Radar/Sensors Discussion

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

Still searching for more about when the Air Force really started to push for NVGs in the cockpit but coming up empty. For as much as Desert Storm is described as the war where we owned the night and how NVGs changed night warfare, I'm not finding a lot. But the Marines have been referenced as using the aforementioned MXU-810 in their Harriers at the time and the Harrier Night Attack and Night Attack Hornets existed at the time, the first NA F/A-18D rolled off the McD factory and was delivered to the Marines in '89.

I'm going to guess the F-117s didn't immediately need the NVGs with their FLIR but I'd really have thought there would be more coverage of NVG usage during the Gulf War. We know ANVIS was in the works and new aircraft were being designed as NV compatible, but I guess folks really didn't want to take photos of the ones in use. The search continues.

Also got further validation regarding Cat's Eyes being very tightly controlled, which is why you don't see them much outside in collections. NSWC Crane had a very tight line on them for issuing/maintenance and all the sets were to go back to them. Got that verified through someone else later in the mid-90s who used them in other Navy aircraft, eventually at least 700 of the roughly 800 sets Crane had issued out were returned last they had heard as it was phased out.

Obligatory Cat's Eyes photo from VX-5 in '90

http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1990/Rktr-900831-01.jpg

 

Yeah in general USAF development for NVG's was in the testing phases in the later 80's. Mostly because they saw the issues with the earlier Gen2 stuff that the Army was doing with helos, terrible resolution (28lp/mm or worse lol), bad MTF's, bad spectral response etc. By the time the first gen3 tubes came around you had alot of that fixed, but it also applied alot to the Gen2 tubes as well, aside from the spectral response and gain. I actually have several PVS-5 sets that were modded for night flying over the years and at least the very late ones don't compare too badly resolution/MTF wise to early gen3 tubes, but again, in the very dark dark there is no question. In a sense it looks like the navy was pushing stuff out of testing earlier than the USAF tho, but with inferior tubes and systems. It would be interesting to see stuff like accident rates for those units back then. The helo rates were so bad they basically developed an entire sylabus for when it was just permitted to fly with them, and even when you did you had to employ pink lights. 

Plus the USAF was all about thermal and especially stuff like hud presented thermal etc. As was the navy and marines. And you obviously see that in the early 80's in the early forms with the LANA pods, and then nite-hawk, and the Harrier navflir. Or for the USAF with the LANTIRN development. 

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Harlikwin

[JB3DG]

4 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah in general USAF development for NVG's was in the testing phases in the later 80's. Mostly because they saw the issues with the earlier Gen2 stuff that the Army was doing with helos, terrible resolution (28lp/mm or worse lol), bad MTF's, bad spectral response etc. By the time the first gen3 tubes came around you had alot of that fixed, but it also applied alot to the Gen2 tubes as well, aside from the spectral response and gain. I actually have several PVS-5 sets that were modded for night flying over the years and at least the very late ones don't compare too badly resolution/MTF wise to early gen3 tubes, but again, in the very dark dark there is no question. In a sense it looks like the navy was pushing stuff out of testing earlier than the USAF tho, but with inferior tubes and systems. It would be interesting to see stuff like accident rates for those units back then. The helo rates were so bad they basically developed an entire sylabus for when it was just permitted to fly with them, and even when you did you had to employ pink lights. 

Plus the USAF was all about thermal and especially stuff like hud presented thermal etc. As was the navy and marines. And you obviously see that in the early 80's in the early forms with the LANA pods, and then nite-hawk, and the Harrier navflir. Or for the USAF with the LANTIRN development. 

 

 

I recall seeing pics of Hornets carrying navigation FLIR pods on their cheeks along with the targeting pods. LANTIRN was a big favorite for a while until the early 2000s. I have a video somewhere specifically on the challenges of low altitude night flight, has a ride along in an F-16 out of KEDW testing the Digital Terrain System (DTS) as a replacement for TFR along with NVGs. Mentions the lack of depth perception in NVGs which caused 4 different aircraft in the Gulf war to crash into sand dunes.

[LanceCriminal86]

5 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah in general USAF development for NVG's was in the testing phases in the later 80's. Mostly because they saw the issues with the earlier Gen2 stuff that the Army was doing with helos, terrible resolution (28lp/mm or worse lol), bad MTF's, bad spectral response etc. By the time the first gen3 tubes came around you had alot of that fixed, but it also applied alot to the Gen2 tubes as well, aside from the spectral response and gain. I actually have several PVS-5 sets that were modded for night flying over the years and at least the very late ones don't compare too badly resolution/MTF wise to early gen3 tubes, but again, in the very dark dark there is no question. In a sense it looks like the navy was pushing stuff out of testing earlier than the USAF tho, but with inferior tubes and systems. It would be interesting to see stuff like accident rates for those units back then. The helo rates were so bad they basically developed an entire sylabus for when it was just permitted to fly with them, and even when you did you had to employ pink lights. 

Plus the USAF was all about thermal and especially stuff like hud presented thermal etc. As was the navy and marines. And you obviously see that in the early 80's in the early forms with the LANA pods, and then nite-hawk, and the Harrier navflir. Or for the USAF with the LANTIRN development. 

 

 

I'm getting some more info coming in, start looking at AN/PVS-SA or 5A, seems it's either they're the same thing or text scans think they are. Seeing papers referencing tests of ANVIS vs PVS-5A back to 83-84, and more testing may have been occurring even back to '75. Hoping to eventually start finding what airframes they tested with first and if any did more exploratory OT&E in the F-4 at all.

[Harlikwin]

9 minutes ago, JB3DG said:

I recall seeing pics of Hornets carrying navigation FLIR pods on their cheeks along with the targeting pods. LANTIRN was a big favorite for a while until the early 2000s. I have a video somewhere specifically on the challenges of low altitude night flight, has a ride along in an F-16 out of KEDW testing the Digital Terrain System (DTS) as a replacement for TFR along with NVGs. Mentions the lack of depth perception in NVGs which caused 4 different aircraft in the Gulf war to crash into sand dunes.

Yeah the history of LANTIRN is pretty well known. The other stuff less so. Especially nite hawk, which is sorta a sad story since it mostly suffered from the company being sold/re-orged etc. I've seen dates for Nitehawk in the early 80's on 18A's which I very much doubt, aside from testing possibly. Seems like it would have been late 80's like most of the other systems. And then there were the various updates to it, as it initially lacked a self lasing capability.

8 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

I'm getting some more info coming in, start looking at AN/PVS-SA or 5A, seems it's either they're the same thing or text scans think they are. Seeing papers referencing tests of ANVIS vs PVS-5A back to 83-84, and more testing may have been occurring even back to '75. Hoping to eventually start finding what airframes they tested with first and if any did more exploratory OT&E in the F-4 at all.

Its PVS-5 or 5A not SA. The PVS-5 stuff does date back to the 70's for helos, hueys/transport stuff mostly, I'm not aware of anyone that trialed it in fast movers. ANVIS was mid 80's, the first Gen3 tubes IIRC were built in 82-3 at the whopping 1 million each price tag. Plus their lifespan back then was absolutely terrible. 

PVS-5's were used in the Falkland's by helo crews with basically no training that led to a regrettable and largely preventable accident, though it was ascribed to a middle of the night bird strike rather than the much more likely spatial distortion/loss of SA. 

Here is one the "mid-era" PVS-5 setups, they figured out pretty quick that cutting away the face mask was the way to go.

 

null

Edited September 1, 2023 by Harlikwin

[LanceCriminal86]

4 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah the history of LANTIRN is pretty well known. The other stuff less so. Especially nite hawk, which is sorta a sad story since it mostly suffered from the company being sold/re-orged etc. I've seen dates for Nitehawk in the early 80's on 18A's which I very much doubt, aside from testing possibly. Seems like it would have been late 80's like most of the other systems. And then there were the various updates to it, as it initially lacked a self lasing capability.

The PVS-5 stuff does date back to the 70's for helos, hueys/transport stuff mostly, I'm not aware of anyone that trialed it in fast movers. ANVIS was mid 80's, the first Gen3 tubes IIRC were built in 82-3 at the whopping 1 million each price tag. Plus their lifespan back then was absolutely terrible. 

PVS-5's were used in the Falkland's by helo crews with basically no training that led to a regrettable and largely preventable accident, though it was ascribed to a middle of the night bird strike rather than the much more likely spatial distortion/loss of SA. 

 

I mentioned because I started finding some Air Force stuff on DTIC talking about the differences of ANVIS vs the 5A, which may have some ideas as to what it was tested with and who. 

[Harlikwin]

2 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

I mentioned because I started finding some Air Force stuff on DTIC talking about the differences of ANVIS vs the 5A, which may have some ideas as to what it was tested with and who. 

Yeah, they did a bunch of comparison testing, mostly in Helos. It was generally said the 5A was not suitable for fast jets. I assume the Cats eyes were considered at least marginally more suited since they projected the image holographically and didn't block normal vision as much, even with gen2 tubes. 

[Nimbur]

Is it possible to respond to AMRAAMs with the F-4's RWR ALR-46, or are they not detected as a threat?

[G.J.S]

2 hours ago, Nimbur said:

Is it possible to respond to AMRAAMs with the F-4's RWR ALR-46, or are they not detected as a threat?

Might not be in the threat catalog. When ‘this’ F-4 is from, the AIM-120 was still a futuristic pipe dream.

[Nimbur]

and what about fox-1 missiles?

[Phantom12]

generally no.

[r4y30n]

Might not be in the threat catalog. When ‘this’ F-4 is from, the AIM-120 was still a futuristic pipe dream.

It can display unknown emitters, it just wouldn’t be able to determine priority very well, I’d imagine. Depending on where you’re flying, it might make sense to assume an UNK means imminent death…

generally no.

Wouldn’t that fall under the LAUNCH warning or is it specifically tailored to SAMs?

[Phantom12]

AFAIK there is no CW reciever in the system, which is the type of signal usually used to guide the SARH missiles like Sparrow in game.

 

The SAMs are a different beast altogether and for the early SA-2/3 etc Sams we are talking about IIRC the RHAW gear could separately detect both changes in the pattern of emmisions from the TRs or the guidance commands to the missiles themselves (command guidance missiles are basically like big remote controlled airplanes).

This as well as the plethora of EW systems used by the US also opened the door to all sorts of strange, unusual and creative tactics with these early Sams in Vietnam which arent simulated at all in DCS. Things like spoofing launches or launching missiles unguided until the last minute to trick the RHAW gear etc.

[SgtPappy]

5 hours ago, Phantom12 said:

AFAIK there is no CW reciever in the system, which is the type of signal usually used to guide the SARH missiles like Sparrow in game.

 

The SAMs are a different beast altogether and for the early SA-2/3 etc Sams we are talking about IIRC the RHAW gear could separately detect both changes in the pattern of emmisions from the TRs or the guidance commands to the missiles themselves (command guidance missiles are basically like big remote controlled airplanes).

This as well as the plethora of EW systems used by the US also opened the door to all sorts of strange, unusual and creative tactics with these early Sams in Vietnam which arent simulated at all in DCS. Things like spoofing launches or launching missiles unguided until the last minute to trick the RHAW gear etc.

So does this imply we will never have the ability to be warned in the F-4 that we've been launched on by another aircraft's SARH missile (assuming that plane is using CW as opposed to HPRF like the F-15's STT shot)?

[Phantom12]

4 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

So does this imply we will never have the ability to be warned in the F-4 that we've been launched on by another aircraft's SARH missile (assuming that plane is using CW as opposed to HPRF like the F-15's STT shot)?

Im by no means an expert on the system but that is my understanding from what Ive read here and in the discord etc yes.