-sided exercise. The MILES
56 Two

system is used for basic training, for training in squad and platoon
level battle techniques, and as an integrated system in large-scale
combat exercises. Tactical firing simulators for tanks are used in
the basic training of the tank gunner and commander in using the
tank gun and in tank-versus-tank battle training. The Swedish BT
41 is an example of a tank-mounted laser firing simulator. There
are even simulation laser systems for other direct-line-of-fire
weapons such as antitank missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, and
guns. The development in this field is rapid, and the budget
problems in many armed forces will certainly result in a demand
for more systems that can reduce training costs and still maintain
a high degree of proficiency in the various combat units.
Even in these laser simulator systems, as in the target desig-
nator systems, the soldier is required to aim a laser beam onto the
target. This is done by using the standard fire control equipment
(rifle sight, etc.) and other standard procedures. It is not very
difficult to hit the target with a laser beam at normal battlefield
engagement distances. If this simulator were a battlefield laser
weapon, it would hit the target just as well.

LASER RADAR

The difference between laser radar and other military laser

applications is somewhat blurred. Laser radar is the widely ac-
cepted name for a laser system that can give more information
than range finding alone-for example, target velocity by Doppler
effect analyses, scanning, and tracking. The laser tracker de-
scribed earlier may fall within this definition and could be called a
radar system.
In essence, a laser radar system uses a laser scanner to cover
the required field of view. The scanner may be a rather simple
mechanical device with rotating mirrors. The beam is scanned
through the field of view in a pattern similar to that used on a
television screen. The various objects in the field of view reflect
part of the laser beam back through the optical system of the laser
 Current Military Applications 57

radar, where it is then analyzed. It could be said that the laser

radar works like a laser range finder, measuring the range to every
point in the field of view, thereby building up a complete picture.
One of the main advantages of laser radar over ordinary radar
is its short wavelength, resulting in much higher resolution. This
means that the laser radar is capable of not only detecting ex-
tremely small targets but also describing the subtle features of
their motion. Thus, from the Doppler frequency changes in the
reflected beam it is possible to discover and record extremely
small movements such as the vibrations from a vehicle engine, the
motion of the rotor blades on a hovering helicopter, or the combus-
tion in an aircraft jet. Since many vehicles have characteristic
vibration patterns or signatures, it may then be possible to identify
the specific type of tank which is the target. Another important
advantage is the possibility of building very small and compact
laser radar devices that can easily fit into f fire control system
rather than using a bulky conventional radar system which must
be operated as a separate unit. The laser radar operates indepen-
dently of the ambient light conditions and is unaffected by the
absence of daylight. The laser radar is difficult to discover and
counter. This, combined with the atmospheric attenuation of the
beam, makes the laser difficult to detect and nearly impossible to
jam.
Certainly, the laser radar concept has disadvantages. Per-
haps, the most important one is the range, which is severely
limited by difficult atmospheric conditions. If the weather is good
and the air is clean, it may be possible with a la-SO-watt laser to
reach an effective range of about 6 miles against a helicopter. On
the other hand, with battlefield haze added to more typical
weather conditions, the range may very well be no more than 3-5
kilometers, which is comparable to that of an FUR system.
The laser of choice for radar seems to be the CO2 laser. It is
relatively efficient on fuel and has a rather good atmospheric
transmission in smoke and fog. Also, it is suitable for coherence
detection, which is a prerequisite for high sensitivity at the longer
ranges. The wavelength for the CO 2 laser may be chosen in the
58 Two

band between 9,000 and 12,000 nanometers and is in the same

band as the FUR thermal sensors. This spectral overlap means
that the two systems may be integrated in a single instrument with
shared optics. FUR and the CO2 laser radar have about the same
range under reduced visibility conditions.
The use of a coherent CO2 laser in laser radar is very advan-
tageous, as it is possible to determine a moving target's speed and
vibration characteristics with high resolution while tracking and
scanning. However, the most interesting attribute of the coherent
CO 2 laser compared to the other alternatives is its longer range. If
the maximum range under bad weather conditions is compared to
that of another laser alternative-for example, the Nd:YAG laser
with a wavelength ofl,540 nanometers-the result is very much in
favor of the coherent CO 2 laser. A possibility exists that the use of a
frequency-doubled coherent CO2 laser at wavelengths between
4,500 and 5,500 nanometers could increase the range even more.
Another possible laser radar application has been demon-
strated by Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. The
system uses a gallium arsenide semiconductor laser diode of
about 120 m W to produce a near-infrared beam which is scanned
across and up and down to cover a field of about 30°. Range
information is derived from the returned signals, and an image of
any object in the field of view is displayed on a screen and updated
four times per second. The range of this experimental system is
only about 55 yards, which is quite short. More powerful lasers
that can provide almost 5 watts are available and could be used for
experiments on larger ranges. Future applications could include
automatic target recognition or more precise aiming for conven-
tional weapons. Use in collision avoidance systems and drone or
robot vehicle control is also a possibility.
There are many possibilities for laser radar applications.
Terrain following and navigation aids for aircraft, helicopters, and
missiles can be made much more efficient with laser radar than
they are today with ordinary radar. This concept may allow covert
operations as part of the Cruise Missile Advanced Guidance
Program (CMAGP) in the United States. One company is now
 Current Military Applications 59

developing a laser radar which is said to provide improved naviga-

tion and targeting capability for present and future cruise mis-
siles.
If the laser radar is combined with an FUR system, this may
mean a breakthrough for air-to-ground automatic targeting sys-
tems. The FUR alone may give only the outline of the target
against a sometimes complex background; adding laser radar
provides range, reduces background, and separates moving tar-
gets. The pooling of information from the FUR and the laser radar
may more easily give a correct identification and separation of
multiple targets at the same time. It is also possible to use a laser
radar system as a target designator or as a source for a beam rider.
This is important for laser weapons aimed at sensors, optics, and
eyes, as they can then easily locate and pinpoint the strong
reflections from optics at long ranges.
A new German concept is a sensor-fused, fly-over dispenser
designed to attack armored vehicles from a low altitude while
flying over the target. The sensor combines laser radar to deter-
mine the surface contour together with a radiometer to detect any
identifying reflective radiation and an infrared sensor to deter-
mine the temperature profile.
Laser radar is still in a research phase, and it will take some
time before operational units are fielded and used in any numbers
within any armed forces. However, there are certainly many
applications possible in antitank, anti-aircraft, air-to-ground, and
sea warfare. The small size and versatility of laser radar equip-
ment could make it standard equipment in the 1990s. The combi-
nation of a laser radar system with a laser weapon offers the
possibility of detecting optics, and the sensor or eye behind the
optics, and automatically firing the weapons against the sensor or
eye behind the optics.
There are two other military applications that should be
mentioned here-J;..ight Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) and laser
use for bathymetry or depth measurements. UDAR is a very
important tool for investigating and analyzing different charac-
teristics of the atmosphere. The beam from a pulsed laser is
60 Two

directed into the atmosphere, where it is scattered by different

types of molecules. Some of the radiation is reflected back to the
LIDAR, where the results can be analyzed. Military units may use
LIDARs to detect chemicals, measure the wind parameters for
artillery, or determine the local weather. Some atmospheric-borne
chemicals may be detected at long distances by a coherent CO 2
laser.
It is also possible to use a laser for bathymetry to measure and
to map the characteristics of the bottom of an ocean, a lake, or a
river if the water is not too deep. By using a pulsed green laser, for
example, a copper vapor laser, it is now possible to reach a depth
of 30-40 meters if the water conditions are favorable. A short pulse
is emitted which first hits the surface of the water, where a part of
the beam is reflected and can be detected. The remaining part of
the beam is transmitted through the water and back to the re-
ceiver. It is, thereby, possible to measure the depth and map the
bottom by scanning the laser beam. This technique may be possi-
ble for military units to use when trying to detect marine mines
and even submarines.

OTHER MILITARY APPLICATIONS

Range finding, target designation, and radar analogs are

obvious military applications. There are many other possible
military applications for lasers, some of which also can be part of a
weapons system.
The laser beam may be used for long-range communication
purposes with the information carried by the modulation in inten-
sity of the laser beam. One example of this is the U.S. Navy
Satellite-Based Submarine Communications Laser Program
(SLCSAT). This is based on a Raman-shifted xenon chloride gas
laser emitting a multijoule pulsed beam in the blue part of the
spectrum. The wavelength has been reported to be 459 to 449
nanometers for submerged reception. Current efforts are directed
 Current Military Applications 61

toward overcoming the problem of the size and bulk of the laser
and making a 500-million-shot life possible.
On the battlefield, electromagnetic jamming of present-day
radio and wire systems is an increasing threat. Laser communica-
tion through air or optical fibers offers what may be the only really
secure solution. The Yugoslavian laser communication device
RLK2 is representative of many hand-held, compact, and jam-
proof devices. It weighs about six pounds, emits at 905 nanome-
ters, and can transmit voice and data (10,000 bits/second) for a
maximum range of 4.4 miles through the atmosphere. It may
operate for eight hours on one package of batteries. Such devices
will be used in many armed forces in the future.
The most important laser for present-day communication
purposes is the semiconductor (diode) laser, which is very com-
pact and efficient. Optical fibers are used instead of the atmo-
sphere for transmission of the laser beam. This is much more
efficient, as billions of bits per second can be transmitted through
the optical fiber. Extensive military use of optical fibers for many
different purposes will almost certainly force the development of
even more efficient and less expensive semiconductor lasers.
Ring laser gyros are crucial for the performance of many
navigation and guidance systems for high-technology missiles,
aircraft, and helicopters. They provide direction, pitch, and yaw
reference data. A ring laser gyro is, compared to a conventional
gyro, small and light and has no moving mechanical parts. This
means that the gyro is. very suitable for rough environments and
can easily cope with rigid military requirements. The laser used is
a standard HeNe laser, and the ring is not a circle but rather a
triangle or square with mirrors at each corner to reflect the beam,
which is split in two and sent in opposite directions around the
circumference. Velocity differences are then measured between
the light beams passing in opposite directions around the "ring"
so that any rotation of the instrument in the plane of the ring can
be detected to a very high degree of accuracy.
A major development in laser technology for support of the
infantry is the laser sight or laser pointer. This is somewhat
62 Two

analogous to the target designator. Small arms, rifles, etc. can be

aimed at the target by using a laser to produce an intense visible
spot on the target. The system is an add-on piece of equipment,
and it can line up with the barrel in such a way that the laser spot is
in the same place as the predicted point of impact of the bullet at
the desired range. It is possible to change the alignment in
accordance with the type of ammunition and variations in range.
Laser pointers were initially developed to provide an extremely
fast and accurate point-and-shoot capability in daylight for police
and security people without endangering innocent bystanders.
These systems mostly use a ruby laser producing a highly visible
red spot on the target. For military purposes, it would be advan-
tageous if a laser pointer could have an invisible spot seen only by
the gunner and which could be used even at night. This has been
made possible by using the combination of passive night vision
goggles and a laser pointer based on a laser in the near-infrared
part of the spectrum, which is thus invisible. Development has
been very rapid, and a number of such devices are already on the
market. A recent review in a military magazine describes more
than 10 laser pointers from different countries. One example is the
LM-18 from the German company Euroatlas, which is designed to
be used together with night vision goggles. It weighs about three-
quarters of a pound and operates in the 800-870-nanometer range
with a spot size of 2 inches at 55 yards range. The maximum
ranges claimed for different pointers vary from 240 to 360 yards.
This laser sight technology is another example of a military
laser system where a soldier has to point and hold the laser at the
adversary, a task which is certainly possible not only with a light
machine gun combined with a laser sight but also with an antiper-
sonnellaser weapon.
There are many more military laser applications involving
techniques such as measuring air and liquid pressure using a
semiconductor or a HeNe laser. Another use for military lasers is
to find the fuse to set a bomb or missile off automatically at a
predetermined moment.
 Current Military Applications 63

SUMMARY

The military use of laser technology is well established, and

the laser is now a standard tool for many soldiers in many
different weapons systems. The use of lasers has to some extent
already influenced military tactics and doctrine. The laser has
already solved many problems in ranging, tracking, and target
designating and is an integrated part of many high-technology
fire control systems. The use of laser simulators has made both
basic and advanced training more efficient and in many cases even
cheaper. It is obvious that the number of military laser applications
will increase steadily in the future.
Against this background, the question of the morality of laser
weapons is very interesting. 'The armed forces in most countries
are now getting used to pointing lasers at the enemy for ranging,
tracking, and designating. If laser weapons turn out to be a
realistic alternative or complement to conventional weapons, their
use against soldiers themselves will be a very small step from how
they are already being used on the battlefield today.
 THREE

Laser Safety

The laser has become a common tool of civilians and soldiers all
over the world. Many lasers, perhaps most of them, are in some
way dangerous to people. For several reasons, it is our eyesight
that is most threatened, but there are many other dangers to deal
with as well. Laser safety is a very complex problem. This chapter
will provide some basic facts about the problem and will use
military lasers as examples, keeping the laser weapon question
particularly in mind.

LASER HAZARDS

The use of lasers almost always carries with it some kind of

danger, either at the laser site itself or wherever there is a direct,
reflected, or scattered laser beam. At the laser site, it is not only
the actual laser beam which can be dangerous, but electrical,
chemical, and other hazards exist as well. Most laser power
supplies can cause severe electrical shocks, possibly even electro-
cution. Furthermore, many highly explosive and toxic substances
are used in solid, liquid, or gas form to power laser cooling
systems. The danger of being exposed to these substances is most
prominent in laser laboratories and factories. In addition, there
65
66 Three

may be serious toxic effects from the vapors released into the air
during the processing of laser materials. Electrical, chemical,
noise, and other related hazards are serious matters to consider,
but they are not associated with laser weapons and, therefore, will
not be explored further.
In and around most laser operations, there is always the
possibility of a fire hazard. Flammable material, such as paper,
may be set on fire by a CW laser operating with an output power
above 0.5 watt. The effect is, of course, similar to that of a high-
energy laser weapon designed to burn holes in and set fire to
different targets.
For many reasons, it is useful to divide the hazards from laser
beams into two main groups: those to the eye and those to the
skin. This chapter will describe in some detail why the eye is by
far the organ of the human body that is most sensitive to laser
radiation. The eyes may be severely damaged and even perma-
nently blinded by rather low energy laser beams, while the skin is
not nearly as sensitive. To get severe skin burns in the visible and
infrared part of the spectrum, it is normally necessary to use a
very high energy laser beam which delivers, at least, several watts
per square centimeter (W/cm2) to the target.
Safety threshold limits both for the skin and eyes are well
defined and have resulted in very strict safety regulations. Many
different national and international regulations exist, but they are
all based largely on the National U.S. Standards and particularly
the American National Standards Institute's 2-136 Laser Safety
Standards and its revisions.

LAZER HAZARDS TO THE EYE

To understand laser hazards to the eye fully, with their

implications for laser safety requirements and the possibilities of
anti-eye laser weapons, discussed in later chapters, it is necessary
to begin with a very short overview of the anatomy of the eye.
 Laser Safety 67

The eye is a very complex and precise optical system. It is

approximately 1 inch (25.4 millimeters) in diameter. The general
structure of a standard left eye is indicated in Figure 3.1. When
light enters the eye, it first passes through the cornea, a living
tissue exposed directly to environmental elements. The cornea is
protected from drying out by the tear film. It is responsible for the
major part of the focusing of light rays on the rear of the eye. Once
the light passes through the cornea, it then enters the aqueous,
which, as its name implies, is essentially composed of water. The
pupil, the next part of the eye through which the light passes, has
its size adjusted by the iris-the colored part of the eye. The size
of the pupil is adjusted from approximately YI2 to Y4 inch (2-7
millimeters) in response to the average brightness of the light.
This is an important factor to consider when the possibility of

SCLERA

CORNEA
PUPIL
BLIND SPOT

FIGURE 3.1. Simplified cross section of the eye, identifying the principal struc-
tures. This cross section is a horizontal slice of the left eye viewed from above.
(Adapted from D. Sliney and M. Wolbarsht, Safety with LAsers and Other Optical
Sources, Plenum Press, New York, 1980.)
68 Three

damage to the eye is discussed. The wider the pupil is, the greater
the amount of light that passes into the eye.
The lens, directly behind the iris, is colorless, as it does not
absorb throughout the visible region of the spectrum. After the
light has passed the lens, it goes through the vitreous body, which
is a colorless gel. The vitreous body is attached to the ciliary body
and to the retina at several points. After passing through the
vitreous body, the light finally hits the retina. Changes in the focus
of the light rays entering the eye are controlled by the ciliary
muscles, which change the shape of the lens. Accordingly, this
allows far or near objects to be focused properly on the retina.
The retina consists of several very complex layers of nerve
cells and is, in fact, an extension of the brain. The outer surface of
the retina is covered by a single layer of cells called the retinal
pigment epithelium (RPE). Just inside this layer are the photo-
receptor cells, consisting of two types, rods and cones. Every eye
has approximately 125 million rods and 7 million cones. The rods
are large, cylindrical cells that are very sensitive to low intensity
levels of light but are not used in color vision. The cone cells are
smaller, occurring mostly in the central portion of the retina. They
are responsive to higher light levels and are used in distinguishing
colors. The adjacent layers in the choroid, outside the retina, are
also of special interest in an evaluation of retinal injury from light
sources.
When a person looks directly at an object, it is seen in fine
detail. At the same time, the surroundings are also seen, but with
less clarity. To see the surroundings in detail, the whole scene
must be scanned. This is because when the eye is aimed most
directly at an object, only a small area in the center of the retina,
called the fovea, is being used. The fovea is very densely packed
with cones, possibly in order to discriminate the fine details of the
image. In any case, the fovea is responsible for the highest acuity.
The fovea is the center of a larger area called the macula, or yellow
spot, where the vision is still very good. In this area, there may be
more than 4 million cones. It is important to remember that the
foveal area is responsible for the majority of high-acuity viewing,
 Laser Safety 69

and, indeed, when the fovea or the central macula area does. not
function, a person is very severely visually disabled. This can be
appreciated at night, when the fovea and most of the macula lose
their ability to detect details, as the cones which are responsive
only to high levels of light do not work. Darkness eliminates the
fovea completely, as it has no rods, along with the central macular
vision. Therefore, the outer portion of the macula is responsible
for the best vision under these reduced illumination situations.
The distribution of visual acuity for both rods and cones is shown
in Fig. 3.2. It should be kept in mind that at least 20/40 vision is
necessary for driving an automobile or rapid reading.
The eye does not transmit the whole range of electromagnetic
radiation. This is a basic fact that has a bearing on both laser safety
and laser weapons. Figure 3.3 shows that infrared radiation (be-
yond 1,400 nanometers) as well as far-ultraviolet rays (wavelengths

Nose Right Eye Temple

100

80
cf!.
~
.:; 60
()

'"
iii
:J 40 Optic nerve
en
-:;; blind spot
.,
Q)
.> 20 )
'"
OJ
a:

60 40 20 o 20 40 60

Distance from fovea (degrees)

FIGURE 3.2. Variability of visual acuity as a function of visual angle or distance

away from the central portion of the eye, the fovea. The solid line is for a bright-light
(photopic) response, and the dashed line for a dim-light (scotopic) response.
(Adapted from D. Sliney and M. Wolbarsht, Safety with Lasers and Other Optical
Sources, Plenum Press, New York, 1980.)
70 Three
-=-
h7 ~
"
1111
II
/I
II
\\

"
f~ . . .
~ //
a ~
- ~
c

b d
FIGURE 3.3. Schematic diagram of the absorption of electromagnetic radiation in
the eye. (a) Microwaves, X rays, and gamma rays all pass through the eye with little
change. (b) Far-ultraviolet and far-infrared radiation are absorbed in the surface
layer of the cornea, whereas (c) near-ultraviolet radiation is absorbed mostly by the
lens. Only visible and near-infrared radiation (d) are focused by the optical
elements of the eye on the retina. (Adapted from D. Sliney and M. Wolbarsht, Safety
with Lasers and Other Optical Sources, Plenum Press, New York, 1980.)

less than 315 nanometers) do not get past the cornea. Most near-
ultraviolet radiation (315-400 nanometers) is absorbed harmlessly
in the lens. This means that neither the laser energy from a CO2
laser at 10.6 micrometers nor that from a nitrogen laser at 305
nanometers can reach the retina. On the other hand, really high
energy radiation such as X rays and gamma rays can penetrate
through the whole eye but does so without much damage. In
contrast, visible (400-700 nanometers) and near-infrared (700-
1,400 nanometers) laser energy can be focused to a point on the
retina and will cause damage if intense enough. For this reason,
 Laser Safety 71

visible and near-infrared energy are together labeled as the retinal

hazard region.
Several details about the retina are important to understand.
Before light reaches the rod and cone layers in the retina, it has to
pass through the inner retinal layers of blood vessels, nerve fibers,
and nerve cells. However, in the fovea, all of these inner layers are
missing, and, in this area, the light has direct access to the cones
and rods, in keeping with the high resolution possible in this area.
A very important characteristic of the retina is its ability to
adapt to light and darkness. A bright light immediately lowers the
eye's sensitivity to light-only lights of similar brightness can be
seen after exposure to a bright light. This effect is often referred to
as flash blindness. That is, after exposure to a bright light, at first it
is not possible to see anything which is less well illuminated, but,
after some time, even a low light level will allow various objects to
be perceived. The whole process may take a long time, anywhere
from 20 to 30 minutes. The time course of the retina's adaptation to
the dark is shown in Fig. 3.4. At night, colors are not seen because
there is only enough light to stimulate the rods even though the
pupil opens up to admit more light into the eye. The time required
for dark adaptation is of great importance when it comes to any
laser weapons bright enough to cause flash blindness.
The visual field from each eye is roughly 50 degrees upward,
80 degrees downward, 60 degrees nasally, and more than 90
degrees temporally. This means that the combined visual field
from both eyes is more than 180 degrees. There are two blind spots
in this field, one for each eye, which correspond to the area in each
retina covered by the entrance of the optic nerve. The two blind
spots are far apart in visual space, and, since the brain has a
tendency to fill in blanked-out areas in one eye by the contribution
from the other eye, these blind spots are not normally noticed.
When discussing laser safety and the eye, it is necessary to
differentiate between the effects inside the eye within the retinal
hazard region (400-1,400 nanometers) and the effects on the
outside of the eye from those laser beams that do not reach the
retina.
 72 Three

100,000
50,000
~
~

\
10,000
5,000 f-
....
....'"Ql

1\
1,000
'0
.,c
.0 x 500 ~

e
::J

'"c
'E .~

.2 E ~

'"'"
.~ 100
C> ....
(.)
.Q Ql
50 ~
-0 B
0
"0
.s::.
1:
I-
'"
Ql
10 "'- r--.
5 ~

o 5 10 20 30 40

Minutes in the dark

FIGURE 3.4. Recovery of sensitivity of the eye in the dark. The" threshold sensi-
tivity of the eye for a small source of light varies with the period of adaptation in the
dark. Note that the cones reach a sensitivity plateau in a matter of 10 minutes or
less, while the rods continue to adapt for more than 30 minutes. The curve does not
follow the time course of regeneration of any visual pigment very closely; indicat-
ing that neural rather than photochemical factors are involved. (Adapted from D.
Sliney and M. Wolbarsht, Safety with Lasers and Other Optical Sources, Plenum Press,
New York, 1980.)
 Laser Safety 73

The Retinal Hazard Region

The ability of the eye to transmit laser radiation to the retina
varies significantly within the retinal hazard region. The trans-
mission is at its highest in the visible part of the spectrum, drops
in the near-infrared region near 1,000 nanometers, has another
peak around 1,100 nanometers, and then drops sharply. The
transmission of the eye is, thus, very dependent on the wave-
length, as shown in Fig. 3.5. For example, green is almost twice as
well transmitted as some parts of the near infrared. However, the
difference in transmission between a frequency-doubled (green)
Nd:YAG laser at 532 nanometers and an ordinary (infrared)
Nd:YAG laser at 1,064 nanometers is only about 30%.
Because of the unique collimation and coherence characteris-
tics of the laser beam, it is seen by the eye as if it were coming from
a point source. Thus, the collimated laser beam is collected by the

80

c 60
o
'iii
'" 40
.~
c
t='"
#- 20

Wavelength (I-'m)

FIGURE 3.5. Spectral transmission of the ocular media. This chart shows the
relative ability of visible and near-infrared radiation to reach the retina. Ultraviolet
(less than 0.4 micrometers) and mid- to far-infrared (greater than 1.4 micrometers)
radiation do not penetrate the eye sufficiently to reach the retina. (Adapted from D.
Sliney and M. Wolbarsht, Safety with Lasers and Other Optical Sources, Plenum Press,
New York, 1980.)
74 Three

optics of the eye, transmitted through the ocular media, and

focused to a very small point, 20 to 50 micrometers in diameter, on
the retina. The effect of this concentration is to magnify the
brightness of the light by a factor of approximately 100,000. If the
diameter of the laser beam is larger than that of the pupil, external
magnifying optics such as a telescope will make the effect even
worse. Thus, a pair of binoculars, 7 x 50, with a light transmission
of 50% will increase the energy focused on the retina by the ratio of
the area of the objective lens (50 millimeters in diameter) to the
area of the pupil (7 millimeters in diameter) divided by the
brightness factor, which in this case amounts to 50/2 or a 25-fold
increase in the energy reaching the retina. Thus, an individual will
increase the risk of damage to the eye by adding 25 times more
energy to the retina when looking through binoculars than when
using the naked eye.
This additional hazard from an optical aid is, of course, of the
greatest importance when it comes to the fielding and use of anti-
eye laser weapons. A soldier using magnifying optics may not
only be much easier to blind but may also be a more valuable
target than a soldier with a naked eye. Tank gunners, artillery fire
controllers, missile operators, commanders, and others all use
magnifying optics in critical moments on the battlefield, and their
optical systems may then be detected and identified by the
characteristic reflections and exposed to hostile laser radiation by
the enemy.
The hazardous effects of a laser beam that is transmitted
through the eye are, in the vast majority of cases, limited to the
retina. The effect upon the retina may range in severity from a
temporary reaction without residual pathological changes to per-
manent blindness. The smallest observable reaction may be a
whitening of the retina. However, as the retinal irradiance is
increased, lesions occur which progress in severity from swelling
(edema) to burning (coagulation) and then bleeding (hemorrhage)
as well as additional tissue reaction around the lesion. Very high
retinal irradiance will cause gas bubbles to form near the site of
 Laser Safety 75

absorption. These gas bubbles can disrupt the retina and in some
cases alter the physical structure of the eye.
The retina itself is not much more sensitive to laser damage
than any other parts of the body. The level of energy that may
cause severe damage to any part of the body is between 50 and 500
millijoules per square centimeter for a short pulse. It is only the
optical concentration of the energy by the optics of the eye that
makes a low-powered laser capable of damaging the retina specifi-
cally rather than the rest of the eye or body.
The most important part of the eye for vision is the macular
area and, in particular, the fovea centralis, which is densely
packed with cones. If the laser beam causes a retinal burn of any
size in this area, the result is permanent loss of fine-detail vision
sufficient to cause legal blindness, and no treatment is possible. Of
course, much vision is still present but not enough to read rapidly,
drive an automobile, or do any visually demanding task.
If the retinal burn does not affect the macula, the visual
impairment may not be very serious. The focused laser beam can
leave a small wound on the retina, which may be seen by the
person involved as a small dark spot in his visual field. In many
cases, such a spot will not be noticed at all. The laser exposure
itself is more or less painless, and the dark spot very small.
However, if the energy level is sufficient, such laser exposure can
cause a vitreal, infraretinal, or subretinal hemorrhage inside the
eye. Vision will be obscured by the blood blocking the optical path
between the lens and the macula or by the blood elevating the
retina and detaching it from the pigment epithelium. Such a
hemorrhage is a serious injury requiring immediate medical atten-
tion. Any damage to vision may be permanent, although some
treatment is possible. This treatment is complicated and involves
sucking blood from under the retina or removing the vitreous
body. Both operations require exceptionally clean operating rooms
and are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to attempt on a
battlefield or in other field-type hospitals. At present, it also
appears that if the treatment is not completed within a certain time
76 Three

after the injury, perhaps a week or less, the damage will most
certainly be permanent and may even get worse.
The laser's capability to cause various types of eye damage at
many different distances has been very well documented in nu-
merous animal experiments. This rather large body of data has
also been compared to data on the real injuries of humans in a
number of actual laser accidents.
Some experiments performed in the United States on rhesus
monkeys who were exposed to laser radiation in order to deter-
mine the threshold levels for serious eye damage can be summa-
rized as follows. A pulsed green laser could cause a retinal burn at
about two miles and a retinal hemorrhage at a quarter of a mile.
The use of binoculars increases these distances by a factor of about
4. The corresponding distances for a deep red (ruby) laser of the
same energy were slightly shorter than for a green laser, while the
infrared laser was much less effective than both. The details are
given in Table 3.1. In a Swedish study, the possibility of a standard
ruby range finder causing a vitreal hemorrhage in the eye at
battlefield distances was investigated by using the eyes of anesthe-
tized pigs to simulate observation with the naked eye or through
magnifying optics. The report on the data concludes that a stan-
dard military ruby range finder under normal atmospheric condi-

TABLE 3.1. Laser Injury Experiments on Rhesus Monkey Eyes·

Distance (kilometers) at which damage occurs
Vitreal hemorrhage Retinal burn only
Wavelengths Without Without
Color (nanometers) optics Optics optics Optics
Green 530 0.65 2.9 3.2 10.5
Deep red 690 0.47 2.4 1.7 6.6
Infrared 1,060 0.25 0.61 3.0
'In all cases, a Q-switched laser was used with 100 millijoules in each pulse. The beam had a
divergence of 0.25 mradians. The optics used were 7 x 50 M17 binoculars. A 7-millimeter
pupil was used for all exposures, both with and without optics, and a clear, nonturbulent
atmosphere was present during the exposures.
 Laser Safety 77

tions can cause vitreal hemorrhages in soldiers employing binocu-

lars on the battlefield at engagement distances up to, at least, half a
mile. Similar data for humans is given in Fig. 3.6.
Hundreds of injuries have resulted from accidental exposures
to laser radiation. Laboratory or experimental laser setups ac-
counted for many of these, but an ever increasing number are due
to exposures during military training and operations. Most of the
accidents were caused by invisible radiation in the near-infrared
region and usually involved the central retina, the macula, and
occasionally even the fovea. Outdoor accidents produced similar
injuries in both eyes, but most accidents occurred indoors, or at
close range, and involved one eye only. Only limited, if any,
recovery was reported, and the accidents were normally quite
traumatic psychologically to the patient.
The mechanism of tissue damage discussed so far has been
limited to the thermal effects of the laser beam in cases where the
laser energy is transferred to the target tissues at a faster rate than
that at which the heat can be dissipated safely. However, the
thermal effect is not the only hazard associated with lasers. There
are two other basic mechanisms of damage: ionization and photo-
chemical changes (see Fig. 3.7). Ionization may be described as
pulling the molecules apart and occurs as the pulse duration is
decreased and the photon density increased. It is similar to spark
generation. Photochemical damage can occur because the chemi-
cal processes in the body tissues can be influenced by ultraviolet
radiation and blue light. Sunburn is a good example. Damage to
the cornea and retina can result after exposure to long pulses or
CW beams.
Some of these effects are not too well understood at present,
and much work still remains to be done before the damage
mechanisms of the laser beam are completely predictable. How-
ever, there seems to be no doubt that a low-energy anti-eye laser
weapon can disable a person visually even if it is dependent only
upon thermal effects within the retinal hazard region.
What has been said so far about the action of lasers on the
retina has been focused on the injury aspects. However, another
 ND:YAG 11064 nml range finder

10 1 3
3-----__ 1064 nil.

.
10'

~
1
1.0 ~
:!
10- 1
t~ :~~. ~~ ~~. ~:~-;.;:~::. ~.;.:... --
r-----··- --.---------
~ •• - - - - - - - .• - - - - - - - - . _ - - - - - -- - - ._----

j Retinal burn

10- ..J
~
-i---
J Macula pigment epithelium
10-' ~

~
"I

10- 4 +--.--rTTT'iiiT--,-rT"il rrrr--'-T;TTiTfr-..,--rn; ITII "--r """'ilT1lln

10 101 10l 10· 10'

Range Imeters)

ruby /694.3 nm) range finder

10 1 3
j M 1 7 Binoculars 694.3 nil

.,
10'~-
i _ _ __
-I
~
-i

10 -l:::::::::':::::::::::.::: ::.:.::::

10-' J
~
Range (meters)
 Laser Safety 79

effect from a laser has to be taken into consideration when the

possibilities of laser weapons are discussed. Before the energy
levels are sufficient to cause a retinal burn, the laser beam may
very well cause uncomfortable glare or flash blindness. These
effects are very dependent upon the circumstances-whether the
eye is dark adapted or not, the wavelength and pulse length of the
laser beam, the ambient light levels, and various other environ-
mental influences. The prospect of using a laser beam for flash
blinding of pilots, tank crews, and other key soldiers on the
battlefield must be considered as a possible laser weapon applica-
tion for use at night. This possibility will be discussed in greater
detail in Chapter 6.

Laser Effects outside the Retinal Hazard Region

The retinal hazard region covers the spectrum from 400 to
1,400 nanometers and includes the visible and near-infrared parts
of the spectrum. As already mentioned, shorter wavelengths in
the near ultraviolet are absorbed mainly in the lens, and the even
shorter far-ultraviolet wavelengths are absorbed mainly in the
cornea. Longer wavelengths in the mid-infrared region are also
absorbed in the cornea. Thus, there can be harmful effects to the
eye from laser exposures even in the parts of the optical spectrum
outside the retinal hazard region.
The excessive absorption of intermediate ultraviolet radiation
by the cornea causes ultraviolet photokeratitis. This is a very
painful but temporary injury, often called snow blindness or

FIGURE 3.6. Laser ocular effects at various ranges from military range finders
under tactical conditions. The various types of eye damage-retinal burns, vit-
reous hemorrhages, etc.-are shown as a function of the energy and the distance
from the range finder. The curves shown are for a 3-millimeter pupil, a 7-millimeter
pupil, and a 7-millimeter pupil with optically aided viewing using M17 binoculars.
The two graphs are for a Nd:YAG (1064 nm) and a ruby (694.3 nm) range finder,
respectively. (Adapted from B. Stuck, Symposium on Medical Surveillance, Sep-
tember 8-9,1982, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, p. 30.)
 T
80 Three

Ionization 1 Thermal Photochemical

Thermoacoustic

Thermally enhanced photochemistry

FIGURE 3.7. Types of interaction of laser energy with the eye and other biological
tissues. Only the thermal and thermoacoustic modes of interaction are important
with present-day antipersonnel laser weapons.

welder's flash. The eyes are very sore, and the movement of the lid
over the cornea in blinking is very painful. However, although this
effect lasts only one or two days, the person is effectively blinded
during this period. For comfort, the eyes must remain shut and
should even be bandaged. Extremely high exposure levels may
permanently damage the cornea and possibly the lens behind it.
The photochemical effects of ultraviolet radiation are not yet fully
understood. However, as most of these effects require that the eye
be subjected to high levels of laser radiation for a comparatively
long time, half a minute or more, it seems unlikely that these
effects in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum could form the basis
for a laser weapon.
In the mid- and far-infrared region, the possibility for absorp-
tion in the cornea, especially for wavelengths longer than 2,000
nanometers, is very high. Therefore, the cornea is very susceptible
to damaging heat during exposure to mid-infrared radiation. If
the energy level of the beam is high enough to cause corneal
heating, this will produce immediate and severe pain and auto-
matically trigger the blink reflex. The cornea is quite sensitive, and
an elevation of only 20°F will cause a pain response. The question
is whether or not sufficient thermal energy would be absorbed in
the cornea to cause injury in the short time before the blink reflex is
activated. The lids are much less sensitive to damage because the
 Laser Safety 81

circulating blood carries away the heat and a large amount of the
laser beam is reflected.
The infrared lasers that may be used to injure the cornea are
CO2, hydrogen "fluoride (HF), deuterium fluoride (DF), and Co.
Such lasers with an output power of more than 10 watts per square
centimeter could deliver at least 0.5 to 10 joules per square centi-
meter to the cornea before the blink reflex gives any protection, as
shown in Fig. 3.8. Existing infrared lasers can certainly damage
the cornea before any head movement can occur. Research has
shown that thermal injury to the cornea produces a white spot or
an opacification of the surface. The injury is extremely painful and
needs immediate and well-qualified medical care. The severity of
corneal burn injuries from laser exposure can be compared to that
of burns and injuries resulting from the ignition or explosion of
flammable objects.

LASER HAZARDS TO THE SKIN

The fact that the threat to the eye, especially in the retinal
hazard region, is caused by extremely low energy lasers and, thus,
constitutes a more frequent and obvious hazard has placed haz-
ards to the skin as secondary to those to the eye. However, if the
energy level is sufficient, the skin is a much larger target than the
eye. It is also possible to burn the skin indirectly by setting fire to
nearby objects with a high-energy laser. Obviously, widespread
burn injuries are certainly more life-threatening than eye injuries.
Lasers can have several important effects on the skin. The
thermal effect is the most significant one. Burn injuries are di-
vided into three basic groups. A first-degree burn is a very
superficial reddening of the skin, a second-degree burn produces
blistering, and a third-degree burn, the most severe kind, de-
stroys the entire outer layer of the skin. The irradiance necessary
to cause a first degree burn is 12 watts per square centimeter; for
second- and third-degree burns, the necessary irradiance is 24
and 34 watts per square centimeter, respectively. If the exposure
82 Three

103~----------------------------------.

•
••

'"E •
--
u
( J)
+"
+"
co
• •
• a.:>....."
OOCl:f· •o
3: 10
<Il •
U
C c
co
•
"'C
co
.... "
....

Exposure duration (seconds)

FIGURE 3.8. Threshold for corneal injury from CO2 laser radiation. The differ-
ences between data points at the same exposure duration are due largely to the use
of different corneal image sizes. The data points are from several laboratories and fit
a thermal heat flow damage model quite well.

duration is shortened, the irradiance required to give a third-

degree burn is significantly increased. Laser injury thresholds for
the skin are dependent on the wavelength of the laser as well as on
the pigmentation of the skin. Dark skins absorb more and thus get
hotter for the same laser energy. For long exposures, the energy
levels necessary to produce injury are highly dependent upon
exposure duration. It is possible for high-energy lasers to produce
 Laser Safety 83

significant burns within an exposure period of less than one

second.
Most areas of the human skin are normally covered with
clothing, and the total area of exposed skin may be rather small. A
soldier on the battlefield, aware of the threat from laser exposures,
will be rather well protected as long as his uniform or the immedi:'
ate environment is not set on fire. However, it has to be recognized
that, even in a protected state, burn injuries to the eyes will
probably still be a problem. In the far-infrared and ultraviolet
regions of the spectrum, where the laser energy does not reach the
retina, corneal injury thresholds are approximately the same as for
skin injury. Therefore, laser burns to both the exterior of the eye
and skin are possible, but these do not seem to be important
threats at the moment.

SAFETY REGULATIONS

The laser hazard from industrial applications and general

public exposures has led to very detailed safety regulations for the
use of various lasers. In the United States, the formulation of
widespread standards started in the sixties at the same time that
ruby range finders were introduced into the military services. In
1969, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) initiated
the first work on a comprehensive standard for the safe use of
lasers. This resulted in a document published in October 1973,
which has subsequently been revised several times. This work
forms, more or less, the basis for laser safety standards all over the
world.
The establishment of the threshold levels for different laser
injuries is basic to the whole question of laser safety. The threshold
level is an exposure value below which adverse changes have a
low probability of occurrence and no significant risk exists. There
is always some question about what the actual value of the thresh-
old is, because it varies not only with the wavelength and exposure
duration but also with the individual. The value of the threshold
84 Three

may be set by using a statistical analysis to determine a certain

damage probability (usually 50%) and then setting the safety level
at a selected level of probability below this, usually the 0.01 or
0.001 % level. This energy/power level is often a factor of 10 below
that for the 50% damage point. In order to calculate a correct
threshold level, it is also necessary to try to simulate some kind of
worst-case situation-when the eye is hit in its most sensitive part
and takes in as much laser light from the laser in question as is
possible under the circumstances.
Lasers are divided into four hazard classifications defined by
the ANSI standard to assist in choosing the proper control meas-
ures for their safe use. The following is an outline of the basic
classification plan.
Class 1 lasers are those not capable of emitting hazardous
radiation under any operating or viewing conditions. Most lasers
used in supermarket scanners and compact disc players are in this
class.
Class 2 lasers are continuous-wave or pulsed types in the
visible (400-700 nanometers) range which can be safely viewed
long enough to identify and avoid the emitted light, much like one
avoids directly looking at the noonday sun. However, precautions
are required to prevent continuous staring into the direct laser
beam. The familiar red HeNe lasers found in high school optics
laboratories and used in lecture halls as pointers are in this class.
Class 3A lasers are normally not hazardous unless viewed
with magnifying optics. They are used at all large construction
sites by surveyors and to ensure that walls and drain pipes are
placed properly and at the correct angle.
Class 3B lasers are potentially hazardous if their direct beams
are viewed by the unprotected eye, but they do not cause haz-
ardous diffuse reflections. Care is required to prevent direct beam
viewing and to control specular or mirrorlike reflections.
Class 4 lasers are those lasers capable of producing hazardous
diffuse reflections. They are also fire and skin hazards; their
average output power is above 500 milliwatts.
It is obvious from the description of the various lasers that
 Laser Safety 85

candidates for laser weapons will be found almost exclusively

among class 3B and 4 lasers.
It may be of interest to consider what the safe distances are for
current military laser devices. This will give an indication of the
size of the hazardous area around each device. Each specific laser
has a safety distance of its own based upon its output properties.
The acronym used to describe this distance, in the U.S. regula-
tions at least, is NOHD (nominal ocular hazard distance).
The NOHD is calculated to determine at what distance an
unprotected person can stand directly in the beam and be exposed
momentarily without being injured. The use of magnifying optics
must be taken into account, because they will markedly increase
the NOHD. A 6-mile NOHD may be increased to 50 miles if an
individual looks into the laser with optics that magnify 13 times.
It should be remembered that the laser may be hazardous to
the eye even beyond the NOHD if the laser is viewed or stared at
for a prolonged time. The NOHD is calculated based on momen-
tary viewing only. As can be concluded from Fig. 3.6, the dis-
tances necessary to reduce the laser energy to safe levels are really
very long and may be difficult to find at any places other than
military ordnance target ranges and training areas which can be
securely closed to unauthorized persons, aircraft, and ships. Even
within thoroughly supervised areas, it may be necessary to aim
the lasers against natural or artificially constructed backstops to
the laser radiation, because these areas are often too small to
contain the NOHD for the particular laser. Laser backstops are
opaque structures or terrain such as windowless buildings, hills,
or a very dense line of trees.
It is also necessary to take into account the problem of
accuracy in aiming the laser. There must be a buffer zone added to
the hazardous area, and the size of this zone will be different for a
stationary laser as compared to a hand-held laser. Also, the
possibility of reflections from the target area is a problem that has
to be very carefully handled. A specular or regular reflection is
caused by mirrorlike surfaces such as windows, optical surfaces,
greenhouses, still ponds, or road signs covered with reflective
86 Three

coating. All such reflections have to be avoided; therefore, such

surfaces must be removed or covered, or some provision must be
made for masking or shielding their reflection. A diffuse reflection
which takes place when different parts of a beam incident on a
surface are reflected over a wide range of angles is not that
dangerous. However, for some lasers, there may be a hazardous
diffuse reflection area (HDRA), which is typically less than 10
yards from the reflecting surface. An example of a laser danger
zone is shown in Fig. 3.9.
The laser beam is decreased or attenuated by some atmo-
spheric conditions, and this is a factor that should be considered
when the NOHD is longer than a few kilometers. Atmospheric
attenuation is mainly dependent on the sum of three different
effects: large particle scattering, molecular scattering, and absorp-

A B c

t
______ ------l----- ______ -----------
\Firing: Forward edge \Firing! Forward edge
\ \ area.', of firing area "area!
\ I
of firing area
\- __ ... 1 'L ___ l

FIGURE 3.9. Laser range safety fans. Laser range safety fans are used by the U.S.
Army to indicate the nominal ocular hazard distance (NOHD). The NOHD is
normally terminated by a backstop. The unterminated NOHD depends on beam
expansion and atmospheric attenuation. In case A, the NOHD is a line-of-sight fan
parallel to the ground and would only be used when there is no backstop. Case B is
the more usual situation where a backstop is established by a hill or tree line. In
case C, the fan is perpendicular to the ground and is applied to airspace hazards.
 Laser Safety 87

tion by gas molecules. Large particle, or Mie, scattering is the

dominant factor in the visible and the near-infrared part of the
spectrum, where the particle size of the atmospheric contaminants
is larger than the wavelength of the laser light. Molecular or
Rayleigh scattering by oxygen, nitrogen, and other molecular
constituents of the atmosphere is the most important factor in the
ultraviolet, and, in these cases, the molecular size is much less
than the wavelength. The contribution of absorption by gas mole-
cules and other particles to attenuation is most important in the
infrared region of the spectrum.
The molecular scattering of the laser beam increases at shorter
wavelengths. However, this effect is not substantial over short
distances. A normal and clean atmosphere is relatively transpar-
ent to the argon laser beam (blue), the ruby laser beam (red), and
the Nd:YAG beam (near infrared). If the NOHD calculated for
vacuum transmission is known and compared to the NOHD
compensated for the ambient atmosphere (see Fig. 3.10), it may be
concluded that, for low-energy lasers, the atmosphere even at
battlefield distances up to 10 miles, at least, is not a big problem. A
ruby laser beam might be attenuated as little as 10% at 6 miles.
High-energy lasers are much more heavily dependent on the
weather conditions, espec!ally rain, snow, dust, and smoke. This
will be discussed further in Chapter 5. However, what may be
concluded from laser safety calculations is that most military
lasers are not very dependent on the atmosphere when the air is
fairly clean and the laser is used at battlefield distances.
A safety analysis of the outdoor use of current military range
finders and target designators indicates that these lasers can
actually be used deliberately against the eyes of the enemy. How-
ever, so far as is publicly known, only one country has made such
a use part of its military practice. This is the case of the use by the
British of low-energy lasers to flash blind Argentinean pilots in the
Falklands conflict. At present, there are no known tactical man-
uals which cover the deliberate use of lasers against the eyes of
enemy soldiers as a weapon of warfare. What the military will do
in future conflicts, which will certainly involve a mass use of
 88 Three

15.0

Range without
absorption

10.0
u; Normal atmosphere
~
§
Cl
J:
0
z
5.0

o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

NOHD (miles)

FIGURE 3.10. The effects of a clear atmosphere on the nominal ocular hazard
distance (NOHD). This figure shows the theoretical distance in a vacuum and the
actual distance in a clear atmosphere. The straight line is for a laser beam at a
wavelength (1064 nm) not absorbed heavily by the atmosphere. The curved line
shows effects of a normal atmosphere, indicating that even in the clearest atmo-
sphere there is a considerable attenuation. As the distances are large, this attenua-
tion will not affect the use of lasers within a typical battlefield but will modify the
effects of lasers from aircraft or in an antiaircraft situation.

lasers, remains to be seen. However, range finders and designa-

tors are not designed for use as anti-eye weapons, and, conse-
quently, they have several drawbacks as laser weapons. This raises
the question of whether or not it is possible to upgrade modern
laser range finders and target designators to offensive battlefield
weapons directed specifically against the human eye.
 FOUR

The Laser as a Weapon

The laser beam is popularly thought of as a very powerful death

ray which can be fired from a hand-held laser gun to vaporize
soldiers, demolish buildings, and burn through tanks. This is an
immense exaggeration which has been fostered for years by
science fiction literature and movies. In reality, the laser is a
suitable tool for many nonmilitary purposes, and, while it may
also be turned into a deadly weapon, there are definitely limita-
tions to what a laser can do. Although many people still consider
lasers as a sort of futuristic Flash Gordon weapon, some of these
science fiction depictions have become partially true. The laser
really is a ray weapon, and its light rays can damage some targets
in a way that appeals to the most vivid imagination. It is important
to take these somewhat speculative factors into consideration
when studying the psychological effects of the use of laser
weapons on the battlefield. Otherwise, it will not be possible to
get a complete and realistic picture of what using a laser really
means to the combatants.

89
90 Four

POSSIBLE TARGETS

A discussion of laser weapon applications outlining what

laser weapons can really do must start with the destination of the
laser beam-the target. The desired effect on the target ultimately
decides what is needed from the laser. To a large extent, the
interaction between the laser beam that is selected and the target
also determines which cost-effective weapons are developed,
produced, and fielded. The sensitivity of the target to laser light
determines whether a low-energy or a high-energy laser is re-
quired. If the target is sufficiently sensitive to low levels of energy
within a comparatively broad band of the spectrum, a cheap and
cost-effective laser weapon can be designed and mass-produced.
If high energy is required, the possibility of designing a usable
and affordable laser weapon decreases drastically.
Right at the outset, it should be made clear that many targets
exist on the battlefield which cannot be attacked successfully by
any laser weapon. Furthermore, many missions cannot be ful-
filled, because it is sometimes impossible to maneuver the straight
laser beam around a barrier such as a line of trees to damage the
target, even assuming that the target is vulnerable to laser energy.
Contrary to popular belief, it is quite impossible at battlefield
distances to bum holes through the thick armor of a tank or even
the much thinner defenses of an armored personnel carrier or car.
It is not possible for lasers to demolish fortifications or to blow up
bridges and roadblocks. It is even impossible to kill soldiers
instantly.
Most traditional artillery and mortars can lob shells and
grenades onto enemies hiding behind mountain ridges, tree
dumps, or buildings. That is not possible with a laser weapon,
which is more akin to a large-caliber, high-velocity, flat-trajectory
antitank gun which is dependent on a direct line of fire. It is not
even possible to ricochet or bounce the beam toward the target as
can sometimes be done with the shell from a direct firing gun, as
this would require that some helpful person place a high-quality
mirror at exactly the right spot and the right angle. Thus, the laser
 The Laser as a Weapon 91

cannot possibly replace every weapon that is on the battlefield

today. It may very well be a weapon of choice against some specific
targets and can be a very useful complement to many existing
weapons.
No damage will be done to the target of a laser weapon unless
some of the laser beam energy is actually transferred to the target
surface. The process starts as soon as the laser energy reaches the
target and lasts as long as this area is illuminated. The amount of
energy transferred is dependent on the type of laser, the duration
of exposure to the laser beam, the interaction between the laser
beam and the target, and certain environmental factors. Of all
these factors, the ability of the target to absorb or reflect the energy
is most crucial. A target with a high reflectivity to the laser energy
may be difficult or even impossible to damage. This target prop-
erty may even be used as part of a countermeasure scheme by the
enemy. The laser beam can even be reflected back and cause
damage to the laser weapon or its operators.
If the laser beam has a diameter of 4 inches, for example, the
energy will be dispersed all over that area. The size of the laser
beam at the target must then be compared with the size of the
target itself. If the target is small, for example, a sensor or a
human eye, it will only be affected by the laser energy in that part
of the beam which actually hits the sensitive part of the target.
This may mean that only a small fraction of the beam's energy
actually reaches the target. That fraction may very well be enough
to damage or destroy the target, but this loss of efficiency must be
taken into consideration when possible laser weapons are dis-
cussed.
The main damage mechanism of laser weapons, both for
antimateriel and antipersonnel use, is thermal. When the illumi-
nated surface on the target can neither reflect nor safely absorb the
beam energy, there is a rapid buildup of heat, which then melts
and boils off or vaporizes the target. Even before the material in
the target is heated to the melting point, it may be seriously
weakened. Further damage may be caused by an indirect mechan-
ical stress resulting from the intense heat of the laser beam or the
92 Four

pressure that an expanding laser spark or plasma exerts on the

target. These mechanisms can deform and perforate metals. Ion-
ization damage may result from laser-plasma-generated X rays,
which can have harmful effects on many electronic components.
Thermomechanical effects, due to a combination of thermal and
mechanical factors (similar to what happens when glass is heated
rapidly and unevenly), may cause the most severe damage. In
these cases, a series of pressure waves travel through the material
and may tear it apart. On a biological target such as the eye or
skin, photochemical and ionization damage will be added to the
thermal damage.
The only way for laser weapons to affect well-protected tar-
gets such as tanks on the battlefield is to get inside the tank
through the gun sights, periscopes, or vision blocks, glass win-
dows, and other optical pathways with the goal of blinding the
crew and/or the electronic sensors. It may also be possible with
sufficient energy to disable or destroy the optical pathways them-
selves. If the target is the unprotected eyes of the enemy infantry
units fighting in the open, a low-energy weapon aligned with the
sights of rifles, machine guns, and antitank weapons can be used
on the battlefield up to a distance of several yards. The low-energy
laser weapon may also be a way to reach human targets observing
the battlefield from fortifications, foxholes, and other protected
sites.
The low-energy laser weapon will be a cost-effective alterna-
tive to conventional weapons for disabling laser-sensitive electro-
optics used for night fighting, surveillance, target seeking, and
fire control systems. Furthermore, the low-energy laser may even
be used for blinding soldiers using magnifying optics or the naked
eye. A high-energy laser weapon may be used to down missiles,
helicopters, and aircraft by destroying the sensors, blinding the
crews, and burning holes in critical structures.
It is important to differentiate between the effects of high-
energy and low-energy laser weapons. High-energy lasers may be
used to melt holes through metal and plastic structures at reason-
able distances, to set fire to objects, to burn a soldier's skin, and to
 The Laser as a Weapon 93

destroy optics and electro-optical systems at long ranges. Low-

energy lasers may be used to counter optical and electro-optical
sensors such as thermal sights, other infrared sensors, image
intensifiers, and low-light television systems, all of which are very
sensitive to even an extremely low energy laser beam.
It is not possible to draw a sharp borderline between high-
and low-energy weapons, although the U.S. Department of De-
fense defines a high-energy laser as one that has an average power
output of at least 20,000 watts (or as much as 200 ordinary 100-watt
bulbs put together) or a single pulse energy of at least 30,000
joules (that given off by 300 flashes from a pocket camera all at
once). Some experts consider all laser applications ,designed to
destroy material of any kind as employing high-energy laser
weapons. It is true that most of these kind of attacks require a large
amount of energy. However, a very low energy laser has more than
enough optical punch to destroy the critical material inside a
sensitive sensor or a human eye. It is always the target in question
that determines the necessary properties of the laser such as the
beam energy, wavelength, pulsed or continuous mode, pulse
length, peak power, and so on. Since different types of targets
require different laser weapons, it is of limited value to try to
establish an exact energy borderline, and it must be accepted that
the distinction between high-energy and low-energy laser weap-
ons is somewhat blurred. High-energy laser weapons will gener-
ally be designed to burn and destroy targets that are not extremely
sensitive to laser energy and need more force in order to be
penetrated, while the less powerful weapons are designed to
attack only the more sensitive targets.
If the target is an aircraft, helicopter, or missile, and the
purpose is to damage the structure itself rather than a sensor, the
necessary energy level will be in the region of 10,000 kilojoules per
square centimeter within 0.2 seconds to get a significant effect.
The energy level required to burn the skin or the outer parts of the
eye is in the region of 0.2-0.4 joules per square centimeter in 10
nanoseconds for Q-switched lasers. This energy level is 25,000 to
50,000 times less than that required to damage the more resistant
94 Four

targets mentioned above. The structures inside the eye are even
more sensitive than skin, and an energy level of only 0.5-5.0
microjoules will be sufficient to cause serious damage. This is only
a tiny fraction of the energy level necessary to damage an aircraft.
Sensors aboard aircraft or other machinery operating within the
visible and near-infrared regions of the spectrum may be just as
sensitive as the human eye, since their optics also greatly magnify
any incoming laser energy. This should give an indication of the
differences between high- and low-energy-Ievellasers. In short,
only the eye and similarly sensitive sensors can be harmed by low-
energy laser weapons.
The military has a choice of two main laser weapon arenas.
The first includes the low-energy laser weapons designed to
destroy or disable sensors, target seekers, night fighting equip-
ment, other electro-optical devices, and even human eyes. The
other alternative is the high-energy laser weapons designed to
knock out targets in the air or on the ground and to destroy optics
and sensors at extremely long ranges. The sensitivity of the
intended target and the required range will be the two most
important factors to consider when deciding whether a low-power
and much cheaper laser will be sufficient or not.

ADVANTAGES AND POSSIBILITIES

One of the most remarkable properties of a laser weapon is its

speed. The "laser bullet" moves at the speed of light, 187,281 miles
per second. By comparison, the projectile of the usual tank gun
has an estimated speed of about a mile per second. This means
that when a tank crew fires at another tank 2 miles away which is
moving at a speed of 23 miles an hour (11 yards per second), it will
have moved 22 yards before the projectile arrives. This is, of
course, a problem for the tank gunner, who has to calculate the
true speed and direction of motion of the target. Having done so,
the gunner must lead or aim ahead of his target at the point where
 The Laser as a Weapon 95

the tank will be when the projectile arrives. A high hit probability
can only be achieved with the assistance of a fire control system
that calculates this factor and provides the correct aiming point.
Then, all the gunner has to do is press the button and wait for the
result. It is of interest to note that one of the basic components in
most such fire control systems is a laser range finder.
The problem of determining the correct lead for a moving
target (that is, the distance that the gunner must aim in front of it)
is even more difficult when the target is traveling rapidly, as in the
case of an aircraft. The usual speed for a military aircraft during an
attack may be 300-330 yards per second or 610-740 miles per hour.
If an aircraft moving at 330 yards per second is shot at by an
antiaircraft gun at a distance of 3 miles with a projectile whose
speed is 1,375 yards per second, the lead has to be at least 1,260
yards for a side view of the airplane. If the aircraft is not moving in
a straight line and has a more or less oblique course compared to
the projectile, the problem is much more difficult. This is why it is
necessary to have a very complex fire control system to solve this
three-dimensional problem. Yet, despite all the extra assistance
from the fire control system, the hit probability may still be rather
low. In comparison, the beam from a laser weapon will travel at the
speed of light, and the aircraft will move only two yards before the
laser beam hits it. The tank will move even less. These small
movements are without any importance whatsoever in relation to
the weapon's immediate effect on the target. If the target is
resistant, and it is necessary to attack the same spot for some time
in order to get the desired effect, the problem becomes a little more
complicated. However, it should be remembered that the laser
gunner has an almost zero time-of-flight weapon, and it is cer-
tainly not possible for the target to take any evasive action to avoid
the beam or to activate any protective countermeasures before it is
hit the first time.
When a tank gunner is fighting on the battlefield, he often has
more than one target to engage at the same time. It is vital to him
that he can destroy or neutralize these targets in rapid succession
96 Four

without being hit himself. This sequence usually takes a relatively

long time to complete. The gunner has to use the fire control
equipment to aim, then press the button to fire, wait for the
projectile to reach the target, assess the result, sometimes fire a
second round, and only then engage the next target. However, if
the gun is replaced by a laser weapon, only an extremely short
time is needed for reaction, target engagement, and target chang-
ing. There is no shooting time, and the laser gunner has only to
press the button to get the next "round" off. Such a laser weapon
may engage and destroy many more targets in a given time than a
conventional gun. The differences are, of course, measured in a
few seconds only, but these few seconds may decide who wins
and survives. This line of reasoning, of course, assumes that the
laser weapon can really damage the target sufficiently. Otherwise,
the conventional gun or missile will obviously be the first weapon
of choice.
Rifles, guns, mortars, and related conventional weapons all
have to get their ammunition directly to the target in order to be
effective. Large variations exist between the different conventional
weapons in this respect. Weapons such as tank guns, for example,
have a rather flat trajectory, with only a yard drop below the
straight line between the weapon and the target. This is usually
the case with weapons using a direct line of sight and having a
high-speed projectile (or muzzle velocity). Weapons that are
aimed indirectly, such as howitzers and mortars, have an arc
trajectory or line of projectile flight which, in some cases, is as
high above the ground as the distance to the target. Because they
have such an arc trajectory, they can reach targets behind hills,
woods, and other terrain features. This is an impossible task for a
laser weapon, which really cannot bend its beam around any
hindering objects and thus can only be compared to weapons
with a very flat trajectory. However, even for a tank gun with a
comparatively flat trajectory, calculations are necessary to com-
pensate for the motion of the target during the projectile's time of
flight. This is not necessary with a laser weapon, because it has a
perfectly straight line of fire which is identical to or parallel with
 The Laser as a Weapon 97

the line of sight and a beam which can instantaneously reach a

target before it moves away.
Some weapons such as cluster bombs, artillery mortars, and
machine guns cover a wide area but have a rather low hit proba-
bility against small, single targets. In many situations and espe-
cially when the soldiers are under severe combat stress, it is easy
to miss the target by spraying a weapon's ammunition haphaz-
ardly over a wide area. Laser weapons give soldiers the ability to
position the beam on an individual target with a high degree of
accuracy and with no risk to bystanders, even if they are very close
to the target. Thus, the laser is truly a weapon that may be used
selectively if required. However, this is not true if a laser weapon is
designed to use a scanning beam covering large areas, which
might be necessary in the heat of battle. In such cases, everybody
will be hit including both friendly troops and civilians.
Another significant characteristic of low-energy laser weap-
ons is their ability to operate in almost complete silence. This can
be contrasted with the very noisy performance of rifles, machine
guns, and tank guns. The position of these lasers will not be given
away by their noise when they are fired, thus providing an
important advantage to the laser gunner. High-energy lasers are
very different in this respect, since the massive flow of energy
pouring through the weapon is very noisy; indeed, the noise is
comparable to that of conventional field artillery. Even the passage
of the high-energy beam through the atmosphere may be heard as
dull thunder or crackling.
The radiation from lasers that operate outside the visible
region of the spectrum is invisible to the human eye, which means
that the location of such lasers cannot be pinpointed by visual
observation. Laser beams in the visible part of the spectrum can be
observed outside the beam path itself only when atmospheric
contaminants in the beam reflect light out of it. Many people have
seen this effect at laser light shows. This may be a problem to laser
gunners using lasers emitting in the visible part of the spectrum,
especially at night, as the laser beam may give away their position.
However, if the designer of a laser weapon uses a pulsed laser, the
98 Four

possibility of the beam being seen off axis may be substantially

reduced. If a laser weapon is operating in the infrared or the
ultraviolet, special instruments will be needed for detection of the
laser beam.
A major factor that favors the use of laser weapons, and
especially the low-energy lasers, is that they do not need the huge
and expensive ammunition logistic system associated with the
conventional weapon systems of today. Ammunition is tremen-
dously heavy and bulky and must always be stored, transported,
and used with some risk of premature detonation. The low-energy
laser may only require a battery as "ammunition," and, with such
an energy source, it will be capable of firing tens or hundreds of
shots. This alone will have a great impact on the cost-effectiveness
of low-energy laser weapons. On the other hand, a high-energy
laser will burn a lot of fuel, which will have to be produced,
stored, and transported to the battlefield. A typical CO 2 anti-
aircraft laser weapon may use 5-10 tons of fuel to fire 50 shots.
This constitutes a major logistical problem but not an overwhelm-
ing one compared to the logistical problems of other air defense
systems with a similar range of 6 miles.
The cost of any weapon is always an issue of high concern for
the military. The original cost of a low-energy laser weapon may
not be too high compared with the costs of more conventional
battlefield weapons. A very simple anti-eye laser weapon will not
cost more than an ordinary hand-held laser range finder and, in
fact, may cost much less. A more complicated low-energy antis en-
sor laser weapon may cost approximately two to five times more
than a laser target designator if produced in large quantities. If a
low-energy laser weapon is made more sophisticated by adding
various high-technology accessories, it can become much more
expensive, but, at the same time, it will be able to destroy much
more sophisticated targets. In short, a low-energy laser weapon
can be made cost-effective in a fairly easy manner, as it may
destroy or block such valuable targets as highly delicate sensors
and human eyes. On the other hand, a high-energy laser weapon
 The Laser as a Weapon 99

will certainly be quite expensive. Already, billions of dollars have

been spent on developing such weapons without any notable
successes. It is even still doubtful if it will be possible to develop,
manufacture, and put cost-effective high-energy lasers into the
field before the tum of the century. The major obstacle for high-
energy laser weapons at present is not the exorbitant cost but
rather the technological barriers that need to be overcome.
The size of a laser weapon is an advantage only in the case of
low-energy lasers. A high-energy laser designed to shoot down
aircraft and missiles may be the size of a truck or tank, while a
simple low-energy anti-eye laser may be as small as a pair of
binoculars. The existence of various laser weapons within most
armed forces today means that there are a lot of officers and
enlisted men who are already accustomed to directing beams
against different targets. Laser technology is not new to combat
units, which means that maintenance, battery supply, and risks to
personnel are already familiar problems. It will not be very diffi-
cult from a technical standpoint to field and use low-energy laser
weapons on a large scale in the future, although, of course, there
will be other issues to deal with related to tactics and even ethics.
From the manufacturing or supply standpoint, many coun-
tries all over the world have some kind of laser industry of their
own. It will certainly be possible in most of these countries to
produce simple low-energy military lasers, range finders, etc.
More complicated low-energy lasers useful for antisensor weap-
ons require a laser industry with a high level of laser technology
for research, development, and production. Such facilities only
exist in countries with a more advanced electronics industry.
High-energy weapons will be researched, developed, and fielded
only in a few highly developed countries that possess enough
resources in manpower and have an adequate industrial economy.
However, when discussing the future of laser weapons, it is
important to keep in mind that uncomplicated low-energy weap-
ons may be mass-produced, not only in all industrialized coun-
tries but even in many Third World countries as well.
100 Four

DISADVANTAGES AND DIFFICULTIES

Obviously, the laser is not capable of damaging or destroying

every kind of target on the battlefield. In the near future, the laser
will only be used against targets which are very sensitive to laser
energy such as sensors, electro-optical devices, and, possibly,
using a longer term perspective, human eyes. Beyond the year
2000, the laser may be used to destroy tougher targets such as
aircraft and missiles. Laser weapons will normally not be used
completely on their own but will be one of many weapons in the
military's arsenal working together on the conventional battlefield.
When gunners of rifles, machine guns, or other sorts of
barreled weapons or missiles are firing at a target, in most cases
the effect on the target can immediately be seen by the gunners'
own eyes or by some optical instrument. If the target is not hit, the
gunner can determine by how much it was missed, make the
appropriate corrections for distance and direction, and fire again.
This is not the case with a low-energy laser weapon. If the laser
gunner uses an invisible laser beam or even a beam in the visible
part of the spectrum that is difficult to identify, direct hits will not
be registered. Furthermore, it is not easy to judge what effect the
beam has had on a target. In the case of a miss, the gunner even
has difficulty determining by how much and in what direction the
beam was misdirected. The outcome of firing may be easier to
ascertain with a high-energy laser weapon, which will have a
more obvious and violent effect on the target, but it will still not be
as evident as with more conventional weapons.
One of the main difficulties with laser weapons is their
dependence on conditions within the atmosphere. Even on what
seems like a very clear day, the air may appear to be much more
transparent to the laser beam than is actually the case. These
problems will certainly become worse on the battlefield, where the
air is often filled with smoke and dust. Furthermore, rain and fog
can have a devastating effect on some lasers, reducing their effec-
tiveness to almost nothing. The designer of laser weapons has to
take all of these factors into consideration; the use of the appropri-
 The Laser as a Weapon 101

ate laser characteristics, the proper accessories, and enough en-

ergy can circumvent most atmospheric problems. Also, intensive
training is necessary to provide the laser operator with a thorough
knowledge of all the problems involved in operating a laser
weapon.
The main effects of the atmosphere on the laser beam are
absorption, scattering, turbulence, spark generation, and what is
called thermal blooming. The theory behind laser beam propaga-
tion through the atmosphere is really quite complex, and extensive
research has resulted in many comprehensive books and a
plethora of articles on the subject. Most of the research has been
done in connection with military laser programs, which gives one
indication of the extent to which military funds are supporting the
development of laser technology.
Turbulence in the air may bend and defocus the beam. The
density of the air is always fluctuating randomly due to winds,
differences in temperature, local topology, and many other fac-
tors. This leads to spatial fluctuations in optical properties in the
air. Turbulence causes deformation of the beam on its way from the
laser optics to the target. If the firing range is long, the beam cross
section may deviate considerably from the ideal circular shape.
Inhomogeneities in the atmosphere along the beam path may act
as lenses to give hot spots in the beam. Hot spots are localized
areas of the beam where the intensity of the beam is much greater
than the average due to localized focusing effects. Fog, rain,
smoke, or other obscuring haze weakens and scatters the beam
but does not cause hot spots, and, of course, if the beam is
absorbed, it will not reach or destroy its target.
The efficiency within the atmosphere of high-energy laser
weapons is reduced by several more factors. One of the most
important of these is a phenomenon called thermal blooming. It is
caused by a succession of sparks or plasmas created by the beam's
energy which heat the air within the beam. These small heated
areas are difficult for the energy to penetrate, and that is why they
cause the beam to diverge or "bloom," reducing its efficiency at
long ranges. As the power of the laser beam is diffused, it becomes
102 Four

increasingly difficult to damage the target. The problem of ther-

mal blooming becomes even worse if it is necessary to track a
moving target and, thus, move the laser beam through the air. This
will be the case for almost all high-energy laser weapon applica-
tions where it is necessary to heat a spot on the target for some
time. The beam bends in the direction of the wind and spreads
out, producing a focal spot that is longer in the direction perpen-
dicular to the wind. Thermal blooming is an effect which increases
rapidly as the beam power increases, and, in the cases when the
beam power exceeds a critical value, the intensity on the target
decreases rapidly. It will certainly be necessary to compensate for
these atmospheric influences if high-energy laser weapons that are
effective at long ranges are to become a reality. Some methods of
minimizing thermal blooming will be described in later chapters,
but it should be understood from the start that there is still some
uncertainty about whether or not it is possible at all to solve the
problem satisfactorily. If these atmospheric influences are not
compensated for, the intensity on the target from a high-energy
CO2 laser at a range of a few miles may be reduced to values of a
few hundred watts per square inch. The values from a high-
energy OF laser will be only slightly beUer.
Another effect caused by the passage of the high-energy
beam through the air is stimulated Raman scattering, which
changes the original wavelength of the beam to another or several
other wavelengths. This is a process that may repeat itself and lead
to the beam losing much of its efficiency. The research done in this
field is very incomplete, and there seems to be a general lack of
information. Some researchers have shown that this effect does
not occur at all wavelengths so that perhaps a tunable free-
electron laser (FEL) could solve the problem. If further research
reveals a group of wavelengths that have good transmission capa-
bilities, the FEL could easily be tuned to it.
The negative effect of atmospheric conditions on high-energy
laser weapons means that the effective range of the beam will be
considerably shortened even in seemingly good weather. Under
more severe conditions such as rain, fog, or snow, effective laser
 The Laser as a Weapon 103

action in air defense may be almost impossible. An air defense

high-energy laser weapon cannot reach aircraft or missiles
through thick clouds, and, furthermore, it is difficult to quantify
the limitations due to the pollution of the atmosphere that can be
expected to occur on the battlefield. However, these atmospheric
disturbances are not too important when it comes to close combat
situations on the ground. The average fighting distance may be
less than a mile even in a tank-versus-tank engagement. It is
perfectly possible to design lasers operating against sensors and
human eyes with an energy output that is sufficient to cope with
most atmospheric situations up to two miles.
The single and direct line for aiming and firing that character-
izes the laser weapon concept is a great advantage, but, at the
same time, it can also represent a disadvantage. When the gunner
fires a laser weapon against the enemy soldier, the laser's position
may be given away by the beam if the enemy has a laser detector or
if the beam is visible, and thus the gunner may become a target
himself. This is, of course, the problem with all direct-line-of-fire
weapons; however, the laser still has the advantage of silence and
possibly invisibility. As has been said previously, the direct line of
fire also means that it is impossible to use laser weapons for
indirect fire.
The high-energy laser weapon concepts that have been dis-
cussed so far all involve far more difficulties than the low-energy
applications. Another major drawback of high-energy lasers is
their high fuel consumption in addition to the inherent noise and
bulk of the machinery. When these factors are added to the
difficulties with the beam transmission through difficult atmo-
spheric conditions and thermal blooming, it is clear that the
solutions will obviously involve very costly and complicated tech-
nologies. These added difficulties with high-energy lasers empha-
size that low-energy laser weapons offer a far more realistic and
certainly cheaper alternative for the time being.
A large-scale deployment of various laser weapons on future
battlefields will have a strong influence on how combat units will
have to fight. A laser weapon doctrine has to be worked out, both
104 Four

for the offensive use of these weapons and the defense against
hostile lasers. Such a doctrine should cover all aspects from army
group operations down to the role of the individual soldier, air-
man, and sailor. The implementation of such a comprehensive
doctrine will take time, require a lot of training, and certainly cost
a great deal of money. It is necessary to make very precise
arrangements to ensure that combat units know how to cope with
the laser threat; otherwise, they are risking a very nasty surprise in
actual combat. Optimally, laser weapons should be combined with
conventional weapons in a way that will produce as high an
efficiency rate as possible in combat.

THE MAJOR LASER WEAPON CONCEPTS

There is generally more than one laser weapon alternative for

each proposed laser weapon mission on the battlefield. It is quite
possible to vary the laser properties and energy level, the tracking
system, and the fire control equipment according to the military
requirements for each specific mission. Environmental influences
will also have a very strong impact on the final choice of laser
weapon applications. For example, a hydrogen fluoride laser is not
the best choice for long-range use within the atmosphere, because
its wavelength is strongly absorbed by the atmosphere. Every
laser weapon that is designed to operate within the atmosphere
over any great range, whether ground-, sea-, or air-based, must
use wavelengths at which the atmospheric absorption and scatter-
ing are as small as possible.
Laser weapons may be used within an army's air defense
against aircraft, helicopters, and missiles. The desired effect on
the target may be either to burn holes and destroy key structures,
to blind or trick the sensors, or to blind the crews temporarily or
permanently. The high-energy air defense laser may use all three
effects at the same time if the target is within reach of the main
effect of the laser. At longer distances, only the antisensor and
anti-eye capability will be possible. The low-energy air defense
 The Laser as a Weapon 105

laser will use enough energy to be effective against sensors and

eyes. It is also possible to field a laser with the main purpose of
blinding or flash blinding the crews. Flash blinding will be most
effective in the dark when the eye is dark adapted and much more
sensitive to overload by bright flashes.
The cost-effectiveness of low-energy defense laser weapons
will be very substantial if it is realistically possible to knock out a
very expensive enemy aircraft or helicopter with a relatively
simple and cheap laser. The cost-effectiveness of the much more
complicated and certainly very expensive high-energy laser
weapons is more questionable. Such weapons may be worthwhile
only when they protect very costly objects such as air bases, ships,
and high-level command posts.
Both high- and low-energy antisensor laser weapons will be
used primarily against optical and electro-optical equipment. The
required effect on the target will be to destroy, fool, or blind the
sensors. This application has already been mentioned in connec-
tion with the high-energy air defense weapons, and it is certainly
also a valid alternative on the ground. Low-energy laser weapons
may be used on the battlefield against night fighting equipment,
tank fire control systems, missile sights, and other similar sensor
systems. It is also possible that a high-energy laser might be a
suitable weapon against the vision blocks, optics, and sensors on
modern tanks and other fighting vehicles. If this turns out to be a
cost-effective solution, it will probably add a longer range to
present applications that employ low-energy systems.
One very interesting laser weapon concept is to try to counter
sea-skimming missiles while they are approaching the target ship.
This may be accomplished with an antisensor laser or with a high-
energy air defense weapon or a combination of both. Some mis-
siles and other weapons such as smart bombs home into the target
with the help of low-light television or an infrared seeker-
systems which are very sensitive to laser action and, therefore,
can be easily manipulated by a laser weapon. It may even be
possible to field an airborne laser weapon to counter some enemy
air-to-air missiles. The problem is that the weight and size of the
106 Four

laser and its tracking system may be too much for a combat aircraft
to carry. Another interesting concept is to direct the laser beam
from the aircraft against the sensors and sights of the air defense
sites. Some ground-to-air missiles use a beam riding technique,
and it should be possible to fire a laser weapon from the threat-
ened aircraft along the laser beam that is attacking it back to the
missile operator or the missile itself.
The most spectacular and horrifying use of the laser weapon
may be in the antipersonnel role, where the main target is the
human eye. The desired effect may be to flash blind the adversary
for shorter or longer periods of time or even to permanently blind.
The most obvious targets are the eyes behind the magnifying
optics in armored vehicles, missile systems, artillery control sys-
tems, and many other places on the battlefield. The use of magni-
fying optics means that the effective range of the laser weapon will
be substantially increased, as the effect of the incoming laser light
is increased by the magnifying optics, but even ordinary infantry-
men can be a target for anti-eye laser weapons. It is surely possible
to design and field cheap laser weapons that can be added to
ordinary small arms and used in close combat at distances of up to
1,100 yards. The cost of such a weapon drops with mass produc-
tion, and the broad-scale fielding of this type of weapon would
change not only the tactics and battle doctrine of combat but
would even affect the requirements for medical services, because
of the large-scale casualties that would be expected from such
engagements.
High-energy laser weapons could also be used as very so-
phisticated and long-range flamethrowers. It would be easy to set
fire to trees, wooden buildings, uniforms, and other flammable
objects at long distances, causing widespread fires and a devastat-
ing psychological effect on the enemy.
As will be discussed in the following chapters, the wide-
spread use of the military laser weapon, both against equipment
and personnel, is rapidly approaching becoming a reality, but
there are many limitations.
 FIVE

High-Energy Laser (HEL)

Weapons

Laser weapon projects have always been shrouded by very tight

security. In spite of this, it is possible to follow the general lines, at
least, of the high-energy laser (HEL) weapon research field
through the open literature. This is especially the case with the
development of different laser projects in the United States. Most
of the following discussion and evaluation refers to well-publi-
cized U.S. programs. However, this should not lead anyone to
believe that the laser weapon business is mainly an American
affair. Much work is going on not only in other Western countries
but also in the Eastern bloc. Even though our information from the
Russian part of the former Soviet Union on the state of their laser
technology is very sparse" there can be no doubt that they are
working very hard to actualize laser weapon ideas. According to
David Isby, author of Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army, in 1988
the Soviets were at about the same level as, or even more advanced
than, the West in the development of offensive laser weapons. He
has also stated that the Soviets had begun practicing weapon
applications with a variety of laser technologies that are still in the
realm of pure scientific research in--the United States.

107
108 Five

The efforts to develop and field high-energy laser weapons

were initiated as soon as the first lasers capable of delivering high
energy were introduced in the late sixties. The gas dynamic carbon
dioxide (C0 2) laser was the earliest truly promising high-energy
laser concept and was developed in the United States by AVCO
Everett in 1968. This was soon followed by the hydrogen fluoride
(HF) and the deuterium fluoride (OF) chemical lasers developed
by the United Technology Research Center (UTRC) in 1969. In the
early 1970s, all three military services in the United States started
research programs largely based on theoretical considerations
aimed at investigating the vulnerability of relevant military targets
to high-energy lasers.
One of the most important events fostering the development
of HEL weapon technology was the Strategic Defense Initiative
(SOl) established by the U.S. President in March 1983. The aim of
this program is to use different weapons (many are beam
weapons, including various laser types) which will kill incoming
intercontinental missiles and warheads mainly outside of the
Earth's atmosphere. High-energy lasers represent one of several
possible classes of weapons that have been intensively discussed
and researched for use in this program. The lack of atmospheric
influences is, of course, a significant advantage for all high-energy
lasers at the enormous ranges that are involved. Although the
conditions in space and within this entire strategic warfare con-
cept are quite different from those on the conventional battlefield,
the enormous resources in money and manpower that have been
allocated to the development of laser weapon technology within
the SOl program have certainly speeded up the progress of con-
ventional battlefield laser weapon programs.
Despite all of the SOl efforts to date, no high-energy laser
weapons have even been fielded in space or on the ground. This
gives an indication of the magnitude of the difficulties involved
and indicates that, for the near future at least, large-scale fielding
of HEL weapons designed to destroy relatively hard structures
such as aircraft seems unlikely.
 High-Energy Laser Weapons 109

HELTARGETS

The main use of HEL weapons will be for air defense, and
vigorous efforts have been made by some countries to investigate
seriously the use of HEL weapons for this purpose. Defense staff
military planners, scientists, and engineers at industrial research
institutes worldwide have worked hard at trying to design and
field HEL weapons that will meet the growing threat from increas-
ingly sophisticated attack aircraft, armed helicopters, and a grow-
ing number of different missiles, including sea skimmers. In
theory, the military requirements are quite simple; the HEL
weapon must be able to destroy the airborne targets at night as
well as in bad weather before they deliver their load of munitions
on a protected facility. If the aircraft release their payload outside
the range of the HEL weapon, then it must also be capable of
destroying the incoming munitions before they can accomplish
their mission.
The air defense environment is usually complicated by a high
degree of atmospheric pollution, yet, despite this problem, a very
high standard of performance will still be required from any laser
weapon system. When important targets need to be protected, it
is necessary to take into account the enemy's probable use of a
large number of attacking aircraft or helicopters equipped with
the most modern weapons. In most cases, this could mean four to
eight aircraft attacking simultaneously from several directions.
Modem technology allows an aircraft to fly toward the target area
close to the ground and deliver its munitions from a very low
altitude. In some cases, long-range weapons will be used whose
missiles can be launched at the final target from the attacking
aircraft well outside the range of the defending laser weapons. Of
course, the greater the distance from the target that the launching
takes place, the lower is the probability of a successful hit.
Aircraft, helicopters, and missiles are becoming increasingly
faster, more intelligent; and much more versatile, which means
that all types of air attackers will have to be destroyed or countered
110 Five

before they have time to use their weapons. It is no longer

sufficient to neutralize the majority of the attackers; it is now
necessary to shoot down or counter almost everyone of them.
This will become even more difficult as future combat aircraft and
helicopters will be harder both to detect by radar and to hit, as
they will be protected to some extent against air defense weapons.
The attacking enemy aircraft will also be supported by airborne
electronic countermeasures, will presumably be well informed,
and will be guided from airborne command posts. The attackers
may even use smart, almost jamproof missiles or remotely piloted
vehicles.
The air defense of today is composed of a combination of
interceptor and fighter aircraft, antiaircraft guns, and missiles
directed by trained command control and intelligence systems.
Even if, in most situations, the combined effect of all air defense
units is sufficient to cope with the present threat, it will not be so
in the future. When an important target is to be protected prop-
erly, it will be necessary to stop virtually all attacking airborne
weapons.
Although modern antiaircraft guns have a high rate of fire
and use high-speed projectiles or, at least, ones that leave the gun
barrel with a high muzzle velocity, they still need the advance
knowledge of the target path or trajectory. The presence of elec-
tronic countermeasures aboard enemy aircraft in many cases will
give an unacceptable kill probability. Furthermore, an artillery
system often needs several hits or near misses to down a single
target depending on the caliber of the gun in question.
Also, contrary to what is sometimes believed, missile weapon
systems do not have a 90% or more hit probability. Even if
antiaircraft missiles are properly handled, the very hard and
sometimes unpredictable realities of the battlefield have been
shown to necessitate devastating revisions of peacetime data and
calculations of weapon efficiency. When the enemy counter-
measures and evasive actions are added to the quite normal
difficulties resulting from a very stressful and life-threatening
 High-Energy Laser Weapons 111

situation, air defense missile units are often very satisfied if the
kill probability exceeds 50% for each missile fired. The true figure
is usually less than that. A missile system has a relatively long
reaction time from target detection until missile launch, often
more than five seconds. If these crucial seconds are added to the
five to ten seconds it will take the missile to fly to the target, the
possibility of engaging any given target successfully becomes
somewhat limited. If the target moves at a very low altitude-"tree
skimming" -with a speed of 300 yards per second, it will cover at
least 1.5 miles before the missile can possibly hit it. This may not
be too problematic if the number of targets is the same or nearly
the same as the number of guns or missiles and the enemy is flying
at an altitude that makes it possible to engage him. If there are
multiple targets for every gun and missile, however, there is a
good possibility that a substantial number of them will get
through. Any enemy will certainly be aware of these facts and will
try to attack important targets with as many weapons and aircraft
as possible. The most difficult and extreme case will be when the
attacker can launch multiple missiles or bombs at extreme ranges.
Thus, it is already very difficult and will become even more
complicated in the future to defend high-value targets effectively
against airborne attacks with conventional missile and gun system
technology. \
Some military scientists and staff members have advocated
the introduction of the HEL air defense weapons on the battlefield
as the only solution to these problems. According to one of the
individuals involved in the present development of a German air
defense HEL weapon, the following essential military require-
ments must be fulfilled in order for a future HEL system to cope
with even a present-day threat. The air defense laser must have
multiple target detection and tracking ability with a target detec-
tion time of less than 1.5 seconds. The aiming time should be less
than 0.5 seconds for the first target and 0.1 seconds for each
additional target in a group. In addition to these extremely short
reaction times, an additional requirement is that there be a suffi-
112 Five

cient amount of fuel to allow ten or more laser shots to be fired

within very short time limits. Finally, the tracking and fire control
systems must provide for a very high hit probability.
Approaching missiles, due to their small size, high speed,
and possible large numbers, are usually more difficult targets
than aircraft or helicopters. Only if the missile is dependent upon
and equipped with a sensor that is sensitive to laser light does it
become easy to disable before it reaches the target. One very
interesting application of the HEL weapons is to protect ships
against sea-skimming missiles, which have a long flat flight path.
That such missiles pose a very serious threat to any surface
warship has been recently demonstrated in the Falkland Islands
conflict, where EXOCET sea-skimming missiles launched by the
Argentineans sank both a destroyer, the HMS Sheffield, and a
commercial container ship, the HMS Atlantic Conveyor.
One of the advantages of using a large ship as a base for an
HEL weapon is the possibility of using the ship's main drive
engines as an electrical generator to power the laser. This means
that there will not be any shortage of ammunition and that it will
be possible to fire many laser shots within a very short time
interval. The laser weapon· with its direct line of sight in both
elevation and azimuth, its almost zero time of flight, which also
eliminates the need for a lead, and an almost unlimited supply of
energy seems to be an ideal weapon for the protection of valuable
ships. However, there are still many problems; the humid atmo-
sphere and often severe weather conditions surrounding vessels at
sea may be the most difficult issues to solve.
If the primary goal for a given HEL weapon is not to destroy
the target itself but rather to attack battlefield sensors, night
fighting equipment, fire control systems, and other electro-optical
devices, less energy will be required, and, thus, it will be much
easier to cripple or blind the target. An antisensor HEL weapon
may thus be used at much longer ranges than a laser weapon
designed to burn holes and destroy hard targets, or it can be used
at the same range with much less energy. Since most aircraft and
helicopters are equipped with several sensor systems, which are a
 High-Energy Laser Weapons 113

necessary part of any attack against targets on the battlefield, in

the air, and at sea, the attack may very well be neutralized, for
some time at least, just by destroying or blinding the sensors. This
indirect application of the HEL may be more cost-effective than
more ambitious attempts to shoot down the aircraft itself.
The HEL weapon can also be given to combat units as a very
efficient flamethrower, since it can set fire to flammable objects on
the battlefield at very long ranges. The enemy soldiers may be
burned out of buildings, grassy areas, brush, and forests. Human
beings are afraid of fire, and this application may very well be
used as a psychological weapon to terrify the enemy infantry. The
risk of setting a soldier's uniform on fire may also have a devastat-
ing effect upon his morale and will to go on fighting. However, the
high economic cost of this application will almost certainly limit
its use to a few very strategic enemy positions.

ENERGY LEVELS AT THE TARGET

One of the basic questions facing the laser weapon designer is

what energy level must be absorbed by the target in order to get
the desired result. The absorbed energy (E) is some fraction (A) of
the product of the power density or intensity (1) present in the laser
beam and the emission duration (t). E is measured in energy units,
joules (]) or watt seconds per area, usually expressed in square
centimeters, J in power units, watts (W) per square centimeter, and
the time in seconds in the following equation:

E = A(J x t)

This means that if the emission duration is required to be

short, as it would be in the engagement of multiple targets, the
power density has to be as high as possible. The power density is
calculated as the beam power divided by the size of the "beamed"
area, which means that a high beam power and a small surface
area will give a high power density. How much of the laser power
114 Five

will finally be absorbed by the target in the affected surface area

will determine what destructive effect will be achieved. The laser
power goes from the laser to the target, suffers transmission losses
in the optical system and the atmosphere, and has a further loss
when some of the power is reflected from the target surface. The
absorbed power is normally no more than 20-60% of the original
emitted laser power.
The effectiveness of a laser beam in causing mechanical
damage is, thus, dependent on beam power, pulse duration,
wavelength, air pressure, the material, and the finish of the target
surface. For example, a painted area has a considerably increased
energy absorption when compared to an unpainted aluminum
plate. The absorption varies widely between different materials
and at different wavelengths. The absorption of a ruby laser at 694
nanometers is 11% for aluminum, 35% for light-colored human
skin, and 20% for white paint. The corresponding figures for a
CO2 laser at 10,600 nanometers are 1.9, 95, and 90%. This also
indicates that one way to counter a HEL weapon is to choose a very
reflective material for the target surface. On the other hand, longer
wavelengths emitted by the laser can reduce the effects of highly
reflective materials and increase the absorption. Every factor in
this very difficult pattern combines to determine tbe degree of
target destruction as well as the final energy level that will be
needed to produce the desired effect.
It is obvious that the level of energy required to destroy a
target varies considerably depending on the circumstances.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the required energy level figures
quoted in the open literature also show rather large variations. In
spite of this, some numbers may be given which indicate the
general range of energy levels.
An aircraft, helicopter, or missile could be hit with an HEL
weapon in many different ways that in the end would nullify it.
Fuel tanks could be ruptured, or the fuel itself could be caused to
explode. Windshields could be shattered, and parts of the control
surfaces such as elevators or rudders could be destroyed or dis-
turbed enough to make it impossible to continue flighting. The
 High-Energy Laser Weapons 115

rotor head of a helicopter or the wing of an airplane or missile

could be made to fail, resulting in a crash. Sensors, radars, and
other navigation aids could be destroyed; if this destruction occurs
during a sensitive and crucial moment in the last phase of an
attack, it could result in a crash or an aborted mission. Also, in
some situations, an HEL w'eapon could even explode the ammuni-
tion carried by an airborne attacker.
To punch through the metal skin of an airplane requires about
700 joules per square centimeter, although it should be noted that
a hole burned in the skin of an airplane may not be sufficient to
destroy it in the air or even to make it crash. A more realistic
energy level to disable an aircraft may be five to ten times higher,
which means that a successful HEL weapon will have to be able to
deliver at least 5,000-10,000 joules per square centimeter on the
target.
Optical sensors and radomes (plastic radar domes) are much
easier to damage; no more than 10 joules per square centimeter
needs to be delivered directly on the target. Furthermore, if the
laser wavelength is within the sensitive wavelength region of the
sensor in question, the energy needed could be extremely low. If
the HEL weapon is used as an antipersonnel weapon, that is, as a
long-range flamethrower, the energy necessary to burn exposed
skin is merely 15 joules per square centimeter, and damage to the
cornea, the clear window into the eye, requires only 1 joule per
square centimeter.
An air defense HEL weapon designed to shoot down air-
planes, helicopters, and missiles successfully must have the ability
to keep a very powerful beam at one point on the target for a long
enough time to deliver at least 5,000 joules per square centimeter.
This requires a laser in the megawatt range. If the shot is to be
successful, it must be directed to a certain part of the target that is
limited in size and very sensitive and then kept there until the
desired effect is reached. Thus, the laser beam must track and
follow a target if any great length of time is needed to achieve the
desired effect.
Many parts of an aircraft or helicopter are highly resistant to
116 Five

an HEL weapon, but there are still enough thin-skin parts and
sensitive areas to produce a devastating effect or destruction if hit
precisely. On the other hand, it is obvious that at battlefield ranges
even an extremely high energy laser weapon cannot penetrate the
heavy armor on a tank or other armored vehicles and thus an HEL
weapon is of no use for destroying resistant ground targets in the
battlefield. However, sensors, optics, and related devices are still
valid targets wherever they appear on the battlefield, even in a
tank.

CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH-ENERGY LASER (HEL)

SUITABLE FOR USE IN WEAPON SYSTEMS

The rapid development of laser technology has led to hun-

dreds of different kinds of lasers, but only very few of them may
be scaled up into the high-energy field. Carbon dioxide (C0 2)
lasers are the most obvious possibilities for use in HEL weapon
applications. Carbon monoxide (CO); hydrogen fluoride (HF),
deuterium fluoride (OF), and iodine:oxygen (12:°2)' as well as the
free-electron (FEL) and X-ray lasers, along with argon fluoride,
xenon fluoride, and many other types of ultraviolet excimer lasers
are also candidates. HEL weapons produce a huge internal
amount of heat, and prolonged operation at very high powers
requires an effective system for the disposal of this wasted heat. In
a gas laser, the high fuel flow serves to remove the excess heat, as
the fuel is warmed by the laser reaction chamber and, in the
process, cools the laser. Most high-energy lasers now under devel-
opment are gas lasers working in this way. Such a laser will sound
and, to some extent, look like a jet engine. Indeed, in the HEL
field today, only the X-ray and free-electron lasers are not gas flow
systems.
The laser in an HEL weapon system has to emit an average
beam power of several megawatts during the required exposure
time. This power level is two or three orders of magnitude higher
than that used by the most powerful industrial processing lasers.
 High-Energy Laser Weapons 117

This power requirement together with the adverse environment in

outdoor use under battlefield conditions makes the design task
even tougher. When all aspects of the HEL weapon problem have
been considered, very few real possibilities remain.
The gas dynamic CO 2 laser is one of the few lasers that shows
promise in the HEL weapons field. The fuel may be a common
hydrocarbon, for example, benzene (C6H6)' which is burned to-
gether with an oxidizer such as nitrous oxide (N20). The fuel can
easily be carried in liquid tanks, and the waste gas mixture is
nontoxic. The wavelength is between 9,350 and 10,600 nanome-
ters, and, theoretically at least, it is possible to have an average
beam power of over five megawatts. The technology for operating
this laser is rather well known and highly developed. Of course,
there are some disadvantages. The very high output gas tempera-
ture has a bright IR signature. That is, the temperature is easily
detected by enemy sensors. Also, there is a high risk of causing
fire in the surrounding environment because of the hot exhaust
gases. This laser will be rather bulky, of comparable size to a
battlefield tank. As will be described later, much research is going
on to solve the technological problems of high-pressure combus-
tion and adverse changes in beam quality while the atmosphere is
being traversed. The use of the gas dynamic CO2 laser seems to be
one of the more realistic HEL weapon concepts, and this type of
laser has already been used in quite a few military developmental
programs but as yet has not become an operational field weapon.
The CO laser operates at several wavelengths within the
spectral range between 4,700 and 6,200 nanometers, but poor
atmospheric transmission, mainly as a result of water vapor ab-
sorption, effectively limits its usefulness to wavelengths shorter
than 5,000 nanometers. Electrically excited versions of both the
CO2 and CO lasers are not as promising as the gas dynamic
versions. Both require a relatively large energy supply with a poor
overall efficiency. Even so, electrically excited versions have been
tested in some experimental HEL weapons.
The HF laser, operating in the spectral range between 2,500
and 3,000 nanometers, is not the best laser to use within the
118 Five

atmosphere because of very strong atmospheric absorption in that

part of the spectrum, but it is relatively cheap and has a simple
design. It is probably more useful in military space programs. The
DF laser with the same design uses a wavelength of 3,800 nanome-
ters, where the atmospheric transmission is fairly good. The DF
technology is mature, and the laser has a low infrared signature
and high efficiency with sufficiently good beam quality. In spite of
the high price of deuterium and difficulties with the chemical
pump technology, the DF laser is still a realistic option for a
battlefield laser weapon.
The chemical 12:02 laser is a new and still somewhat unknown
high-energy system. A chemical reaction excites oxygen mole-
cules, which transfer their energy to iodine atoms. The wave-
length is 1,300 nanometers, which is transmitted rather well
through the atmosphere. There is a developmental program for a
SO, ODD-watt iodine laser in the United States, and several reports
indicate the construction of Soviet iodine lasers. The information
available gives no indication of the future prospects of this laser.
The free-electron laser (FEL) has the potential of generating
very high powers and is, therefore, considered very suitable for
use as a laser weapon. The SDI program proposes to have an FEL
operating on the top of a high mountain directing its beam toward
an orbiting relay mirror which will then deliver the energy to a
target in space. The big advantage of using the FEL as a battlefield
weapon is the capability of selecting a wavelength that is appropri-
ate to the military target requirements and optimizing atmo-
spheric transmittance. However, the possibility of scaling down
the present FEL size to one that is useful and practical on the
conventional battlefield still seems far away. One of the main
centers of research on FEL weapons is located at the Los Alamos
National Laboratory, where, in 1989, an existing FEL was adapted
for tests within the SDI program. A photoinjector device replaced
the cumbersome and expensive electron gun previously used for
the creation of the laser beam. The electron gun was truck-sized,
while the photoinjector is close to the size of a bread box. Further-
more, the laser beam may be 100 times brighter than those of FELs
 High-Energy Laser Weapons 119

using an electron gun. However, even the rebuilt FEL with its
electron wiggler, all high-voltage accelerators, and the photoinjec-
tor will still be a very large nonmobile indoor machine.
Another alterative is under investigation at Stanford Univer-
sity, where the development of a superconductor FEL could lead to
very efficient and compact models. In a superconductor system,
the magnets are cooled to such low temperatures that the electric
currents travel with almost no loss of energy. It will certainly be
several years before the FEL technology is mature enough to be
used for active service on the battlefield, but if the problems of size
and technology can be solved, the frequency-agile FEL will be a
prime candidate for tactical HEL weapon applications.
In principle, an X-ray laser beam could destroy electrical
circuitry, possibly trigger some types of munitions, set off a
nuclear bomb or render it inoperable, and make humans sick or
even kill them. The preferred energy source for a very high power
X-ray laser is a small nuclear explosion. This makes it almost
impossible to contemplate a battlefield HEL X-ray laser weapon.
Some research has been done by the Livermore Laboratories in the
United States with optical laser-driven X-ray lasers. So far, the
output power is modest compared to the input power. Thus, with
the present technology, X-ray lasers are not candidates for battle-
field HEL weapons.
Two excimer laser systems may be considered HEL weapon
candidates-the krypton fluoride laser (KrF) emitting at 249
nanometers and the xenon fluoride laser (XeF) at 350 nanometers.
The interest in using excimer lasers for weapons in a manner
similar to the FELs has emerged out of the 501 program. Initially,
the excimer work concentrated on the use of an HEL weapon
mounted on a satellite to be used against nuclear ballistic missiles
and warheads in outer space. Later stages of the program have
placed the laser in a ground or underground station and reflected
the laser beam by an orbiting mirror to the target in much the same
way as with the FEL. While the FEL has the possibility of selecting
an optimal wavelength, excimer lasers operate at only a few well-
defined wavelengths. The basic problem is still to overcome atmo-
120 Five

spheric absorption and scattering. As the atmospheric effects are

more severe at shorter wavelengths, the XeF laser at 350 nanome-
ters should be a better choice than the KrF laser operating at 249
nanometers. A high-energy, Raman-shifted excimer laser at 353
nanometers was fired into space in March 1988 with a reported
pulse energy of 400 joules, a duration of 0.5 seconds, and a beam
width of 20 centimeters. This is believed to be the highest power
laser pulse ever sent into space. Other recent experiments at the
Los Alamos National Laboratory within the experimental AURORA
program, which uses a KrF laser, show that some progress may be
possible. The 249-nanometer AURORA laser delivered 1,300 joules
to a 500-nanometer spot in pulses lasting 3 to 0.007 microseconds,
corresponding to a total peak power on target of 1014 watts.
However, this may be compared to the experimental solid-state
NOVA Nd:glass laser at the Lawrence Livermore National Labora-
tory, which, during 1989, delivered pulses of 125,000 joules at 1050
nanometers and 10,000-20,000 joules in the third harmonic at 350
nanometers. Experiments with the NOVA at 350 nanometers are
planned for the 70,000-joule region. The KrF excimer laser cannot
presently compete with the solid-state NOVA Nd:glass laser, as the
short wavelength of the KrF laser makes penetration of the atmo-
sphere difficult, and this problem remains unsolved. Although
the excimer lasers are the most powerful types in the ultraviolet
spectral region, the problems with the very short pulses, the short
wavelengths, and the special optics required for UV operation
make the increase of output power to the same levels possible with
the infrared chemical lasers a very difficult task. The highest
average powers from excimer lasers are still much lower than can
be obtained from infrared chemical lasers.
If we compare all of the alternative laser types for NEL
weapon applications, a few remain as feasible short-term possi-
bilities, but it is still doubtful if any cost-effective HEL weapons
can be realistically fielded within the next 10 or even 15 years. If
any idea of a battlefield HEL weapon still seems valid to staff
planners, it will certainly be one that is based on the gas dynamic
CO 2 laser, the electrically pumped CO or CO2 laser, or the DF laser.
 High-Energy Laser Weapons 121

Both the iodine:oxygen and excimer lasers must be considered

dark horses. It is questionable if any military requirement now
includes plans for the destruction of hard targets. It may be that
the really cost-effective solution for HEL weapons on the battle-
field is to concentrate the R&D work on the more realistic and
limited requirements of attacking sensors, many of which are
extremely vulnerable to laser energy.

PREVIOUS HEL WEAPON PROJECTS

There are public reports that a target drone was shot down in
experiments by the U. S. Air Force as early as 1969 using a primitive
gas dynamic CO2 laser. What has been more widely reported, and
even shown on a film in public in 1982 at the annual Conference on
Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO), is the shooting down of small,
winged, propelled target drones as part of some 1973 vintage
experiments conducted by laser scientists from the Air Force
Weapons Laboratory at the Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mex-
ico. They used a gas CO2 laser of a few hundred kilowatts. The
target drones were destroyed by detonating their fuel tanks and by
cutting control wires. These experiments were certainly made
under almost ideal conditions and only served the purpose of
getting a basic knowledge of what could be done with an HEL
weapon and what problems were involved. Detailed data and
conclusions are still a well-kept secret, but it may be surmised in
the end that these experiments simply proved that, in principle,
laser weapons could work.
One of the first efforts to develop a prototype laser weapon
was the Mobile Test Unit (MTU) by the U.S. Army in the
mid-1970s. A 30-kilowatt electrically excited CO2 laser was literally
squeezed into a Marine Corps LVTP-7 tracked landing vehicle. In
1975,_at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama, the MTU destroyed U.S.
winged target drones as well as helicopter target drones. No real
data are available to the public, but the experiments came to an
end rather soon and have been reported as inconclusive. In the late
122 Five

1970s, a German company, Diehl, worked on a concept for a laser

weapon carried by a 28-ton armored tracked vehicle. It was based
on a self-contained electrically excited CO2 laser and may very well
have been something similar to the weapon employed in the US.
project MTU The MTU was followed by the Close-Combat Laser
Weapon (C-CLAW), dubbed ROADRUNNER by the US. Army. This
was designed to attack enemy sensors, night vision equipment,
and helicopter cockpits with a combination of rather low-powered
Nd:YAG and CO2 lasers. The restricted energy level and the
military requirement to support combat units on the battlefield by
attacking sensors both place this project in the category of low-
energy laser (LEL) weapons, which will be described in more
detail in the next chapter.
In 1978, the US. Navy conducted a series of tests as part of the
Unified Navy Field Test Program at San Juan Capistrano in Califor-
nia, in which a chemical OF laser in the 400-kilowatt range de-
stroyed some TOW wire-guided antitank missiles in flight. To
direct the laser to this target, which was comparatively small and
fast, a Hughes aircraft aiming and tracking system was used. In
1980, a captive UH-1 helicopter was destroyed by this laser system.
The US. Air Force placed a gas dynamic CO2 laser in a Boeing
NKC-135 cargo aircraft, dubbed the Airborne Laser Laboratory,
and in 1981 tried to shoot down air-to-air AIM-9L Sidewinder
missiles while airborne. These tests, performed at the Naval
Weapons Center in China Lake, California, were a failure, and, as
the planning had been made public in advance, the media could
criticize the failure openly. The testing continued without any
more media coverage, and finally, in May 1983, the 400-kilowatt
laser shot down a number of Sidewinder missiles. The program
was terminated in 1984, and the Airborne Laser Laboratory ended
up in a museum. The aim, to prove that air-to-air and ground-to-
air missiles can be destroyed in flight by airborne HEL weapons,
had been validated, at least in principle. However, it must be
remembered that this laser weapon completely filled a four-engine
cargo airplane, and the experiment did not seem to offer any
possibility of a weapon that could be carried as add-on equipment
 High-Energy Laser Weapons 123

on a relatively small fighter to protect it from missiles. In any case,

the results must have provided some clues as to how the problems
of tracking a target and aiming the laser could be solved.
In 1981, the US. Army designed a Mobile Army Demonstra-
tor (MAD), which was based on a small, compact OF laser. The
demonstrator was used as a prototype for an air defense weapon
against missiles which started at 100 kilowatts but was to be scaled
up to 1.4 megawatts. The use of a OF laser poses some difficult
problems. The exhaust gases are very poisonous and cannot be
vented in the vicinity of friendly forces. The designers tried to
solve this by using a closed system which collected the waste
gases in a special tank. The tests ran until the project was omitted
from the 501 program in the 1983-84 budget. However, develop-
ment of the laser itself, renamed the Multi-Purpose Chemical
Laser (MPCL), continued with US. Army funding of Bell Aero-
space Textron.
One very interesting HEL development which has been the
cause for much debate in the US. Congress is the Mid Infra-Red
Advanced Chemical Laser (MlRACL) coupled with the Sea Lite
Beam Director (SLBD). MIRACL is a OF laser with a 2.2-megawatt
output at 3,800 nanometers. Sea Lite, later called Sky Lite, is the
beam steering device for the laser. In the 1988 Strategic Defense
Initiative Organization (5010) report to Congress, the MlRACLISky
Lite was described as "the highest power HEL system in the free
world." Some rather speculative thought-provoking demonstra-
tions have been made with this system at the High Energy Laser
Test Facility at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. On
September 18, 1987, several vital components were destroyed on a
Northrop BQM-74 airborne target drone, which then crashed. The
laser test crew had to find, lock on to, and shoot down the drone,
which was flying at a speed of 500 knots at an altitude of 1,500 feet.
According to the press report, the system downed a Teledyne
Ryan Aeronautical Firebee BQM-34S target drone at twice the
range in November 1987. Two years later, a Vandal supersonic
missile simulating a sea-launched cruise missile was forced down
while flying at low altitude and at a range that was "representative
124 Five

of a real tactical scenario." According to the U.S. Navy, the test

demonstrated that "HELs can be a real option for tactical warfare
missio).1s." Howeve~ the laser is presently too large-for a ship, and,
therefore, a smaller prototype system may follow, aimed at giving
the Navy a shipboard laser weapon that would be able to destroy
numerous antiship missiles at operationally effective ranges. Such
a prototype is necessary to find out if it is really possible to solve
the atmospheric problems in the humid environment at sea. When
SDIO reported on the MIRACL/Sky Lite program in 1988, the
objectives were given as the
development and demonstration of a high-power local loop adaptive
optics system for improvement of the beam quality of a multi-line
infrared high energy laser; development and demonstration of a high
power target loop adaptive optics system for ground to space atmo-
spheric compensation in the presence of turbulence and strong thermal
blooming; and performance of atmospheric propagation experiments to
explore the conditions under which stable correction can be achieved
and the degree of correction possible.

In other words, its purpose is to show that a really powerful

infrared laser can be made to work as a weapon under more or less
real battle conditions.
The future funding of the MIRACLISky Lite Program was
heavily debated in the United States because of concern over the
size (and cost) of the laser so that continuation of the program
seemed in doubt for a while. Some statements made during the
debate may be of interest. At one stage, when deletion of the beam
director was suggested, the SDIO declared that it needed the
MIRACL for its own missile vulnerability tests, similar to the test in
which a laser beam destroyed the second stage of a pressurized
Titan I rocket in 1985. Even if the SDIO may have had little real use
for the MIRACL/Sky Lite as it wanted to explore the FEL, the U.S.
Army had a growing interest in MlRACL for use in short-range
missile defense experiments. Some military people urged the
continuation of the program with three aims in mind: continuation
of Navy anti-cruise missile tests, continuation of experiments on
 High-Energy Laser Weapons 125

satellite vulnerability, and the tests and experiments cited by the

SOlO. Finally, the project got funded for 1989.
Officials from TRW Inc.'s Space and Technology Group at
Redondo Beach, California, have been urging the U.S. Navy ever
since to fund a shipboard test program as the next step in the
evolution of the HEL technology used in the MIRACL/Sky Lite
program. The Navy presently has no funds for such a project, but,
according to the Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Command,
lasers could playa significant role in naval warfare in the future.
As missiles approach supersonic speeds and incorporate stealth-
like capabilities, the Navy will need the near-instantaneous target-
ing and killing abilities inherent in laser technology. According to
TRW, their program is ready to move to tests at sea, because the
laser already has been tested extensively and modified through
development under the SOl program. The problem is the cost,
amounting to several hundred million dollars, to deploy the laser
system aboard a Navy test ship. Whatever the future of the
MIRAcrlSky Lite program, it has certainly managed to create a
heated debate in the United States over the viability of HEL
weapon systems.
Research and development of high-energy laser weapon sys-
tems is proceeding also in France. The system named LATEX (Laser
Associe a une Tourelle Experimentale) consists of a laser in the 10-
megawatt range coupled to an advanced aiming system commer-
cially developed by Laserdot. The program was started by the
General Delegation for Armament in 1986 and has advanced to a
preliminary test carried out at Marcoussis in France over a range of
200 yards against a missile head and an aircraft fuselage panel. It
has been reported that trials will now proceed in Landes, in
southwest France, against a target flying at 300 yards per second at
a range of 11 miles. LATEX may be similar in concept to the German
air defense laser, HELEX, and the French Ministry of Defense has
indicated an interest in cooperation with Germany. This kind of
cooperation on other systems has probably been going on be-
tween these two countries for some time.
126 Five

GERMANY'S AIR DEFENSE LASER (HELEX)

One of the most interesting HEL weapon projects is the

German air defense system called HELEX, which is an industrial
joint project between Diehl, Gmb., in Nuremberg and MBB in
Munich. HELEX stands for High Energy Laser Experimental. The
project is still in its early stages, although the initial work started
in the late 1970s. MBB together with Diehl have been commis-
sioned by the Federal Ministry of Defense in Germany to imple-
ment and study this experimental system as a continuation of the
work done previously. In the following discussion, the term HELEX
refers to the industrial conception of the final weapon to be
delivered to combat units if the experiments are successful. The
project is interesting, not only because a comparatively large
amount of information has been made public so far, but also
because it tries to meet a precise military requirement. Since this is
not only a research program but also a very extensive develop-
ment program aimed at producing a well-defined laser weapon for
a future battlefield, it will be described in detail. The idealized
conceptualization is given in Fig. 5.1.
Germany has a long common border with Poland and
Czechoslovakia, which were Warsaw Pact (WP) countries, and the
distances from important targets inside Germany to WP air bases
and missile sites were very short. The time between an airborne
attack launched from the WJ:> air bases across the border could be
extremely short, lasting only minutes. Thus, Germany was very
vulnerable to low-level air attacks by combat aircraft missiles and
standby weapons with the capability of engaging targets automat-
ically. However, the distances are still comparatively short, and,
even though the warning time is slightly longer, this limited

FIGURE 5.1. High-energy CO 2 laser system. The laser energy is directed toward
the target by a highly controllable large mirror, which, on its scaffolding, can go
over buildings, trees, and other ground obstructions. Photograph courtesy of MBBI
Diehl.
High-Energy Laser Weapons 127
128 Five

distance will still be a problem for Germany's air defense. The

present-day German air defense is heavily dependent on ground-
to-air missiles, fighter planes, and sophisticated chains of radar
stations which feed the command and control system with infor-
mation. In spite of all the money spent so far on this very
complicated air defense system, it may be insufficient to counter
future threatening situations in which the other side will use an
increasing amount of more and more sophisticated electronic
countermeasures. Air defense laser weapons could be one way to
achieve the extremely short warning and engagement times that
Germany will eventually require.
The main component of the HELEX is a gas dynamic carbon
dioxide laser which emits an average beam power of several
megawatts over the specified mission time. To carry the laser and
all of its accessories, the basic chassis from a German tank,
Leopard 2, has been suggested. The supply tanks for gas, water,
etc. are used for the laser fuel, while the laser itself and its coolant
water are carried in the chassis. As laser weapons have a direct-
line-of-sight action, it is important to position the laser beam
above the tops of surrounding trees and buildings. This problem
is solved by using an elevator platform to carry a focusing mirror
of more than one yard in diameter along with the passive surveil-
lance and target acquisition system. The area of coverage of the
HELEX will also be greatly increased by the elevated platform, since
the time between the identification of a target and the laser hit is
very short, and it may be possible to engage very low flying
targets that quickly appear and disappear out of the immediate
field of view.
A relatively simple technical principle has been used for the
HELEX. The high-energy gas dynamic laser employed does not
need a heavy and complicated gas pump or flow system nor does
it require sophisticated cooling. The fuel is a common hydrocar-
bon burned together with a nitrogen compound oxidizer, both of
which can be easily carried in the liquid storage containers. The
hot gas flows at supersonic velocity through a comb of very fine
nozzles, expands, and is transformed into the population inver-
 High-Energy Laser Weapons 129

sion state required to amplify the laser energy. The gas then flows
at supersonic speeds through an optical resonator (mirrored cav-
ity), where stimulated emission occurs, and the laser beam is
finally created. The beam leaves transverse to the gas flow direc-
tion. The used, nontoxic gas is vented into the atmosphere
through a diffuser. At the same time, the exhaust gas carries off
most of the waste heat. Overall, the function of the laser is similar
to that of a rocket engine.
The emitted power of the high-energy gas dynamic laser is
proportional to the amount of fuel used. The research to date
indicates that the dimensions of even very high energy laser
equipment will remain within acceptable limits from a technical
point of view. The fuel consumption per laser shot corresponds
roughly to the weight of a guided missile, but the fuel consump-
tion of future-generation systems should be lower. If these esti-
mates are correct, an HEL weapon like the HELEX should be able to
fire something like 50 laser shots with the amount of fuel (5-10
tons) carried in the tank.
The wavelength of the HELEX system may be either 9,350 or
10,600 nanometers. Most reports on the system indicate a wave-
length of 10,600 nanometers. However, the shorter wavelength
may be a more appropriate choice, since the larger the focusing
mirror is relative to the wavelength, the smaller the focal spot and
the higher the energy density will be. Obviously, the desired effect
requires as high an energy density as possible.
The optics of the HELEX must cope with the difficult task of
focusing enough laser energy on the target to destroy it in the air
or cause it to crash. This has to be done on the battlefield even
when the atmospheric conditions are unfavorable and at a combat
range of at least five to ten kilometers if the HELEX is to be cost-
effective within the air defense concept.
Only mirrors suitable for use at the wavelength and high
power levels of this system can be used to direct and focus the
beam. The use of transmission optics such as lenses is not very
feasible due to their high cost and fragility, and, in any case, the
HELEX will probably damage any lenses to some extent. The
130 Five

reflector at the top of the elevated platform is a concave mirror with

a diameter of more than one meter. To achieve a sufficient effect at
the target range, compensations for atmospheric turbulence,
blooming, and other disturbances to the laser beam inside and
outside the system are planned with an adaptive mirror. The
mirror surface can assume the required shape and the correct axial
angles with the aid of numerous piezoelectric (small electronic)
actuators exerting mechanical forces on the mirror back. To enable
the mirrors to withstand the HEL beam, a cooling liquid flows
through fine channels on the rear of the mirror. Compensation by
adaptive optics may double the range possible with a rigid mirror
system.
The information necessary to control the mirror surface shape
is furnished by the laser beam reflected by the target; thu,s, the
beam itself becomes a sensor element in the closed control loop by
which the target is tracked. It is a difficult problem to achieve a
really high precision laser beam, and it is necessary to keep a
focused beam on a single location of an extensive target for a
considerable time. If a target moves at the speed of sound (Mach 1)
and the beam must be coupled with it for, at least, a half a second,
during this time the target will move nearly 105 yards. Keeping the
laser on the same spot may be done either by using the variable
reflection characteristics of the target or by a procedure where the
deviation of the beam center from reference marks on the target is
used as the control signal. Diehl has demonstrated this procedure
by means of a rotating aircraft model.
It is not only necessary to keep the beam directed to the same
spot on the target, but it is also a prerequisite for the HEL system
that the beam can be focused correctly. Basically, the mirror at the
top of the elevated platform functions just like a burning glass
which concentrates the energy of the sun to such an extent that
combustible material catches fire. The advantage of the coherent
laser energy is that it can be focused sufficiently over distances of
many kilometers to produce thermal effects at the final site.
Adaptive optics can be used to focus the beam continuously, even
as the target changes its position.
 High-Energy Laser Weapons 131

The HELEX will have some type of a passive surveillance and

target acquisition system, such as satellite monitoring, which will
probably cover the entire hemispherical air space of the protected
zone and permit tracking of numerous targets simultaneously.
This is also the prerequisite for sequential engagement of targets
by the laser weapon without any delay. The passive target acquisi-
tion makes radar surveillance and tracking unnecessary, and, as a
passive surveillance system is used, it may be very difficult for an
airborne attacker to find and counter the system beforehand by
any electronic countermeasure activity. The HELEX will make it
possible to carry out identification, threat analysis, and target
selection and finally to hold the beam on the target on automatic,
or, if desired, part of the sequence can involve a human operator to
select target priority. However, the choice of the best or, at least, a
suitable spot to hit on the target has to be done automatically to
cope with the time constraints.
If the research and development of the HELEX air defense laser
weapon is successful, battlefield commanders will have a power-
ful tool to cope with highly threatening situations. One air de-
fense HELEX could effectively control an area against multiple low-
level, high-speed attackers with comparatively low operating
costs. The effective range will be dependent on atmospheric
conditions. Under very favorable conditions, the range against
aircraft, helicopters, and missiles would be up to 6 miles; this
would be reduced to 3 to 4 miles in the normally heavily polluted
atmosphere over a battlefield. Due to the extremely short time for
target detection, tracking, slaving, and firing, it would 'be possible
to engage many targets in rapid succession. If one HEL weapon is
defending a facility that is attacked by a squadron-sized enemy
force, the laser weapon may very well shoot down all aircraft
during their first attack. Reloading is simple; there is no minimum
range, and different types of targets do not require the use of
different types of ammunition. The main limitation of such a
weapon as the HELEX is the reduction in range of the system under
very poor weather conditions or when the pollution on the battle-
field is extremely heavy. It is difficult to quantify these limitations,
132 Five

but it is <?bvious that the HELEX will not replace conventional gun
and missile systems, not even at distances well within its range.
Such HEL weapon systems will only be able to complement
existing air defense systems. However, the survivability on the
battlefield of a HELEX type system compared to a system depen-
dent on radar technology will be very high, since the passive
localizer will not reveal itself. Also, the mobility of a 20-40-ton
tracked HELEX system will be high, and it will be possible after
terminating one firing action sequence to change the location of
the weapon quickly.
Many problems still must be solved before it is even possible
to decide if the HELEX concept is a valid one. To date, tests have
only been done in the laboratory. The scaled-down experimental
weapon paid for by the German Ministry of Defense will not be
available until 1993 or 1994. If this weapon is a success, and if it is
possible to solve all of the very difficult problems, the develop-
ment of a final air defense high-energy laser weapon based on the
HELEX concept may start in the mid-nineties and should be com-
pleted about ten years later. This means that theoretically such a
weapon could be produced and handed over to the combat units at
the beginning of 2005. Due to the technological difficulties in-
volved in this concept, even such a distant delivery date may be
overly optimistic.
Other countries have begun developmental work on possible
laser weapons along similar lines. In France, several companies
together with the French National Aerospace Research Agency
(ONERA) are working on a HELEx-like experimental HEL weapon.
There have also been some reports on a possible collaboration
between France and Germany. In the United States, a similar idea
is currently under investigation in the JAGUAR project.
The military specifications for the HELEX weapon are really
very ambitious, and this, along with the technological difficulties,
is the main reason for the high costs and the very long time
necessary for research and development. It is debatable whether
or not it would be more cost-effective to limit the requirements to
simply damaging some very sensitive parts of the target such as
 High-Energy Laser Weapons 133

sensors, canopies, and radomes and leave the actual destruction of

the platform itself to conventional antiaircraft guns and missiles.
This would mean that, up to 6 miles, much less energy would be
required, and the sensitivity to the atmospheric conditions should
be less. Such a weapon could possibly be fielded much earlier and
at a significantly lower cost. Of course, there are even some
limitations to this less demanding military requirement. Some of
the targets are not all that dependent on their sensors, and, even if
they are, it may be possible in the future to make the most crucial
sensors insensitive to the effects of laser energy. Whatever the
future holds for the HELEX, the fact remains that a high-energy air
defense laser weapon capable of outright destruction will be
expensive to develop and manufacture, and it will take many
years before such a weapon can be successfully fielded. It is very
possible that the whole idea will be abandoned because it simply
proves technically impossible or just too expensive to implement.

HEL WEAPONS IN THE SOVIET UNION AND THE

NASCENT REPUBLICS

Very few facts are known to the public about the research and
development of HEL weapons in the Soviet Union or its surviving
constituents. Some official reports and statements are available as
well as some material by independent writers, but most are of a
very general nature. This, of course, is not surprising; all work on
laser weapons in the West is shrouded in security, and very few
facts are made public. This is even truer in the Soviet Union.
However, the fact that so many papers on high-energy lasers
and their effects have been published in Soviet scientific journals
is an indication of the amount of work done in this field and, thus,
reveals the strong interest of the Soviet Union in this technology.
The papers, of course, deal only with basic laser technology and
not with the details of developing laser weapons. There have been
unconfirmed reports of the installation of a high-energy chemical
laser on a Kirov-class cruiser. The HEL weapon was said to be
134 Five

successfully used against the sensors of sea-skimming missiles

out to a range of 10 miles. If this is true, it may have been some
kind of experimental installation, as the existence of such a
weapon has not yet been confirmed. There have also been descrip-
tions of the Soviet research facility at Sary Shagan in Kazakhstan
following a visit by a delegation of US. scientists in 1989. A beam
director with a diameter of approximately 1 yard was connected to
a ruby laser and to a carbon dioxide laser and, according to US.
analysts, had been used in tests against both aircraft and satellite
targets.
The most powerful laser at Sary Shagan was reported to be a
20-kilowatt CO2 laser. Another US. delegate from the US. House
Armed Services Committee in 1989 reported the existence of a
previously unknown high-energy megawatt-range Soviet laser,
seen when he visited the Kurchalov Institute of Atomic Energy in
Troisk, a center of scientific research south of Moscow. It was a
I-megawatt CO 2 laser, and the Soviet officials claimed that it was
unique in the country and that they had been operating it for
several years.
In January 1987, the Pentagon published an edition of Soviet
Military Power including a photo which was identified as a laser
device on a Soviet destroyer that has been used in the past against
Western patrol aircraft (US. Department of Defense, 1987). If the
picture really shows such a laser, it could only be a low-energy
laser with no capability of destroying aircraft or missiles but rather
with a blinding effect for sensors and eyes. The same publication
states that

the Soviets have built high energy laser devices up to the 10 megawatt
level and generally place more emphasis on weapon application of lasers
than does the West. In doing so, the Soviets have concentrated on gas
dynamic and electric discharge lasers. They have not attained a high
power output for chemical lasers as the West.

There is no real proof or even any strong indication that the

development of high-energy laser weapons is in a more advanced
stage in the former Soviet Union than in the West. Scientists in the
 High-Energy Laser Weapons 135

former Soviet Union are probably working hard along the same
lines as Western scientists within the Soviet version of the SOl
program and within the various concepts for tactical use of HEL
weapons on the battlefield. Based on the work done so far in the
West, it may be concluded that the fielding of HEL weapons is as
many years away for the former Soviets as for the West. However,
as we will see, the situation may be different when it comes to low-
energy laser weapons.

ASSE~SMENT OF LASERS FOR

FUTURE HEL WEAPONS

The development of HEL weapons will certainly continue in

both the East and the West based on the present as well as new
concepts of HEL weapons as long as there seems to be a reason-
able possibility of solving the problems involved in fielding a cost-
effective system. Military staffs and research centers will proba-
bly stick to the concept of air defense of important targets and of
attacks on sensor systems as the main area of use. As long as the
Eastern bloc and the Western SOl programs allocate substantial
financial resources to laser technology, there will continue to be
spinoffs to tactical HEL weapon projects for the conventional
battlefield.
Besides the CO2, CO, and chemical OF HEL weapons exem-
plified by the German HELEX and the U. S. MlRACL systems, re-
search and development of HEL weapons will also progress based
on other laser concepts such as the U.S. ground-based free-
electron laser (GBFEL). The FEL max be a future choice in HEL
weapon applications for antisensor and air defense tasks. Accord-
ing to some reports, very efficient FELs are on the horizon, and,
with the new superconductor technology, very compact and effi-
cient FELs may soon be possible. Another report gives the impres-
sion that low-power tunable FELs are under development as short-
range high-energy weapons. Some work will certainly proceed,
although the statement that "in the weapons field, contemporary
136 Five

FELs promise to become the germ of the ray gun of the future
which hurls powerful bolts of energy at the enemy" seems a bit
premature.
Another laser test program of the U. S. Air Force involves a
moderate-power Raman-shifted excimer laser device (EMRLO). The
work is performed at the Kirtland Air Base Weapons Laboratory in
New Mexico, and the stated goal is to produce more than 5,000
watts at 100 pulses per second. Some of the technology developed
in this way may finally be used in real battlefield systems.
A development project is also under way, or, at least, planned,
with an iodine:oxygen laser. This is indicated by the worries of
some administrators that MIRACL would compete for funding with
other beam projects such as iodine:oxygen, chemical, and excimer
lasers.
Thus, although there are some promising lasers that may
form the basis for HEL weapon systems usable on the conven-
tional battlefield, there are still some unsolved problems. Even if
the laser can achieve a sufficient energy output, the atmospheric
conditions still severely limit the practical use of HEL weapons. So
far, no HEL weapon program seems to have solved this problem,
and it is still somewhat uncertain whether or not it is really
possible to do so. Techniques such as the use of an active mirror
that can adapt instantly to varying conditions have still only been
demonstrated in small-scale models.

CONCLUSIONS

The interest in HEL weapons is high in many countries due to

the great advantages that they theoretically offer. The HEL energy
travels at the speed of light with a flat trajectory and acts almost
instantly on the target. These are qualities which, if they can be
used in an air defense situation, for example, can neutralize even
the smallest and fastest missiles. Therefore, it is no wonder that
HEL weapons continue to fascinate military staffs and military
laboratories sufficiently to fund further research and develop-
 High-Energy Laser Weapons 137

ment. Also, in some countries, spinoffs from SOl programs have

contributed heavily to knowledge about and interest in HEL
weapons.
However, the use of HEL weapons within the atmosphere
presents severe problems. Thermal blooming, turbulence, scatter-
ing, and absorption all have very negative effects on the laser
beam, and these difficulties grow rapidly with increasing range.
Battlefield conditions mostly imply a heavily polluted environ-
ment, which adds still more problems. We conclude that, even if
adaptive optics and other technological problems can be solved in
the laboratory, still no operational weapon is within sight. To date,
it is not even known if a usable, cost-effective solution is possible
in the distant future. Assuming that all the problems could be
solved satisfactorily in the near future, the earliest HEL weapons
could not be handed over to combat units until the beginning of
the next century.
The difficulties associated with the development of HEL
weapons are, to a great extent, generated by the very tough
military specifications to literally bum holes in airborne targets at
long ranges. This requires megawatt lasers with a range of at least
3 to 6 miles in a hazy atmosphere. If the requirements could be
limited to attacking sensors and other highly laser-energy-
sensitive parts of the target instead, it would be possible to field
an HEL weapon earlier and at much lower cost. Since most
important airborne targets are highly dependent on electro-
optical devices and other items sensitive to laser damage, a
medium-sized HEL weapon could very well tum out to be a cost-
effective weapon.
 SIX

Low-Energy Antipersonnel and

Antisensor Laser (LEL)
Weapons

BACKGROUND

Laser devices have found extensive military use in the last 20

years. A steadily increasing number of laser designators, range
finders, and other systems are presently being fielded. Today,
such low-energy laser (LEL) systems are common battlefield tools
in most combat units. Some of the lasers in their present configura-
tions may already be technically suitable for use against the eyes
of enemy soldiers and even against some of the enemy's electro-
optical sensors. This is especially the case with target designators
and most range finders. However, it is questionable if it is worth-
while to use present-day lasers in any systematic fashion as
effective weapons. Even if range finders and designators are
dangerous to eyes and sensors, most are not designed to be
powerful enough to be considered cost-effective laser weapons. In
spite of this drawback, today's lasers certainly represent a threat to
soldiers using magnifying optics, and the deliberate use of
present-day lasers as weapons will create, if not a serious threat, at
139
140 Six

least, a nuisance hazard in that they will deter forward observers

and others from using magnifying optics. The future potential of
present laser devices as weapons is clearly revealed by the exis-
tence of the very far-reaching safety regulations we have estab-
lished already. The nominal ocular hazard distances (NOHD) for
some typical laser devices listed in Table 6.1 illustrate the magni-
tude of the problem.
Laser safety regulations are about the same all over the world,
and most originate from research done in the United States,
starting from when the first laser was invented. The hazard
distances are usually calculated based on the worst-case scenar-
io-an eye that takes in as much light as possible and a laser beam
that is focused on the most sensitive part of the eye. A safety factor
generally around 10 is then included in these hazard calculations.
However, even with these distances inflated by the safety margin,
the hazard is still sufficient to be a considerable threat to the eyes
of soldiers on the battlefield and certainly even more so if magnify-
ing optics are used. Even if the eye damage causing a moderate
loss of vision or actual blindness is mostly an incidental effect of
the use of range finders and designators, their devastating results
may tempt commanders and soldiers to deliberately use their
tracking devices as offensive weapons. Against this background,
it is not surprising that, according to experts, present laser devices
are deemed likely to be used against eyes and sensors for what-
ever benefit they can yield.

TABLE 6.1. Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance (NODH)

for Some Typical Lasers
NOHD in miles
Naked eye 8x Optics 13x Optics
Tank range finder, ruby laser 10 23 80
Tank range finder, Nd:YAG laser 4 16 22
Portable range finder, Nd:YAG laser 1 6 9
Portable target designator, Nd:YAG laser 8 25 33
Airborne target designator, Nd:YAG laser 25 46 80
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 141

Laser accidents resulting in injuries to personnel have oc-

curred regularly since the invention of the laser. Some of these
accidents are not connected with the laser beam itself but have
been caused by related hazards such as the high voltages used to
power the laser. Most accidents involving laser radiation have
occurred in laboratories. Reports of outdoor accidents with mili-
tary equipment have so far been rather rare. This will probably
change with the widespread deployment of hazardous laser de-
vices in combat units.
We can gain some knowledge about the possible effects of
laser injuries in combat from laser injuries that have occurred
accidentally. Laser accidents have been reported from several
countries; the total number is probably several hundred or so.
However, only a few have been described in sufficient detail to
allow for careful analysis. Most accident reports have been pre-
sented at various conferences on laser hazards. Six accidents
occurring in the United States were reported at the International
Conference on the Biological Effects of Large Dose Ionizing and
Non-Ionizing Radiation held in China in 1988, with the suggestion
that the information learned from these accidental laser exposures
would prove to be a valuable adjunct to experimental animal
research programs on laser bioeffects. The accidents revealed
short-lived transitory effects at exposure levels· well below the
maximum permissible limits. Such data are not normally obtained
from animal studies. Psychological reactions to laser injuries may
also be studied in human accidents quite easily as opposed to the
difficulty of monitoring such effects in animal experiments. It is
clear that accidental injuries, when properly reported, can serve as
a tool for predicting psychological reactions of great interest to
modern military establishments.
There have been some reports, and even more rumors, about
the use of laser weapons or other laser devices against soldiers in
recent conflicts. It has been unofficially reported that Soviet chem-
ical lasers were used in the late 1970s to blind Chinese soldiers
during the conflict between China and Vietnam. These rumors
had already been referred to some years ago at a U.S. Army
conference on combat ocular problems held in San Francisco. One
142 Six

of the participants commented on a Newsweek magazine report

stating that carbon dioxide lasers had been used against soldiers
during that conflict and that many burn casualties were found in
several Cantonese hospitals. It was also mentioned at the confer-
ence that there were several cases of eye injury, but no documenta-
tion was forthcoming. The recent Soviet conflict in Afghanistan
gave rise to a press report that "the incidence of laser blinding was
becoming so frequent that the area has become a concentrated
test-bed." The same report stated that an early U.S. laser weapon
program evolved from an initiative to give U.S. pilots some way to
knock out the optics of Soviet-made North Vietnamese antiaircraft
systems. This system worked when initially deployed, but the
North Vietnamese shot down one of the laser-equipped airplanes
and presumably turned the system over to the Soviets to work out
a way to nullify it. According to David Isby, author of Weapons and
Tactics of the Soviet Army, laser range finders used by Soviet combat
units in Afghanistan blinded at least one guerrilla soldier who was
using binoculars. Isby also states that this soldier received treat-
ment in the United States. Reports have also been received of
lasers being used against human eyes in the Iran-Iraq war during
the mid-1980s. The Iraqis could only have employed Soviet laser
range finders or other laser devices for this purpose. Although
rumors about the use of lasers as weapons are a frequent occur-
rence, actual reports of laser attacks are sparse and mostly incon-
clusive. Some of them may originate from a soldier who has
mistaken an ordinary flashlight or searchlight for a combat laser.
Other reports may come from soldiers who were unintentionally
exposed to the beam from a laser range finder or a designator.
Some, but probably very few, reported laser attacks may be in-
stances of the deliberate use of laser range finders or designators
as anti-eye or antisensor weapons. Reports from recent military
conflicts contain no proof whatsoever that low-energy laser (LEL)
weapons have been fielded and deliberately used.
Some peacetime laser incidents involving combat units from
different nations have been reported over the years. One of the
most publicly discussed is the Pentagon report from 1987 stating
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 143

that a Soviet ship used a laser against two U.S. military aircraft
flying over the Pacific Ocean in an area north of Hawaii. The U. S.
airplanes, one a Navy P-3C Orion antisubmarine aircraft and the
other an Air Force WC-135 weather monitoring aircraft, were
observing the intended target area for a test launch of a Soviet
intercontinental ballistic missile. There was a report that a ship-
board Soviet laser temporarily blinded the woman copilot of the
WC-135 without any damage resulting to either of the aircraft. The
Defense Intelligence Agency claimed that the copilot was im-
paired for a period of 10 minutes. She was certainly examined very
carefully afterwards for any signs of eye damage, but only "incon-
sequential" effects were found. The detailed information on this
incident has been classified, which makes it almost impossible to
second-guess what really happened. If the incident occurred in
darkness or twilight, a low-energy laser may very well have been
used. However, if the eyes of the crew were not dark adapted, it is
unlikely that the light coming from the ship originated from a laser
weapon. It is practically impossible to flash blind a person in
broad daylight without also causing some lasting damage to the
eyes. Flash blinding without any damage is only possible when
the eye is dark adapted and, thus, much more sensitive to the
incoming laser light. It is also very surprising that no one in the
crew other than the copilot was affected by the laser or reported a
bright light on the ship by indirect viewing. If the light was strong
enough to flash blind one person in the crew, it is most unlikely
that no one else noticed it or was affected by it as well. There must
be more conclusive information in the classified part of the report,
because the American authorities have publicly taken the position
that it was a laser. Furthermore, they have stated that there have
been other instances of pilots being blinded, although none per-
manently as yet, from very "powerful Soviet laser systems aboard
vessels."
A treaty not to use laser weapons in peacetime against each
other was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in
1989. This treaty seems to be an acknowledgment that both
countries already had at that time laser devices that might be
144 Six

deemed dangerous to both material objects and human beings.

This treaty is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8. During the
negotiations of this agreement, an anonymous US. official con-
cluded that both countries would rather not admit that they were
developing tactical laser weapons, so it would be safe to predict
that the treaty would simply avoid the issue by not mentioning
them at all. In spite of this treaty, four laser incidents were
reported in October and November 1989 involving Soviet ships
and US. aircraft. According to a US. Department of Defense
official, one incident described as a "possible laser illumination"
may have resulted in "visual injury" to a US. crew member.
There can be no doubt that both research and development of
LEL weapons are progressing rapidly mainly to fulfill the urgent
military needs for countering the many different sensors on the
modern battlefield. All indications show that progress in the 1990s
will be rapid and dramatic and will ultimately change the tactics
and doctrines on the battlefield sufficiently to require new
methods of protection and combat training.
Some of the LEL weapons, and perhaps most of them, will
undoubtedly have an antipersonnel effect by damaging and de-
stroying the most common sensor on the battlefield-the human
eye. The eye is not only the most common sensor but one of the
most sensitive. The effect of the use of lasers as antipersonnel
weapons is not limited only to the biological damage, but it may
also have far-reaching psychological consequences for the people
at risk.
It will certainly be tempting to the military to increase the
energy of range finders and designators and use them deliberately
and systematically as anti-eye laser weapons. The expected mili-
tary advantages may even lead to the development and large-scale
fielding of LEL weapons that are exclusively or mainly designed to
harm eyes. Such a deployment and systematic use of anti-eye laser
weapons will probably mean mass eye injuries, severe psychologi-
cal effects, and a heavy burden on both wartime and peacetime
medical resources.
The question as to whether anti-eye laser weapons should be
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 145

fielded is a very sensitive one. Negative reactions from the public

in several nations indicate that such antipersonnel laser weapons
may not be easily accepted. Another question to consider is
whether antipersonnel laser weapons are in accord with interna-
tionallaw. However, as long as the targets are nonhuman sensors
or some other military equipment, there will certainly be no
problem with public opinion or international law. Such LELs may
even not be considered to be weapons but rather systems or
devices used as electronic countermeasures. The question of the
legality as well as the morality of anti-eye laser weapons is depen-
dent on what the target appears to be. The target may be military
equipment, yet may still be capable of damaging eyes. What
would be done in this case?

LOW-ENERGY LASER WEAPON TARGETS

As mentioned before, it is only possible to use LEL weapons

against targets that are highly sensitive to laser light. A prime
target is the human eye, either naked or behind magnifying
optics. When the vision of a soldier is affected by laser radiation on
the battlefield, the effect ~aries depending on the soldier's distance
to the laser and the laser beam's properties. The least destructive
effect is discomfort glare. This means that the soldier cannot see at
all or is very much disturbed as long as the laser is emitting visible
light directed into his eyes. In many ways, it is the same effect that
an automobile driver experiences at night when meeting another
car head-on with high-beam headlights. The next step up on the
scale of visual disablement is flash blindness, which means that
the affected soldier, even after the exposure, cannot see for a
shorter or longer period due to the afterimage and loss of sensi-
tivity from the flash. Discomfort glare and flash blindness can
occur without causing any permanent damage to the eyes as long
as the soldier's eyes are dark adapted when exposed to the beam at
night, and the energy level used to achieve flash blindness is very
low. If, on the other hand, the energy level is sufficiently high, the
146 Six

soldier will be permanently damaged by retinal burns and intra-

ocular bleeding. In the worst case, the resulting blinding will be
permanent. If a military policy decision is made to design anti-eye
LEL weapons, it is likely that the military requirement will be to
cause as much damage as possible to impose a maximal burden on
the enemy.
The modern battle cannot be fought without the assistance of
an increasing number of electronic eyes. All high-technology
weapon systems for detection, identification, tracking, and hit-
ting various targets depend on different types of sensors. Night
fighting is an almost impossible task without electronic devices
that make battlefield surveillance and weapon engagements pos-
sible. Some sensors can see through fog, heavy rain, and battle-
field smoke; other sensors can detect the heat from tank or aircraft
engines. The sensors located within the intelligence control com-
mand systems are more and more a prerequisite for effective
leadership in battle. Future high-technology systems such as
armed helicopters and other aircraft, ships, armored fighting
vehicles, and missiles will be even more dependent on sensors.
The increasing use of sensors also means that there is a rapidly
growing interest in developing and fielding electronic counter-
measures that can blind or destroy the electronic eyes of the
enemy. LEL weapons offer the very important advantage of possi-
bly countering and destroying the optics and the electro-optical
sensors on the future battlefield.
Heat-seeking missiles are dependent on infrared sensors for
the detection of heat from the intended target. Such missiles are
used in air-to-air combat, where the sensor guides the missile to
the heated exhaust gases from a jet engine or to some other hot
spot on the target. Similar missiles are used in ground-to-air
applications within air defense systems. The shoulder-launched
U.S. Stinger was used in Afghanistan and is a good example of
such a heat-seeking missile. These sensors may be blinded,
tricked, or destroyed by a laser beam locked onto the sensor before
the missile reaches its target. Highly valued aircraft could, in the
future, be protected by body- or wing-mounted pods containing
antisensor weapons.
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 147

Thermal viewing systems are used by tanks and other ar-

mored combat vehicles, armed helicopters, forward artillery ob-
servers, and many other combat systems. They allow the gunner
or operator to see through darkness, fog, smoke, screening cam-
ouflage, and thin vegetation such as bushes. The sensors detect
differences in temperature, and a thermal picture or outline can be
seen by the operator. It is possible to detect the lenses in thermal
sights using a laser radar, which can register the reflection coming
back from the thermal viewer. An LEL weapon may then be
directed by the laser radar to fire automatically at the thermal sight
and destroy it. Combat units equipped with such a weapon may
easily be able to turn a night fighting engagement in their favor.
Another important and even more frequently used sensor, the
image intensifier, is for night fighting and is extremely sensitive to
visible light. The image intensifier is designed to intensify even
very small amounts of visible light. Its picture is presented to the
operator on a screen inside the intensifier, which, overall, may be
the size of a large pair of binoculars. A laser beam within the
visible part of the spectrum may easily destroy the sensitive
detector at very long distances. Again, in this case, the possible
countermeasure would be a combination of laser radar to detect the
optics and an LEL weapon to damage the sensor behind the optics.
Some missiles have low-light television systems fitted to their
front ends. A television picture of the target area is sent to the
operator by an optical fiber or radio link, which then directs the
missile. This sensor is extremely sensitive to laser light in the
visible spectrum, and, thus, for a missile countermeasure, it
would be sufficient to blind the sensor until-the operator loses
control of the missile. Low-light television systems are used for
several different tasks on the battlefield, and most such sensors
can easily be countered by an LEL weapon.
Some missiles use the beam riding technique, and these may
also be countered by a defending LEL weapon. The hostile beam
can be discovered by a laser detector which then traces the
direction to the laser source. Another way to detect the hostile
laser is with laser radar. In any case, once the position of the
enemy laser site is discovered, it is possible to automatically fire a
148 Six

counter laser beam to destroy or disturb the enemy laser transmit-

ter or some vital electro-optical equipment necessary for its proper
operation.
At the upper end of the power range of LEL weapons is the
capability of heating and distorting or cracking the glass lenses of
optical systems. This effect is called crazing and is caused when
the heat buildup and subsequent cooling in the glass surface
creates uneven stresses in the glass sufficient to crack it. The result
is a frosted effect, making it impossible to see through the glass
lenses or vision blocks (glass windows) in tanks. Such targets may
be affected at long ranges, and the optics can be crazed in less time
than is needed to blink an eye.
It is obvious that optics and electro-optical sensors can be
easily attacked by an LEL weapon. The laser radiation may craze
the optics, or, if the wavelength is one which the sensor system is
designed to accept, the laser energy will be transmitted through
the system itself, destroying or jamming vulnerable detectors.
Sensors are normally designed to handle very small amounts of
radiation and cannot accept the high intensities of radiation
achieved by even very low energy lasers. The sensor may be
damaged up to a certain range or temporarily jammed at even
greater ranges.
LEL weapons designed and used for antisensor purposes
may be called optical and electro-optical countermeasure systems
instead of laser weapons. However, low-energy lasers used against
human beings are certainly weapons, and the possible use of an
antisensor laser system against people will obviously place even
this system in the weapons category.

LASERS FOR LOW-ENERGY WEAPONS

In contrast to the very limited number of systems in the HEL

category, a variety of conceivable lasers for LEL weapons have
been proposed for each military mission. They differ with regard
to the choice of lasing material, pumping method, tracking
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 149

method, and energy source. It is possible to find a suitable laser

for nearly every LEL weapon application among the hundreds of
different laser types available, even if most of the lasers are
suitable for only a few specific LEL weapons.

Lasers for Anti-Eye Weapons

An anti-eye laser weapon that is not designed to cause only
discomfort, glare, or flash blindness but rather to cause permanent
damage leading to immediate incapacitation and severe perma-
nent visual impairment or permanent blindness could either be
optimized for attacking the outside of the eye, the cornea, or the
inside of the eye, namely, the retina.
It is possible to severely damage the cornea with a laser that
uses a wavelength which is not normally transmitted inside the
eye. If sufficient average beam power is used, the cornea will
suffer a damaging burn which looks like a round white spot in the
pupil. This is a very painful injury which would lead to immediate
incapacitation of the soldier and at the same time cause the cornea
to become opaque and completely block vision. Such an injury
may be only temporary, but it requires immediate medical atten-
tion. To inflict this type of injury, it is likely that the longer infrared
wavelengths are the best ones. A medium-powered CO2 laser
operating at 10,600 nanometers or a chemical deuterium fluoride
(OF) laser operating at 3,800 nanometers would be especially
effective. However, the amount of energy required to cause burns
to the cornea is rather high, 1 joule per square centimeter. If this
amount of energy is to be delivered to the cornea in the short time
before the eyelid shuts, it is necessary to have a laser with an
average power of about 10 watts per square centimeter directed
onto the cornea. Such lasers are outside the LEL category; they are
more like flamethrowers, well up in the HEL range. If the goal is to
use LEL weapons to damage vision, it is much easier to use that
part of the spectrum which is transmitted by the optics of the
eyes, as the energy levels required to enter the eye are then
extremely low and fall well within the LEL range.
150 Six

There are many low-energy lasers operating at one or more

wavelengths within the retinal hazard region from 400 nanome-
ters to 1,400 nanometers. Much work is presently in progress on
designing lasers that are safe to the eye for military and public
use. These lasers operate outside of the retinal hazard region. An
example is the erbium:YAG laser at 1,540 nanometers. Also, there
is a trend toward the development of military lasers for training,
range finding, and target designating that are safe to the eye so
that laser equipment can be used in two-sided military training
exercises without any risk of eye injuries.
The effect of the laser energy within the retinal hazard region
varies with the wavelength of the laser. The effect also depends
upon the pulse energy, pulse length, pulse repetition frequency,
and any individual variations in the retina. This variation can be
seen when you compare the eye damage from lasers at 530
nanometers (frequency-doubled Nd:YAG), 690 nanometers
(ruby), and 1,060 nanometers (Nd:YAG). If the viewer is using
binoculars through a clear, nonturbulent atmosphere, bleeding
inside the eye occurs for 530 nanometers out to 2,900 meters, a
distance only 20% further than for 690 nanometers but 10 times as
far as for 1,060 nanometers. This is mainly due to the differences in
absorption at different wavelengths by the sensitive structures in
the eye.
It is obvious that the LEL weapon designer must select a
wavelength and other laser properties carefully in order to obtain
the combination that will make a particular weapon as effective as
possible. It is also necessary to take into account any possible
measures that might have been taken for the protection of the
target. For example, it is possible to have a filter which gives full
protection against a ruby laser. This, of course, means that it is not
very cost-effective to design a low-energy ruby laser weapon
when this filter is cheap and easily available to most soldiers. The
weapon designer will have to counter this possible protection
either by using a tunable laser, termed an "agile" laser, or by using
one or more wavelengths which are in a part of the spectrum for
which a filter is very difficult to build or must be so dense in order
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 151

to provide proper protection that it will be difficult for the soldier

to see through it sufficiently to fight well.
It is possible to point to some specific lasers that could be
used as an anti-eye laser weapon alone or in combination with one
or more other lasers. The Nd:YAG laser with a wavelength of 1,060
nanometers and the frequency-doubled Nd:YAG laser with a
wavelength of 530 nanometers are both interesting candidates,
although it is possible to protect the soldier using filters which
block each of these wavelengths. Protection filters have also been
used with the ruby laser at 690 nanometers, but it is much less
feasible to protect against all three of these wavelengths using a
single filter, thus making "protected" targets vulnerable to this
combination of weapons. However, it is inefficient to use three
lasers against one target instead of finding one that is strong
enough to do the job alone or that cannot be protected against
with a filter.
If the designer wants to use one or more lasers in the visible
part of the spectrum, where it is very hard to give protection, yet
still allow for good vision by his own troops in a close combat
situation, argon lasers with wavelengths at 488 and/or 514
nanometers and titanium-sapphire lasers tunable between 660
and 980 nanometers are good possibilities. It is possible to cover
an even larger part of the spectrum by adding the effect of
frequency doubling and Raman shifting.
One of the alternatives for a tunable laser is the alexandrite
laser, which can be continuously tuned from 700 to 815 nanome-
ters with the maximum energy achieved at 755 nanometers. Such
a laser, manufactured by Allied-Signal's Electro-Optical Products
Division, Warren, New Jersey, is reported to have delivered suffi-
cient energy per pulse at a repetition rate of 20 pulses per second
to be suitable as an agile laser weapon. Over this wavelength
range together with its doubled counterpart in the visible and near
ultraviolet, protection against this laser will be difficult.
Another interesting LEL concept is the tunable free-electron
laser (FEL). It may be assumed that low-energy tunable FELs are
under development for electronic warfare purposes as short-
152 Six

distance antisensor weapons. It is possible to use more than one

laser in an LEL anti-eye weapon system to make it more effective.
This will certainly be costly, and careful study will be needed to
determine if such a solution can be cost-effective, or if it is better
to use one laser in the visible part of the spectrum and mass-
produce it as a weapon. Such a less complicated anti-eye weapon
will still be very agile if several laser wavelengths are used; in
practice, it would be impossible to block the laser beam during
combat due to the low transmission of any protective filter, which
would prevent the soldier from seeing through the filter dearly
and easily in a dose combat situation. Also, not only must the
filter be effective without blocking useful vision, but it should also
be one that can be mass-produced at low cost.
The choice of a laser for an antisensor weapon is almost
entirely dependent on the properties of the specific sensor chosen
as the intended target. The most favorable situation is when the
wavelength of the laser is within the operating wavelength range
of the sensor, making it possible to attack and destroy the detector,
which is the most sensitive part within the sensor system. If the
sensor, like the eye, operates within the visible and near-infrared
part of the spectrum and the wavelength chosen for the laser
weapon is in the same region, it is possible to combine both
antisensor and anti-eye effects in the same weapon.
The possible interaction between different lasers and different
vulnerable military sensors is shown in Table 6.2. The examples of
sensors given in the table are ones that are very sensitive to the
lasers with which they are matched. Not all of the lasers used as
examples are the best choices for an LEL weapon. They are used
only to given an indication that possible sensors and lasers do
exist in the visible and near-infrared portion of the spectrum.
An antisensor weapon may be designed to destroy or knock
out enemy sensors for a certain period of time, thus preventing
them from performing their intended tasks. The basic military
requirement will certainly be to destroy, but that may be impos-
sible in some situations and at times simply unnecessary. If the
aim is only to disable the sensor for some time, a continuous-wave
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 153

TABLE 6.2. Possible Antisensor Lasers

Spectral Wavelength Vulnerable
range Lasers (nanometers) sensors
Visible Argon 514.5 Low-light TV
Frequency doubled 532 Image inten-
Nd:YAG sifiers
Ruby 693.4 Range finder
detectors
Titanium-sapphire 660-1,160 Human eyes
Alexandrite 700-815
Near infrared Gallium-arsenide 904
Nd:YAG 1,064
FEL 1,000-10,000 Thermal and IR
missiles
Mid infrared Deuterium- 3,000-3,800-5,000
fluoride
Carbon monoxide 6,000
Carbon dioxide 10,600 Thermal detec-
tors 8,000-
12,000

(CW) laser or a laser with a high pulse repetition frequency has to

be used at the proper blocking wavelength. In most cases, it
requires less energy to disable temporarily than to destroy. An
alternative use for a long-range HEL weapon may be to block the
enemy sensors at longer ranges and then to destroy them if they
manage to get closer.
LEL weapons may be of different sizes depending on the laser
required. A very simple anti-eye laser operating in the visible
spectrum at one or more wavelengths could easily be portable and
also comparatively cheap. Such a small laser could be placed on a
rifle and aligned with the normal sights to be used against enemy
eyes in close combat. If the purpose is to counter or destroy
electronic sensors at long ranges, then the laser with all its acces-
sories will be a bulky and heavy system which must be carried on
a combat vehicle; alternatively, a special close-combat laser vehi-
154 Six

cle, with the LEL as its main weapon, could be designed. It is

possible to get an idea of how LEL weapons may look on the
battlefield of the future by studying the weapons presently in the
research and development phases.

SOME PRESENT LEL WEAPON SYSTEMS

Some examples of the research and development of LEL

weapons have been published in the open literature, but, even
with the benefit of this information, it is still difficult to give an
altogether true and complete description of the present state of the
art for these weapons. For obvious reasons, this is an area which is
shrouded in very tight security. The following short summary of
the information available is an attempt to put together the pieces
of a rather fragmented picture of some of the ongoing research and
development of LEL weapon applications. As mentioned before,
the information is almost entirely from the Western world. Some
ideas about the LEL weapon situation in the former Soviet Union
are also given, but it must be pointed out that most of these
conclusions are speculations based on second- or third-hand
guesses and estimations.
Reliable proof currently exists concerning the fielding of a
specific low-energy laser weapon with an anti-eye capability. At
the very beginning of 1990, the British press revealed that a laser
weapon called the Laser Dazzle Sight (LDS) had been in use on
British ships for a number of years. The disclosure caused a public
debate, raised many questions, and was discussed within the
British Parliament. Subsequently, a lot of articles were published,
and from them we can piece together some information about the
properties of LDS, although very tight security regarding this
weapon is still maintained by officials of the British Ministry of
Defense. The purpose of the LDS is to blind pilots of attacking
aircraft for such a long time that they are forced to abandon their
attack before delivering their munitions. The requirement may
even be to blind them for such an extended period of time that
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 155

they must crash the aircraft or abandon it completely. The LDS

could also be used against small boats attempting suicide attacks
at larger ships during terrorist-type conflicts. The knowledge of
the existence of such systems as the LDS might cause enemy pilots
to fly higher, thus becoming better targets for air defense missiles
and guns.
The LDS was developed jointly by the Ministry of Defense
Royal Signals and Radar Establishment (RSRE) in Malvern and the
Admiralty Research Establishment. Early trials were performed in
1981, and, according to some reports, several weapons were used
during the 1982 Falklands conflict, resulting in the loss of three
Argentinean aircraft. The LDS has since been used on British
ships in the Persian Gulf and in other areas. The laser is contained
in a rectangular section, barrel mounted on a tripod, and seems to
be about five feet long. It may be manually aimed or assisted by a
computer to lock on to its target. The LDS probably operates in the
blue part of the spectrum and was originally developed from an
industrial laser. It is obviously powered from the ship's electrical
system, and the range should vary considerably with changing
atmospheric and target properties. According to various reports,
the range could be from 1 mile up to 3 miles. Even if the LDS
system is primarily designed to make a pilot abandon his attack or
miss a target, it can easily inflict serious eye damage and even
blindness. It is not possible to only flash blind a person with a laser
for a sufficient time in broad daylight without simultaneously
causing permanent changes to his eyes. Temporary flash blinding
by a laser is only possible when the eyes are more or less adapted
to darkness.
The LDS should be seen as a complementary weapon to air
defense missiles and antiaircraft guns. It will be useful at compar-
atively close ranges but will have no effect on aircraft delivering
long-range standoff weapons. However, the importance of the
LDS should not be underestimated. It has been fielded for a long
time and has been thoroughly tested and evaluated. It will serve as
a basis for the development of new LEL weapons in the United
Kingdom by the RSRE for the army and air force.
156 Six

Early in the 1980s, the U. S. Army initiated a development

program for a battlefield antisensor close-combat laser assault
weapon known as C-CLAW. The initial prototype was dubbed
ROADRUNNER, and it was based on the combination of two lasers
which could operate together at three different wavelengths. One
of the lasers was a I-kilowatt pulsed CO2 device using a high pulse
repetition frequency and a wavelength of 10,600 nanometers. The
other was a Nd:YAG laser that could be used either at 1,060
nanometers or frequency doubled at 530 nanometers. Thus, ROAD-
RUNNER could operate with one laser in the far infrared and the
other laser either in the near infrared or the green part of the
visible spectrum. The system was planned to be powerful enough
to craze or fracture optical lenses, aircraft windshields, and other
items made of glass or polycarbonate laminates.
The C-CLAW program had as its ultimate objective the devel-
opment of an assault laser weapon to assist in offsetting the
numerical superiority of the Warsaw Pact Forces in tanks and
attack helicopters by neutralizing their sensor-dependent fire con-
trol systems. It was to be mounted on infantry armored vehicles
and armed helicopters. The program was canceled in 1983 due to
the cost and weight of the laser weapon. The original military
requirement was for a weight of about 900 pounds, but, when the
project was terminated, the laser weapon had already increased
to 3,000 pounds.
When the ROADRUNNER project was made public, it was
mentioned in press accounts that this new weapon could also
attack the eyesight of enemy troops. This caused some debate in
the media which reflected public concerns about the humani-
tarian issues involved, but, according to the Chief of Staff of the
U. S. Army, the cancellation of the $212 million ROADRUNNER proj-
ect at a later date had nothing to do with the adverse publicity.
"Obviously, war is lethal," he said. "Even though C-CLAW can
blind soldiers, it was not being developed for that purpose."
However, in another press report, it was stated that among the
reasons leading to the cancellation of the project was the extensive
media coverage of the possibility that this system could also cause
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 157

eye damage. It is difficult to judge what effect the media reaction

ultimately had on the final decision, but it is significant to recog-
nize that the idea of harming human eyes was not very well
received by the public. Whatever the real reasons for cancellation
were, the project had overrun both the cost and weight require-
ments, and the U.S. Army decided to turn to "a more promising
technology" in the form of a new concept called STINGRAY.
STINGRAY is an optical and electro-optical countermeasure
LEL weapon designed to detect and blind or destroy the enemy
sensors that are essential for surveillance and for guidance of
modern weapons on the battlefield. It is designed to be mounted
on a Bradley M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle, but it can also be used
on conventional tanks and attack helicopters. According to an-
other report, STINGRAY could be housed in long rectangular boxes
mounted on the side of the Abrams Ml tank turret. STINGRAY can
be operated in two modes. First, the laser may be used to detect
enemy optics and electro-optics by tracing the small amounts of
laser light that are reflected from the sensors when they are
directed against the enemy positions. In this mode, the beam is
used to scan the terrain. The operator sets the output beam on a
wide angle to encompass the broader view and operates the laser
at a minimum power level. In the other mode, the laser beam is
highly concentrated to blind or destroy enemy periscopes, night
vision equipment, and gun sights.
STINGRAY will be used as an add-on weapon on the Bradley
Fighting Vehicle in conjunction with the ordinary 25-mm gun and
TOW antitank missiles. The weapon is installed in a box on the
opposite side of the turret from the TOW antitank missiles. The
laser may be initially used as a laser radar, and, when the targets
have been detected and identified, the Bradley crew can use the
gun or the missiles against one target, while the STINGRAY laser
blinds or destroys the sensors on a second target. The military
requirement may even include the possibility of using the laser
from a Bradley which is on the move against a target that also is
moving. Not only would this allow the possibility of hitting a
specific moving target, but it would ensure hitting a certain spot
158 Six

on that target, namely, the optic and electro-optic equipment. This

can be done by directing the automatic flow of information from
the radar mode to the beam or the aimer once the laser beam is
narrowed and changed to the concentrated weapon mode.
As with all laser-based weapons, one of the main difficulties
of STINGRAY is coping with the atmospheric conditions and the
battlefield pollution. STINGRAY was designed with sufficient en-
ergy to hinder an enemy's target acquisition process if it is de-
pendent on optical and electro-optical means. It is difficult to
find a first-hand opinion on the probability of solving this prob-
lem, as the STINGRAY project is highly secret, and very little data
have been made public. However, the project manager has an-
swered a question concerning the possible successful resolution
of the project's problems by retorting that "we wouldn't have this
level of interest and support if we hadn't expected to be suc-
cessful."
The STINGRAY program is sponsored by the U.S. Army Com-
munications Electronics Command (CECOM), and the prime con-
tractor, Martin Marietta Electronics Systems in Orlando, Florida,
was awarded an initial contract in 1982. The General Electric
Corporation is responsible for the development of the laser, which
benefits from an innovative use of slab-shaped crystals, probably
of neodymium:YAG, rather than the usual cylindrical rod. This
configuration yields a tenfold improvement in beam quality by
reducing heat-induced distortion of the lasing element. This solid-
state slab laser will probably produce short pulses with high peaks
of power in the near-infrared part of the spectrum. The U.S. Army
considers STINGRAY a low-energy laser weapon which, according
to the project manager, has a maximum power sufficient to tempo-
rarily upset or even wreck the enemy's optical devices.
The STINGRAY laser is installed in a stabilized mount in the
turret of the Bradley tank. Its operation is assisted by a computer,
and the laser gunner directs and fires the weapon from a visual
display. The power is provided by a powerful alternator driven by
the tank's main propulsion motor, which is a standard Cummins
VTA-903T diesel developing 500 horsepower. This means that the
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 159

ammunition available for the STINGRAY LEL weapon is almost

unlimited as long as the fuel tanks are filled with diesel oil. The
STINGRAY weapon itself is reported to be rather small in size and
weighs only about 350 pounds.
STINGRAY has already reached a comparatively advanced
stage in the research and development phase. A Bradley demon-
strator that was equipped with a STINGRAY was field tested in 1986
at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. According to an
official statement from the Pentagon by Thomas P. Quinn, Princi-
pal Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary, "this system is now
being considered for full-scale development." STINGRAY has been
tested in a variety of atmospheric environments-wet, dry, dusty,
and snowy. One of the major concerns is the possible interference
of the operation of STINGRAY with the guidance of the TOW
missiles when some of the laser energy is reflected from snowy
surfaces.
The estimated cost for development of the STINGRAY is approx-
imately $250 million, and it would take four to five years before
mass production could start. The price is said to be between
$500,000 and $1,000,000 per laser. The continuation of the project
has been in doubt due to economic considerations,and in late 1988,
when the Army showed its fiscal 1990 budget, STINGRAY had been
canceled. However, funding was restored, and the Senate Armed
Services Committee stated that development of the STINGRAY
would enormously increase the combat capability of the Bradley
Fighting Vehicle. The Committee even added sufficient money to
the requested budget to begin full-scale development in the event
that further tests confirmed the STINGRAY'S value. Reports of recent
field tests at Fort Bliss, Texas, have substantiated the effectiveness
of the STINGRAY, and in October 1990 the U. S. Congressional
Defense Authorization Conference approved its full-scale devel-
opment. Six of the STINGRAY systems are scheduled to be delivered
to the Army in 1994. The production of 48 STINGRAY laser weapons
to be fitted to reconnaissance Bradleys in two armored cavalry
regiments is currently up for review by the Defense Acquisition
Board chaired by the Secretary for Defense Acquisition. Whether
160 Six

this means that all financial problems have been solved and that
the project has a definite go-ahead all the way to field deployment
still remains to be seen.
Though not designed specifically to damage the eyes of any
enemy soldier exposed to the beam, STINGRAY would be powerful
enough in its weapon mode for this task. However, the laser is
reported to be too weak to injure the eyes of infantrymen when it
is set to the laser radar mode searching for targets. According to a
U. S. Department of Defense official, when the power level is
increased and the beam is narrowed to concentrate its energy on
an enemy sensor or soldier, it can "do tremendous damage."
STINGRAY certainly has the potential to damage the eyes of enemy
soldiers, both temporarily and permanently. Indeed, quite a few of
the victims could be injured in a way that will render them legally
blind for the rest of their lives. This may happen more or less by
accident when the STINGRAY is used against sensors, but the
possibility also exists that commanders might order STINGRAY type
LEL weapons to be used systematically to damage the eyes of the
enemy on the battlefield. The special advisor for armaments in the
Pentagon, Dennis E. Kloske, during his congressional testimony
in 1988 said that "the issue of blinding on a tactical basis is
something everybody is going to have to deal with in the 1990s." A
STINGRAY program critic in the Defense Department commented
that the deliberate use of laser weapons to blind people is unethi-
cal and distasteful.
The U.S. Air Force is working on a LEL weapon based on the
STINGRAY laser called the CORONET PRINCE. It is designed to protect
aircraft against enemy air defense weapons which are dependent
on optics and electro-optics for their effect. The crew will be
alerted through the detection system in CORONET PRINCE that the
aircraft is under attack or that an attack may be imminent. The
crew can then identify the threat and counterattack using pulsed
laser beams which will incapacitate the eyesight of air defense
operators and disable the enemy's electro-optical sensors direct-
ing the weapons against the aircraft. CORONET PRINCE is intended
to be pod-mounted, and its pointing, tracking, and environmental
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 161

requirements differ significantly from those of the ground-based

and vehicle-mounted STINGRAY. CORONET PRINCE will have to en-
gage targets at longer distances and will, thus, require far more
laser power than the STINGRAY. The current development of CORO-
NET PRINCE is said to be somewhat behind that of the STINGRAY,
although, according to an Air Force spokesman in 1988, lilt is on
track and on schedule, and we are looking at a full-scale develop-
ment decision in 1989." The test model was nearing completion at
Westinghouse's Baltimore facility and scheduled to undergo flight
testing starting in early 1989, although details of the tests are not
yet available. Future plans include an integrated electro-optid
radio frequency countermeasures program as well as integration
of alternate transmitter technologies. The CORONET PRINCE as an
advanced optical countermeasures pod (AOeM) will certainly
increase the survivability of combat aircraft while penetrating
enemy areas that are heavily defended by antiaircraft guns and
missiles. Enemy systems which are dependent on their electro-
optical sensors, beam riding technology, or visual tracking
through optics will be more easily discovered and neutralized.
The U.S. Army has launched another STINGRAY-related LEL
weapon for the protection of helicopters called the CAMEO BWEJAY.
It seems to be a 75-pound version of STINGRAY (300 pounds)
designed to be mounted on an Apache attack helicopter. However,
it is not expected to go into advanced development before the very
late 1990s. The U.S. Air Force has yet another electronic warfare
program called HAVE GLANCE, in which a pod-mounted, low-
energy laser would be employed to confuse the heat-seeking
function of infrared missiles.
The first LEL weapon projects that have any resemblance to
the Flash Gordon idea of a hand-held ray gun are in the research
and development phase in the United States. One project, the
DAZER, is funded by the government and another, the COBRA, by
industry. The DAZER is the first portable anti-eye laser weapon
made public besides those antisensor systems which could also
attack the eyes of the enemy. The DAZER uses an alexandrite laser
and has been described by the Pentagon, in Senate Armed Ser-
162 Six

vices Committee testimony, as "a man-portable laser device for

use by infantry to provide a soft kill against armored targets by
attacking sensors, including television, night vision devices, and
personnel." DAZER was initiated by the U.S. Army Infantry Center
at Fort Benning. So far, the U. S. Army's Missile Command
(MICOM) has directed the DAZER program, and the Allied Corpo-
ration's Military Laser Products Division, Westlake, California,
has been given a contract to develop an LEL weapon based on
their own commercial alexandrite laser. In 1981, the DAZER was put
through a more or less successful, extensive series of tests at Fort
Bliss, Texas, to measure its effectiveness against various targets.
The Allied Corporation produces and sells an alexandrite
laser that is tunable from 700 nanometers to 815 nanometers with
its maximum energy at 755 nanometers. One of the available rods
has delivered 3.5 joules per pulse at a 20-hertz repetition rate, a
total of 70 watts. Another rod, when Q-switched, delivered 600
microjoules per pulse in 33 nanoseconds and a peak power over 18
megawatts. Alexandrite is based on chromium atoms and is the
synthetic analog of a mineral which was named after Czar Alex-
ander I of Russia. The Allied Corporation manufactures the syn-
thetic alexandrite under the trade name of Alexite.
It is not known for certain if the DAZER is based on the
commercially available Alexite rods from Allied, but it may be
presumed that a similar technology with a comparable energy
capability is used. There are, at least, two important reasons for
the choice of an alexandrite laser for an LEL weapon. The crystal
itself tolerates higher operating temperatures than most other
materials used in solid-state lasers, thereby reducing demand on
the cooling system. Another important advantage of this type of
laser is its tunability, which could make it very difficult for the
enemy to protect sensors and eyes against an LEL weapon like the
DAZER. The enemy can filter out many wavelengths easily, but any
protective filter that covers the whole spectrum at once would have
a low overall transmission and would not be useful in combat to
protect eyes, as it would also block vision. This tuning capability
will make the DAZER a formidable threat to badly protected or
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 163

unprotected infantry units if it is systematically used against eyes

instead of sensors.
The u.s. Army's MICOM has ordered two prototypes for
advanced development under the terms of a $411,000 contract. The
projected cost for one field unit is set at $50,000. DAZER is powered
by a nickel-cadmium battery backpack, but a larger external
power source may be used instead. The DAZER is submachine gun
sized, weighs about 20 pounds, and is fired from the shoulder
with a collapsing shoulder stock and a telescopic sight. The laser
is presumably excited by a flash lamp. The device includes a
cooling chamber and a pump to regulate its temperature, which is
necessary even though the lasing medium can tolerate high tem-
peratures. The basic beam is invisible, making it difficult for the
operator to judge if the target was hit or missed. However, either
frequency doubling or shifting could give a visible beam. Also a
reference laser emitting in the visible part of the spectrum, such
as a low-power HeNe or red diode laser, could be added.
The DAZER is a frequency-agile LEL weapon that is designed
to attack very sensitive sensors mainly in the visible and near
infrared part of the spectrum, including television, night vision
devices, and the human eye. As all relevant data are, of course,
secret, it is not possible to give any exact information on the
weapon's capabilities. Supposedly, the DAZER will only be able to
flash blind enemy soldiers temporarily, but the same press report
also quotes a Pentagon R&D chief stating ambiguously that "it is
possible to create a laser beam of sufficient intensity to perma-
nently destroy the eye, and it is possible to create significant
damage without destroying the eye permanently." As has been
pointed out in previous chapters, it is not possible to flash blind a
person in daylight with a laser without damaging the eye. If flash
blindness can be made to last from 10 to 100 seconds, depending
on the brightness of the flash and the illumination level, it is likely
that the weapon will destroy eyes at close ranges and severely
damage them at longer ranges. This will certainly be the case if
the enemy is using magnifying optics.
The COBRA is being built by McDonnell Douglas Company
164 Six

Electronic Systems Div., McLean, Virginia, and is in many re-

spects similar to the DAZER. It is of the same size and shape and is
driven by a battery pack. However, it does not use the same type of
laser. The president of the company declined in an interview to
discuss the wavelength, but he said that if the Army were to have a
laser that could fire any of three different frequencies "you get to
the point where the defense has to counter all three . . . then you
can't look through optics, because the optics are black." This
means that the COBRA is based on a single powerful solid-state
laser operating at the same time at three different wavelengths, all
in the visible part of the spectrum. The COBRA could be as devastat-
ing to human eyes as the DAZER. Although it is possible to some
extent to have, at least, minimal protection against the DAZER by
using a filter in the near infrared covering 700 to 815 nanometers, it
presently seems impossible to have adequate protection against
the COBRA.
Without a doubt, someday the DAZER and the COBRA will be
very important weapons, as they are the first LEL weapons de-
signed for use by the infantry against the sensors and eyes of
enemy infantry. Furthermore, they have projected prices that will
make it possible to produce and field them in large numbers. This
development will set the standard for many other LEL weapons to
come, and several other companies in the United States are re-
ported to be working on similar weapon concepts. By the end of
this century, weapons like the DAZER and COBRA will find their way
into armies all over the world. The technology is not too sophisti-
cated, and the laser industries that are already established in most
countries will have the capability of developing similar LEL
weapons. This is certainly the case within the former Soviet Union
and countries that had signed the Warsaw Pact.
The former very tight security in the Soviet Union and the
present unsettled conditions in the separated states make it im-
possible to give any thorough and completely true picture of what
is going on in these countries as regards LEL weapons. Since 1981,
the official U. S. picture of military developments in the Soviet
Union has been reported annually in a document entitled Soviet
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 165

Military Power. The 1987 edition stated that "the Soviets have the
technological capability to deploy low-power laser weapons, at
least, for anti-personnel use and against soft targets such as
sensors, canopies, and light material." Furthermore, it claimed
that "recent Soviet irradiation of Free World manned surveillance
of aircraft and ships could have caused serious eye damage to their
personnel." These statements were followed in the next edition a
year later by the following: "The Soviets are using their technologi-
cal capability to move toward rapid deployment of low-power laser
weapons with their military forces. Their tactical laser program
has progressed to where battlefield laser weapons could soon be
deployed." It is rather odd, against this background, that the
reader of the 1989 edition will not find even one word about low-
power laser weapons. This may mean that the authors did not find
the LEL weapon important, or that they considered the former
statements somewhat exaggerated, or that the whole subject had
come under tighter security in the Soviet Union as well as in the
United States.
The US. Army has published a new edition of a standard
field manual covering the Soviet Army, FM 100-2-1. It is a detailed
and unclassified review which contains a chapter on Soviet tactical
directed energy weapons and warfare. The manual states that low-
energy lasers are most likely to be used for blinding personnel and
electro-optical devices, but it does not describe how a Soviet
battlefield laser weapon would be configured. An article based on
this new manual suggested that one Soviet LEL system is similar
to the US. Army's own STINGRAY. The US. Army seems to have
concluded, based on the extensive Soviet literature on the biolog-
ical effects of laser radiation, that the Soviets are examining and
working on the development of anti-eye laser weapons.
There have been additional reports in the open literature on
Soviet development of LEL weapons. In connection with the
previously discussed reports on the peacetime laser incident be-
tween Soviet ships and US. aircraft, it was said that the existence
of Soviet laser weapons is generally known and that such weapons
have been demonstrated and detected in various areas of the
166 Six

world. The Soviets have directed their research toward the practi-
cal side and have now reduced the size of their systems to a point
where ground forces can be equipped with lasers for both offense
and defense. Even if some experts such as David Isby seem very
certain that the Soviets are more advanced in many laser weapon
applications than the United States, that cannot be convincingly
proved. The only definite conclusion that may be drawn is that
there are no big differences between the countries in the former
Soviet Union and the rest of the world when it comes to develop-
ment of LEL weapon applications.

FUTURE LEL WEAPONS

The current research and development of LEL weapon pro-

jects indicates a very strong interest in this kind of weapon. Work
is obviously proceeding in a number of countries, and we may be
entering a new era of military weapon technology. LEL weapons
have come to stay and will probably reach combat units in some
countries during the mid-1990s. During the late 1990s and into the
beginning of the next century, LEL weapons will be fielded in
more countries and in increasing numbers. The two main areas of
use on the future battlefield will be as antisensor weapons and
anti-eye weapons. The design of dual-purpose LEL weapons
combining these two functions will be possible, mainly with
lasers emitting in the visible and near-infrared part of the spec-
trum. For obvious reasons, it is not possible to predict exactly
which LEL weapons will be available on the battlefield within the
next 10 to 20 years, but it is possible to describe several likely
applications.

Airborne Weapons
Airborne LEL weapons will predominantly be designed for
and used in the air-to-ground role. One of the main aims will be to
detect, blind, and destroy enemy air defense installations. Other
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 167

applications such as air-to-air combat between aircraft are possible

but will probably not be as common as air-to-ground ones. It must
be kept in mind that space and weight are always at a premium on
modern military aircraft, and this severely limits the possibilities
for internal laser weapons. This problem can be solved to some
extent by a external laser pod; however, this slows the aircraft
down and shortens its range, not always within acceptable limits
for attack.
Four different possibilities exist for fielding airborne weap-
ons: countermeasures against enemy air defense systems; as a
part of anti-beam rider missile systems; directly against enemy
homing missiles; and as an air-to-air assault weapon.
The first airborne LEL weapon concept suggested was a
countermeasure system designed to protect the aircraft from
many of the enemy battlefield air defense weapons. The main
targets are sensors and sights used for fire control on antiaircraft
gun and missile systems which operate in the visible or near-
infrared part of the spectrum. A secondary target could be the
personnel operating the sights and other electro-optical devices
fitted to the different hostile air defense systems. The military
requires a LEL weapon configuration that can detect and identify
key sensors on defending antiaircraft weapons followed by auto-
matic blinding or destruction. The LEL weapon has to be effective
when the aircraft is on its final run toward the target, which
means that the firing range has to be at least several kilometers.
The hit probability has to be very high for a target on the ground or
a ship. During the critical phase of the attack, it should be possible
to blind simultaneously all sensors and sights that are sensitive to
a laser beam. This is necessary if the aircraft is to press home an
attack even in a heavily defended area. In most cases, this type of
LEL countermeasure weapon will be pod-mounted and may be
supported by laser radar for detection and identification of the
target.
The second concept is an airborne anti-beam rider LEL
weapon designed mainly to counter the increasing threat from
antiaircraft missiles using laser beams to "ride" to the target.
168 Six

Other air defense weapon systems that are dependent on using

lasers in the fire control system may also be targets for this special
type of laser weapon. It is of utmost importance that the anti-beam
rider LEL weapon system be able to detect and immediately
respond to incoming beam riding missiles and engage in success-
ful air-to-ground combat. The aircraft has to be equipped with a
high-technology laser detector which can sense the hostile laser
radiation, calculate the position of the source, identify the threat,
and automatically fire its own laser to blind or destroy the fire
control system of the beam rider. If the missile is already on its
way, there is no time for a manual response. Even if the laser beam
is identified as that from a laser designator or range finder, a very
fast reaction will be necessary. Existing beam riders, target desig-
nators, and range finders operate within the visible and through-
out the near- and far-infrared regions. For example, the u.s.
antiaircraft beam riding missile system ADATS uses a CO2 laser
operating in the far infrared, while the Swedish Rb 70 operates in
the near infrared. An LEL weapon could detect, blind, or destroy
targets operating at widely separated wavelengths, or could be
tailor-made to counter one specific type of beam rider. It may be
possible to combine the two concepts: countermeasures against
both fire control sensors and those on beam riders. However, if the
military requirements are set too high, costs will rise, and the
system will become too complicated to operate in the field even
with the support of high-technology threat analysis systems and
powerful computers.
An airborne LEL weapon is a countermeasure system de-
signed to cope with the threat from air-to-air or ground-to-air
infrared homing missiles. Most fighters and other combat aircraft
are armed with thermally guided infrared missiles to shoot down
enemy aircraft. This is, of course, a major threat to any aircraft
that meets the enemy in the air. Antiaircraft infrared guided
missiles are used to protect combat forces and important installa-
tions on the ground or to protect combat ships at sea. An anti-
infrared missile LEL weapon should blind, trick, or destroy the
infrared target seeker before the missile closes in on the target.
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 169

The military requirements for such an LEL weapon system are as

simple as they are demanding. It must detect and automatically
blind the infrared missiles to force them to divert and miss the
target. This has to be achieved even when the available time for
reaction is extremely short, and the hostile missile may close in on
the aircraft from any direction (in this case, a pod-mounted LEL
weapon may be an appropriate solution).
The first three airborne LEL concepts mentioned above are
mainly defensive ones. The fourth-an air-to-air assault laser
weapon-is an offensive one. The targets are sensors and pilots in
other aircraft engaged in air-to-air combat. This weapon system
has to be powerful enough to engage the targets at rather long
ranges under normal atmospheric conditions. The military re-
quirements will be for a weapon that can detect and blind or
destroy airborne. electro-optical sensors used on enemy aircraft
and on helicopters. However, the most important targets for this
weapon may be the enemy pilots. It should be possible to blind a
pilot, day or night, for the time necessary to force him to abandon
the aircraft or crash. It should also be possible to operate this
weapon independently or in conjunction with guns and missiles.
The LEL weapon could be supported by conventional radar, a laser
radar, or some other sensor system. It could be mounted internally
or in a pod.

Shipborne Weapons
LEL weapons may also be designed to protect combat ships
against threatening missiles and other "smart" munitions. As
already mentioned in Chapter 5, concerning high-energy laser
weapons, it is very easy to find a large enough space for energy
sources aboard a ship. The main limitation for shipborne HEL
weapons concerns the atmospheric problems that exist close to the
water. One way to complement shipborne HEL weapons may be to
add LEL weapons for use against targets with sensors highly
sensitive to laser light. Three different concepts for shipborne LEL
weapons are described below.
170 Six

Sea-skimming missiles are probably the most dangerous

threat to surface ships. Some of these missiles home in on the
thermal signature of the ship using infrared sensors during the
final phase of their attack. With this as a background, the first
suggestion for a shipborne LEL weapon may be an anti-infrared
missile laser. It is not only sea skimmers that use the infrared
signature. Guided missiles and "smart" bombs may also be
launched from aircraft and close in on the target for other direc-
tions than close to the surface. The target for this type of ship-
borne laser weapon will be the infrared sensors that guide many
of the missiles that threaten ships. This countermeasure weapon
should blind the infrared sensors for a sufficient time to force the
hostile weapon to miss its target and crash harmlessly into the
water. The LEL weapon system will have to detect, identify, and
then automatically fire the laser against the target. This will
certainly be a tough task, as the targets are both small and fast.
The time factor is critical. Most sea skimmers do not open their
infrared target seekers until they are comparatively close to the
target. Thus, the usual military requirement for a quick reaction,
high hit probability, and high kill probability will be difficult to
fulfill. Also, it may be unnecessary to equip ships with LEL
weapons against missiles at all if the development of HEL
weapons succeeds. However, it will be possible to field LEL
weapons for such use several years earlier and probably at a much
lower overall cost.
Another shipborne LEL concept is a countermeasure to pro-
vide protection against low-light television sensors on missiles
such as "smart" bombs. The shipborne laser weapon should be
able to blind or destroy the low-light television camera. The
military requirements for this weapon are very much the same as
those for the LEL anti-infrared sensor laser described above. To
use this weapon against low-light television cameras, it is also
essential that the hostile target be detected and identified in time
and that the LEL weapon automatically track and fire against the
camera. The television camera has to be blinded as long as neces-
sary to divert the missile from its intended target. Possibly, a
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 171

second or two might be sufficient, but some missiles may require

more time.
A third option is to use a shipborne air defense LEL weapon
against attacking aircraft and helicopters in the same way as the
British Laser Dazzle Sight (LDS). The targets would be sensors
and pilots in enemy aircraft attacking the ship or otherwise pass-
ing close to it. It will be possible to engage targets only at
distances of up to a mile or two. This meanS that aircraft launching
long-range sea-skimming missiles or long-range standoff weap-
OnS will be out of reach for such laser weapons. The military
requirement should be for an LEL weapon that could blind or
destroy senSors and blind pilots at such far ranges that the enemy
has to break off the attack before any weapons can even be used.
Even in daytime, the effect of a laser beam on the pilot should be
severe enough to force him to crash or leave the aircraft. He should
be blinded for at least half a minute. Such a blinding weapon may
not necessarily require complex and costly automatic operation. A
high-energy laser beam will be more effective at longer ranges, but
the disadvantages, cost, and complexity of such weapons have
already been discussed at great length.

Ground-Based Weapons
Many more possible concepts for ground-based LEL weapons
exist than for airborne or shipborne weapons. This trend is re-
flected in the large number of ongoing military projects for land
warfare.
The first concept is a heavy combat assault weapon designed
for the support and protection of combat units attacking or defend-
ing important targets. The weapon should be deployed at army
brigade and division levels-to attack or counter sights, optics, and
electro-optic sensors fitted to enemy tanks, armored vehicles,
antitank missile systems, equipment for forward observers, and
helicopters. This laser weapon should disable all light-sensitive
targets On the battlefield wherever they pose a threat to friendly
forces. The military requirement should be for an armored combat
172 Six

LEL weapon vehicle equipped with the LEL weapon as its pri-
mary weapon. It has to operate at long ranges independently of
light conditions and should not be too restricted by the polluted
atmosphere on the battlefield. The normal firing range should be
no less than 1 to 2 miles, even during rather bad weather condi-
tions. The LEL weapon system must be designed to detect,
identify, blind, or destroy hostile sensors and sighting systems. It
may be necessary to use more than one tunable laser to cover the
parts of the visible and infrared spectral range of interest. The
weapon should be powerful enough to craze glass at average
battlefield combat ranges. This weapon certainly has to be a very
frequency agile device. Such complex military requirements will
also mean that this will be a very costly weapon system to
develop, manufacture, and maintain within the armed forces.
Also, if it is to be really cost-effective, large numbers must be
fielded.
The second alternative is not as ambitious as the first one even
though the two concepts have many similarities. In this scenario,
an LEL weapon would be used as an add-on combat assault
weapon to complement the conventional main weapons. The laser
weapon should be used against the same types of targets as the
main weapon. The basic idea is to field a simpler and, thus,
cheaper LEL weapon family that could be deployed in greater
numbers. Such a weapon could not cover a very broad range of
wavelengths, and the design may have to be limited to one small
part of the spectrum. The military requirement should be for a
weapon that could be fitted to tanks, other armored vehicles, and
weapon systems such as antitank missiles. It has to be able to
detect and blind one secondary target, at least, and hopefully
more, while the primary target is engaged by the main gun or
missile. Selection of the wavelengths will be based on the actual
sensors and sights used by the intended target. In most cases, it
may be necessary to use a tunable laser or alternatively to use
more than one laser in this LEL weapon application.
A third concept is an antilaser LEL weapon designed to be
used against other laser-based devices such as range finders,
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 173

target designators, and beam riding missile systems. Such a

weapon may even be used against other laser weapons.
An important prerequisite for an antilaser weapon is a very
efficient laser detector that immediately gives the correct position
and identity of the enemy laser source. If the threat is identified as
coming from a beam riding missile system or from a target
designator, the time factor is critical, and it is necessary to fire the
antilaser weapon automatically against the most threatening laser
source. The designer has to decide which laser is the main threat
and then adjust the range and wavelength accordingly. It is not
possible to cover all the wavelengths of threatening lasers in a
single weapon without making it complicated, bulky, and expen-
sive. The military requirements are, to a great extent, the same as
for the corresponding airborne LEL weapon.
An antiaircraft LEL weapon is a fourth concept. It should be
used against sensors and crews on attacking aircraft and helicop-
ters. Such a countermeasure weapon could be a very cost-effective
supplement to conventional antiaircraft guns and missiles. The
requirement in this case is for a weapon that can detect, blind, or
destroy sensors and human ~yes aboard the aircraft. This has to
be done at such a long range that the attacking aircraft or helicop-
ter is forced to break off the attack before its weapons are
launched. The laser should be powerful enough to blind the pilot,
day or night, for such a long time that he has to leave his aircraft or
is forced to crash his helicopter. This is easier to do at long ranges
at night when the eyes of the pilot are dark adapted and thus
extremely sensitive to the bright laser light. The incoming targets
could be detected by a conventional or laser type of radar. It
should be possible to operate the laser in either an automatic or a
manual mode. Even the two other ground-based laser weapons
mentioned above could have an air defense role.
Finally, helicopters could be equipped with countermeasure
LEL weapon systems against lasers, beam riders, and infrared
missiles in much the same way as aircraft. Another possibility is to
tum the helicopter into a combat assault weapon for support and
protection of brigades and divisions. A helicopterborne weapon
174 Six

could use the same basic ideas as the first and second alternatives
for the ground-based combat assault weapons mentioned above.

Anti-Eye Weapons
The LEL weapon concepts described so far have mainly been
in the category of antimatt~riel weapons. In some cases, the mili-
tary may require, as a secondary task, that these weapons be
capable of blinding the eyes of the crew on a tank or in an aircraft.
This is, of course, an antipersonnel use, but the main aim is still to
destroy the aircraft by forcing it to crash or to destroy the blinded
tank with a gun or a missile. In this case, the eyes are more or less
secondary targets. Anti-eye LEL weapons are quite different. The
sole target of these controversial weapons is the eyes of the enemy
soldiers, either naked or behind magnifying optics. The ultimate
aim is to injure or destroy the eyes sufficiently to stop the soldier
from fighting that war or any other war. This means that the
soldier has to be immediately blinded, and the injury must dam-
age the eyes to such an extent that the soldier cannot recover and
take part in the fighting again. The greater the number of ocular
injuries inflicted on the soldiers and the more severe these injuries,
the bigger will be the burden to the medical facilities and the
society of the enemy. Another important effect caused by a great
number of blinded or severely injured soldiers will be a psycho-
logical one: the will of the soldier to keep on fighting may be
diminished by the existence of laser weapons on the battlefield.
The military requirement for an anti-eye laser weapon is that
it be used systematically to flash blind, injure, and destroy the
eyes of enemy soldiers in combat at ranges shorter than a mile. The
weapon should be small, light, hand-held, battery-powered, and
very frequency agile within the retinal hazard region. It has to be
designed for mass production and should be as cheap as a ma-
chine gun or a rifle. It could be designed as an independent
weapon or as a laser device to clip on ordinary rifles, machine
guns, and antitank weapons. One of the important requirements
is that the weapon be cheap so that it can be distributed to combat
 Low-Energy Laser Weapons 175

units down to the squad level or even to individual infantrymen.

The wavelength may either be tunable or chosen in a part of the
spectrum where, due to lack of overall filter transmission in the
visible region of the spectrum, it is impossible to have any protec-
tion.
The role of the laser as an infantry weapon needs some
clarification. The use of the term blindness to describe the effect of
an anti-eye laser weapon is somewhat misleading. It is true that, in
most cases, there will be visual loss sufficient to constitute legal
blindness, but this is far from total blindness. In the overwhelm-
ing majority of cases, the affected individual will still be able to get
around without any assistance, but, as has been indicated, preci-
sion tasks, such as driving a motor vehicle at any rate of speed,
will be difficult or impossible. However, the degree of visual
impairment or interference with mobility is the crucial point of the
battlefield. It will be impossible for the soldier with serious eye
injuries to continue fighting. The most important use for the laser
by the infantry will be at longer ranges to cause casualties and
affect morale, but, as an assault or antiassault weapon, the LEL
laser will be essentially useless. That is, an antipersonnel laser
weapon will probably be of no assistance during hand-to-hand
combat and will, in fact, probably not even act as a significant
deterrent to close combat. Although certain flash blinding laser
systems may be helpful in this regard, they will probably be less
effective than a large flashbulb. Such disorienting devices could
not generally be used on the battlefield in the daytime but could be
of some use at night; however, the fact that they would have similar
visual effects on friendly personnel as on the target or enemy
personnel would tend to minimize even such help.
In assessing the LEL laser as an infantry weapon, it must be
remembered that such a weapon could only be used against
targets very sensitive to laser light-in this case, the eyes or other
laser-sensitive sensors. Furthermore, the LEL laser weapon is of
no value for penetrating other parts of the human body, nor can it
go through any protection such as body armor, vehicles, or mili-
tary equipment. This means that the LEL weapon cannot replace
176 Six

the rifle or machine gun. It could be a complementary weapon

clipped on to the rifle or used as a separate weapon while other
infantrymen use conventional weapons.
There are many targets on the battlefield for such anti-eye
weapons, including dismounted infantry acting in forward artil-
lery controller teams, forward air controller teams, surveillance
teams, commanders, and many other individual soldiers or
teams. In fact, every soldier looking through a pair of binoculars,
sights, or using his naked eyes to look in the direction of the
enemy is at risk. This is even more so during night. The eyes are
dark adapted and more sensitive, and it is easy to trick soldiers to
look in a certain direction by showing a small light. What have
been mentioned are only examples. There are many more situa-
tions in which a silent, more or less invisible anti-eye laser weapon
will be of good use to the infantry soldier.
To summarize, the major use of lasers as antipersonnel
weapons will be at ranges over 20 yards to cause casualties as well
as destroy morale, as this is a deterrent for enemy movement or
preparations for assault. It is unlikely to sufficiently disable an
assault team to prevent it from accomplishing its goal within a 20-
yard range.

CONCLUSIONS

A review of LEL weapons for use in the air, at sea, and on land
has been presented, giving specific examples of what may be
currently considered by a military staff and in military research
and development. The list presented is certainly not complete,
and there may be many more possibilities in addition to those
which have been described. Many LEL weapons will reach com-
bat units during the 1990s, and the number will certainly increase
after the year 2000. Only three events can stop or even slow the
process-a worldwide disarmament, a very successful technolog-
ical development of effective and cheap protection, or an interna-
tional ban on anti-eye laser weapons.
 SEVEN

Protection and
Countermeasures

It seems inevitable that the battlefield laser threat will markedly

increase in the coming years. This will be as a result of not only the
development and implementation of laser weapons but also the
increasing number of other helpful laser-powered devices such as
range finders and target designators. Therefore, it will be neces-
sary for armies to protect their sensors and personnel by introduc-
ing passive as well as active countermeasures for laser technology.
The primary laser threat will come from laser weapons, although
conventional weapons guided to their targets by lasers will also
constitute an indirect laser threat, as will be demonstrated later in
this chapter.
Protection and countermeasures against laser weapons are
difficult problems which so far have remained unsolved despite
years of research. A simple and cheap eye protection against anti-
eye laser weapons still does not exist; consequently, protection of
personnel involves many complicated factors ranging from filters
to defensive battlefield behavior. This chapter will mainly deal
with what we can do to protect personnel, sensors, and combat
units against the laser beams from low-energy laser (LEL) weap-

177
178 Seven

ons. Protective measures required to counter high-energy laser

(HEL) weapons will only be described briefly.
It is, of course, possible to stop any laser beam in its path
before it reaches the sensor or the eye, but stopping the beam may
mean that neither the sensor nor the soldier will be able to see and
register crucial information from the environment, as stopping the
laser beam more or less prevents viewing. As long as the sensor or
the eye must receive some of the visible or invisible radiation from
the electromagnetic spectrum, it will also be exposed to any
incoming laser energy at exactly the same wavelengths. When
military planners and research institutions investigate the possi-
bilities of defense against the increasing battlefield laser threats,
they are faced with three main possibilities. The first one is to
block the laser beam before it reaches its intended target. The
second way is to use tactical means and countermeasures, and
the third is to change the visual behavior of soldiers and combat
units.

BLOCKING THE BEAM

If it were possible to block the beam completely from reaching

the sensitive parts of electronic sensors or the eyes of soldiers, this
would obviously eliminate any hazard, but this alternative would
only be useful if the sensors or eyes are not forced to abandon their
assigned tasks at the same time as they are being protected. There
are some widely different ways to accomplish this. The beam may
be blocked by an attenuating filter placed in front of the sensor or
eye. Such a filter has to be effective against the specific laser
wavelengths that are being used against it, yet still allow sufficient
amounts of the remaining wavelengths to be transmitted to the
sensor or eye to be used for target detection or general surveil-
lance. Another obvious way to block the beam from reaching the
eyes is to use indirect viewing methods through an electro-optical
system such as a thermal sight or a low-light television device.
When the hostile laser beam hits the electro-optic system, the
 Protection and Countermeasures 179

laser energy is prevented from reaching the eyes. The electro-optic

system detectors may bum out, and the electronic eye will be
blinded, but, with proper design, it will be possible to replace the
destroyed parts and then use the sensor again. Other possible
ways of blocking the beam that have to be investigated further are
the use of veiling smoke, rapidly closing and opening shutters,
and the rather odd and primitive black eye patch. The black eye
patch stops the laser beam from reaching one of the eyes, which is
thus protected but is at risk for later damage. All of these methods
of blocking the beam will be described in more detail in the
following sections.

Filters and Shutters

Lasers are extensively used for many different purposes
outside of the military, in industry and medicine. Protection of
personnel is a prerequisite to many uses of lasers in these fields,
and there are special filters available as well as a whole array of
other protective and control measures. These are fully described in
the literature. However, only a few of these basic types of filters are
rugged or versatile enough to be used in military operations.
Available filters do not really have the necessary properties to
solve the problems created by battlefield lasers and laser weapons,
as they only give protection against a small number of fairly
discrete laser wavelengths.
Anyone who wears sunglasses is using filter technology to
protect his eyes against the light. For-example, a pair of gray
sunglasses blocks light of all colors almost equally well but it is not
dark enough to give protection against laser light. If the aim of
sunglasses is to block all light to a certain degree, the aim of a laser
light filter is to allow as much light as possible to pass through
except at the wavelengths that include the hostile laser light. The
first laser protective eye wear was developed in 1962 by Dr. Harold
Straub of the U. S. Army Harry Diamond Laboratory. He installed a
blue-green glass filter plate (Schott BG-18) into a standard acety-
lene welding goggle frame.
180 Seven

When describing the level of protection obtained from a filter

against a given laser wavelength, the term optical density is
normally used. The optical density is a measure of the attenuation
or weakening of the light beam afforded by a certain thickness of
any transmitting medium and is logarithmic in nature, as de-
scribed by the following mathematical expression:

00 = log(Iol I) (7.1)

where 00 is the optical density, 10 is the power of the incident

beam, and I is the power of the transmitted beam. This means that
a filter with an optical density of 3.0 attenuates a beam passing
through it by a factor ofl,OOO or to 0.1 % ofits former intensity, and
a filter with an 00 of 6.0 attenuates by a factor of 1,000,000 times
or to 0.0001%. When two highly absorbing filters are stacked, the
optical density is essentially the sum of the two individual densi-
ties at any particular wavelength. The values for optical density
corresponding to various percent transmission values are given in
Table 7.l.
Sunglasses normally have an optical density of less than l.
For laser filters, the requirements are much higher, and researchers

TABLE 7.1. Optical Density and Percent Transmissiona

Percent Optical Percent Optical
transmission ,siensity transmission density
100 0.00 0.1 3.00
50 0.30 0.01 4.00
10 1.00 0.001 5.00
5. 1.30 0.0001 6.00
1. 2.00 0.00001 7.00
0.5 2.30 0.000001 8.00
aSee Eq. (7.1) for the relationship between optical density and percent transmission and
associated text for discussion of terminology.
 Protection and Countermeasures 181

look for optical densities as high as 18. As pointed out earlier, it is

necessary that the laser protective filters transmit as much visible
light as possible. A low transmittance of visible light means either
that the soldier will not get crucial visual information upon which
his life may depend or that he will experience severe eye fatigue.
The problem is similar for sensors and even worse for aviators,
who not only have to look for the enemy but also must see well
enough to fly the aircraft.
Colored laser filters may make it impossible to see colored
signals such as red warning lights, the illuminated red marks
inside sights or traffic control signals. Certain color filters will
affect daylight vision differently from night vision, since scotopic
(night) and photopic (daylight) vision use different spectral re-
gions. Thus, blue-green filters are better for night vision than red
or orange filters and vice versa. The names of filters are sometimes
confusing, but confusion can be minimized by remembering that
the filter color is the spectral region that is less attenuated. A blue-
green filter is transparent for blue and green but blocks out red
and yellow.
It is difficult to determine exactly what the minimum accept-
able transmission for filters used by combat units should be, since
this value always depends upon the specific situation, the laser
threat, and the assigned task for the unit involved. However, for
most of the eye protection used on the battlefield, the overall
transmission of visible light by the filter should not be less than
80%.
So far, the most widely used filter for military applications is
the absorption filter. It may be of almost any color and is manufac-
tured out of glass or plastic. It works simply by absorbing most of
the light at one or more specific wavelengths. However, as these
unwanted wavelengths are absorbed, these filters themselves can
be damaged by powerful laser beams as a result of heating. A
serious drawback of absorption type filters is the lack of an ability
to shift from strong absorption at the laser wavelength to very
weak absorption for nearby wavelengths. That is, they do not have
182 Seven

a sharp transmission "cutoff" or "notch" near the laser wavelength

in the visible.
Absorbing dyes can be used in an absorption filter. Such dyes
may have a high optical density, often as much as 16 to 20, and can
easily be combined with a plastic substrate. Although the dye
absorption filters provide a simple, lightweight, and cheap solu-
tion, they are not problem-free. Their high optical density may be
lost by aging, oxidation, or exposure to sunlight. This latter effect
is called solarization, and, in one case, a decrease from a density of
4.0 down to 1.2 was found in just three weeks with daily exposure
to sunlight. Absorbing plastic filter materials are easily scratched,
the surface may be damaged by chemical solvents, and quality
control during manufacture appears to be difficult.
An alternative to plastic absorption filters is colored glass,
which has been used in laboratories for laser protection in the
visible part of the spectrum for years. Inorganic colorants in glass
are quite stable, and such filters are the simplest to produce. It is
also relatively easy to make them resistant to mechanical wear and
damage from very intense laser sources. However, in the near
infrared, only a few different wavelength absorption curves are
available.
A different type of filter is derived from the insulating or
dielectric coatings developed to suppress reflections from lenses.
Thus, antireflective coating principles have been used in the de-
sign of the modern dielectric interference filter, which selectively
reflects different wavelengths and which depends on the effects
caused by multilayer coatings. Such filters consist of many alter-
nating layers of different dielectric materials. One of the great
advantages of such filters is the possibility of a relatively sharp
spectral "notch." This means that they can selectively reflect a
given wavelength while transmitting to a high degree at other
nearby wavelengths in the visible part of the spectrum. The
designer can control transmission and reflection as a function of
wavelength. As these filters reflect rather than absorb the light,
they can withstand more laser power than absorption filters, but
 Protection and Countermeasures 183

they have one great flaw. The color of the light reflected changes as
the viewing angle changes. This means that the effectiveness of an
interference filter for any particular laser depends on the angle of
incidence of the laser beam. As the angle at which the laser beam
strikes the surface of the filter changes away from the vertical, the
wavelength blocked by the filter shifts. Some filters even become
almost transparent at the design wavelength if the laser beam
hitting the filter is only 20 degrees away from the perpendicular,
which, of course, is unacceptable for outdoor applications. This
effect can be demonstrated by looking at an interference coating
with white light. As the filter is tilted, thus changing the viewing
angle, the color seen will change. For this reason, interference
filters are mostly found as coatings applied to absorption filters.
The combination is primarily used in optical systems with a small
field of view, where the range of angles at which light hits the filter
is limited.
Instead of depositing the dielectric layers one by one on each
transparent plate to make filters, a hologram can be made of one
plate, and it will act on light just as the original multilayer di-
electric filter did. The hologram can be reproduced mechanically
by pressing plastics, just as a compact disc is made. The holo-
graphic filter has the same basic advantage as the dielectric coat-
ings in interference filters, as it provides narrow-notch wavelength
protection. However, the holographic filter also has the same
disadvantage of dependence on the angle of incidence of the laser
beam as the multilayer interference type.
In addition to wavelength control, holographic technology
offers the filter designer a method of scattering or bending the
laser light in a controllable way, thus changing the image to a
different size or moving it to a new location in the optical system
or eye. So far, holographic filters are expensive to produce, but
potentially they can be made cheaply in large numbers using
plastic molding technologies. Research is now in progress with the
aim of making it possible to use this technology on a large-scale
basis for the protection of soldiers in the field.
184 Seven

Filter Deployment in Active Service

There are several different ways to implement laser protection
in combat units. The crews riding inside tanks or other armored
vehicles can be protected through filters and coatings applied to
sights and vision blocks. The chief objective is to stop the laser
beam from penetrating into the vehicle or its sensor systems. If the
protection is designed according to this principle, armored vehicle
crews will not require individual eye protection as long as they are
inside the vehicle.
Flight crews of airplanes and helicopters can be equipped
with laser protective visors. However, the possibility of turning
the windshield or the cockpit cover (the canopy) itself into a laser
filter by using coatings or some other method does not seem
realistic yet. The need for laser protection of flight crews is always
in conflict with the requirements for unlimited visibility in day
and night combat situations, as aviators can tolerate far less light
loss than other soldiers. Some safety regulations even state that
laser eye protectors are not normally recommended because of
loss of peripheral vision due to blockage by the frame, reduced
visual sensitivity, and degraded color contrast. To solve the prob-
lem, at least to some degree, some armed forces are looking into
the development of wraparound laser protective visors which can
be mounted on the helmet. The U.S. Army has reported that such
panoramic visors will be used to protect against several possible
enemy lasers and at the same time minimize the light loss neces-
sary to provide this protection. To maximize the protection during
both day and night, it could be necessary to have different visors
for different light conditions. However, even if such visors are
accepted and fielded, they will probably not give sufficient protec-
tion against any LEL weapons that can use varying wavelengths.
Protective eye wear for infantry soldiers has beer supplied to
combat units in some countries. Since 1988, the U.S. Army has
furnished Ballistic and Laser Protective Spectacles (BLPS) to high-
priority units in the Army and the Marine Corps. The original $3.9
million contract for 100,000 pairs was regarded as a "quick fix"
 Protection and Countermeasures 185

solution until a follow-up development could offer increased ac-

ceptability and protection against additional threats. The BLPS are
dye-filled polycarbonate plastic filters which will protect eyesight
against the low-energy lasers most likely to be encountered on
today's battlefield, specifically the two or three wavelengths used
by common range finders and target designators based on
Nd:YAG and ruby lasers. It has been reported that these polycar-
bonate spectacles incorporate dyes which remove the energy of
only two wavelengths. These spectacles will not give any protec-
tion whatsoever against frequency-agile LEL weapons. They will
only protect against a small fraction of the visible and near-
infrared parts of the spectrum, and, since they are a passive
countermeasure, they must be worn for long periods of time in
case of a laser attack. One problem may be the reluctance of the
soldier to accept any reduction in his combat effectiveness from
reduced vision and the possibility that the spectacles or goggles
may be damaged or lost. However, the mechanical protection
against flying particles that the spectacles also offer is an addi-
tional and major advantage. The polycarbonate ballistic lens re-
duces the probability of eye injury from fragments by approx-
imately 50%. It may be concluded that present technology is not
sufficient to provide complete laser protection against LEL
weapons to tank crews, flight crews, and infantry soldiers. It is
even questionable if it is possible to have total protection against
some of the powerful designators and range finders present on the
battlefield today. Thus, it is unquestionably necessary to investi-
gate the technological possibilities of developing new and much
more efficient filter or shutter eye and sensor protection.

Future Developments in Protective Equipment

Military services in many countries are making vigorous
efforts to find ways to protect soldiers and sensors against laser
radiation. One future possibility is the use of nonlinear optical
polymer materials which change their optical properties in the
186 Seven

presence of intense lights or electric fields. They undergo a rapid

molecular change of polarization and can become nearly opaque
to laser radiation during the time they are hit with laser radiation
and then return to the clear state when the laser pulse ends. Thus,
these filters could block the laser pulse but would allow ordinary
but less bright light through almost unchanged. It would probably
be necessary to focus the incoming laser beam to initiate the
necessary changes in the sensitive polymer material. This means
that small focusing lenses would have to be incorporated into
goggles and visors. Another way to block the damaging laser light
may be to use filters that discriminate between coherent and
ordinary light and let ordinary light pass for normal vision. These
ideas have a high theoretical potential, but the problems involved
are very complex. It will certainly take several additional years
before any of these ideas can be assessed as realistic or not. Several
other technologies that can be used to block laser beams are
currently being investigated, such as optical switches and liquid
crystals. Mechanical shutters that can be triggered to close the
optical pathway before the light reaches the eye or sensor are not
realistic possibilities since it does not seem possible to have a
reaction fast enough to compete with the laser beam moving at the
speed of light, and the first group of photons that reach the target
before the shutter closes may be devastating enough to destroy the
eye or sensor. Ultimately, problems with the mechanical approach
seem impossible to solve.
One way to provide better protection for sensors is to laser
harden them when they are designed. The detectors within the
sensors may be designed to be easily replaceable, and unneces-
sary sensitivity to laser light might be avoided by a careful choice
of materials. The main problem is that any filter protection can be
defeated or bypassed if the enemy uses light of a different color or
wavelength or simply uses a more powerful laser. Thus, the
protection has to be independent of wavelength and power if the
threat from LEL weapons is to be successfully averted. The possi-
bility of developing and fielding laser eye protection that will give
the infantry soldier a sufficient level of protection seems very
 Protection and Countermeasures 187

small. Not only is it necessary to make such devices cheap enough

to be bought in huge numbers, but they must also be so easy to
wear that the soldier can have them on day and night, even in life-
threatening situations preparing for close combat.

Indirect Viewing
Indirect viewing is an interesting possible way of protecting
the eyes of crew members in high-value targets such as tanks,
helicopters, and aircraft. If a television system, a thermal imager,
or a light intensifier is used for observing the battlefield, tracking,
and firing guns, the crew members do not have to view the battle
area and the enemy directly with their own eyes. If a hostile LEL
weapon is fired, only the light-sensitive parts within the electro-
optical devices will be destroyed or blinded. However, the disad-
vantages are obvious. Such systems are very expensive and will
only be worthwhile for the protection of high-value weapon sys-
tems. It is not possible to use them to protect infantrymen and
other soldiers on the battlefield. Even for the protected few, there
are drawbacks. It is difficult in a combat situation, which is highly
stressful and often life-threatening, to be unable to observe the
battlefield with the naked eye. If the enemy blinds the equipment
used for indirect viewing, the soldier must either break off the
action and take cover, go on fighting using his unprotected eyes,
or try to repair the equipment during the stress of a hostile
engagement.

Snwke
Smoke can be used as a countermeasure for two purposes. It
makes target acquisition difficult for the enemy, and it can also
diffuse and absorb the laser beam, making it less dangerous to
sensors and soldiers. Smoke is frequently present on the battle-
field from exploding munitions or burning vehicles, trees, and
buildings. Its effect is mostly to limit the possibility of observing
the targets and accurately directing weapons. However, some
188 Seven

electro-optical sensors, such as thermal sights, can see through

the smoke and haze and give the gunner a possibility of hitting the
enemy without being seen himself.
It is necessary to use the right type of smoke if it is intended
to give any protection against a laser threat. The effects of the
smoke are dependent upon the size of the smoke particles and the
wavelength of the laser. As the size of the particles approaches the
wavelength of the laser, more of the energy will be scattered than
attenuated. The scattering is very wavelength dependent and is
most effective in the blue. The interaction between different types
of smoke and the wavelengths used by anti-eye laser weapons is of
great interest. The depth of smoke, in yards, required to reduce
laser transmittance to 1% of the incoming energy is given in Table
7.2 for several types of smoke. It should be noted, however, that
smoke protection even to the 1% level is comparable to a filter with
an optical density of 2.0 in laser attenuation, which is not usually
sufficient to be very useful on the battlefield. To be really effective
against a laser, the smoke layer may have to be 100-1,000 times
more dense.
If a combat unit desires to limit a laser threat with smoke, a
large area of coverage is required in order to provide continuous
protection as opposed to localized grenade-generated smoke.
This can be achieved by smoke generators deployed within the
forward combat units. When the smoke screen has been devel-
oped, it may cover the soldiers and protect them, at least to some
extent. However, the use of smoke is certainly not without draw-
backs. The smoke will interfere with the use of many types of
electro-optics and other means for observing the battlefield. Over-
all, combat performance will be lowered due to loss of unaided
vision, and control of the battle situation will be harder to achieve.
Maintaining smoke for long periods of time over vast areas will
require tremendous supplies and extensive logistics to feed the
smoke generators. The use of smoke is very dependent on weather
conditions such as wind and humidity. One of the main disadvan-
tages of smoke is the time it takes before a smoke screen of the
necessary density can be placed in the right position. It will be too
late to use smoke for protection after the enemy has initiated the
 Protection and Countermeasures 189

TABLE 7.2. Relative Transmittance and Optical Density for Various

Fog or Smoke Compounds in the Visible and Near Infrareda
Smoke depthb (yard) Optical density
Compound 500 nm 1,060 nm ·500 nm 1,060 nm
White phosphorus 15 23 0.9 0.7
Hexachloroethane 16 18 1 0.8
Fog oil 22 34 0.7 0.5
Titanium tetrachloride 10 23 1.1 0.7
Naphthalene 13 29 0.9 0.6
Anthracene 13 32 0.9 0.6
Sulfur trioxide 4 9 1.4 1.1
Silicon tetrachloride 9 17 1.1 0.8
"Transmission distances and optical density of the compounds are for standard methods of
generation.
bOepth or thickness of smoke in yards required to reduce laser transmittance to about 1% of
incoming energy is given at selected wavelengths in the visible and infrared. It should be
noted that lasers using wavelengths outside the retinal hazard region require much more
smoke to reduce the transmittance.

use of anti-eye laser weapons. Some laser weapons may even be

powerful enough to penetrate through the smoke and cause eye
damage anyway. Smoke is only one of several means to cope with
an antipersonnel laser threat, and its use should be actively
integrated into the laser protection protocol. In some situations,
smoke can make a substantial contribution to the overall protec-
tion, but, in most tactical situations, its use will be of minor aid,
and, even then, both the commanders and the soldiers must be
aware of its limitations.

Black Patch
When the infantry and other combat soldiers are ordered to
fight in an area where the laser threat has proven to be substantial,
and if no other means of protection exist, a black patch over one of
the eyes may be a solution. This idea, originally suggested by the
military, of course seems odd, but such a measure would, at least,
save one eye if the soldier is the victim of a hostile laser beam.
190 Seven

Obviously, this method has a lot of disadvantages. The soldiers

will lose their depth perception to some extent and will not be able
to use optics properly, since they are mostly designed for two eyes.
The soldier's field of view will be significantly reduced, and it will
be more difficult to perform normal tasks and move around
quickly, especially at night. The psychological effects are un-
known but undoubtedly could be substantial. The black patch will
perhaps increase the soldier's fear of the laser threat instead of
abating it. However, if the infantry has to fight, and the enemy is
using a laser in the anti-eye mode, the black patch may very well
be the one and only way to cope with a very difficult situation.

ANTI-LASER WEAPONS

The rapid development of laser weapons will certainly spur

active countermeasures such as specific antilaser weapons. Today,
many armed forces have antiradar missiles for use against active
enemy radar stations. Such missiles are mostly airborne and have
a considerable range. It is likely that missiles designed to home in
on laser weapons, laser range finders, laser designators, and other
laser devices will also be developed and fielded during the latter
part of the 1990s. In order to be able to counter a laser that only
emits pulses for a very short period of time, the missile has to
"remember" the position of the hostile laser and home in on that
specific position. Antilaser missiles could potentially make it
unsafe to keep laser beams on for any significant duration. Such
an antilaser missile will obviously be expensive and should,
therefore, be used against the most threatening laser sources on
the battlefield. This may mean that enemy laser weapons and
enemy lasers that are directing conventional munitions should be
given priority. Development of antilaser weapons would certainly
also lead to the development of a variety of countermeasures,
including laser decoys to trick the antilaser missiles and divert
them in the wrong direction.
As a counter weapon against laser activity, the laser has many
advantages over the missile. The most important is the speed with
 Protection and Countermeasures 191

which an antilaser laser weapon can react to a laser threat. As

antilaser weapons, lasers will probably be more frequent and will
perform more of the required tasks on the future battlefield than
missiles. However, both ways of coping with the laser threat will
still be used. Since a missile can carry more energy and destroy
more of the target than the enemy laser source or enemy sensor, it
will be a necessary complement to the antilaser weapon.
When a hostile laser beam hits a target, retroreflection could
be sued to send the laser beam back where it came from. Comer
cube reflectors familiar to many from traffic control signs and
roadway markers have the property of sending any reflection back
in the exact direction from which it came. Comer cubes are used
today on targets in laser simulation systems to reflect the very
weak beams used in these systems so as to indicate target acquisi-
tion. For obvious reasons, these reflected beams have to be harm-
less. If the powerful beams from an LEL weapon or from range
finders and designators were reflected back to the laser source, the
laser device could be destroyed, and the personnel operating the
laser would be injured. This suggestion has some drawbacks, but
it would be possible to give protection against the specific wave-
length the weapon emits. Also, a retroreflector will certainly give
away the position of friendly units to enemy laser radar. However,
a cautious use of retroreflectors on some dummy targets or at other
positions in the area where the enemy is aiming their lasers may
place some limitations on the laser threat as a whole.

LASER DETECTORS AND ALARMS

Most of the methods of dealing with a laser threat involve

some active countermeasures, evasive maneuvers, or direct en-
gagement. Generally, these methods will be used by combat units
in various combinations. However, all of these alternatives pre-
sume that, in most situations, the hostile laser has been detected,
identified, and exactly localized within the extremely short span
of time available. Crews in fighting vehicles, airplanes, and heli-
copters, infantry soldiers, and others must be instantaneously
192 Seven

warned of specific laser threats. Thus, it has become necessary to

develop and field small, rugged, lightweight, and inexpensive
laser warning systems capable of detecting and determining the
direction of incident laser radiation with a comparatively high
degree of accuracy.
Work on laser detectors has been going on for some time in
many countries. A first generation of laser detectors has already
been fielded. One example of such a detector was presented by
Yugoslavia in 1988. It is a device that can detect laser radiation at
wavelengths between 660 nanometers and 1,100 nanometers
within a horizontal angle of view or sector of 360 degrees, but
within only a rather narrow vertical sector. The direction of the
hostile laser is identified as being in one of 24 sectors, each with a
width of 15 degrees, and the warning will be a loud noise or other
acoustic alarm signal. However, this particular detector does not
provide very specific information on the direction of the hostile
laser. A German company, MBB, has worked since 1983 on a
second-generation laser detector, called the Common Optoelec-
tronic Laser Detection System (COLDS), which is sensitive to all
lasers in the visible and near-infrared range. The COLDS looks
very much like an insect's multifaceted eye, with about 200 lenses,
each of which is joined to a detector by an optical fiber. Such a
system can give a very precise direction to the origin of the laser
that is detected. The British company Ferranti sells a laser warner
for aircraft, helicopters, and armored fighting vehicles that oper-
ates from 300 nanometers up to 1,100 nanometers with an option
to go up to 1,800 nanometers. It covers the whole horizon and has
a vertical sector of 180 degrees. The directional resolution is about
45 degrees. As can be seen by these examples, much work is being
done in this field, and a number of detectors are already available
from different countries. Future development will certainly con-
tinue to proceed rapidly, and detectors will soon be fielded in
increasing numbers.
It is possible to give a laser detector system the ability to
identify hostile lasers by their wavelength, pulse repetition fre-
quency, and incoming power. It will be possible to judge if the
 Protection and Countermeasures 193

laser is a typical range finder or designator or if the enemy is using

LEL weapons. The detectors may be linked to countermeasure
devices, such as an armored fighting vehicle's smoke grenade
discharger, which would be forced automatically to cover the
endangered sector. An automatic system may also be available to
decide if the laser threat should be met with counterfire from
antilaser laser weapons or from conventional weapons. However,
an automatic response triggered by enemy lasers has many draw-
backs. The enemy will quickly learn to trigger the protective
response with a well-protected laser of its own and then use other
laser weapons or conventional means to kill the target or disable
the laser detector. In any case, laser detectors will be a necessity
on the future battlefield and will be an integrated part of many
weapon and intelligence systems. However, they will mainly be of
use after the enemy has already fired his laser weapon, although,
by then, it may be too late. Automatic responses will be used
rarely and even then only in very special situations.
Due to the weight and high costs, it will be impossible to
supply individual infantry soldiers with laser alarms other than to
place a limited number at the company or battalion level. Even if
development efforts succeed, only very sophisticated and, thus,
expensive laser detectors will be able to pinpoint the exact position
of the hostile laser. It is unlikely that such detectors will be
available during the 1990s. Thus, at present, soldiers must wear
their protective glasses at all times when protection may be
needed. They cannot store them until a laser warning is given,
unlike the present situation with gas masks.

CHANGES IN VISUAL BEHAVIOR

The laser weapon is inherently a direct-line-of-sight weapon

and should be treated as such. Soldiers on the battlefield will have
to keep their heads down and avoid laser beams in the same way
that they avoid direct fire. This can be done mainly by using the
terrain and other available protection. Anything that is substantial
194 Seven

enough to protect soldiers from the effects of conventional guns or

rifles will certainly also provide full protection against laser
weapons. One problem, however, is that the soldier usually can-
not safely see or even hear the laser weapon when it is activated. In
combat situations where LEL weapons are used, the soldier may
not know when he is being exposed and, thus, will have to stay
protected all the time. This is certainly not a possible tactic, as all
combat units have a mission to fulfill which requires the soldier to
look at the enemy, identify him, fire at him, and sometimes move
toward him. All of this requires viewing the enemy either with the
naked eye or through some kind of magnifying optics if indirect
viewing can be used.
It will be necessary to limit viewing of the enemy to the
absolute minimum required when combat units are operating
against a laser weapon threat. Soldiers and commanders have to
be trained to avoid unnecessary exposure to laser light. The
commander has to use as few soldiers as possible to observe
enemy movements and positions. The observer has to limit his
field of vision to what is strictly required by his task. All soldiers
must know that a laser beam may be dangerous even if it comes
from a very oblique direction or is only on for a short duration. The
laser threat even exists out to 60 to 70 degrees from the optical axis,
which means that the peripheral field of view may be as dan-
gerous as the direct field of view. The soldier may limit his field of
view by using blinkers similar to those used on racehorses or by
observing the terrain through a tube.
Since the use of magnifying optical instruments increases the
risk significantly, the soldier has to be advised or ordered not to
use magnifying optics any more than absolutely necessary. Such
instruments not only magnify the incoming laser light but are also
very easy to pinpoint by an enemy laser radar.
A systematic change of visual behavior on the battlefield may
reduce the number of eye injuries but will fall far short of avoiding
them completely. If the enemy's anti-eye laser weapon is within
the militarily important field of vision, the behavioral changes
suggested above will be of little or no use at all.
 Protection and Countermeasures 195

HEL WEAPON PROTECTION

If HEL laser weapons are finally developed and fielded in any

considerable numbers, technical and tactical protective measures
will also have to be introduced. Such measures will be sought
along the same general lines as protective measures against LEL
weapons. Since HEL weapons will eventually be designed to
shoot down aircraft and missiles by heating the sensitive parts
such as canopies, radomes, covers on critical parts, warheads,
and, of course, sensors, materials that are laser resistant to as great
an extent as possible will have to be developed and used.
Some work on laser-resistant materials has already been ac-
complished. In the United States, the General Electric Company is
developing such a material in its Re-Entry Systems Department.
This material is made from multilayered graphite, where each
layer acts as a mirror to reflect laser energy instead of absorbing it
in the form of heat. The material can be formed in different shapes
and in various thicknesses, and it can be mixed with various
reinforcement compounds. These materials may also be used to
protect space vehicles reentering the atmosphere or to harden
military equipment against some of the effects of nuclear weap-
ons. As this material is completely opaque, it cannot be used in
goggles, visors, or aircraft canopies.
Several other laboratories are evaluating a material that effec-
tively blocks and diffusely reflects laser radiation over a wide
range of wavelengths up to a certain energy level. Above the
energy level, the reflective property is lost, all of the energy is
absorbed instead of reflected, and the material breaks down. The
US. Air Force Strategic Air Command is interested in the protec-
tion of aircraft fuel tanks, while the US. Space Command is
interested in the protection of orbital payloads. A number of SDI-
related applications are being researched as well. Princeton Uni-
versity'S Plasma Physics Laboratory is planning to run high-power
tests with a I-gigawatt CO2 laser and, possibly, a 20-gigawatt
X-ray laser.
Much research remains to be done in order to develop reliable
196 Seven

protection against BEL weapons. It may be possible to cope with

the thermal effects on material at long distances using laser-
resistant coatings and materials, but it will probably be very
difficult, if not impossible, to protect laser-sensitive equipment
such as sensors, radomes, canopies, and warheads. It will cer-
tainly be impossible to protect soldiers in the open at short range.

TACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

There can be no doubt that future battles will be fought in an

environment which will contain a combination of conventional
weapons, laser weapons, and other laser devices. It will be neces-
sary to adjust present military doctrines and tactics to fit this new
situation. Each country will have to formulate a laser philosophy
on which its tactics and training can be based. Tactical laser
protection methods could either take an active or a passive form.
The active methods may include the areas of intelligence, surveil-
lance, counterfire, maneuvers, procedures, and drills. Passive
methods against the laser threat may be found in procedures such
as cover, concealment, and camouflage. Intelligence and surveil-
lance is not just a question of fielding as many laser detectors as
possible. Perhaps the most important procedure is to make all
personnel working within this field aware of the facts regarding a
laser threat. Everyone responsible for any kind of battlefield threat
analysis must have a thorough knowledge of the enemy's laser
weapons and laser devices, the enemy's laser philosophy, and how
the enemy has used lasers in the past. It is essential that the field
commander be given hard facts to be used as factors in his tactical
decisions. It must also be possible to use any information col-
lected during the battle about how the enemy laser threat works to
improve tactics while the fighting is still going on. This kind of fine
tuning will only be really successful if all combat units have
already been thoroughly familiarized with the laser threat and
know what to do about it before they reach the battlefield.
The most effective tactical countermeasure against any
weapon, of course, is to destroy it. The success of counterfire
 Protection and Countermeasures 197

depends upon the availability of very well trained personnel who

have often used it against enemy laser positions. Intelligence,
surveillance, and rapid information sent along well-established
communication links are prerequisites for a well-directed and
properly timed counterfire. Since the laser weapons are direct-
line-of-sight weapons, it is sometimes impossible for the affected
target to shoot back. As a result, counterfire is most likely to be
indirect, from artillery, or direct from adjacent weapons that are
not targeted by the enemy laser. If the enemy laser position cannot
be pinpointed, it will be necessary to cover a bigger area with fire
or to use a smoke screen. It has to be remembered that counterfire
can only be used after the enemy laser has revealed its position by
firing. Thus, it is not possible to stop the enemy laser beforehand.
It is only possible to try to destroy the laser weapon while it is in
use or after it has been used to stop it from firing again.
Maneuver is of vital importance to all combat units fighting a
modern battle. This is true whether there are laser weapons on the
battlefield or not. Maneuver is the ultimate tool for achieving
surprise and success. The movement of combat units in a laser-
infested environment may allow for improved protection of sol-
diers, equipment, and units. Positions that are highly threatened
by hostile lasers should be abandoned if they are not absolutely
crucial to the outcome of the battle. When it is necessary to move
to a new static position, it should be chosen in an area where the
terrain features plants and other obstacles to direct vision and
makes it difficult for the enemy to use LEL weapons successfully.
When combat units are maneuvering on the battlefield, they must
take the laser threat into account. It will always be advantageous to
move under cover of rain, fog, dust, or smoke even though such
conditions can never offer complete protection. Furthermore, any
movements should be covered by terrain and vegetation as far as
possible, and it is important to perform the maneuver as quickly
and quietly as possible. Whenever feasible, personnel should be
moved in vehicles as protection from laser beams. Only drivers
and the minimum number of officers and men necessary for
command, surveillance, and navigation should be allowed to
observe the surroundings. If a driver is hit and blinded, a trained
198 Seven

replacement should be prepared to get the vehicle on the move

again quickly. This is of utmost importance, since any stationary
target on the battlefield has a higher risk of being hit and de-
stroyed by conventional weapons.
Cover, concealment, and camouflage will be effective against
laser weapons only if the hostile laser gunner cannot discover or
sight his targets or if the cover is substantial enough to stop the
laser beam before it reaches its target.

TRAINING IMPLICATIONS

It will be an imperative and urgent necessity to train soldiers

and combat units in how to fight on a laser battlefield. So far, there
has been general ignorance in most armed forces of the laser
threat, and thus there is virtually no awareness of the threat
among soldiers and officers. This has mainly been due to the high
level of security surrounding the research and development of
laser weapons. In countries where this work is being done, it has
been decided to keep much of the information highly classified to
protect technological secrets and deployment plans. As a result,
other countries have not been able to collect sufficient information
to plan effective laser weapon protective programs. Now, when
laser devices are about to be fielded in great numbers, and the era
of laser weapons is emerging, it is certainly urgent to start training
individuals and combat units about the laser battlefield environ-
ment.
It is not only necessary to prepare soldiers to fight in a laser
weapon environment, but the military must also prepare them
psychologically. To date, there have been virtually no battle experi-
ences in any country revealing how soldiers would react when
subjected to a real laser threat. So far, there are not even any
experimental human studies, at least none known to the public,
that have addressed this issue, partly because of the risks involved
with laser weapons and laser devices. The most basic and difficult
question to answer is whether or not an individual soldier will risk
 Protection and Countermeasures 199

his eyes by looking with his naked eye or through an unprotected

sight in a direction from which a fellow soldier has been blinded
the moment before.
It may even be speculated that a widespread use of laser
weapons in a battle will cause a general panic by soldiers forced to
fight against lasers. There are few reports and few comments on
this problem in the open literature. One report refers to a 1983
secret study on persons who have been victims of laser accidents
in the United States by J. A. Wolfe at the Letterman Army Institute
of Research. A wide range of reactions were discovered. One
scientist, quite familiar with lasers, fainted when he was badly
injured, while others who were injured by lasers continued to
work. Such a collection of stories is anecdotal at best, and, in the
authors's experience, highly suspect, as the injured parties com-
monly exaggerate the accidental nature of the injury in order not to
reveal their often callous disregard of safety requirements.
The reaction to a laser injury appears to depend upon the
severity of the injury, but there are also inherent differences
depending on the particular individuals involved. One scientist,
David C. Decker, gave the following description of his reaction
when he was injured by a laser:
When the beam struck my eye, I heard a distinct popping sound caused
by a laser induced explosion at the back of my eye. My vision was
obscured almost immediately by streams of blood floating in the vit-
reous humor and by what appeared to be particulate matter suspended
in the vitreous humor. It was like viewing the world through a round
fishbowl full of glycerol into which a quart of blood and a handful of
black pepper have been partially mixed. There was local pain within a
few minutes of the accident, but it did not become excruciating. The most
immediate response after such an accident is horror. As a Vietnam war
veteran, I have seen several terrible scenes of human carnage, but none
affected me more than viewing the world through my blood filled eye. In
the aftermath of the accident, I went into shock as is typical in personal
injury accidents.

Without any doubt, the facts available are not sufficient to

allow any firm conclusions to be drawn. How soldiers will react
must be guessed at until substantial numbers of real experiences
200 Seven

from battle can be evaluated. However, one way to significantly

lessen the risk for panic or other unwanted reactions will certainly
be to give the commanders, soldiers, and combat units thorough
training about how to cope with a laser threat. One important aim
of a good laser training program must be to provide accurate
information. In this way, the myths, rumors, and misunderstand-
ings about lasers can be dispelled, and the soldiers can be given a
realistic appreciation of what lasers can and cannot do. It is
essential to avert beforehand any rumors that can be expected to
arise in a battle where laser weapons are used. The second step in
a laser training program should be to train officers and men
individually on how to use all means of protection available, either
of a technical nature such as filters or goggles, or protection
provided by the environment in the form of natural terrain fea-
tures, vegetation, or atmospheric pollution. The overall training of
an individual should include instructions on how to react if he
himself or someone next to him is hit and blinded by a laser beam.
A good training program should include reaction drills which will
help the soldier prepare for emergency situations. This will lessen
the anxiety and, thus, reduce the risk of a general panic.
Neither proper training of individual soldiers nor fielding of
individual eye protectors will eliminate the threat from LEL
weapons. It will only be possible to somewhat reduce the risks.
The widespread use of laser weapons designed to blind enemy
infantry soldiers deliberately and systematically will still lead to
mass injuries to human eyes, thus creating a very difficult psycho-
logical and medical situation. How this will affect even very well
trained soldiers and combat units is an open question.
Flight crews of combat airplanes and helicopters must also be
given thorough training. The highest priority will be to teach
pilots to avoid the laser threat through low-level flying and taking
advantage of any terrain cover, bad weather, and technical aids
such as laser alarms and protective visors. Both day and night
training for flying with reduced visibility due to eye protective
visors must be scheduled and standard procedures established for
action when the laser alarm is activated. In the worst case, pilots
 Protection and Countermeasures 201

must be trained in simulators, as it may be impossible to arrange

live exercises. When the training of individuals and air crews has
been completed, it is necessary to train combat units on how to
carryon a combined action on the laser weapon battlefield.
Active tactical laser protection methods involving intel-
ligence, surveillance, counterfire, maneuver, and other proce-
dures must be drilled from the squad level up to the division.
Passive methods such as cover, concealment, and camouflage
must be learned for protection against both laser weapons and
laser radar threats.

CONCLUSIONS

It will be necessary to use many different tactics to meet the

laser weapon threat on the future battlefield. By using all available
technology and every realistic tactical countermeasure, it may be
possible for combat units to carry out their missions and avoid
panic and breakdown of the unit. A thorough and professional
training of individuals as well as tactical units is a prerequisite if
panic is to be avoided and the required military actions carried
out. However, there is at present no way to protect dismounted
infantry soldiers against LEL weapons. There is no cheap, effec-
tive, and acceptable eye protection available, and it seems unlikely
that such protective means will become available in the near or
even not so near future, as the necessary technology does not
seem to exist at present. The side that uses mass-deployed and
frequency-agile low-energy laser weapons will have the upper
hand for a very long time to come, whether such weapons are
used for purposes of attack or defense.
 EIGHT

Laser Weapons and

International Law

Several governments have voiced their concern about the develop-

ment and use of lasers as anti-personnel weapons whose principal
effect might result in the permanent blinding of the people at-
tacked. This uneasiness was first made public during a Confer-
ence of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) held
in Geneva in October 1986. That conference passed a resolution
noting that
Some governments have voiced their concern about the development of
new weapons technologies the use of which, in certain circumstances,
could be prohibited under existing international law, appeals to govern-
ments, with a view to meeting the standards laid down in international
humanitarian law, to coordinate their efforts to clarify the law in these
fields and exercise the utmost care in the development of new weapons
technologies.

In pursuance of this mandate, the International Committee of

the Red Cross decided to hold a round table of experts in June 1989
to clarify the issue. The purpose of the meeting was to consult a
number of experts who could inform the ICRC about the develop-
ment of antipersonnel laser weapons and their medical and legal
implications. The report from the meeting stated in its final chap-
203
204 Eight

ter under "follow-up" that the information presented at the meet-

ing needed to be digested and that further research, thought, and
discussion were necessary, but the consensus was positive. There
will most certainly be future meetings involving scientific and
military experts and eventually governments themselves.
This chapter deals with the implications of the possible devel-
opment of antipersonnel laser weapons on international law. The
legal approach taken in this discussion is advanced based on the
established international humanitarian law applicable during
armed conflicts.

CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS AND

INTERNATIONAL LAW

International law has imposed restraints on weaponry for

years. Paragraph 1, Article 35 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to
the Geneva Conventions of 1949 states that
In any armed conflict, the right to the Parties to the conflict to choose
methods of means of warfare is not unlimited.

This customary principle that originates from Article 22 of the

Hague Rules on Land Warfare dating back to 1907 is fundamental
to international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict. It
reflects the mutually balancing principles of necessity and human-
ity inherent in the law governing the conduct of hostilities. The
only measures of warfare that are justified are those which are
relevant and proportional to the achievement of a definite military
advantage, and they are justified only as long as they are not
explicitly prohibited by international law. Those military measures
which, from a tactical point of view, are manifestly disproportion-
ate to the human suffering involved are prohibited under interna-
tional law. This principle can be found in the same Additional
Protocol and is supplemented by a somewhat more concrete
principle of international customary law stating that
 Laser Weapons and International Law 205

It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles, and materiel, and

methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unneces-
sary suffering.
This principle is very old, dating back to the Saint Petersburg
(Russia) Declaration of 1868 and the Hague Conferences of 1899
and 1907. Above all, it is related to weapons designed exclusively
for antipersonnel purposes, but it also covers weapons designed
and produced to fulfill a variety of purposes. Many modem
weapons are designed primarily to destroy or neutralize military
equipment and materiel. However, most of them may also be used
in combat to disable enemy soldiers. It is difficult to decide if the
human suffering is needless, superfluous, or disproportionate to
the military advantage expected from the use of the weapon.
Inevitably, the balancing of suffering against military effectiveness
is difficult to quantify, and the process will be a somewhat subjec-
tive exercise. If the assessment is focused on a weapon or a
method of warfare which is designed exclusively for use against
human beings, it may be easier to reach a quantitative conclusion.
The Saint Petersburg Declaration, which was adopted by 17 na-
tions in 1868 and today expresses customary law, primarily refers
to such a situation. The Declaration states:
That the only legitimate object which States should endeavor to accom-
plish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy: That for
this purpose, it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of
men. That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms
which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men or render their
death inevitable. That the employment of such arms would, therefore,
be contrary to the laws of humanity.

In the concluding part of the Declaration, the Parties:

... reserve to themselves to come hereafter to an understanding when-
ever a precise proposition shall be drawn up in view of future improve-
ments which science may effect in the armaments of troops in order to
maintain the principles which they have established and to conciliate the
necessities of war with the laws of humanity.

These principles were given explicit form in a prohibition in

the Saint Petersburg Declaration on the use of highly explosive
206 Eight

bullets weighing less than 400 grams. Such bullets had initially
been developed by the British to detonate enemy ammunition
wagons. Later on, they were modified to explode on contact with a
soft target such as a human being. The Russian Government,
unwilling to allow another country to take advantage of a bullet
that could injure soldiers far more than any earlier projectiles had
done, was instrumental in achieving this legally binding agree-
ment prohibiting the use of such bullets under international
humanitarian law. By World War I, production of the bullets in
question had ceased for all practical purposes. An additional
disarmament or arms limitation effect had been achieved de facto,
albeit not de jure.
Another step lito conciliate the necessities of war with the
laws of humanity" was taken in 1899 when the first Hague Peace
Conference outlawed the use of so-called dumdum bullets. These
expanding bullets flattened easily on impact with the human body
and made far worse wounds compared to those made by bullets
that did not flatten. Dumdum bullets were generally considered to
be excessively injurious, and in the spirit of the Saint Petersburg
Declaration, the delegates voted 22 to 2 to prohibit their use. Since
then, except for a few poorly documented instances, this type of
projectile has not been produced or stockpiled for possible use by
regular forces. The first Hague Peace Conference, as well as the
second one of1907, also codified a prohibition on the use of poison
and poisoned weapons.
The next treaty enacted to prohibit the use of specific
weapons was the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which was primarily
concerned with nonconventional weapons. The prohibitions in
this treaty were not absolute. Reservations were expressed at the
time which made it clear that a number of countries considered
themselves free to use chemical or biological weapons in retalia-
tion, should their adversaries use them first. This kind of reserva-
tion, which differentiates between the first and the second use of a
weapon in a conflict, is a concept that is applicable to all human-
itarian weapon prohibitions. Since 1925, there has been no com-
 Laser Weapons and International Law 207

prehensive prohibition regarding the use of any existing weapon

category. The total prohibition of projectile fragments which es-
cape detection in the human body by X rays was included in the
1981 United Nations Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions of
Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to
Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. This
ban is of limited value, since such a weapon category does not
exist and does not seem militarily useful enough to develop. The
remaining two regulations from 1981 only established certain
restrictions on the use of land mines, booby traps, and incendiary
weapons.
The formula for "superfluous injury or unnecessary suf-
fering" is not specific enough to draw any definite conclusions
with regard to the legality or illegality of weapons. A specific
weapon is not prohibited by the general formula unless an agree-
ment exists between states regarding the weapon in question,
where humanitarian imperatives are given precedence over mili-
tary considerations.
Besides the general principle of "unnecessary suffering,"
there are two additional principles that must be taken into consid-
eration. First, the "discrimination" principle, which prohibits the
use of methods or means of warfare which cannot be directed
against a specific military objective and, consequently, are of a
nature to strike indiscriminately at both military objectives and
civilians or civilian objects without distinction. However, laser
weapons cannot be considered indiscriminate. In fact, the oppo-
site is probably true, since laser beams can almost always be
directed very precisely against specific targets. The thirdalterna-
tiv~ is the "treachery" or "perfidy" principle. This prohibits certain
perfidious uses of weaponry and may also prohibit weapons
which are inherently perfidious, although the parameters of this
principle are far from certain. In any case, laser weapons will
probably not fall afoul of this principle. Therefore, any legal case
against the use of laser battlefield weapons cannot rely on the
prohibitions against indiscriminate effects, treachery, or perfidy,
208 Eight

but only on the prohibition against superfluous injury or unneces-

sary suffering.

NEW WEAPON TECHNOLOGIES AND

INTERNATIONAL LAW

A duty for countries to evaluate new weapon developments

and tactics was established in international humanitarian law in
1977. A national screening procedure assessing whether or not the
use of new weapons or new tactics under consideration is in line
with international legal standards appears to be necessary to all
states. Such a procedure is additionally required by the internal
regulations of some states such as the former Federal Republic of
Germany and the United States. However, these national assess-
ments are not internationally binding. This condition is clearly
stated in the relevant Committee Report of the Diplomatic Confer-
ence on International Humanitarian Law (1974-1977).
During its 1979 session, the UN Conference on Certain Con-
ventional Weapons (1978-1980) adopted a resolution relating the
old dumdum prohibition to the need for caution regarding mod-
ern weapon developments. The resolution, dated September 28,
1979, includes the following wording:
Recalling the agreement embodied in the Hague Declaration of 29 July
1899, to abstain, in international armed conflict, from the use of bullets
which expand or flatten easily in the human body. Convinced that it is
desirable to establish accurately the wounding effects of current and new
generations of small calibre weapon systems including the various
parameters that affect the energy transfer and the wounding mechanism
of such systems . . .
Appeals to all Governments to exercise the utmost care in the
development of small caliber weapon systems, so as to avoid an unnec-
essary escalation of the injurious effects of such systems

Now that laser weapons are being designed, and laser tactics
are closer to being implemented on the battlefield, similar steps of
caution should be taken so as to-in the words of the 1979
resolution-"avoid an escalation of injurious effects."
 Laser Weapons and International Law 209

LASER WEAPONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

The starting point for an assessment of laser weapons in the

international context must be a consideration of the biological
effect of these weapons on human beings as compared to the
military interests involved. As has already been described in this
book, a variety of laser devices and laser weapons can be identi-
fied. Laser range finders, designators, and related devices are not
designed as weapons in their own right. Any antipersonnel ef-
fects of such laser devices are incidental as long as they are used
for their designed purposes. When laser weapons are designed
for use against materiel such as sensors, optics, canopies, and
other equipment, again the effects on personnel are not their
principal features. A third category includes laser weapons specif-
ically designed to be used in an antipersonnel mode on the
battlefield. Such weapons will be designed to have as large a
biological effect as possible, and they will deliberately and sys-
tematically be used against human beings. All of these laser
weapons and laser devices are capable of causing blindness or
severe injuries to the eyes if they are designed with a certain
combination of laser wavelengths and other laser properties. Most
lasers on the battlefield today and tomorrow will fit into this
category. The first two categories of lasers may have an antiperson-
nel effect on the battlefield that is incidental to their principal use
as long as they are only used as designed. The third category will
be designed to cause antipersonnel effects. The borderlines be-
tween these categories are to some extent blurred. A laser weapon
might be designed to blind the electro-optic sensors fitted to a
tank as well as the eyes of the tank gunner and tank commander.
Another laser weapon designed to be used in an air defense role
might affect the sensors on an attacking helicopter as well as the
eyes of the pilot. There is even the possibility of designing a laser
weapon that could be used for many purposes, thus falling within
all three categories.
The use of lasers for range finding, target designating, and
similar ancillary purposes is of great military value, and it is
210 Eight

difficult to argue that incidental injuries caused by such laser

devices are disproportionate to the military interest involved.
However, it might be quite another situation form the standpoint
of international humanitarian law if a military commander in the
field during the conflict or if the staff body of the armed forces
before the conflict ordered or made it a part of the tactical doc-
trines to use these laser devices deliberately and systematically to
injure and blind the eyes of the enemy.
The use of laser weapons against military materiel or other
equipment can never violate the existing international law. The
incidental effects that the antimateriellaser weapons might inflict
on personnel have to be tolerated in the same way as is the case
with incidental effects on humans from conventional antimateriel
weapons. When, for example, an armor-piercing projectile de-
stroys a tank, the wounding or killing of the tank crew is in line
with the military interest involved. It is difficult to argue that such
incidental injuries are disproportionate to the considerable mili-
tary value of the attack. Even in cases similar to this involving
antitank warfare, the deliberate and systematic use of antiperson-
nellaser weapons would not contravene the principles of present
international humanitarian law.
A more difficult question to address is whether the
neutralization of an airplane or a helicopter by blinding the pilot or
some other crew member would be considered unlawful. An
intentional and irreversible blinding of personnel, as an isolated
act, is considered a violation of the principle of suffering. But what
if the individual is a pilot in a highly valuable aircraft and consti-
tutes a prime military target? In such a case, the military value of a
destroyed enemy aircraft has to be compared to the suffering. This
is certainly a difficult procedure, but it seems likely that most
experts on international law will arrive at the conclusion that
disabling a tank, other armored vehicles, aircraft, or similar fight-
ing equipment by blinding the crew does not contravene the
existing law if the laser offers military advantages not matched by
other weapons. This view was expressed by C. Greenwood of
Cambridge University in England in a presentation before the 1989
 Laser Weapons and International Law 211

IeRe round table of experts. He also stated that the use of laser
weapons against personnel who are protected by armor or by their
position in a fast-moving aircraft is more readily justifiable than
their use against infantry in the open, precisely because alterna-
tive weapons are less effective against such protected people.
The remaining question is whether or not the deliberate and
systematic use of lasers to blind infantry soldiers or other un-
protected personnel should be regarded as unlawful according to
existing international humanitarian law. It is necessary to decide
whether this question concerns the legality of a specific type of
laser weapon or the particular use of a laser weapon or laser device
which may also be used in other clearly lawful ways. Some experts
would agree that using any kind of technology for antipersonnel
purposes that brings about permanent blindness is not in propor-
tion to the legitimate object of warfare. A Swedish expert on
international law states that the basic Declaration of Saint Pe-
tersburg of 1868 only permits putting the adversary's soldiers out
of action, meaning out of action on the battlefield. Although it is
permitted to kill combatants under the laws of war and, thus, to
put them permanently out of action, it is not permitted to use
methods or means of warfare exclusively designed to injure sol-
diers with the injurious effects lasting, not only for the duration of
the conflict, but for the rest of their lives. The same expert claims
that in the balance between military interest and humanitarian
considerations, an irreversible disablement such as blindness
caused by a laser beam must be described as "unnecessary suf-
fering" according to the formulas from Saint Petersburg, The
Hague, and Geneva.
Another expert, C. Greenwood, in his presentation to the 1989
IeRe round table of experts very cautiously stated that the discus-
sion of the final position based on the existing law should concen-
trate upon whether or not the use of laser weapons designed to
cause the permanent blindness of unprotected personnel violates
the unnecessary suffering principle. According to an article in the
U.S. magazine Army, there is nothing inherent in a lase~ particle
beam, or radio frequency weapon which would make its design,
212 Eight

development, or use a violation of the laws of war. In the same

article, it is stated that blindness is a totally incapacitating injury
for a soldier on the modern battlefield; hence, the value of a laser
weapon would be great Furthermore, as blindness and not death
is the result, it may be argued that the weapon is actually more
humane, as it does not extinguish life although, effectively, it
renders enemy personnel "hors de combat." The article even states
that, for sole use as antipersonnel weapons, laser and particle
beam weaponry are legal under the laws of war. The differing
views of experts may be regarded as an indication of the diffi-
culties involved when the existing international humanitarian law
is applied. However, there can be no doubt that any person who is
suddenly and permanently blinded by a laser weapon will suffer
an extremely severe physical and psychological injury. The possi-
ble extent of psychological factors was emphasized by D. Warren,
a psychologist from California, before the ICRC round table of
experts, who stated that he could not see "how we can counte-
nance the prospect of adding to the world's problems by allowing
the development and use of antipersonnel laser weapons whose
sole purpose is to produce blindness."

AN INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENT ON
ANTIPERSONNEL LASER WEAPONS

It is the view of some countries such as Sweden that, irrespec-

tive of whether the use of antipersonnel laser weapons should be
prohibited under existing international humanitarian law or not,
an explicit prohibition against the use of laser weapons designed
to cause irreversible injury to the human eye should now be
considered for inclusion in an international document.
A specific weapon is not considered prohibited under inter-
national law unless there is a treaty to that effect. Bearing in mind
the wide range of both civilian and military uses of laser devices, a
total ban on all use of lasers and laser weapons would be unrealis-
 Laser Weapons and International Law 213

tic. However, there are strong reasons for seeking to establish a

formal prohibition in the area of antipersonnel use.
A prohibition could be achieved either through focusing on
the methods of warfare or through focusing on the means of
warfare. In the first case, there would be an explicit ban on the
deliberate and systematic antipersonnel use of any kind of lasers
that would cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.
This would be a prohibition of certain tactics or methods of
warfare. In the second case, which could be called the hardware
approach, the use of antipersonnel laser weapons specifically
designed to blind or injure human eyes would be banned. The two
approaches could also be combined in the same document. Such a
document might be drafted as follows:
1. Confirm the accepted legal prohibition of certain methods
of warfare which can be related to laser technology.
2. Introduce a prohibition on the use of certain antipersonnel
laser weapons.
Such a dual ban on tactics and weapons would, of course, be
the ideal solution from the control point of view. However, it must
be recognized that the only control that seems possible would be
post facto on the battlefield. However, this is far from useless. Any
systematic antipersonnel use of lasers would soon be revealed,
and, at least in armed conflicts of a limited nature, the political
costs to the user involved could be substantial. There can be no
doubt that the introduction of a great number of anti-eye laser
weapons in the armed forces would add a very severe threat to the
majority of soldiers on the battlefield. A document protecting
human beings on the battlefield from being deliberately blinded
for the rest of their lives would be an important new element in the
tradition of humanitarian law.
The laser incidents that have occurred between the U. S. and
Soviet ships and aircraft resulting in the temporary blinding of
military personnel mean that even peacetime laser threats have
forced the superpowers to react. The governments of the United
States and the Soviet Union have realized the need for an interna-
214 Eight

tional regulation to serve as a preventive measure against incidents

between their armed forces and ultimately to protect their own
personnel. In 1989, a bilateral agreement on the prevention of
dangerous military activities was signed in Moscow. The second
article of this agreement stipulates that each party shall take
necessary measures directed toward preventing dangerous mili-
tary activities, including "using a laser in such a manner that its
radiation could cause harm to personnel or damage to equipment
of the armed forces of the other Party." However, this agreement,
which became effective on January 1,1990, is limited to activities
"in proximity to personnel and equipment of the armed forces of
the other Party" during peacetime. Even so, the agreement must
be considered a very strong indication that the big powers are
taking the laser threat seriously, and it is also an indication of the
strong interest in the development of laser weapons. The agree-
ment is an important step forward, but it must be widened to
include all countries as well as to conform to the international
humanitarian laws applicable in armed conflicts.
 NINE

Conclusions and Consequences

Laser weapons are undoubtedly here to stay. A few low-energy

laser (LEL) weapons are already a fact, and more will come as the
technological developments continue. In addition to this, other
low-energy laser devices such as range finders and designators
may deliberately be used as weapons. High-energy laser (HEL)
weapons are not only different in concept but are also far from
being realized. There may eventually be a few HEL weapons
fielded some years into the next century. This means that HEL
weapons do not present immediate operational and training prob-
lems to military staffs and units.
The introduction of LEL weapons on the battlefield for various
purposes will have many consequences. Some of these will be
comparatively far-reaching and will not only affect combat units
but also might possibly alter the social structure of the combatant
nations as a result of the numbers of casualties and disabled
veterans. There will certainly be military consequences of many
kinds, serious medical ramifications, and prewar changes in the
laser industry, as well as postwar consequences for society in
general. Laser weapons will probably even effect the development
of an international law. The aim of this chapter is to summarize
some of these major consequences.

215
216 Nine

MILITARY CONSEQUENCES

Low-energy laser weapons will soon be deployed and used

within all branches of the military service in every country, al-
though the numbers and levels of sophistication will vary. Most
LEL weapons will be deployed within the ground forces, and
these will be less sophisticated than those designed for use in air
and sea applications. This also means that the most expensive LEL
weapons will be found in ground-to-air and ship-to-air applica-
tions. Almost all LEL weapons will be fielded within traditional
combat units and used alongside conventional weapons, since this
combination will produce the largest possible effect.
Battlefield laser weapons are tactical rather than strategic
weapons. They will affect operations performed by large com-
bined forces only insofar as the actual fighting on the battlefield
between smaller units is affected. If large-scale and skillful use of
battlefield laser weapons significantly tilts the battle in favor of one
of the adversaries, this will obviously have some sort of impact on
the overall operations.
Thus, laser weapons will have most of their effects on the
battlefield at the small combat unit level, such as companies and
battalions, and will mostly be operated by individual soldiers. The
weapons will be used to kill or blind sensors or other laser-
sensitive devices. It cannot be ruled out, however, that LEL
weapons might possibly be used on a large scale in an antiperson-
nel application for destroying or blinding eyes.
All combat units will have to learn how to use and benefit
from their own laser devices such as range finders and designa-
tors. This will require a thorough and realistic training course,
which is, to some degree, difficult to achieve due to the hazards
involved with the use of many lasers. As a result, new laser de-
vices that are safe to the eye may be developed and delivered in
increasing numbers. The problem is that lasers that are safe to
the eye are more expensive, and a lot of money has already been
invested in the retinal hazard lasers that have already been opera-
tionally deployed. It can also be argued that there is no big
 Conclusions and Consequences 217

difference between firing with a hazardous laser beam and firing

with live munitions. This may be so in combat, but in training it is
a military requirement for most armed forces to be able to use
their laser range finders in two-sided exercises, where blank
munitions are used.
Training with laser weapons deployed in the combat units of
one's own forces has to be carefully planned in order for the
commanders and men to learn how to take full advantage of all of
the laser's' power. The use of laser weapons against enemy sensors
or personnel behind sights, electro-optical equipment, or vision
blocks requires a high degree of knowledge about the target itself.
It is necessary for the operator to know if the laser weapon being
used is effective against the intended target, which, in turn,
depends on the sensitivity of the target to specific laser weapon
properties-wavelength, pulse length, and pulse energy. The
operator should also know the level of protection that the target
has against hostile laser beams. Units using laser weapons should
not be allowed to expose or endanger themselves and their
weapons unless they are certain that they have chosen a proper
laser target. This is especially important with laser weapons, since
it is very difficult to determine what the effect on the target
actually is once the laser has been used against it, the effect being
very different from that of a conventional weapon-blinding as
opposed to the explosion resulting from the impact of a high-
speed missile.
The introduction and use of battlefield laser weapons not only
means that the military must implement a complete laser weapon
philosophy and devise new training methods, but they also must
ensure that all possible threats from enemy lasers have been
identified and properly addressed before an attack takes place.

THE SOLDIER AND THE LASER THREAT

The existence of hostile laser weapons on the battlefield will

undoubtedly pose several problems to the individual soldier.
218 Nine

Soldiers must face the risk of getting their eyes injured or de-
stroyed, especially when they are deliberately observing the en-
emy through optical devices. After they have spent some time on
the battlefield and observed what happens to their fellow soldiers,
they will be well aware that the enemy may use laser radar which
can reach their own optical devices and send very agile, eye-
threatening beams which will injure or destroy their own vision.
Watching their friends go blind will create tremendous psycho-
logical problems. As a result, many individual soldiers will delib-
erately avoid looking in the direction of the enemy, which, of
course, will severely reduce their combat efficiency. This will
certainly affect the performance of their combat units and may
mean that, when the outcome of an ongoing battle is close, the
battle will be lost.
The situation will be even worse if the use of anti-eye lasers
threatens not only the soldiers looking through optical devices but
anyone else looking toward the enemy with the naked eye. For
infantry soldiers fighting in close combat, looking at the enemy is
a must. A high risk of getting blinded will certainly mean that the
soldier will not look as carefully or as much as is really needed,
which means that combat efficiency will be markedly reduced.
Some may argue that laser weapons are not more dangerous
to combat soldiers than bullets, shrapnel, and land mines. This is
certainly true, and it may very well be that the overall danger from
anti-eye laser weapons is less. However, the psychological trauma
associated with the risk of blindness will have a more severe
impact on the psyche of individual soldiers. It is possible for a
soldier to accept the risk of being wounded by a bullet or shrapnel.
These wounds usually heal, and, even if not, he c.an get along even
with the loss of a limb. It is also possible for most soldiers to accept
the risk of being killed. However, it is quite another thing to lose
one's eyesight. Human beings instinctively protect their eyes more
than any other part of the body. If the soldier thinks during combat
that he is facing a high risk of becoming blinded for the rest of his
life, this could create a more severe psychological problem on the
battlefield than any injuries caused by conventional munitions.
 Conclusions and Consequences 219

One way to eliminate this psychological fear completely

would be to supply the soldiers with efficient protection against
the laser weapon threat. However, for the time being, this is not
possible without degrading vision in an unacceptable way. The
eyes can be protected against a few laser devices but not against
the frequency-agile anti-eye laser weapons. A lot more research
has to be performed in this field, and every possibility needs to be
investigated. Some work is being done, but the prospect of finding
a cheap, efficient, transparent, and comfortable eye protection that
will solve all of the major problems seems slim.
To cope with the laser weapon threat and with the accom-
panying psychological symptoms, the individual soldier must be
very carefully trained. In order to allay the soldier's fear as much as
possible, he must know exactly what he is up against and be very
well informed about what the las~r threat actually looks like.
Knowing what lasers the enemy is using and how to identify them
is basic and necessary knowledge. The soldier should also know as
much about the enemy's laser weapon philosophy as possible,
which basically means that he has a thorough knowledge of how
and when hostile lasers may be used against him. Some of these
facts may not be fully understood until the battle has been fought
for some time. In this situation, it is of crucial importance that all
experiences of enemy use of lasers be spread rapidly among the
soldiers. Knowledge is a very basic tool that can be used to fight fear.
The soldier should be trained to use the most sophisticated
visual instruments without hesitation when facing an enemy
equipped with laser weapons. He must be able to perform all of
his assigned tasks using as little time and as small a visual field as
possible while he is viewing enemy targets to reduce the risks of
eye injury. He has to be able to avoid unnecessary exposure to
hostile laser beams. The use of technical aids such as laser protec-
tive goggles, filters of different kinds, and laser detectors must be
part of his training, and it is mandatory that he knows the
performance and various limitations of all such technology.
It is necessary that all soldiers know how to take care of and
help blinded fellow soldiers. Victims have to be brought out of the
220 Nine

firing line and taken into cover. They need to be calmed down and
handled in a way that prevents panic.
As always, the key personnel on the battlefield are the com-
manders at the battalion, company, and platoon levels. Their
training to cope with the laser threat posed to their units must be
extensive and in line with what is expected from them when they
are leading their men through a laser weapon environment. They
have to be familiar with the basic technology behind laser
weapons in order to have a thorough understanding of what is
happening or what might happen on the battlefield. They have to
give the best possible orders and instructions to their soldiers and
be prepared to cope with new and so far unknown enemy laser
weapons, tactics, and philosophy. In the end, their actions will
make the difference between success and mass panic.
Thus, in order to successfully meet the threat from anti-eye
laser weapons, all armed forces must prepare new training man-
uals and training programs.

THE AIRCRAFT PILOT

In battle, there are many reasons to single out the aircraft pilot
as the highest priority target for low-energy laser weapons. When
a pilot is hit by a blinding laser beam at the final stage of his attack,
he is in real trouble. The laser beam may blind him for less than
half a minute. However, that is more than enough time to force
him to leave the aircraft by parachute or crash. For a helicopter
pilot as opposed to an airplane pilot, the situation is much worse
for he has no alternative but to crash, since he has neither an
ejection seat nor a parachute.
A pilot's eyesight is very difficult to protect, since his field of
vision cannot be degraded in any way. For the time being, it is not
possible to design, for instance, protective visors without block-
ing too much of the light. Since the pilot must look directly at the
target or at the hostile weapon sites around the target while he is
 Conclusions and Consequences 221

attacking, restricting his field of vision is not a feasible solution

either.
The laser threat to the pilot can be reduced through training
techniques that teach avoidance of the laser beam for as long as
possible, and then what to do following an eye injury. The techno-
logical development of sights and sensors in new aircraft or
helicopters should concentrate on indirect methods of viewing, at
least for the final phase of a direct attack, where the laser threat
will be the greatest. If present-day aircraft or helicopters are to be
used for the next ten years or even more for direct attacks, they
should be retrofitted with a means of indirect viewing. These
solutions will certainly be very expensive, but they are necessary
in order to protect these very expensive weapon systems and their
highly skilled pilots.

EFFECTS ON SENSORS

One of the main reasons for developing laser weapons is to

kill or block sensors. This threat has to be countered when the
sensors are first designed, and there will be a constant running
battle between countermeasures and counter-countermeasures.
However, it will still be much easier to handle the laser threat to
sensors than the threat to human eyes. The simplest way may be
to build in an easily replaceable part that will break when the laser
beam hits, thus protecting the key parts of the sensor. Sensors may
also be designed with a limited visual field for use in only a: small
part of the spectrum.
The relationship between the high initial cost for most of the
high-technology sensors and the rather lower cost for protective
measures will be such as to promote protection. This will be the
case especially when new sensors are designed, since it will be
difficult and expensive to install protection for existing sensors in
a retrofit program. For some very common sensors, such as image
intensifiers, any protection by a filter is almost out of the question
222 Nine

since they are required to be extremely sensitive to light, and the

filter will take away that sensitivity.
This means that all soldiers, sailors, pilots, and commanders
who operate sensors must both be aware of the laser threat and be
thoroughly trained in the proper procedures to follow for the
operation and protection of their particular system. It goes with-
out saying that the development of protective measures must
proceed with a high priority.
If high-energy laser weapons materialize at some point in the
beginning of the next century, then sensors must be heavily
protected to be able to cope with the severity of such a threat.
Otherwise, most of them will be burned out or the glass in front of
them crazed.

COMBAT UNITS

It is not only the individual commanders and their men who

will have to modify their activities on a laser-infested battlefield.
The combat unit as a whole will also certainly have to change its
tactics. Combat units will have to be deployed on the battlefield
with the laser threat constantly in mind. The cover offered by the
terrain has to be used in the best possible way to avoid unneces-
sary exposure of the soldiers. Only a limited number of soldiers
and sensors should be used for surveillance of the battlefield.
Both sensors and human observers have to be kept in reserve
as replacements for those hit by hostile laser beams. The time
spent on the attack or in defensive actions or for observation in
direct visual contact with the anti-eye and anti-sensor laser
weapons of the enemy should be kept to an absolute minimum.
When direct contact is necessary, the equipment that is most laser
damage resistant should be used as long as possible before more
fragile systems are used or before human eyes are put at risk.
All combat units must be prepared for laser eye casualties.
The medical staff should be trained and organized to handle such
a situation. The medical facilities to the rear of the divisions and
 Conclusions and Consequences 223

corps must include eye hospitals with a sufficient number of

specialists to be able to manage a relatively large number of
soldiers with laser-induced eye injuries within a short period of
time.

MEDICAL CONSEQUENCES

The number of eye injuries caused by conventional battlefield

weapons during war has been limited in the past compared with
other injuries. However, even this small number has increased
from about 1% of the total a hundred years ago up to 10% in recent
conflicts. The actual figures for World War II and the Korean war
were the same, 2%, whereas those for the Six Day war in the
Middle East in 1967 and the 1973 Yom Kippur conflict were 5.6%
and 6.7%, respectively. This increase in the number of eye injuries
has not been due to the introduction of lasers but rather is the
result of the larger number of very small splinters and fragments
released by modern conventional weapons.
If anti-eye laser weapons are deployed and used on the
battlefield in large numbers, there will undoubtedly be an increase
in the number of eye casualties. The exact numbers are impossible
to predict, but if the infantry is supplied with these weapons and
uses them in combat, there could be more than three to four times
as many eye injuries as were registered during the latest conflict.
Even if anti-eye laser weapons are not deployed, an increase in eye
injuries caused by other laser devices and antisensor laser
weapons can be expected.
A complete plan must be worked out detailing how to handle
eye casualties from the very moment the beam damages the eye
down the medical line to the final and long-term treatment. Some
of the injuries will only be treatable by a highly trained ophthal-
mic surgeon. Speed is a crucial factor, since the patient should
undergo surgery no later than two or three days after the injury,
with the surgery performed by highly skilled eye surgeons at a
hospital with extremely clean and sophisticated operating facili-
224 Nine

ties. Only a few hospitals capable of providing the required

treatment exist in peacetime society, even in industrialized coun-
tries. The number of eye doctors with the necessary training,
surgical background, and operating facilities is far from sufficient.
More doctors have to be trained, and more eye hospitals have to be
built if we are going to be able to handle the consequences of the
laser battlefield properly. It will certainly be a very long term
investment to begin training doctors and to establish new and
expensive facilities that will not really be necessary during peace-
time. Few countries, if any, will go to these lengths, which means
that most of the injured soldiers will not get the best possible
treatment. It can be expected that many soldiers will not get any
treatment at all, and, even if a small chance existed to save some
vision, it will be tragically lost.
Even in cases where proper medical treatment is adminis-
tered, some of the injured soldiers will be permanently blinded for
the rest of their lives due to the very severe nature of their injuries.
Very early in the chain of medical treatment, it is necessary to
include careful selection of those casualties who can have a con-
siderable part of their vision restored by available treatment. The
limited medical resources during wartime will give the hopeless
cases a low priority. The fact that it will be very costly to build up
even a limited capability to handle eye casualties is one of the
reasons for the tremendous cost-effectiveness of relatively cheap
anti-eye laser weapons.
A future scenario where most soldiers injured by anti-eye
laser weapons receive no better treatment than a white cane is
terrifying but not unlikely.

CONSEQUENCES TO THE LASER INDUSTRY

Acquisition of laser weapons will certainly lead to a great

expansion in that part of the electronics industry that handles
military laser contracts. The industry has to take care of some of
the research and development as well as all of the production of
 Conclusions and Consequences 225

these new weapons. This will in tum lead to the development of a

more advanced laser technology handled by the same industry.
The field of research and development will undoubtedly
grow, and much of it will be devoted to creating countermeasures
and counter-countermeasures in an increasing competition for
better means, methods, and measures.
In a world in which defense expenditures are decreasing,
money will be directed from the research, development, and
acquisition of conventional weapons to new weapon families such
as laser weapons due to their increased cost-effectiveness. There-
fore, it may be concluded that another burgeoning area that will
receive increasing financial support in the future is the technology
for protection against hostile laser beams. If the problem of protec-
tion can be resolved in a cheap and effective way that will make
these protective devices easily available, the development and
fielding of anti-eye laser weapons will not be as interesting from a
military standpoint as it is now.
Based on the trend of current research, the growth of the
current laser industry will ultimately create a large and possibly
enormous market within the laser weapon field in the future.

EFFECTS ON SOCIETY: IMMEDIATE AND

POSTWAR CONSEQUENCES

Blindness is certainly a very serious type of handicap for any

person. Even a serious degradation of vision, resulting in, for
instance, an inability to read rapidly or drive, will in the end be
almost identical to becoming totally blind. For a young person
such as a soldier, blindness is a devastating blow that would
shatter all plans and hope for the future.
An individual's self-confidence is significantly lowered or lost
completely as a result of sudden severe visual impairment, which
is compounded by dependency upon the people who must care
for him. Blindness is more devastating to a young person than the
loss of a limb or any other severe permanent injury. Even if a very
226 Nine

aggressive person tries hard to get along with a visual disable-

ment, in most cases he cannot live a full and normal life. Reha-
bilitation is long and arduous.
The family taking care of the blind soldier will have a heavy
and long-term burden to carry. At least in the beginning, the
soldier will be highly dependent upon them. His parents or his
wife may have to manage for a long time without the support of a
healthy person. Instead, they will have to take care of the blinded
soldier until he is rehabilitated, which may be for the rest of his
life.
Wartime and postwar society will have to care for thousands
of blind men in the aftermath of a battle fought with lasers. Family
support and voluntary support from organizations and individ-
uals will not be enough. Society at large will have to commit huge
financial resources to help all of these blind victims by investing in
different kinds of assistance programs. This will include programs
to provide living accommodations adjusted to fit the needs of the
blind, transportation, suitable jobs, recreations, and education
designed for blind people.
Without minimizing the seriousness of a severe visual disabil-
ity, the emphasis of the preceding discussion may give too gloomy
a picture. People do cope with blindness, and younger people are
usually more adaptable than others. Also, the very laser technol-
ogy that will have produced the problem may also be involved in
mitigating it. Unquestionably, more funds and resources will have
to be made available for the research and development of aids for
the blind including laser canes for mobility, miniature laser prod-
uct code readers for stores to aid in shopping, better aids for low-
vision reading, and perhaps even automatically controlled auto-
mobiles. This program may even aid an ever growing segment of
today's society who are relatively neglected now, such as those
who are blind or severely visually disabled as the result of trauma
or disease. One of the leading ocular problems at present is an
"age-related" disease formerly termed "senile" macular degenera-
tion, which involves subretinal hemorrhages similar to those
following a laser injury, with a similar loss of vision. Possibly, the
 Conclusions and Consequences 227

surgical therapy and rehabilitation training development for battle

casualties may assist these people as well. Any research or ad-
vances that are made to assist the military casualties will have an
immediate and important effect on civilians. Thus, in some way
there could be some benefit to society from the military involve-
ment with blindness to offset the unquestionably great burden
imposed on the country by the large number of visual casualties
that will follow hostile military activities.
The difficulties that any postwar society will have to face
under these circumstances should not be underestimated. If pos-
sible, we should consider avoiding these problems altogether by
banning anti-eye laser weapons from the battlefield under interna-
tionallaw. The staggering consequences for the individual, the
family, and society are not only severe but also extremely long-
term. The changes will last a lifetime.

INTERNATIONAL LAW

The question of the use of antipersonnel laser weapons has

already raised international concern. The matter is now before
international bodies such as the United Nations and the Interna-
tional Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
It has been pointed out by some experts on international law
that the deliberate use of anti-eye laser weapons is in direct conflict
with existing international law on unnecessary suffering. This
viewpoint is not undisputed. Some experts believe that such
weapons can only be prohibited if the international law is made
more specific for laser and other blinding weapons.
The introduction of anti-eye laser weapons on the battlefield
will certainly add a completely new weapons concept to interna-
tionallaw. Furthermore, neglecting legal considerations for a mo-
ment, it may be questioned from a military point of view whether
it is necessary to escalate the conventional battle scenario by
introducing the mass deployment of anti-eye laser weapons. If
such weapons are fielded, they will most certainly be available to
228 Nine

both sides in the conflict. There is nothing about this technology

that prevents almost any nation on earth from buying these
weapons or developing them and adding them to its present
armory. This means that the staff officers will have to take into
account not only their own benefit from these weapons but also
the threat that their own troops will face from hostile, frequency-
agile enemy anti-eye laser weapons. Are the military advantages
worth the risks of a potential strategic as well as medical night-
mare?
Prohibition of the systematic use of anti-eye laser weapons
would be a viable option. Such a prohibition must be carefully
designed. It is out of the question to ban laser weapons or laser
devices altogether. The development of antisensor and anti-
materiel laser weapons and other valuable laser devices must be
allowed, as must their procurement and use on the battlefield as
long as they are not deliberately and systematically used against
human eyes. Blinding electronic sensors and eyes is sometimes
the same thing, which somewhat blurs the borderline between
antimateriel and antipersonnel laser weapons. Possibly, the prohi-
bition should specify the deliberate and systematic use of all lasers
against human eyes. Thus, incidental blinding when lasers are
used for their assigned tasks cannot be deemed unlawful. Further-
more, the use of lasers to blind sensors on attacking enemy
aircraft, helicopters, and armored vehicles cannot be deemed
unlawful even if the final destruction of the target is caused by
blinding the crew. Such weapons should be considered anti-
materiel, as the main purpose of their use is to destroy the materiel
target, that is, the aircraft.
The most terrible weapon on the future battlefield may be the
small, cheap, and, thus, mass-produced anti-eye laser weapon
which will have the power to cause mass blindness among infan-
try soldiers. This will result in devastating postwar problems.
The laser technology to support the military development of
anti-eye laser weapons is already here and is moving rapidly
ahead, not only within military programs but increasingly within
business and industry. That means that what is possible today will
 Conclusions and Consequences 229

be even more readily achieved in the future. Most nations will be

able to mass-produce cheap and effective anti-eye laser weapons
in the future. As this scenario materializes, battlefields will be-
come different. The Persian Gulf war showed very clearly to the
public that the use of lasers for guidance has already changed the
battlefield. The future use of lasers as weapons will change it even
more. Low-energy antipersonnel weapons that are mass-deployed
will have an impact on every commander making decisions and
every soldier fighting in battles in which these weapons are used.
There will surely be many armed conflicts during this and follow-
ing decades where antipersonnel laser weapons could be used.
Current political developments all over the world may well lead to
a long period of unrest when a number of new small nations are
trying to establish their borders. Economic interests, classical
enmities, and strong feelings of nationalism will cause a number
of limited armed conflicts, border clashes, and even small wars, as
is already the case in parts of Europe.
These small-scale conflicts will certainly not be of the same
character as the high-technology Persian Gulf war. Most of these,
not only in Europe but all over the world, will be dominated by
conventional low-technology weapons mingled with a few high-
technology systems. Small, cheap anti-eye laser weapons may
very well be used, along with conventional devices such as range
finders and target designators deliberately and systematically
directed against unprotected eyes, causing a great number of eye
casualties.
 APPENDIX I

Recommended Readings

A detailed presentation of laser safety can be found in several

books, of which the most complete may be Safety with Lasers and
Other Optical Sources by D. Sliney and M. Wolbarsht, published in
1980 by Plenum Press, New York.
This book is based entirely on public material. To a large
extent, information on current military laser developments has
been obtained from the following sources:

Air Force Magazine

Armada International
Armed Forces Journal
Armed Forces Journal International
Army
Aviation Week
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Defense
Flight International
Guardian
Health Physics
J. Hecht, Beam Weapons, Plenum Publishing Corp., New York, 1984.
J. Hecht, Understanding Lasers, Howard W. Sams & Co., Indi-
anapolis, 1988.
231
232 Appendix I

IEEE Spectrum
Independent
International Defense Review
Jane's Defense Weekly
Journal of Electronic Defense
Journal of Peace Research
Laser Focus
Lasers & Optronics
Letterman Army Institute of Research, Proceedings of Confer-
ence on Combat Ocular Problems, San Francisco, October 1980.
Military Electronics/Countermeasures
Military Review
Military Technology
NATO'S SIXTEEN NATIONS
New Scientist
Nordic Journal of International Law
Soldat und Technik
Soviet Military Power, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing-
ton, D.c., March 1987
Sunday Telegraph (London)
The Sunday Times
U. S. Army Technical Bulletin Med. 524, Control of Hazards to
Health from Laser Radiation, Washington, D.c., June 1985.
Washington Times
 APPENDIX II

Metric-English Systems
Comparisons

The units familiar to Americans as part of the "metric system"-

gram, liter, bar and millibar, calorie and kilocalorie-are for the
most part not used in scientific work anymore.
The "metric system" has a single fundamental unit for any
measurable quantity. Multiples of the units, both larger and
smaller, are formed by the use of decimal prefixes. The most often
used prefixes are those multiples which differ by a factor of 1,000
from each other.
The metric units used in this book are:
length meter
mass kilogram
volume stere
power watt
energy joule
The decimal prefixes are listed below. It should be noted that the
use of the hecto, deka, deci, and centi prefixes is discouraged.

233
234 Appendix II

Prefix Symbol Multiplication factors

exa E 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 = 1018
peta P 1000000000 000 000 = 1015
tera T 1 000 000 000 000 = 1012
giga G 1 000 000 000 = 109
mega M 1 000 000 = 106
kilo k 1000 = 103
hecto h 100 = 102
deka da 10 = 101
ded d 0.1 = 10- 1
centi c 0.01 = 10- 2
milli m 0.001 = 10- 3
micro f.1 0.000 001 = 10- 6
nano n 0.000 000 001 = 10- 9
pico P 0.000 000 000 001 = 10- 12
femto f 0.000 000 000 000 001 = 10- 15
atto a 0.000 000 000 000 000 001 = 10- 18

The metric units are approximately equivalent to units in the

"English system" as follows:
Metric English
1 meter (m) 39.37 inches
25.37 millimeter (mm) 1 inch
1 micrometer (f.1m) [formerly 3.937 X 10- 5 (0.00003937) inch
micron (f.1)] or 39.37 microinches
1 kilometer (km) 0.62137 mile = 1,093.6 yards
1.60935 kilometer (km) 1 mile
1 square centimeter (cm2) 0.155 square inch
6.45 square centimeter (cm2) 1 square inch
1 kilogram (kg) 2.2046 pounds = 35.274 ounces
0.4536 kilogram (kg) 1 pound = 16 ounces
1 watt (W) 0.00136 horsepower
746 watts (W) 1 horsepower
 Appendix II 235

1 joule m= 0.239 calorie 9.48 X 10- 4 (0.000948) British

thermal unit (BTU)
1,054.8 joules 0) 1 British thermal unit (BTU)

The calorie familiar to most Americans for food values is the

kilocalorie or large calorie, equivalent to 4)86 joules.
The wavelengths of some common military lasers in both
systems follow:
Metric English
(nanometers) (micro inches)
Argon 488,514.5 19.21, 20.26
Ruby 694.3 27.33
Neodymium:YAG (Nd:YAG) 1,064 41.89
CO 2 10,600 417.32
 Index

Absorption, 101 Ammunition, 96, 98

Absorption filter, 181 Anti-air missile Rb 70, 53
Accidental exposures, 77 Anti-aircraft guns, 110
Adaptive mirror; 130 Anti-aircraft LEL weapon, 173
ADATS, 53, 168 Anti-aircraft missiles, 110
Add-on combat assault weapon, 172 Anti-eye laser weapons,S, 28, 106,
Admiralty Research Establishment, 144, 149, 174, 175
155 Anti-eye low-energy laser weapons,S,
Afghanistan, 142, 146 31
AlM-9D Sidewinder, 122 Anti-infrared missile laser, 170
Air defense, 104, 109, 111 Anti-infrared missile LEL weapon,
Air-defense HEL weapon, 115 168
Air-defense laser weapons, 128 Antilaser weapons, 172, 190
Air-defense system, 126 Antisensor, 104, 105, 152
Air-to-air assault laser weapon, 169 Antisensor HEL weapon, 112
Airborne HEL weapons, 122 Apache attack helicopter, 161
Airborne Laser Laboratory, 122 Approaching missiles, 112
Airborne laser weapon, 105 Arc lamp, 26
Airborne LEL weapons, 166, 167 Argon fluoride (ArF), 116
Alarms, 191 Argon (Ar) lasers, 30, 33, 40, 151
Alexandrite, 28 Army, 21
Alexandrite laser, 28, 151 Artillery, 97
Allied Corporation, 162 AS.30 L laser-guided missile, 52
American National Standards Atmosphere, 100, 104, 112, 120, 137
Institute (ANSI), 83 Atmospheric attenuation, 86

237
238 Index

Atmospheric conditions, 25 CO2 lasers, 31, 33, 34, 40, 41, 50, 53,
Atmospheric pollution, 109 57, 116, 122, 149
Attenuating filter, 178 Coagulation, 74
AURORA,120 Coatings, 184
Cobalt, 26
Ballistic and Laser Protective COBRA,161
Spectacles (BLPS), 184 Coherence, 21, 22, 73
Bassov, Nikolai G., 13 Coherence length, 22
Bathymetry, 59, 60 Collimation, 21, 73
Battlefield laser threat, 177 Colored laser filters, 181
Battlefield requirements, 41 Combat Units, 222
Beam divergence, 21 Common Optroelectronic Laser
Beam power, 116 Detection System (COLDS), 192
Beam riders, 53 Communication systems, 34
Beam riding, 147 Compact disc audio players, 36
Bennet, W. R., 13 Complementary weapon, 176
Binoculars, 74 Conference of the ICRe, 203
Black eye patch, 179, 189 Conference on Lasers and Electro-
Blindness, 175, 225 Optics (CLEO), 121
Blink reflex, 80 Construction, 41
Blocking the beam, 178 Continuous wave (CW), 18, 24
Bohr, Niels, 12, 16 Convertible Laser Designator Pod
Bradley M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle, (CLDP),51
157 Copperhead, 50
Buffer zone, 85 Cornea, 80, 115, 149
Burn injuries, 81 Corneal heating, 80
Corner cubes, 191
C-CLAW, 156 CORONET PRINCE, 160
CAMEO BLUEJAY, 161 Cost, 98
Casualties, 106 Cost-effectiveness, 105
Chemical OF laser, 122 Counterfire, 196
Chemical hazards, 65 Countermeasure system, 167
Chemical 12:°2 laser, 118 Countermeasures, 177
Chemical laser, 34 Crazing of optics (Glass), 2, 148
Chemical pumping, 19 Cruise-missile launcher, 112
China, 141 Crystalline, 26
Chlorine, 33 Cutting, 41
Chromium, 26 Czechoslovakia, 126
Clip on, 174
Close combat, 106 Damage mechanism, 91
Cluster bombs, 97 Dark adaptation, 71, 143
CO laser, 33, 117 DAZER,161
CO2 laser range finder, 46 Decker, David c., 199
 Index 239

Desert Storm, 8 Eye, 5, 67

Destructive effect, 114
Deuterium fluoride (DF) chemical Far-infrared lasers, 35
lasers, 108, 116, 118, 123 FEL weapon, 39
Diehl, 122, 126, 130 Ferranti, 192
Dielectric interference filter, 182 Filter deployment, 184
Difficulties, 100 Filters, 151, 179
Diffuser, 33 Fire control, 1, 95, 104
Diodes, 35 Fire hazard, 66
Direct line of fire, 90 Flamethrowers, 4, 106, 113
Direct-line-of-fire weapons, 103 Flash blindness, 71, 105, 106, 143, 145
Direct line of sight, 96 Flashtube, 19
Direct-line-of-sight weapons, 44, 45, Flight crews, 200
193 FUR system, 57, 59
Disadvantages, 100 Fluorine, 33
Discomfort glare, 145 Foley, M., 38
Dual-purpose LEL weapons, 166 Forward Looking Infrared (FUR)
Dumdum bullets, 206 imaging system, 52
Dye, 23,40 Fovea, 68
Dye laser, 23 France, 125, 132
Dye (liquid) lasers, 37 Free-electron lasers (FEL), 19, 26, 38,
116, 118, 151
Edema, 74 French National Aerospace Research
Einstein, Albert, 12 Agency; 132
Electrical hazards, 65 Frequency; 16
Electromagnetic radiation, 15, 16 Frequency-agile LEL weapons, 185
Electron collision pumping, 19 Frequency-doubled Nd:YAG laser, 151
Electronic countermeasures, 110, 146 Frequency doubling, 151
Electronic eyes, 146 Fuel tanks, 114
Elevators, 114
Emitted power, 129 Gallium arsenide laser, 36, 53
EMRLD,136 Gallium indium phosphide (GaInP)
Energy absorption, 114 laser, 37
levels, 24, 93, 113, 114 Gamma-ray laser, 39
transferred, 91 Garnet, 26
Erbium, 26 Gas dynamic CO2 laser, 33, 117, 121
YAG laser, 150 Gas laser, 13, 26, 29
Evasive actions, 110 GBFEL,135
Excimer laser, 33, 40, 119 General Electric Corporation, 158
EXOCET, 112; see also Retina; Flash Geneva conventions, 204
blindness; Fovea German Ministry of Defense, 132
Eye hazard, 45 Germany, 125, 126, 208
Eye protection, 177 Glass, 26
240 Index

Gould, Gordon, 13 Infantry weapon, 175

Greenwood, c., 210 Infrared, 105
Ground-based weapons, 171 Infrared homing missiles, 168
Ground energy level, 18 International document, 212
International law, 8, 145, 203, 227
Hague Peace Conference, 206 International Red Cross, 8
Hague rules, 204 International Standard Product Code,
Hand-held laser range finders, 46 41
Harriot, 0. R., 13 Intraocular bleeding, 146
HAVE GLANCE, 161 Invisible laser beam, 97, 100
Hazard classifications, 84 Iodine:oxygen (12:02)' 116
Heat-seeking missiles, 146 Ionization, 77
Heavy combat assault weapon, 171 IR signature, 117
Hecht, Jeff, 26 Iran, 142
HEL targets, 109 Iraq, 142
HEL weapon protection, 195 Isby, D., 142
HELEX, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131, 132, 135
Helium-cadmium (HeCd) gas lasers, JAGUAR,132
31 Javan, A., 13
Helium-neon (HeNe) laser, 24, 30, 41
Hellfire, 50 Kazakhstan, 134
Hemorrhage, 74, 75, 76 Kerosene, 33
HeNe laser, 61 Kirtland Air Base Weapons
HF laser, 117 Laboratory, 136
High-energy laser, 93, 97 Kloske, 0. E., 160
High Energy Laser Test Facility, 123 Krypton (Kr) lasers, 30, 33
High-energy laser weapons, 3, 24, 33, Krypton fluoride excimer (KrF) laser,
94, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107 33,119
High-repetition-rate range finders, 48 Kumar, c., 32
Hit probability, 44, 95, 112 Kurchalov Institute of Atomic Energy
Holmium, 26 in Troisk, 134
Holographic filter, 183
Host material, 26 Ladenburg, R., 12
Hot spots, 25 Lantrin,51
HVM,53 Laser accidents, 141
Hydrocarbon, 33 beam, 21, 25
Hydrogen fluoride laser, 104, 108, 116 detector, 44, 168, 173, 191
incidents, 144, 213
Image intensifier, 147 industry, 14, 40, 99, 224
Indirect fire, 103 light shows, 97
Indirect viewing, 178, 187 philosophy, 196
Idium gallium arsenide phosphide pointer, 61
(InGaASP) laser, 36 protective filters, 6
 Index 241

Laser accidents (Cont.) MAD, 123

protective visors, 184 Magnetic field, 38
radar, 56 Magnifying optics, 74, 106, 193
range finder, 4 Maiman, Theodore, 13, 43, 44
sight, 61 Maneuver, 197
target designator, 4, 48 Martin Marietta Electronics System,
target seeker, 48 158
trackers, 46 MBB, 126, 192
training program, 200 McDonnell Douglas Company, 163
weapon concepts, 104 Mechanical damage, 114
weapon doctrine, 103 Mechanical protection, 185
Laser-resistant materials, 195 Mechanical shutters, 186
Laserdot, 125 Medical consequences, 223
Lasing medium, 18 Medical lasers, 37
LATEX, US Medical resources, 7, 144
Lawrence Livermore National Medical treatment, 7
Laboratory, 119, 120 Medicine, 37, 40
Lazer hazards, 65 Metal shin, 115
to the eye, 66 Metastable level, 17
LOS, 155, 171 Methane, 33
Lead,95 MICOM,162
Lecture hall pointe~ 24 Miles system, 55
Legal blindness, 78 Military consequences, 216
Lens, 68 Military requirements, 28, 111, 146,
Leopard 2 tank, 128 169,174
Light Detection and Ranging MlRACL (Mid-Infrared Advanced
(LIDAR),59 Chemical Laser), 34, 125, 135
Liquid crystals, 186 Mirrors, 20, 129
Liquid lase~ 26 Mobile Test Unit (MTU), 121
Logistical problems, 1 Mode locking, 25
Long-range communication, 60 Mode of operation, 24
Long-range standoff weapons, 155 Monochromaticity, 21
Los Alamos National Laboratory, 38, Mortars, 97
118,120 Multipurpose Chemical Laser
Low-energy antipersonnel and (MPCL),123
antisensor laser (1EL) weapons, 139 Multiple targets, 111
Low-energy laser weapon targets, 145
Low-energy laser weapons,S, 92, 94, Naval Weapons Center, 122
100, 103 Nd:glass laser, 27, 45, 120
Low-light television, 105, 147, 170 Nd:YAG laser, 27, 41, 45, 50, 58, 151
Neodymium lase~ 26, 27, 40, 45
Machine guns, 97 Neon, 33
Macula, 68 Night-vision goggles, 62
242 Index

Nitrogen laser, 34 Pulse width, 24

Nobel Prize, 13 Pulsed energy, 24
NOHD (nominal ocular hazard Pumping, 18
distance), 85, 140 Pumping system, 18
Nonlinear optical polymer materials,
185 Q-switching, 25, 27, 28, 45
North Vietnam, 50 Quantum theory
NOVA,120 Quinn, T. P., 159
Nuclear bomb, 119
Nuclear explosion, 39, 119 Radar, 44
Radomes, 115
Optical density, 180 Raman, C. v., 23
Optical fibers, 36, 61 Raman scattering, 101
Optical pathways, 92 Raman shifting, 3, 151
Optical pumping, 18, 26 Raman-shifted Nd:YAG laser, 46
Optical range finders, 44 Range finders, 27, 28, 44, 139
Optical resonator, 33 Redstone Arsenal, 121
Optical sensors, 115 Refiection, 85
Optical switches, 186 Remotely piloted vehicles (RPV), 51
Resonant optical cavity, 20
Panoramic visors, 184 Retina, 68, 149, 150
Patel, N., 32 Retinal burns, 75, 146
Pava light, 50 Retinal hazard region, 71, 73, 150
Peak power, 25 Retinal irradiance, 74
Permanent blindness, 106, 149 Retrorefiection, 191
Phantom aircraft, 50 Ring laser gyros, 61
Photochemical changes, 77 ROADRUNNER, 122, 156
Photoinjector, 118 Rotor head, 115
Pilots, 200, 220 Royal Signals and Radar
Poland,126 Establishment (RSRE), 155
Pollution of the atmosphere, 103 Ruby laser, 13, 26, 27, 45, 62
Population inversion, 17, 26 Rudders, 114
Postwar consequences, 225
Postwar society, 226 Safety factor, 140
Power density, 113 Safety regulations, 83
Precision drilling, 41 Saint Petersburg Declaration, 205
Prochorov, Aleksander M., 13 Sandia National Laboratories, 58
Protection, 6, 150, 177, 219 Sapphires, 26
for sensors, 186 Sary Shagan, Kazakhstan, 134
Psychological impact, 7 Scattering, 87, 101
Psychological problems, 218 Schawlow, Arthur, 13
Psychological reactions, 141 501 program, 34, 39, 108, 118, 119,
Pulse repetition frequency (PRF), 24 123,137
 Index 243

Sea-skimming missiles, 3, 48, 105, Target designators, 28, 139

112, 134, 170 Temporal coherence time, 22
Semiconductor (diode) laser, 26, 35, Thermal blooming, 101
36,55,61 Thermal Imaging Airborne Laser
Sensors, 146, 152, 221 Designator (TIALD), 51
Shipboard Soviet laser, 143 Thermal viewing systems, 147
Shipborne air defense LEL weapon, 171 Threshold levels, 83
Shipborne weapons, 169 Ti-sapphire laser, 28, 151
Shutters, 179 Tissue damage, 77
Silence, 97 Titanium, 26
Simulators, 54 Tornado, 51
Single-shot range finders, 48 TOW, 122, 157
Size of a laser weapon, 99 Townes, C. H., 13
SLBD,123 Tracking, 131, 198, 217
Sliney, 0. H., 26 Transistors, 35
Smart munitions systems, 48 Transmission for filters, 181
Smoke, 179, 187 Transmission losses, 114
Snow blindness, 79 Transmittance, 69
Solid-state laser, 26, 27, 28 TRW Inc., 125
Soviet Military Power, 134, 164 Turbulence, 101
Soviet Union, 51, 107, 133, 134, 143,
164,213 UH-1 helicopter, 122
Spark generation, 101 Ultraviolet photokeratitis, 79
Spatial coherence, 22 UN Conference on Certain
Speed, 23, 94 Conventional Weapons, 208
of light, 23 United Kingdom, 155
Spontaneous emission, 17 United States, 53, 55, 76, 83, 107, 125,
Stanford University, 119 140, 143, 208, 213
Stimulated emission, 21 United Technology Research Center,
STINGRAY, 157, 165 108
Strategic Defense Initiative (SOl) U.S. Army Infantry Center, 162
program: see SDI program
Straub, Harold, 179 Vibronic solid-state lasers, 28
Sunglasses, 179 Vietnam, 141
Superconductor FEL, 119 Visible spectrum, 37
Supermarket scanner, 24 Visual behavior, 193
Surgery, 34 Visual field, 71
Surgical knife, 40
Sweden, 212 Warren, D., 212
Swedish Rb 70, 168 Warsaw Pact (WP) countries, 126, 164
Warsaw Pact Forces, 156
Tactics, 196 Wavelength, 16
Tank-mounted laser firing simulator, 56 Weather, 25
244 Index

Weather conditions, 87 Xenon fluoride excimer (XeF) laser,

Welding, 41 34,119
Wmdshields, 114 Xenon fluoride, 116
Wolbarsht, M. L., 26 Xenon, 33
Wolfe, J. A., 199
Yttrium-aluminum garnet (YAG), 27
X-ray laser, 26, 39, 116, 119 Yugoslavia, 192