Gun on the Shark?

[cool_t]

I think some beta flying guys replied in this thread.

 

Hi,

 

Sure, but no detail on performance or multiple targeting with the gun.

[AlphaOneSix]

Hi,

 

Sure, but no detail on performance or multiple targeting with the gun.

 

Performance of what? The gun? It works great. What do you mean by multiple targeting? You can only have one thing targeted at a time.

[RedTiger]

Performance of what? The gun? It works great. What do you mean by multiple targeting? You can only have one thing targeted at a time.

 

:megalol:

 

This thread is unintentionally freaking hilarious...and it keeps on going!

[cool_t]

Performance of what? The gun? It works great. What do you mean by multiple targeting? You can only have one thing targeted at a time.

 

Hi,

 

Hummm....strange I figured in the KA-50 one could "LAZE" lets say 3 targets, shoot a burst at one, then the gun auto-locks the 2nd and the third. Like TWS in the mighty F-15c in LOMAC-FC. Again a time factor in combat.

 

Strange........:book:

[monotwix]

Hi,

 

Hummm....strange I figured in the KA-50 one could "LAZE" lets say 3 targets, shoot a burst at one, then the gun auto-locks the 2nd and the third. Like TWS in the mighty F-15c in LOMAC-FC. Again a time factor in combat.

 

Strange........:book:

 

Are you thinking like no kidding type engagement?

[sobek]

Hi,

 

Hummm....strange I figured in the KA-50 one could "LAZE" lets say 3 targets, shoot a burst at one, then the gun auto-locks the 2nd and the third. Like TWS in the mighty F-15c in LOMAC-FC. Again a time factor in combat.

 

 

The shkval can only track one target at a time. In fact, it tracks with contrast and has only one camera, so how would it be able to track multiple targets? You do realize that the BS has no radar, opposed to the f15? Sometimes i can't tell wether you're joking or not.

[GGTharos]

What is strange is that you would think this at all ...

 

Hi,

 

Hummm....strange I figured in the KA-50 one could "LAZE" lets say 3 targets, shoot a burst at one, then the gun auto-locks the 2nd and the third. Like TWS in the mighty F-15c in LOMAC-FC. Again a time factor in combat.

 

Strange........:book:

[mvsgas]

Hi,

 

Hummm....strange I figured in the KA-50 one could "LAZE" lets say 3 targets, shoot a burst at one, then the gun auto-locks the 2nd and the third. Like TWS in the mighty F-15c in LOMAC-FC. Again a time factor in combat.

 

Strange........:book:

Can any aircraft optical tracking system track and lase at more than one target? I know you can do it with a radar but not a optical tracking system AFIK

[Weta43]

Hummm....strange I figured in the KA-50 one could "LAZE" lets say 3 targets, shoot a burst at one, then the gun auto-locks the 2nd and the third. Like TWS in the mighty F-15c in LOMAC-FC. Again a time factor in combat.

 

If you were far enough away, and there were 3 infantry relatively close together, you could maybe shoot a couple of rounds at the first, slew to the second & shoot a couple of rounds, then on to the third & shoot a couple of rounds, all before the first rounds land.

 

Does that count ?

[Weta43]

Can any aircraft optical tracking system track and lase at more than one target? I know you can do it with a radar but not a optical tracking system AFIK

 

Never heard of one, but with enough processing power I guess it's quite possible.

 

Without IFF on optical systems, you need to be sure of who you're targetting though -which means a tight FOV before lock, & a tight FOV probably reduces the usefulness of being able to lock multiple targets - unless you were to use a digital zoom over a very wide FOV tracking device, but then you need optics that are an order of magnitude more accurate than those needed if you just have an optical zoom to ID targets.

 

As I think has been said - you can enter the co-ordinates of multiple targets you have identified with the Shkval into the INS on the Ka-50 while in the air, & have the Shkval system "snap" to the co-ordinates of each at the push of a button, but it involves a bit of looking down & button pushing :-)

[GGTharos]

It is possible to optically track multiple targets with the newer IRST's - ie. PIRATE, SNIPER pod, the F-35's optical system, etc.

[mvsgas]

It is possible to optically track multiple targets with the newer IRST's - ie. PIRATE, SNIPER pod, the F-35's optical system, etc.

So, SNIPER pod can track multiple target at the same time without any help from radar, INS, GPS, FCC, data link etc.? Did not know that. I thought optical systems, whether IR or video depended on the contrast of the object to track it. You can keep coordinates in the memory from other systems and feed the information to the optical tracker but I did not know the tracker it self could target multiple targets. Can the Shkval track multiple target without information from other systems?

[GGTharos]

No, the Shkval is an STT implementation. As I said ... modern optical devices can.

 

The principle is not that different from radar; you scan the 'beam' (pod/whatever FOV) around, and simply register and display any of those high-contrast blips ;)

 

The only catch here is that the visual spectra might be 'noisier' and thus a little more difficult to filter out, but not impossible. I have a program on my other computer that tracks motion, and it could certainly be made to track multiple targets - it uses a webcam ;)

[nscode]

I'd guess that the next thing will be panoramic lenses.. kind of like ESA of the IRST world :)

[nemises]

Judging from Wag's Skval vid it seems you could:

 

-Survey the area with the Skval

-Manually set Target Points on the INS for each target

-Turn on "Auto Turn to Target" autopilot

-Slave the Skval to target point 1, lock, wait for autopilot to turn to weapons parameters, fire, impact

-Slave the Skval to target point 2 , lock,wait for autopilot to turn to weapons parameters, fire, impact

- etc...

 

 

It is not "tracking" multiple targets, but it can store multiple target points that can be automatically slewed to...as long as the target isn't moving...seems like not a bad mutliple target solution to me?

[cool_t]

Judging from Wag's Skval vid it seems you could:

 

-Survey the area with the Skval

-Manually set Target Points on the INS for each target

-Turn on "Auto Turn to Target" autopilot

-Slave the Skval to target point 1, lock, wait for autopilot to turn to weapons parameters, fire, impact

-Slave the Skval to target point 2 , lock,wait for autopilot to turn to weapons parameters, fire, impact

- etc...

 

 

It is not "tracking" multiple targets, but it can store multiple target points that can be automatically slewed to...as long as the target isn't moving...seems like not a bad mutliple target solution to me?

 

Hi,

 

Hummm....I guess I can buy the "Store multiple target points" Also is there really any difference between a "I-R and radar" signature or return too a computer? As humans we can understand the difference with our cognitive logic. So why cant EOS's track multiple targets? AH-64 does this.

 

:thumbup:

[cool_t]

What is strange is that you would think this at all ...

 

Why is that strange? Would this not be a Technological advantage? A gun-optical system that can "Act like" TWS, whats strange about it?

[mvsgas]

Hi,

 

Hummm....I guess I can buy the "Store multiple target points" Also is there really any difference between a "I-R and radar" signature or return too a computer? As humans we can understand the difference with our cognitive logic. So why cant EOS's track multiple targets? AH-64 does this.

 

:thumbup:

I do not think a optical sighting system could track multiple targets. In a radar system traking mutiple targets, you can see if the targets move, see speed, altitude and direction changes as long as the targets is withitn the detecting cone. A optical system may see multiple heats sources as a IR but I do not believe it would tell you speed, altitute etc., unless it was lock on to the object and could messure it's distans and speed with a laser or other system, because of this, it not really tracking. You may know the location of a target and you may store the location in the sytem memory but if the targets moves, it would not be able to detect this without help from other sensors (radar, etc) I do not believe a optical targeting system may be able to see multiple targets move unless it is a combination of multiple tracking sensor and multiple tracking lasers, and this sensor are lock to the targeted object. I do not believe the optical tracking system in a AH-64 can do that, maybe the Long Bow with its radar, but not the optical tracking system. Again, I do not belive this to be posibble with single seake optical systems. Maybe in the F-35 with multiple optical sensor or the airborn laser system. I'm not expert on optical sighting and targeting sytem, it just does not seem probable the way I understand tracking systems like AN/AAQ-14 Targeting Pod or the Sniper pod. Just my 2 cents.

[Weta43]

The principle is not that different from radar; you scan the 'beam' (pod/whatever FOV) around, and simply register and display any of those high-contrast blips

 

Scanning a beam to identify possible targets (areas of high contrast) seems perfectly sensible (scan, pause on area of interest), but scanning the FOV back & forth to track multiple identified targets - You sure that's how they work (?)

 

As you say, these devices use contrast to define a target. To keep track of the target as its relative contrast changes compared to the area it is in, it has to be monitored & the target's present contrast profile compared to that of a moment ago - it's not like radar where you have a "dark" background" and a "bright" signal against that to pick up fairly easily when your beam comes back to the area, (or to a lesser degree an IRST searching for planes against the sky, which again has a "Bright" target to find against a relatively "dark" background).

That's why this technology was developed so much later than either radar scanning or IR seekers - it's difficult to do...

Devices such as these have to keep track of areas of contrast (light on dark, or dark on light) in a much more "noisy" environment.

Imagine tracking a target vehicle traveling in a city. If you keep the vehicle "locked" by continually assessing its contrast as a target & making sure that you have the same block of contrast all the time (continuity between changed profiles) you can easily track one vehicle among many. If you move the optics away, then come back to the area, the target may have changed aspect - & therefore the contrast profile - & it could be any one of the vehicles in the area.

If you have a sensor with a wide FOV - 60 degrees say - a computer could continually track as many contrast areas within that image as you have processing power to deal with, but the image would be too "complex" (& while detailed at a digital level too small on a display) to allow full identification of individual targets by the operator, who would have to "zoom" in on a smaller area. Doing this zoom digitally would allow the computer to maintain its continual monitoring of the contrast targets in the wider image.

A search by the system of a large FOV image would probably appear to the operator as a "Scan" as the part of the larger image presented jumped from one possible area of interest or continually monitored target to another...

 

You must type faster than me mvsgas

Edited September 14, 2008 by Weta43

[GGTharos]

Scanning a beam to identify possible targets (areas of high contrast) seems perfectly sensible (scan, pause on area of interest), but scanning the FOV back & forth to track multiple identified targets - You sure that's how they work (?)

 

Sure? How about 'seen how they work'?

 

As you say, these devices use contrast to define a target.

 

While it is one of (and perhaps one of the most significant) the criteria, there are other things as well.

 

To keep track of the target as its relative contrast changes compared to the area it is in, it has to be monitored & the target's present contrast profile compared to that of a moment ago - it's not like radar where you have a "dark" background" and a "bright" signal against that to pick up fairly easily when your beam comes back to the area,

 

Actually it is exactly the same. The noise floor may be higher, and the filtering method different, but other than that, same concept.

 

That's why this technology was developed so much later than either radar scanning or IR seekers - it's difficult to do...

 

... without adequate computing power.

 

Devices such as these have to keep track of areas of contrast (light on dark, or dark on light) in a much more "noisy" environment.

 

If you think a radio environment isn't noisy ... ;D

 

Imagine tracking a target vehicle traveling in a city. If you keep the vehicle "locked" by continually assessing its contrast as a target & making sure that you have the same block of contrast all the time (continuity between changed profiles) you can easily track one vehicle among many. If you move the optics away, then come back to the area, the target may have changed aspect - & therefore the contrast profile - & it could be any one of the vehicles in the area.

 

But I wasn't talking about ground targets. Despite this, this is again, no different from GMTI radar (because hey, the IIRST can use motion filters too! :D )

 

If you have a sensor with a wide FOV - 60 degrees say - a computer could continually track as many contrast areas within that image as you have processing power to deal with, but the image would be too "complex" (& while detailed at a digital level too small on a display) to allow full identification of individual targets by the operator, who would have to "zoom" in on a smaller area. Doing this zoom digitally would allow the computer to maintain its continual monitoring of the contrast targets in the wider image.

 

You mean like NCTR might require STT? ... about how an airborne radar can take a snapshot and go silent, and post-process the data?

 

All of this stuff is quite expensive computationally, and perhaps even only marginally less so than the image processing required for the images coming from the IR CCDs equipping current generation pods.

 

A search by the system of a large FOV image would probably appear to the operator as a "Scan" as the part of the larger image presented jumped from one possible area of interest or continually monitored target to another...

 

You must type faster than me mvsgas

 

Yeah. Well, the F-14's IRST used to do this a while ago, IIRC, and at least the PIRATE equipping the Typhoon will be doing the same.

Likewise, the optical system equipping the F-35 will be potentially doing something very similar.

 

Image processing isn't what it used to be two decades ago ;)

[Weta43]

The question was asked about the Ka-50's ability to track multiple targets.

The Ka-50 is primarily designed to attack ground targets.

This would imply (as other readers seem to have teken it) that the question was asked about the ability to do so for ground targets not airborne targets. I was discussing tracking ground targets, & contrasting this with the relatively simple tast of tracking airborne targets through Radar or conventional IRST devices.

Ground targets are an order of magintude more difficult to track - for the reasons I outlined above.

 

You seem to have missed the point of some of what I've written - what I meant by "That's why this technology was developed so much later than either radar scanning or IR seekers - it's difficult to do..." was exactly that it was difficult to do - without adequate computing power.

The algorithms are complicated, and rely on continually analysing the changes in the contrast signature of the target - leaving the target then coming back to it makes the problem much more dificult to solve - it's easy to "know" which of two similar targets in close proximity is the designated target if you continually track one of them, but not necessarily if you look away, then come back & try to pick between the two.

A wide FOV imaging device removes the problem of trying to re-aquire targets & only leaves the (large) computational problem of tracking the targets.

Maybe I've missed what you were saying too - do you mean that you know that this (scanning between targets) is the method used by the devices you mentioned to optically track multiple ground targets simultaneously ?

[cool_t]

The question was asked about the Ka-50's ability to track multiple targets.

The Ka-50 is primarily designed to attack ground targets.

This would imply (as other readers seem to have teken it) that the question was asked about the ability to do so for ground targets not airborne targets. I was discussing tracking ground targets, & contrasting this with the relatively simple tast of tracking airborne targets through Radar or conventional IRST devices.

Ground targets are an order of magintude more difficult to track - for the reasons I outlined above.

 

You seem to have missed the point of some of what I've written - what I meant by "That's why this technology was developed so much later than either radar scanning or IR seekers - it's difficult to do..." was exactly that it was difficult to do - without adequate computing power.

The algorithms are complicated, and rely on continually analysing the changes in the contrast signature of the target - leaving the target then coming back to it makes the problem much more dificult to solve - it's easy to "know" which of two similar targets in close proximity is the designated target if you continually track one of them, but not necessarily if you look away, then come back & try to pick between the two.

A wide FOV imaging device removes the problem of trying to re-aquire targets & only leaves the (large) computational problem of tracking the targets.

Maybe I've missed what you were saying too - do you mean that you know that this (scanning between targets) is the method used by the devices you mentioned to optically track multiple ground targets simultaneously ?

 

Ok so this is what I gather, Technology as far as "Filtering" has not made ground clutter a issue of the past? With all of the filtering and "Shape-recognition" CPU-processes in today's Helos, soft wear still can not distinguish multiple ground targets on the move? Hummm...Even with the small scale AI in helos It should be a number 1 priority 2 make multiple moving ground targes trackable and ingageable.

[GGTharos]

The Ka-50 is not one of 'today's helos'. It's one of your grandpa's helos.

[GGTharos]

I think, what I can say is that there are means and methods for image processing and some give you fewer false positives than others.

Ranges are also affected by the environment as you've probably surmised.

 

None of this concerns anything but the newest, shiniest of devices ... don't look for them on anything but the newest, shiniest of aircraft types.

 

P.S. I wasn't focusing on ground units before - yes, ground units are harder due to the clutter, and especially potential motion-less ... but not all that hard. It isn't always necessary to do more than to inform the pilot that 'hey, something's there' (and track it - trackfile style)

 

Maybe I've missed what you were saying too - do you mean that you know that this (scanning between targets) is the method used by the devices you mentioned to optically track multiple ground targets simultaneously ?

Edited September 17, 2008 by GGTharos

[-Skipper-]

AFAIK the Sniper-Pod is not capable of tracking multiple targets, as well as the AH-64A's sensors aren't.

 

Of course you can OBSERVE multiple targets, by just keeping them in your FOV, but you'd need to lase them intermittendly to really track them and the sensors would have to automatically track the targets and switch between other known targets. As you have just a single optical sensor, that's one hell of a show, e.g. if you are the gunner as in the Apache A you have to rely on that sensor, which keeps hopping all over the place.

It may work for a small area with modern sensors, servos and processing power, but the question is: Is this really reasonable!? :huh:

 

The modern doctrine has an AWACS and a JSTARS circling above, giving air- and ground-targets to the fighting units. So the most important thing for a fighting unit is not to observe multiple targets, but to identify a target as precise as possible from the maximum distance possible, to engage it while providing maximum safety for the guy at the trigger.

 

That's also supported by the mystical Sniper XR ATP. You can only track a single target at once. With an incredible precision from 50,000ft and 3 times the range of the LANTIRN, with the capability to use the GPS-position to directly feed JDAMS or transmit them to other units, but still just for a single target as small as possible, giving it the nickname "Sniper". :smilewink:

 

IMHO LockOn doesn't display this part very good, probably giving a false picture here. You have the freedom to go where you want and whatever you want to attack. Targets are only in your target area, so you just circle around as you want it and decide what to attack and how. In real live, you're rather part of an orchestra, with a precise schedule, that is ordered and organized to work with hundreds of other units and you're just one gear of the machinery. You have your orders, you attack primary or secondary targets, even get inflight instructions to attack other targets, you do your job and RTB if allowed to. IMHO that is the most important advantage of the Falcon series, as you get a pretty good picture that, rather than engaging your few targets in an otherwise empty environment. :noexpression:

 

I hope that with the current focus on the groundwar, we will have units that call for assistance without manual set triggers and a C3 that will update on enemy positions as the AWACS did in LO.

Edited September 16, 2008 by -Skipper-