correct as-is Should the ATFLIR have IR MARK?

[Bankler]

With the LITENING, I sometimes use the IR pointer (MARK) to point at stuff during night missions. I don't see this function in the current ATFLIR though. Is it something that will come eventually, or is it simply not a feature on the real ATFLIR?

[Swift.]

It's a feature of real ATFLIR. Whether ED decide to grace us with its inclusion is another matter.

[BIGNEWY]

Hi,

 

based on what evidence? 

 

thanks

[Swift.]

13 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi,

 

based on what evidence? 

 

thanks

Ask your SMEs. 

[Bankler]

Did some research. I obviously don't have any evidence. But there are many indications that it should have an IR marker unless it's a very old version of the ATFLIR.

 

2006:

"Raytheon developed plans for flight testing, production cut-in, retrofit of existing unit and support in 2005. The initial
flight testing is complete and Raytheon has been awarded a contract to provide eight ATFLIRs with IR Markers to the
USN."

https://vdocuments.site/download/spie-proceedings-spie-defense-and-security-symposium-orlando-kissimmee-584700d813faf

 

2007:

"The U.S. Navy awarded Raytheon Company an $18.5 million contract modification to provide an infrared marker upgrade on Hornet and Super Hornet targeting pods, which will enhance F/A-18 ground operations support."

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/84409/raytheon-to-upgrade-atflir-targeting-pods.html

 

2009:
"This effort will include the production, implementation and ILS efforts and modification labor associated with ATFLIR IR-marker retrofit engineering change proposal in support of the F/A-18.  Work will be performed in McKinney, Texas, and El Segundo, Calif., and is expected to be completed in 2010"

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2009/07/01/raytheon-awarded-navy-contract-3/

 

2012:

"Recent technology upgrades include infrared marker and imagery enhancements."

https://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2134

 

2017:

"ATFLIR now has a low-light television camera, target laser range finder, laser designator, laser spot tracker and IR marker."
https://www.nst.com.my/news/exclusive/2017/07/260429/more-lethal-sting-rmafs-hornets

[Rainmaker]

25 minutes ago, Bankler said:

Did some research. I obviously don't have any evidence. But there are many indications that it should have an IR marker unless it's a very old version of the ATFLIR.

 

2006:

"Raytheon developed plans for flight testing, production cut-in, retrofit of existing unit and support in 2005. The initial
flight testing is complete and Raytheon has been awarded a contract to provide eight ATFLIRs with IR Markers to the
USN."

https://vdocuments.site/download/spie-proceedings-spie-defense-and-security-symposium-orlando-kissimmee-584700d813faf

 

2007:

"The U.S. Navy awarded Raytheon Company an $18.5 million contract modification to provide an infrared marker upgrade on Hornet and Super Hornet targeting pods, which will enhance F/A-18 ground operations support."

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/84409/raytheon-to-upgrade-atflir-targeting-pods.html

 

2009:
"This effort will include the production, implementation and ILS efforts and modification labor associated with ATFLIR IR-marker retrofit engineering change proposal in support of the F/A-18.  Work will be performed in McKinney, Texas, and El Segundo, Calif., and is expected to be completed in 2010"

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2009/07/01/raytheon-awarded-navy-contract-3/

 

2012:

"Recent technology upgrades include infrared marker and imagery enhancements."

https://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2134

 

2017:

"ATFLIR now has a low-light television camera, target laser range finder, laser designator, laser spot tracker and IR marker."
https://www.nst.com.my/news/exclusive/2017/07/260429/more-lethal-sting-rmafs-hornets

I would say that leans that argument in the opposite direction, unless they chose to include the feature beyond the date of the year they are modeling. Not offering an opinion for or against that...but contracting/funding/implementation is normally a years long process, not just a few weeks/months. 

[Fri13]

21 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

I would say that leans that argument in the opposite direction, unless they chose to include the feature beyond the date of the year they are modeling. Not offering an opinion for or against that...but contracting/funding/implementation is normally a years long process, not just a few weeks/months. 

 

Looks by the date that it should be 2012 when the IR marker is reported to be included, so not suppose to be in our Hornet. 

[Bankler]

19 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

I would say that leans that argument in the opposite direction, unless they chose to include the feature beyond the date of the year they are modeling. Not offering an opinion for or against that...but contracting/funding/implementation is normally a years long process, not just a few weeks/months. 

 

Yeah I don't know what they are aiming for either. The Lot 20 itself might be quite old. But on the other hand, we have access to JHMCS and AIM-9X and other semi-modern 2000-2010 stuff. I'm not sure if they want to limit the features to a particular date and if so, what that date is.

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all

 

Based on our 2003 ATFLIR operations document, it is correct as-is.

 

thank you

[Swift.]

22 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi all

 

Based on our 2003 ATFLIR operations document, it is correct as-is.

 

thank you

2003 is interesting, seeing that in 2006 only 4 legacy hornet compatible ATFLIRs existed.

[Sarge55]

Makes sense considering how long it takes to roll stuff out.  A 2003 manual being used in 2006 sounds reasonable.

[Fri13]

12 minutes ago, Swiftwin9s said:

2003 is interesting, seeing that in 2006 only 4 legacy hornet compatible ATFLIRs existed.

 

Is it possible that those four ATFLIR existed from the 2003 to 2005 as well?

 

As what is apparent that our F/A-18C Lot 20 from 2005 shouldn't have ATFLIR but the AN/AAS-38 Nite Hawk. As in 2006 the legacy hornet was still using it in US Navy as primary system and considering to start using the Litening II as they couldn't get the ATFLIR in time that was meant only for the Super Hornets.

So there must be just a couple of the ATFLIR for our Hornet in use at 2005 to be it modeled as Circa 2005 Hornet.

 

 

 

[Wing]

Is it true, that the (ATFLIR) pod, was ONLY in service with Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet squadrons during the time period that the DCS Hornet is supposed to be simulating?

Therefore - we technically should not even have the ATFLIR pod for our DCS Hornet currently... as during that era only Super Hornets had the ATFLIR TGP operational?

 

Please correct me if so, I am not certain on this.

[Rainmaker]

35 minutes ago, Swiftwin9s said:

2003 is interesting, seeing that in 2006 only 4 legacy hornet compatible ATFLIRs existed.

Documentation often precedes implementation...sometimes by years. 

[Wing]

3 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

Documentation often precedes implementation...sometimes by years. 

"The Marine Corps is at a crucial crossroads in its constant effort to remain technologically relevant. Currently, Marine F/A-18 Hornets are not authorized to employ laser-guided bombs (LGBs) when illuminating a target with its NITEHAWK targeting pod, due to the pod’s low fidelity and increased chances of target misidentification. As a remedy, the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as F/A-18 air forces around the world, are in the process of selecting and integrating a new targeting pod. The contenders are the LITENING AT, in service with Marine AV-8B squadrons, and the Advanced Tactical Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pod, in service with Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet squadrons. Current plans have the Marine expeditionary (land-based D model) Hornets slated to receive the LITENING AT, while the Marine carrier-based (A+ and C) Hornets will receive the ATFLIR. However, the Marine Corps should equip its carrier-based F/A-18s with the LITENING AT instead of the ATFLIR because the LITENING AT is equally capable, less costly, and more quickly available."

As per a 2006 DOD report. Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a498288.pdf

Edited April 19, 2021 by Wing

[Fri13]

11 minutes ago, Wing said:

As per a 2006 DOD report. Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a498288.pdf

 

The Next Marine Corps F/A-18 Targeting Pod: ATFLIR or LITENING?

Submitted by Captain JM Renaux

to

Maj GS Benson and LCDR BD Kincaid, CG 14

07 February, 2006

 

a. REPORT unclassified

 

 

Yes, based to that the F/A-18C Lot 20 Circa 2005 shouldn't really have LITENING or AFTFLIR at the time but just the AN/AAS-38 Nite Hawk. 

We can go around and around that how just 4 units of the ATFLIR pods are acceptable to make ATFLIR at all.

 

"Raytheon has delivered 75 ATFLIR pods to the Navy as of June 2005.8 Production rates as of February 2005 were approximately one ATFLIR every fifteen days, with production rates planned to increase to three each week in May 2005, and six each week by December 2006.9 Waiting for the supply to catch up with the demand represents a significant investment of time for the Navy and Marine Corps. In contrast, as of February 2004, Rafael and Northrup Grumman had delivered 400 of 500 LITENING pods10 from an assembly line that is already established and fully operational. The ATFLIR’s slow production rate has already raised some eyebrows, with the commander of the USS John F. Kennedy Strike Group, Rear Adm. Barry McCullough, testifying before the Senate in April 2005 that the limited number of ATFLIRs posed a “significant challenge” for strike aircraft operating over Iraq. At the time, the Strike Group had only received four ATFLIR pods for its 34 F/A-18C Hornets, which creates a question regarding how the Navy allocates its limited supply of ATFLIRs."

 

So simply put, there was only a one strike group that had 34 F/A-18C Lot 20 fighters, and only four ATFLIR targeting pods for them. 

And now we have received the ATFLIR as the primary targeting sensor suite for the Hornet, instead far more fitting AN/AAS-38 NITE HAWK. 

 

But this is off-topic and should be made own thread.

 

As at the time the ATFLIR was not.... really used (yes, we can argue that 4 was) so on that should the ATFLIR have IR marker? No.... 

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by Fri13

[Swift.]

So ED fictitiously give us ATFLIR. Fair enough.

 

But they give us an ATFLIR that is 1 of 4? I mean come on.

 

But don't worry, it'll be alright because as it's a USMC/USN hornet, we can also use a USMC litening. Right....

[Wing]

The can of worms will open up again due to this... which is why we should keep things realistic to what was "OPERATIONAL" irl.

ATFLIR was not operational for a 2005 Hornet. So this may be some "juju" so to speak 

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, Swiftwin9s said:

So ED fictitiously give us ATFLIR. Fair enough.

 

The Hornet is suppose to be the top model, so it deserves the best there is possible to give, regardless the time line. Right? 

 

1 minute ago, Swiftwin9s said:

But they give us an ATFLIR that is 1 of 4? I mean come on.

 

I think ED gave all 75 to us that were delivered to USN in June 2005 

 

1 minute ago, Swiftwin9s said:

But don't worry, it'll be alright because as it's a USMC/USN hornet, we can also use a USMC litening. Right....

 

Let's not move the goalposts... Right? It is strictly Circa 2005 US Navy F/A-18C Hornet in a.... what squadron? Is it modeled to belong in that John F.Kennedy Strike Group in 2005?

 

But fact still seems to remain, no IR marker, no imagery enhancements... As those are from 2012.

Sure there is hints that eight prototype ATFLIR were delivered to US Navy in 2006.... So nothing in 2005. And so on change that even 4 of the one strike group ATFLIR would have one of them with IR marker is like... 

 

 

[Swift.]

5 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

The Hornet is suppose to be the top model, so it deserves the best there is possible to give, regardless the time line. Right? 

You mean like giving it the IR marker that would be accurate for a USN hornet carrying ATFLIR other than the 4 off, that I can only assume were used for testing pretty much exclusively 

 

[Wing]

I would take the USMC Litening as thats actually factual to the DCS Hornets timeframe. To each his own tho...

[Fri13]

Just now, Wing said:

I would take the USMC Litening as thats actually factual to the DCS Hornets timeframe. To each his own tho...

 

They didn't use those either at the time. They were on the NITE HAWK. The LITENING II was later accepted to be used as US Navy didn't receive ATFLIR in time and in such numbers, so it would be used there. 

 

Of course players want the latest and greatest, but if we go for the historically more accurate and realistic numbers, the ATFLIR shouldn't be in the Hornet and neither the LITENING but just the NITE HAWK. 

 

The linked report discuss about the 2005 period when USN was required to decide that what to do for next pod for legacy hornets as they didn't receive them, when all the production ATFLIR went to the super hornet squadrons even when US navy had 2.5 more of legacy hornets. 

 

"as mentioned, the USS John F. Kennedy Strike Group has thirty four F/A-18C (i.e. legacy, not Super) Hornets embarked. Of the fifty-one pods deployed in February 2005, forty-nine of those pods were allocated for Super Hornets, and 2 for legacy Hornets. This is a significant mismatch given the fact that for every Super Hornet deployed aboard aircraft carriers, there are approximately 2.5 legacy Hornets. As an analogy, that is like changing the oil in the family’s new car while ignoring the older car that is driven 2.5 times as often. As long as Super Hornets are produced at equal or greater rates as ATFLIR, the majority of ATFLIRs will be paired with brand new Super Hornets."

 

But we get back to situation, the fact stands that there were couple ATFLIR for USN F/A-18C Lot 20 to be used, instead NITE HAWK.

And that those two ATFLIR would happen to get the 2006 IR marker is... Very far fetched but plausible.

 

 

[Swift.]

33 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

They didn't use those either at the time. They were on the NITE HAWK. The LITENING II was later accepted to be used as US Navy didn't receive ATFLIR in time and in such numbers, so it would be used there. 

 

Whats the pod in this video then? Or perhaps the poster is telling porkies

[Fri13]

39 minutes ago, Swiftwin9s said:

Whats the pod in this video then? Or perhaps the poster is telling porkies

 

Were everyone using them? 

We already know three things:

 

"As a remedy, the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as F/A-18 air forces around the world, are in the process of selecting and integrating a new targeting pod."

 

1) Not everyone used ATFLIR

2) Not everyone used LITENING

3) NITE HAWK was the most used one and to be replaced by either one of those. 

 

That is my point. As while the 2-4 ATFLIR were in use, I wouldn't say that they were really used. And if few LITENING were used, I wouldn't say that that was only thing they used.

As in 2006 they were in process to select what is their next targeting pod to be acquired and used. 

 

So very well those videos can be the tests performed for qualifications purposes. It doesn't mean that LITENING is the primary sensor in 2005 for F/A-18C Lot 20 USN Hornet. 

 

The video hasVMFA-242 that is the USMC https://www.1stmaw.marines.mil/Subordinate-Units/Marine-Aircraft-Group-12/VMFA-242/

 

So the documentation still applies:

 

"Since then, the Marine Corps has announced the intention to purchase sixty LITENING pods for use on F/A-18D Hornets, which were originally scheduled to receive the ATFLIR. Both the LITENING AT and the ATFLIR are capable systems and both represent a quantum leap forward in terms of capability for the F/A-18. Both pods have multiple features, such as FLIR imaging with magnification, electro-optical imaging with magnification, laser designation, and laser-spot detection, eliminating the need to carry multiple pods and thereby freeing weapons stations for additional ordnance."

 

"As a remedy, the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as F/A-18 air forces around the world, are in the process of selecting and integrating a new targeting pod. The contenders are the LITENING AT, in service with Marine AV-8B squadrons, and the Advanced Tactical Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pod, in service with Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet squadrons. Current plans have the Marine expeditionary (land-based D model) Hornets slated to receive the LITENING AT, while the Marine carrier-based (A+ and C) Hornets will receive the ATFLIR."

 

So the video is about the only land-based D model having LITENING AT, but not the Carrier based C hornets that is to receive the ATFLIR instead LITENING AT.

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by Fri13

[Swift.]

17 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

So the video is about the only land-based D model having LITENING AT, but not the Carrier based C hornets that is to receive the ATFLIR instead LITENING AT.

Forgive me for thinking that we were getting a USMC/USN hornet from 2005, after having been told that so many times by ED.