Eglin AFB UAP

[Mick West]

AARO is not saying it's that particular type of balloon. Their assessment is only with "moderate confidence" and some of it seems a bit of a stretch.

Although the pilot described the object as uniformly gray in the visible spectrum (it appears
uniformly black from the viewing angle in the EO image), the magnified infrared image shows
the object had a strong contrasting signature in the infrared spectrum. This contrast suggests
either a temperature/emissivity difference or a reflectivity difference between its two
hemispheres. AARO identified a commercial lighting balloon (see Figure 1C), which is a close
visual match to the object in the zoomed-in infrared image (see Figure 1A). Commercial helium
balloons such as these are often large and available in many shapes — including ellipses,
spheres, and cylinders — and are used for outdoor lighting at special events, construction sites,
and movie sets. Although these balloons are available in solid colors, some models have distinct
black and white hemispheres. The upper black hemisphere is lined with reflective material to
direct the light downward through the white hemisphere. AARO conducted extensive testing
using one of these balloons and found it could replicate some aspects of the pilot's account.

So they say it's uniformly black/grey in visible light (EO) video, and they attribute the difference in the IR image to differing hemisphere.

Figure 1: Comparison of reported UAP (A: Infrared image of reported object, B: Electro-optical image
of reported object, and C: Image of a commercial LTA lighting system) (Photo credit: AARO)

But the compelling-looking comparison here is A vs. C. A is IR, and C is visible light.

They also try to explain how it would be lit underneath if it were not self-illuminated:

It is also plausible that
the sun angle at the time of day of the event, when plotted with the EO/IR sensor's viewing
angle, illuminated the bottom half of the balloon — from the pilot's perspective — while the top
would appear dark, shaded, and cold (See Figure 3).
• (U) Due to the angle of the sun and the altitude of the object, a meteorological or Mylar
balloon likely would also present in a similar fashion on an EO/IR image. The highly
reflective surface of a Mylar balloon in infrared would exaggerate the perceived
illumination effect.


(U) AARO's IC partner on this case assesses with high confidence that the object was not
exhibiting anomalous characteristics based on the available data and its reconstruction of the
event. Available data included the altitude, geocoordinates of the object, the aircraft viewing
angle and heading, as well as the sun geometry at the time of the observation.
• (U) Based on reconstruction of the event, to include the viewing angle of the EO/IR sensor
that took the zoomed-in image, the sun would have illuminated the bottom hemisphere in
a manner consistent with the IR image (see Figure 3). The orange-red color at the center
of the bottom half of the object could be explained by the sun glint off the object as the
pilot observed it, thus causing the appearance of the orange-red colors on the balloon.


(U) The S&T partner assesses that the image is consistent with a Mylar balloon as viewed
from above where the bottom is illuminated with light reflected from the clouds or the
earth. This effect is known as "Earth shine."

I have never heard of "Earth Shine" outside of the context of the Moon at night (or during a total eclipse). But then the IC partner seems to think it's direct illumination. Their diagram is of little help:

It appears to be looking down at the object from above (ocean background), which suggests the sun near the horizon, but then that's at odds with the "earth shine" theory.

Time of day illumination analysis might be something useful to put into Sitrec. But rather tricky with no real data here.

Overall, I agree a balloon is most likely, but beyond that there's not enough data to make a firm determination.

 

[Mick West]

Compressing the levels on the IR image, we get the distinct impression that it's not a two-tone ball, looking more like a white sphere with a black "hat". We don't know if it's black hot or white hot. There's possibly some detail on the white part, but maybe just noise.

The shape of the black part does not seem to match the lighting balloon.

 

[deirdre]

Compressing the levels on the IR image, we get the distinct impression that it's not a two-tone ball, looking more like a white sphere with a black "hat". We don't know if it's black hot or white hot. There's possibly some detail on the white part, but maybe just noise.

View attachment 67855

The shape of the black part does not seem to match the lighting balloon.

i think the magnification messes up that image. look how "chunkky" the background looks. i'd stick with the visual image. too bad that blue square blocks the upper bit.

 

[deirdre]

its too fat for a football balloon right? and the squished part (ie top) would probably be on the bottom if it was floating?

footballs are reddish orange.

 

[jarlrmai]

It feels like AARO is Metabunk with less UFO analysis experience, no access to cloud sourcing but with money to buy expensive balloons and time and space to perform more practical experiments, sounds almost fun...

 

[Eburacum]

Pilot's sketch for comparison:

--------------
I have enhanced the IR image a little bit to highlight the top section for better comparison with the sketch.

The photo looks quite blurry. I wonder if the 'blurry air' is a simple example of confabulation between what the pilot saw at the time and what they may have seen later when looking at the photos.

I am fairly sure this happens a lot in witness statements, but I'm not sure whether this has ever been tested empirically.

 

[JMartJr]

It feels like AARO is Metabunk with less UFO analysis experience, no access to cloud sourcing but with money to buy expensive balloons and time and space to perform more practical experiments, sounds almost fun...

We should formally invite them over and welcome them to make use of the crowd sourcing work we do.

 

[Duke]

We should formally invite them over and welcome them to make use of the crowd sourcing work we do.

I think it's a good bet AARO is already aware of MB and taking advantage of the efforts put forth here. I doubt they would admit that, however. Can you imagine the uproar from the Knapps and Corbells of the world if an AARO representative testified before Congress they were using MB to help identify UFOs?

 

[Calter]

Question, this whole thing started because Gaetz requested to see a video of this event (and it was denied but we got the information we have now). Now it seems that according to the AARO report, the video never existed in the first place

The pilot could not record video of the event because the aircraft's video recording equipment was inoperable prior to and during the aircraft's flight.

My question is, if the video never existed, would the FOIA request mention that the video doesn't exist or would they simply say that access to a video was not allowed regardless of it existing or not?
I imagine they don't just say stuff doesn't exist to not allow people to figure out what does and doesn't exist by just asking, but I really have no idea what the protocol actually is and that's just my guess, maybe they just tell people that ask for stuff that doesn't exist that it doesn't exist.

Another question is, besides the statement about access to the video being denied, is there somewhere else where the existence of this video was implied or confirmed by official sources? Or is it just something Gaetz thought existed but may actually not exist?

 

[ced0412]

Has Gaetz made any statements if this is the image he was shown?

It's always possible the pilot used their phone as well as we have seen in the past.

 

[DavidB66]

Someone on Twitter/X (@SwinkMcCloud) pointed out that there are different kinds of lighting balloon. Some of them have a built in 'hat'; others have a detachable one:

Source: https://twitter.com/SwinkMcCloud/status/1783406327882297800

https://twitter.com/SwinkMcCloud
@SwinkMcCloud

Maybe not. Some lighting balloons come with the black, reflective diffuser sewn into it as one piece. (See photo) but others come with an exterior black add on called a yamaka, because it literally looks like a yamaka head covering. (See photo of listing from a rental house.)

One can imagine that the detachable type might shift about with movement of the balloon, giving them an irregular-looking join.

 

[deirdre]

My question is, if the video never existed, would the FOIA request mention that the video doesn't exist or would they simply say that access to a video was not allowed regardless of it existing or not?
I imagine they don't just say stuff doesn't exist to not allow people to figure out what does and doesn't exist by just asking,

based on everything I've personally looked at the Black Vault, they say something along the lines of "no materials were discovered that meet the criteria of your request".
If something exists but is classified, they say something like "that material is exempt under [exception citation].

granted there might be super top secret things they lie about not exsting, but in this case a congressman mentioned it (and its just a blob in a photograph) so i highly doubt they would have reason to lie.

 

[deirdre]

The problem is that those lighting balloons are white and black. where as the visual photo loks grey and black/dark grey.

i did though finally find a photo that shows the white could perhaps blend into the sky if it was a grey day.

and 'cone shape' tops.

original company link with decent photos
https://www.skylightballoon.com/

 

[ced0412]

In regards to video, how did TWZ come up with this:

The pilot could not record video of the event "because the aircraft's video recording equipment was inoperable prior to and during the aircraft's flight," the new AARO report states. Although, it's worth noting the still imagery AARO produced is likely photos or frames from a video of a cockpit display recorded by the pilots phone. We reached out to the Pentagon to obtain a copy of that video, if it exists, and will provide any additional information shared.

Eglin AFB Pilot Likely Saw A Lighting Balloon, Not A UFO Pentagon Concludes

 

[JMartJr]

Can you imagine the uproar from the Knapps and Corbells of the world if an AARO representative testified before Congress they were using MB to help identify UFOs?

Not I only can I imagine it, I'm looking forward to it!

 

[MonkeeSage]

Question, this whole thing started because Gaetz requested to see a video of this event (and it was denied but we got the information we have now). Now it seems that according to the AARO report, the video never existed in the first place

I don't think Gaetz claimed there was video. The story is that Matt Gaetz, Tim Burchett and Anna Paulina Luna went to Eglin to interview some airmen who had reportedly seen a UAP, and to see any data Eglin had regarding the incident. Burchett and Luna initially were not allowed to see the photograph, but Gaetz sits on a couple of House Armed Services subcommittees, and they were all eventually allowed to see it. They also interviewed the member of the flight crew who took the image. He said he could not take a video because his radar and FLIR were malfunctioning, so he had to manually take an image. Gaetz alone was also allowed to see radar data.

This is Gaetz discussing the incident during the hearing with David Grusch last year.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHEWOj4EnE8

 

[Mick West]

Not I only can I imagine it, I'm looking forward to it!

Not impossible. I've been working on making it more general purpose, so you can set up your own situations. And of course they might use it for Aguadilla. I'd be surprised though.

 

[Ann K]

Not impossible. I've been working on making it more general purpose, so you can set up your own situations. And of course they might use it for Aguadilla. I'd be surprised though.

And of course, as most people here use pseudonyms, members of AARO might already be on Metabunk!

 

[deirdre]

And of course, as most people here use pseudonyms, members of AARO might already be on Metabunk!

because they dont get enough UFOs at work?

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

I think it's a good bet AARO is already aware of MB and taking advantage of the efforts put forth here. I doubt they would admit that, however. Can you imagine the uproar from the Knapps and Corbells of the world if an AARO representative testified before Congress they were using MB to help identify UFOs?

Not impossible. I've been working on making it more general purpose, so you can set up your own situations. And of course they might use it for Aguadilla. I'd be surprised though.

There actually are some potential limited opportunities between the community and AARO. It'd be up to Mick in the end though. If he wanted that's always something that could be approached.

 

[ced0412]

Has Gaetz made any statements if this is the image he was shown?

It's always possible the pilot used their phone as well as we have seen in the past.

I don't know if I'm allowed to say what I think about Gaetz and whether anything that comes out of his mouth is worth an update, but he has made a statement on this now:

I believe all of the information regarding the sighting should be released to the public, including pictures from the pilot and radar signatures.

TWZ article I posted above and this seem to suggest the pilot took video and or pictures with their phone, just my assumption.

 

[Mendel]

One can imagine that the detachable type might shift about with movement of the balloon, giving them an irregular-looking join.

Especially if the inner part sprung a tiny leak and shrunk a little.

The Debrief published an article on it last week, at https://thedebrief.org/this-well-kn...vestigations-into-aerial-mysteries-heres-why/ , citing this thread. They're celebrating that @Mick West is critical of AARO.

Continuing the dialogue in a thread on the Metabunk forum, West noted on April 24, 2023, that some of AARO's analysis still "seems a bit of a stretch."

 

[meta_gr8ful]

Question, this whole thing started because Gaetz requested to see a video of this event (and it was denied but we got the information we have now). Now it seems that according to the AARO report, the video never existed in the first place


My question is, if the video never existed, would the FOIA request mention that the video doesn't exist or would they simply say that access to a video was not allowed regardless of it existing or not?
I imagine they don't just say stuff doesn't exist to not allow people to figure out what does and doesn't exist by just asking, but I really have no idea what the protocol actually is and that's just my guess, maybe they just tell people that ask for stuff that doesn't exist that it doesn't exist.

Another question is, besides the statement about access to the video being denied, is there somewhere else where the existence of this video was implied or confirmed by official sources? Or is it just something Gaetz thought existed but may actually not exist?

Just one note on the FOIA request... Greenwald asked for "photos/videos" in his FOIA request:

"This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, dated 22 August 2023, for information regarding unclassified UAP/UFO photos/videos from Eglin AFB, which was assigned tracking number 2023-05793-F.

We have determined that the one-page responsive document is releasable in full without any redactions.

The responsive video you are requesting is not releasable to you in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552 Exemption (b)(1)."

The response only mentions "video". It's possible this was a mistake and their response should have been "the responsive photo/video" or just "photo" if that is what is being withheld. There is no evidence any video ever existed, so perhaps Greewald should ask for clarification on this if he has not already.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Just one note on the FOIA request... Greenwald asked for "photos/videos" in his FOIA request:

Small correction. It was not Greenwald's request, he just posted it, it was made by a Mr. Abbas Dharamsey.

https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/usaf/EglinUAP.pdf

 

[Domzh]

.

Gaetz: "...he had to manually take this image, um, from one of the lenses..."
...Gaetz doesn't clarify what system was used. Is it possible the pilot used his own camera or 'phone?
"...from one of the lenses" implies that it was an aircraft-mounted camera, but I'm not sure it rules out the above possibility.

Gaetz: "...it was not automatic, automated (uh) in collection..."
Is Gaetz saying that the photograph was not immediately available when the aircraft landed?

The targeting pod can be linked to the radar, automatically pointing to an active radar track. If the radar goes out, the ATFLIR cant automatically capture the object in question.

I believe the pilot had to manually point the ATFLIR to the UAP.

An alternative could be their helmet camera system. I believe Fravor said that they dont use this very often (paraphrasing).

In this context I dont think a personal smartphone would be described like "with one of the lenses".

"Not automatically collected" could also refer to the image capturing process itself and would be coherent with the rest.

 

[jarlrmai]

This was from an F/22 iirc, an air force air superiority fighter, they don't use ATFLIR targeting pod, all the Fravor/Graves F/18 tech was Navy and older generations. I think there's been some discussion earlier trying to map Gaetz's words to what we know of the aircraft's systems which given it's the current top of the line and not for export and thus top secret is not much.

I think we found that F22 is either planned to have EOTS or has it, but we know very little about the capabilities of it, unlike the ATFLIR where we had some leaked technical manuals

 

[Nemon]

An alternative could be their helmet camera system. I believe Fravor said that they dont use this very often (paraphrasing).

I brought up the helmet issue up here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/20...o-flir-footage-flir1.9190/page-23#post-283868

And you wrote https://www.metabunk.org/threads/20...o-flir-footage-flir1.9190/page-23#post-283898

i think Fravor said in an interview (either Rogan or Friedman) that the helmet has a small camera integrated but they almost never use it so he didnt thought about it.

Another statement from back then https://www.metabunk.org/threads/20...o-flir-footage-flir1.9190/page-23#post-283913

Fravor seems to contradict himself just a few sentences apart:

"CDR Fravor attempted a "helmet lock" which was unsuccessful."

"CDR Fravor stated that the helmet's recording capability was rarely used therefore he did not think to use it that day."

'Attempting' a helmet lock is not consistent with 'not thinking of using it'.

 

[Domzh]

This was from an F/22 iirc, an air force air superiority fighter, they don't use ATFLIR targeting pod, all the Fravor/Graves F/18 tech was Navy and older generations. I think there's been some discussion earlier trying to map Gaetz's words to what we know of the aircraft's systems which given it's the current top of the line and not for export and thus top secret is not much.

I think we found that F22 is either planned to have EOTS or has it, but we know very little about the capabilities of it, unlike the ATFLIR where we had some leaked technical manuals

fair enough but i also think that its very reasonable to assume that, whatever camera / targeting system they are using now, it still has the ability to automatically look at a designated radar target and that pilots can still move it manually?

 

[jarlrmai]

fair enough but i also think that its very reasonable to assume that, whatever camera / targeting system they are using now, it still has the ability to automatically look at a designated radar target and that pilots can still move it manually?

The ATFLIR pod carried by the FA/18 is mostly used for air to ground operations as part of the multirole aspect of the mission profile of the plane, in the Navy UFO videos we see it used in a slightly odd fashion air to air using optical tracking only, it's unclear whether the F22 with it's interception, BVR and stealth role would need a targeting pod like the ATFLIR and pods do affect the radar profile of the aircraft.

 

[Mendel]

fair enough but i also think that its very reasonable to assume that, whatever camera / targeting system they are using now, it still has the ability to automatically look at a designated radar target and that pilots can still move it manually?

if they couldn't, the system would be very vulnerable to radar jamming

 

[John J.]

The targeting pod can be linked to the radar, automatically pointing to an active radar track. If the radar goes out, the ATFLIR cant automatically capture the object in question.

I believe the pilot had to manually point the ATFLIR to the UAP.

[Quoting Gaetz] "...he said that his radar went down, he said that his FLIR system malfunctioned, and that he had to manually take this image um, from one of the lenses"

Gaetz claimed he was told that the radar went down and the FLIR malfunctioned.
If FLIR can be slaved to radar, and the radar malfunctions, resulting in FLIR not being informed by radar, that isn't a FLIR malfunction. It's a radar malfunction that impinges on FLIR.
I think.

 

[Domzh]

Gaetz claimed he was told that the radar went down and the FLIR malfunctioned.
If FLIR can be slaved to radar, and the radar malfunctions, resulting in FLIR not being informed by radar, that isn't a FLIR malfunction. It's a radar malfunction that impinges on FLIR.
I think.

i cant see gaetz putting in the amount of work to understand how all of this works technically. do you have a quote where he mentions the FLIR directly?

 

[jdog]

i cant see gaetz putting in the amount of work to understand how all of this works technically. do you have a quote where he mentions the FLIR directly?

And as we've seen from other public figures, simply asserting something confidently in a hearing doesn't mean that's how things work.

 

[John J.]

i cant see gaetz putting in the amount of work to understand how all of this works technically. do you have a quote where he mentions the FLIR directly?

Yes. This is Gaetz mentioning FLIR directly.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHEWOj4EnE8&t=73s

Gaetz says,

When we spoke with the flight crew, and when he showed us the photo that'd he'd taken I asked why the video wasn't engaged, why we didn't have a FLIR [Forward Looking Infrared] system that worked, here's what he said.

They were out on a test mission, that day over the Gulf of Mexico, and when you're on a test mission you're supposed to have clear airspace, not s'posed to be anything that shows up, and they saw a sequence of four craft, in a clear diamond formation for which there is, uh, a radar sequence that I and I alone have observed in the United States Congress.

One of the pilots goes to check out that diamond formation, and sees a large floating, what I can only describe as an orb, again like I said, not of any human capability that I'm, that I'm aware of. And when he approached, he said that his radar went down, he said that his FLIR system malfunctioned, and that he had to manually take this image, um, from one of the lenses, and it was not automatic, automated (uh) in collection, as you would typically see in a test mission.
Content from External Source

 

[Stryder]

This was from an F/22 iirc, an air force air superiority fighter, they don't use ATFLIR targeting pod, all the Fravor/Graves F/18 tech was Navy and older generations. I think there's been some discussion earlier trying to map Gaetz's words to what we know of the aircraft's systems which given it's the current top of the line and not for export and thus top secret is not much.

I think we found that F22 is either planned to have EOTS or has it, but we know very little about the capabilities of it, unlike the ATFLIR where we had some leaked technical manuals

fair enough but i also think that its very reasonable to assume that, whatever camera / targeting system they are using now, it still has the ability to automatically look at a designated radar target and that pilots can still move it manually?

I have no direct knowledge of the sensor used in this case. That said, I have directly worked with, designed and integrated visible light and FLIR sensor systems into various platforms including Navy and Air Force fighters.

All of the fighter based systems I worked with were almost always directed ("pointed") by radar. The primary reason for this is that the Field of View (FOV) of these systems is usually very small (They are designed to look at objects very far away), even when used on the widest FOV setting. Some of these sensors had their own search capability, but usually only once they were were pointed pretty close by radar. One system I am very knowledgeable about was a system designed to identify aerial targets beyond the pilot's eyesight, even beyond their ability to see that there is a target. This was for the obvious reason that many of the air to air missile systems have ranges greater than the pilot's eyesight. It's always good to know what you're shooting at before you fire.

Many (most) systems also had a way to direct the camera (Visible or FLIR) manually as well. This can be used for large or close in targets. I remember seeing video from the 1980's of a U.S. battleship firing a broadside with a sensor system manually aimed. Once a target is found, automatic tracking can take over by the operator "pickling" the target. Working with test pilots we found that the manual aiming was rarely useful for airborne targets, just because the target was so small in a big sky, or if close and big, it was moving too fast (angular velocity, not linear speed) to aim accurately. Another way to find a target that is visible to the naked eye is to boresight (aim the system directly ahead of the platform) the EO system and then fly directly at it while looking "through" the EO system for the target. A bit clunky, especially with a close in target.

You can tell a lot about a sensor system from a sensor system video, or even a still image from the video of the system. I'm not in the least bit surprised that imagery of the F22 system is classified. I note that the 2 images released are highly clipped to remove all information about FOV size, magnification, resolution, etc.

 

[jarlrmai]

All of the fighter based systems I worked with were almost always directed ("pointed") by radar.

Yes it's one of the more esoteric unknowns about the use of the ATFLIR in the GIMBAL, FLIR1 and Go Fast videos, that might lead to some clues about their acquisition.

In the videos the the SLAVE notation is unboxed indicating the pod is not pointed by RADAR at the moment the video was recorded.

In GO FAST we see the pilot use a manual "capture" of the track using slewing of the ATFLIR with the TDS controller then what we see referred to as 'autotrack' (an optical tracking)

Now my understanding is that in a "normal" situation the operator would acquire a track on the MSI (either a track from their own RADAR or a linked RADAR) then set that as L+S and then the SLAVED pod would then point at this track and then the object would be tracked optically (autotrack) as it's smoother than the more periodic updates of Az/El that a RADAR might provide, but the SLAVE is left on incase the optical tracking fails for a bit so the target does not drift off target and/or the RADAR is jammed and the optical tracking can take over, but our understanding is that even if jammed the SLAVE notation would still be boxed (sorry if this is rambling but it's complicated.)

But in this instance (GO FAST) the operator seems to initiate the capture by manually 'boxing' the optical target from a manually slewed pod, ie not RADAR guided, however when they do get a track a range is displayed on the overlay on the MFD.

Given this is an air to air target the range to target must seemingly only come from a RADAR track of the same object on it, possibly from the MSI system using LOS correlation to show the range from a known track on that LOS, which for whatever reason is not set as L+S nor slaved.

This to me suggests it's not a situation where they are performing a "real world" scenario but one in which they are trying out the "slew manually and box select the object without using the RADAR" technique for acquiring object that they have visually but not on RADAR as a test of their own skill or as part of exercise (even though this object IS on RADAR.)

Realistically we need a Raytheon engineer or designer or someone from the Navy who is very familiar with the system to talk about this to, but it's seemingly impossible because the device is classified.

 

[Stryder]

In the videos the the SLAVE notation is unboxed indicating the pod is not pointed by RADAR at the moment the video was recorded.

In GO FAST we see the pilot use a manual "capture" of the track using slewing of the ATFLIR with the TDS controller then what we see referred to as 'autotrack' (an optical tracking)

Now my understanding is that in a "normal" situation the operator would acquire a track on the MSI (either a track from their own RADAR or a linked RADAR) then set that as L+S and then the SLAVED pod would then point at this track and then the object would be tracked optically (autotrack) as it's smoother than the more periodic updates of Az/El that a RADAR might provide, but the SLAVE is left on incase the optical tracking fails for a bit so the target does not drift off target and/or the RADAR is jammed and the optical tracking can take over, but our understanding is that even if jammed the SLAVE notation would still be boxed (sorry if this is rambling but it's complicated.)

But in this instance (GO FAST) the operator seems to initiate the capture by manually 'boxing' the optical target from a manually slewed pod, ie not RADAR guided, however when they do get a track a range is displayed on the overlay on the MFD.

Given this is an air to air target the range to target must seemingly only come from a RADAR track of the same object on it, possibly from the MSI system using LOS correlation to show the range from a known track on that LOS, which for whatever reason is not set as L+S nor slaved.

This to me suggests it's not a situation where they are performing a "real world" scenario but one in which they are trying out the "slew manually and box select the object without using the RADAR" technique for acquiring object that they have visually but not on RADAR as a test of their own skill or as part of exercise (even though this object IS on RADAR.)

I agree, radar is by far the mostly likely method to point an E/O (electro-optical) system at an airborne target. As demonstrated in the "GO FAST" video, it is not easy to manually acquire a track on an airborne object. The video shows 3 failures to obtain a track on the target before finally achieving "lock" on the fourth try. Once locked, the E/O system, in this case ATFLIR, maintains the track without further human interaction. It can often reacquire a lock on a momentarily lost track, such as when contrast fades or on a FOV change (say wide angle to narrow angle). This is because the E/O system is moving along a stabilized track independent of the aircraft hosting the E/O system. That is, the sensor continues moving along the same angular trajectory during track loss, looking for where the target should be if it is not performing a radical maneuver. That is why you often see a small jump in the target location after a FOV change.

ATFLIR is optimized for Air to Ground capability and has a somewhat larger FOV than primarily air-to-air systems. Ground targets tend to be closer than air targets and so less magnification is required. The larger FOV helps with manual target acquisition. Was the ATFLIR in "GO FAST" on the largest FOV? If not, I find it unlikely that the initial target acquisition was made completely manually. Even on the largest FOV, initial track could have been achieved using Radar, then manually breaking track (this could have been done after "Un-slaving") and then reacquiring track manually during the recorded portion of the event. This would have started them "close". Could this be part of a training scenario? Sure. If this is real world, then for some reason, the radar info wasn't allowing them to obtain a track. This was common on some E/O systems I worked with in a past career. The radar would get you close, but not put the target in the FOV. An operator then could make small adjustments manually to try to "find" the target and then initiate "track".

 

[Mendel]

ATFLIR is optimized for Air to Ground capability and has a somewhat larger FOV than primarily air-to-air systems.

Is it possible that this system would give the distance to the ground as range when a target is selected without a radar lock?

 

[Stryder]

Is it possible that this system would give the distance to the ground as range when a target is selected without a radar lock?

I guess it's possible. It could be a calculated value coming from the E/O system computer or another system on board the aircraft using the aircraft location, aircraft altitude, aircraft heading, aircraft attitude, a geo map of the location, and the LOS (Line of Sight) angles from the sensor to estimate the distance assuming the target is on the ground. A simpler calculation when over water as the geo information is all sea level. This might make sense for a default for an air to ground based system and targeting air to ground munitions. No way is the distance the actual distance to the target being calculated purely from optical information. This is a very difficult calculation to make without way more data from an extended track, probably host aircraft specific maneuvers, and making lots of assumptions about the flight behavior of the target, which in this case was unknown at the time. Even if this was done (no evidence), it's easy to see how the flight behavior of the target probably was very different from any standard assumptions made in the calculation and therefore the calculated range would be meaningless. If I have time, I'll try to see if I can calculate an approximate range to sea level given the information in one of the ATFLIR videos. Unless someone has already done this????

 

[jarlrmai]

We've done it, it might be worth reviewing the Go Fast videos from Mick and/or the thread here.