LLTV pod (simple question)

[Kenan]

Is it actually FLIR / infrared or works in a different way?

It's used for "low light conditions", does it mean it can'b be useful in pitch dark night?

 

Thanks

[Kuky]

It is an IR pod and is very useful at night (when you can't see with TV pod you can with LLTV pod)

[Boberro]

I am not sure - Isn't LO's Merkurij pod Kingal\Chod pod? Long time ago I've seen Kingal\Chod pod and it does look like Merkurij in LO... I am bit confused.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Boberro

[Vecko]

Wait a little guys, IR and LLTV are not the same thing.:huh:

LLTV is simply passive light amplifier and has nothing to do with the IR spectrum.

Currently, this is not well modeled in Lockon and that's the reason for some of the pilots to use LLTV Merkury pod during the day.

I gues, if you try to use old sistems sistems like LLTV mercury pod during daytime in RL,You wont seeanything+instrument will be damaged, probably...

[Kenan]

Wait a little guys, IR and LLTV are not the same thing.:huh:

LLTV is simply passive light amplifier and has nothing to do with the IR spectrum.

 

That's what I was thinking. Soo..it's not really IR at all.

[Vecko]

Sure, but problem is that LLTV pod (like mercury in lomac) have IR capability and many players exploit that "bug",during nights or day which is very stupid ...

[Kuky]

ah really... didn't know

[bumfire]

Not like they gunna get far using it as a "bug"

 

At worst they will be able to see enemy planes before they probably would see them, but they are in a 25t, what they gunna do, go on the offensive and wipe out a load of f15s ?

 

Its not like the frogs dont already have IR capability (albeit without a TV Screen) simply by changing to A2A mode if they are carrying heaters.

 

It really is a none bug in my opinion, I would say that the only threat that it would pose would be to the KA50.

 

But saying that, if it is 100% LLTV only, then it shouldnt have IR capability unless the system was designed to offer both IR and LLTV capabilities ?

[Vecko]

Well, in manual is writen that mercury is LLTV only so i gues it is probably true...Also take look on this interesting link...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Piam6qZ2eSkJ:www.faqs.org/docs/air/avsu25.html+LLTV+mercury+pod&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk

 

P.S. i really dont know what that smile doing in link :D...

[bumfire]

I agree with you completely, if it says its LLTV, then it should only be LLTV that we see ingame, but its obvious that its IR that we are getting instead.

 

Not that it bothers me.

 

I dont know the true capabilities of the Mercury Pod, but I would think if it did have some IR capability, then I suspect that we would all know about it by now.

 

Also, maybe it was just easier for ED to just port over the A10's IR onscreen view, when it came to implementing a solution to the mecury pod's TV view when the SU25T first made an appearance in FC.

 

I suspect that ED went with the IR view simply because, if the 25T did just have pure LLTV ingame, it would probably look so bad and be extremely difficult to spot targets with, that it probably wouldnt be worth using.

 

So using the A10s IR model would probably of been the best solution for all concerned, as it was well known that early LLTV was extremely difficult to spot things with it.

 

Thats my opinion, however I would like things to reflect exactly how they are in the wild if it is at all possible.

[Moa]

I suspect that ED went with the IR view simply because, if the 25T did just have pure LLTV ingame, it would probably look so bad and be extremely difficult to spot targets with, that it probably wouldnt be worth using.

 

 

You're incorrect. I wrote some software that did real-time histogram equalization of video images for scientific work. Even at very low light levels you still got essentially the same picture apart from being slightly 'grainy'. Then all of a sudden, the light was so low you got no signal at all. Without the equalization it looked very dim (nearly black). Same goes with saturated signal, you can't tell a difference in the picture until, wham, whole image was saturated. In fact, the histogram equalization worked so well I had to enable users to turn it off so they could visually judge the amount of light illuminating their subject (for best signal/noise) - they just couldn't tell with the image processing applied.

 

I won't even get started on when we used image intensifiers that could count individual photons (although we were using it for microsecond shuttering). Early LLTV might suck but recent stuff (and the computing power for additional real-time processing [this was 2005]) is amazing.

 

One time (1991) when I was in the RNZAF we got a flight on a P-3 Orion and I mucked around with the thermal imaging. It was pretty spacey, you could see clouds in the dark, see metal ribs of the aircraft through the wing skin (different cooling), see cows easily from 10000 feet, and even see the vapour of the air flowing over the wing (it changes temperature with the pressure) that is otherwise invisible to your eye. You've all seen YouTube of Op Iraqi Freedom an Afghanistan sensors, well they were pretty good two decades ago as well.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Moa

[bumfire]

It was early LLTV I am on about when I said it would probably be difficult to spot stuff, cuz I figured that the mercury pod is old, I dont know if it is or not ?

 

Todays LLTV is remarkably clear considering it gets cleaned up by digital processing, but the early stuff was bad, but it was better than what they had otherwise.

 

I seen images from mid to late 80s from the F111, although you could see, it was very grainy and at times very difficult to spot certain things and depending on the moon and the stars, it might actually be much worse as the darker it is, the worse it gets, it needs some form of light to enhance the overall picture, on moonless nights the picture quality suffered, although that could be compensated for to a degree or two.

 

In Vietnam they used LLTV on 1 mission I know of in the very late 60s or very early 70s, the LLTV used was useless on that particular night, so it went.

 

It was strapped to a helo for a specific mission and even when they were right over the target area/co-ords, they couldnt make out the area or tower that they were supposed to land next to on screen, in the end someone hung over the side of the helo and had to guide the pilot, simply because it was a moonless night and it wasnt great weather.

 

It has totally changed from then til now, Digitial processing has managed to clear things up that wouldnt of been possible in years gone by.

 

You just have to watch nature programs nowadays to see that LLTV has come on leaps and bounds, there was one from the BBC with Attenborough, it was at night and in black and white, but at times you could see a very subtle hint of brown and other dull colours, very subtle might I add, so it wasnt just black and white, it was a mixture or dark and light colours and was very very sharp and clear.

 

Attenborough said it was filmed using a new type of LLTV camera that was supposedly a breakthrough for filmmakers if I recall correctly.

 

It was so clear that it looked like Hi Definition, thats how good the cameras picked up the animals, really sharp quality picture, so if TV companies can get hold of that, then how good is the militaries kit, 5x better, 10x better ???

 

I do realise that LLTV nowadays is basically as good as normal day time TV when it comes to picture quality, albeit its in a different colour.

 

I do not know when the mercury pod came into service with the Russian Airforce, so I cannot comment on the quality of its optics/on screen display.

 

But I was thinking that it wasnt the latest generation, hence me saying that it might of been hard to spot stuff with if ED decided to replicate it correctly.

[Boberro]

IR pod for Su-25T(M) is called Khod. It seems it looks like Mercury in LO:

 

 

 

I am confused about that. Don't know what to think oO

 

Here it is Su-25TM:

 

 

it is written Khod - looks like Mercury pod in LO...

Edited August 11, 2010 by Boberro

[bumfire]

Agreed, the Khod looks exactly like what we have in FC, looks like someone got the name wrong ? If that is the case, then IR for the 25T is legit.

[71st_Mastiff]

lack of quality control when you have no mandatory drug check program.. :megalol:

[Vecko]

Hmm, very interesting stuff Bob...Strange...:unsure:

Something is wrong,Lockon manual or your link,no other solution...:)

[Boberro]

Yeah I don't know what to think about it too... Odd...

[Vecko]

Yes, an perfect moment for someone from ED testers team to show his knowledge... :)

So far we know that Merkury is really LLTV only and Khod is for IR spectrum.The question is, what is simulated in lomac?

[Renato71]

Overscans guide says:

 

Khod

OKB: Geofizika

Imaging infrared (FLIR) pod for SU-25TM, operating in 8-14 micron band. Sukhoi tested it on the T-8TM1 prototype from 1991, and cancelled it in late 1994, reportedly unhappy with both range and stabilisation.

 

And...

 

Mercuriy

OKB: MNITI

Chief Designer: K K Chizhikov

Mercuriy has two lenses for wide and narrow FOV.

Low-light-level TV camera developed for various platforms including the Ka-50.

A pod version was developed for the Su-25T. Wide and narrow (5.5 x 7.3 ° ) field of view from two separate lenses as seen above.

 

here is something that can help:

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1611&catid=256

 

Avionics: Radar: Kinzhal (dagger) 8 mm MMW radar abandoned and replaced by podded Kopyo-25 pending provision of a new Kinzhal using Russian rather than Ukrainian parts.

(...)

Khod (motion) night attack IIR pack, with Merkur LLTV (...)

 

Pod in upper part of the image, marked as "Merkurij LLTV", clearly has radome, not IR transparent cover, or movable cover. It resembles much to any other Russian ECM or radar pod. I say Kinzhal radar.

Pod marked as "Khod FLIR" is optical device. If not, then its booster engine.

It is very wide, thus capable of handling two separate lenses. I say Merkurij LLTV.

 

 

 

What is modeled in LOFCFC?

 

I say - many things are done to make equipment "more balanced". And "more simple" for programmers.

There is IR for A-10 (Maverick).

With one stroke you can hit two flies - make Su-25T balanced with A-10 with introducing IR for it, and no need to develop third view option. As true LLTV will demand more programing.

[Boberro]

That's interesing.... various sources can say different things, eeeh rare Russian equipment. They build 1-2 pieces and noone knows what's going on there :D

[bumfire]

Come to think of it, I think the magazine or book that the pictures above are taken from has it wrong.

 

Because LLTV needs to have a viewport of somesort, in the picture above ( the one named Merkurij LLTV ) there doesnt look to be any viewport, it looks more IR to me.

 

I could be wrong, but I think the naming is the wrong way around.

[Renato71]

Because LLTV needs to have a viewport of somesort, in the picture above ( the one named Merkurij LLTV ) there doesnt look to be any viewport, it looks more IR to me.

 

Nope, as I said:

Pod in upper part of the image, marked as "Merkurij LLTV", clearly has radome, not IR transparent cover, or movable cover. It resembles much to any other Russian ECM or radar pod. I say Kinzhal radar.

 

It cannot be IR cover cos IR device is optical device. Therefore, it has to use the same shape as any other cover for any other optical device - FLAT. Either it will be tinted to filter visible light, or fully transparent and the filter will be placed on camera itself.

There are IR devices with curved covers, but I do not think that Russians had technology to build them in this size and shape. And quality!

Finally, it cannot be of such squashed eggy shape. It has to be (part of) a sphere.

 

AND - it would have a protective cover, such as LLTV pod has. Radome does not need such protection. Its cheap plastic that you can cheaply replace.

[bumfire]

You do get Opaque filters for IR, that block visible light but allow IR light to pass through. So the front bottom half of that merkurij pod maybe is a opaque IR filter ?

 

Just look at some of the russian IR missiles for example, they have opaque/non see through IR covers and can still track IR sources, so couldnt the front bottom of the merkurij pod in that photo be the same thing ?

 

As thats what I think it looks like, it could possibly be an opaque cover that protects the flat optics that are behind it ?

 

I dont know what it is, the pic says its Merkurij, but I really dont know. It could be a radome as you say, but then again it could be Khod IR with an opaque protective covering for the lenses/optics ?

 

The Kopyo radar pod looks totally different, especially at the front, I dont know what the Kinzhal radar pod looks like as I cant find an image of it.

 

We need someone to come out and give us a definitive answer of what it is.

 

EDIT:

 

 

 

 

 

and this is the website it came from, its in spanish, the site says the Khod is a tech demonstrator, it maybe isnt now, but was back then, and the Merkurij pod is LLTV and IR

 

http://www.defensa.pe/showthread.php?p=211423

 

That thread has some really good info regarding the SU25, its in spanish, but it is well worth a read, use google translator and it will auto translate the pages into english or whatever language you want on the fly.

Edited August 13, 2010 by bumfire

[Renato71]

I know there are opaque IR filters, but in that size and shape?

 

Also, they are hard to manufacture, and they are never that resistant to debris (produced by nose gear), so they would have to have some sort of external cover, like the "other pod". For me, this is the primary factor.

It is very, very similar to any older Soviet ECM pod. Too similar.

Also, I've lost a link so from a memory, Kinzhal was to be terrain following radar, thus not needing rounded radome like Kopyo.