F-16 Pilot- Chris Lehto analyses Gimbal footage

[jarlrmai]

I will be honest and say that I do not fully understand exactly how wind blowing against the direction of an object in flight effects that objects velocity.

It was my assumption that any flying object moving against a 120knot wind would get slowed down or have its motion effected by that head wind in obvious ways. If that is not accurate then I will happily drop that point.

For context, in the non-military market the fastest drone I was able to confirm has a top speed of just over 163MPH, while of course the military market has drones capable of just under mach 1 (or mach 2 if you count the QF-16 as a drone.)

As a small counter, I'm wondering what *you* think the speaker is trying to convey by sharing that information. He certainly sounds impressed by it.

What the general public call a drone is basically a remote controlled quadcopter, the US military as you pointed out has drones (UAV/UAS) that are basically full sized aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_RQ-4_Global_Hawk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B

And windspeed is largely irrelevant to an fixed wing aircraft apart from in landing or if there's shear.

Yeah I am not sure what his tone is about, I imagine as pilot though watching a large aircraft just flying around without a pilot must be a bit odd especially if you are also wondering how long you might have a job..

 

[Max Phalange]

How is wind speed a counter to it being a drone?

Given the context it seems they're referring to the "whole fleet of them" on the Situational Awareness display - radar contacts, not the "gimbal" object. Ryan Graves draws a distinction between these objects ("the little guys" they'd encountered previously) and the large object on FLIR, which was apparently a novel sighting.

 

[gtoffo]

I will be honest and say that I do not fully understand exactly how wind blowing against the direction of an object in flight effects that objects velocity.

It was my assumption that any flying object moving against a 120knot wind would get slowed down or have its motion effected by that head wind in obvious ways. If that is not accurate then I will happily drop that point.

For context, in the non-military market the fastest drone I was able to confirm has a top speed of just over 163MPH, while of course the military market has drones capable of just under mach 1 (or mach 2 if you count the QF-16 as a drone.)

As a small counter, I'm wondering what *you* think the speaker is trying to convey by sharing that information. He certainly sounds impressed by it.

He's not impressed. He's confused because the object observed does not correspond to any "usual" flight profile.

They are watching a fleet of radar contacts in formation. In restricted airspace. They are 25k feet. They look strange on IR. They don't look like an aircraft. They don't look like helicopters. They don't look like rockets. They move against (pretty strong) wind so are not balloons.

They are confused not impressed.

 

[DavidB66]

....

It's also very sad to see highly trained pilots confidently using the Bernoulli principle as an explanation for lift. I wonder how many generations we need until that incorrect explanation finally dies. But that doesn't invalidate his points, it's just highlighting how pilots can be outdated in their physics too, so they are not authorities in the subject of physics of how planes actually fly. There's a significant amount of intuition-based skill, and intuition isn't objective or authoritative.

If you haven't already seen it, you might like this video about the reasons for 'lift' by a professor of physics at Nottingham University. I haven't watched it again, but I remember finding it interesting. I see that I commented on it 3 years ago when I first saw it!

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF22LM8AbII

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

A very powerful telephoto lens can have a "hyperfocal distance" that is measured in miles. I made a post years ago in another thread:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/go...-academy-bird-balloon.9569/page-4#post-220366

In his first video, it seems to me that he is not discriminating between focus, motion blur and resolution as much as he should. In the case of the plane flying over land, which he compares to the plane over the ocean, he is not taking context into consideration. Waves on the ocean are simple and consistent. Features in landscapes are not.

 

[the_korben]

Quick free-body diagram illustrating Lehto's main mistake.

The lateral acceleration (and thus the turn rate) is independent of weight because the vertical component of the lift vector cancels the weight during level flight.

If I am not completely wrong and based on 20 years of sim flying, I think what Lehto is talking about is that you don't just turn an airplane by banking. You also need to apply some pressure on the stick, thereby increasing the g load, to make a turn and remain level, otherwise you will slip. This in turn requires you to add some rudder to counteract your slip. You can turn harder at the same bank angle by applying even more force on the stick, but your turn will be even more uncoordinated, your altitude would increase AND you would need to counteract that with your rudder AND you would increase the load on the plane.

Looking at the chart, the lines for 30 deg bank angle show you the corresponding g load when doing a coordinated turn, i.e., when the rudder applied exactly counterbalances the additionally required angle of attack at 30 degrees bank to facilitate a standard rate turn. It doesn't mean that every turn at 30 deg bank will automaticall be a standard rate or coordinated turn at the given TAS. You can just bank and make your HUD indicate a 30 degree angle but by applying enough rudder and force on the stick, not even turn at all.

I think Lehto's argument here is that the higher g forces indicate that the plane is turning on a narrower radius than what you would get for a coordinated turn at 30 degrees bank angle. That's valid and needs to be taken into account and it cannot be determined from just looking at the angle of the flight path indicator. You need to take the g forces into account as well to actually determine the (varying) turn radius.

 

[Alphadunk]

I feel like he isn't doing a great job articulating his arguments in these videos. This one was all over the place with tangents and disconnected points of contention. The dozens of jump cuts make it even harder to follow. I'd like to see him slow down and take some time to really articulate his points and I'd be fine with him sharing his ideas about what we might be looking at, even if it amounts to "alien spaceship."

At the end of the day I'm not sure it even matters. What difference does it make if the object is 6nm away or 50? Neither option makes the identity of the object more prosaic or more mysterious. It's still a blob that isn't doing anything otherworldly.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Okay, his argument in the first video about "the way optics work" is really very misleading. He's comparing two different lenses at two very different distances and implying that the two situations are completely isomorphic.

This isn't the case at all. For his argument about focus to mean anything, he's got to tell us what the hyperfocal distance was for the camera in question; not show us the hyperfocal distance for his little camera inside the room. Anything else is empty speculation based on an argument from analogy which isn't valid.

He's bragging a lot about his expertise, but I'm not at all impressed by this argument about optics. This just seems very naïve... or deliberately misleading.

 

[Daniel F]

Okay, his argument in the first video about "the way optics work" is really very misleading. He's comparing two different lenses at two very different distances and implying that the two situations are completely isomorphic.

This isn't the case at all. For his argument about focus to mean anything, he's got to tell us what the hyperfocal distance was for the camera in question; not show us the hyperfocal distance for his little camera inside the room. Anything else is empty speculation based on an argument from analogy which isn't valid.

He's bragging a lot about his expertise, but I'm not at all impressed by this argument about optics. This just seems very naïve... or deliberately misleading.

I hear you, but I don’t get the impression he’s deliberately misleading. A bit loose with terminology maybe? But who am I to judge ! Just check my posts!
I welcome his input. Faults and all. None of us are perfect. Don’t see any wilful deceit or deviousness. Quite the opposite. Whatever you think of his knowledge ( or lack of ) regarding optics. I think it’s all coming from the right place . Bit off the topic of thread, but I can sometimes get too engrossed down these rabbit holes and start pigeonholing people on ‘my side’ or ‘their side’. Forgetting that we are all essentially engrossed in the same fascinating debate. It’s good to have people with knowledge involved whether I believe they are right or wrong. As long as it’s not intentional BS.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t get that impression here.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

If what he's saying is wrong, and he's using faulty logic, how is that helpful?

He's also insisting he's right because he's better at this stuff. How is that helpful?

 

[MarcusH]

If what he's saying is wrong, and he's using faulty logic, how is that helpful?

He's also insisting he's right because he's better at this stuff. How is that helpful?

He’s brought the debate to a new level and he’s also willing to admit mistakes. He should only be encouraged.

 

[Daniel F]

If what he's saying is wrong, and he's using faulty logic, how is that helpful?

He's also insisting he's right because he's better at this stuff. How is that helpful?

You’re right, it’s not helpful. I just stop short of deliberate misleading. More naivety. I recognise the symptoms very well !
I understand your position though and my comments were not in any way aimed at you !
When I say, observe the atflir- I mean externally watch it’s motion. It’s always been my belief that it must have been constantly rotating from its 54 deg left of target start. I know Mick argues very persuasively that the mirrors do the work but I’m not sure.

 

[MarcusH]

In a reply to a comment from “chipsteroni” Chris say’s he’d be happy to go on your program Mick.

 

[OneEleven]

If you haven't already seen it, you might like this video about the reasons for 'lift' by a professor of physics at Nottingham University. I haven't watched it again, but I remember finding it interesting. I see that I commented on it 3 years ago when I first saw it!

Very nice video! Looks like I was too harsh on Chris, and I was wrong about the lift thing too. I stand corrected.
We really could use more physicists in this discussion, but it's unfortunate there's so much taboo.

In a reply to a comment from “chipsteroni” Chris say’s he’d be happy to go on your program Mick.

Direct link to that comment.

So, time for Chris and Mick to have a chat and get to the bottom of this and end this back and forth?

If this is happening, it would be helpful if we could put together some questions to Chris.

 

[jimmyslippin]

He’s brought the debate to a new level and he’s also willing to admit mistakes. He should only be encouraged.

I am getting the sense that he respects Mick a whole lot more now than he originally did.

 

[Zerth]

At the end of the day I'm not sure it even matters. What difference does it make if the object is 6nm away or 50? Neither option makes the identity of the object more prosaic or more mysterious. It's still a blob that isn't doing anything otherworldly.

Isn't the distance at least somewhat useful in analyzing the blob? If the main hypothesis is that it's a glare, and we know how glares look like at X distance when it's a Y aircraft. It's a bit of a brute force approach, but I think it can be useful.

What is even the maximum distance that you'll see a glare at? Or a rough estimate, if anyone knows.

 

[Mick West]

What is even the maximum distance that you'll see a glare at? Or a rough estimate, if anyone knows.

There is no maximum, it just depends on how hot it is. The sun is at 93 million miles and glares just fine.

 

[Alphadunk]

Isn't the distance at least somewhat useful in analyzing the blob? If the main hypothesis is that it's a glare, and we know how glares look like at X distance when it's a Y aircraft. It's a bit of a brute force approach, but I think it can be useful.

What is even the maximum distance that you'll see a glare at? Or a rough estimate, if anyone knows.

I think the distance only becomes important when paired with other points of data that can be used to establish a likely identity. Kind of like how the Chile 'UFO' encounter was solved. Unfortunately in this case we're unlikely to get additional data and none of the proposed hypotheses have really truly solved the case.

I just think we're seeing people talk in circles at this point. Lots of arguments about glare and distance but none of that really gets us much closer to identifying the object in the video. Basically "It's probably a plane but we don't have enough data to definitively prove it isn't an alien spaceship."

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I think it would be very helpful to build a simple physical model. Reading the YT comments especially, I think people are not visualizing what you're saying about this case.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Chris Lehto (Edited for clarity and brevity). Talking about the GoFast Video.

The biggest thing with the GoFast video is the range is ambiguous okay targeting pods do not know the range they are very very good at determining line of sight exactly to something okay it's like a spotting scope. A very, very very accurate spotting scope in infrared.

It's a passive sensor. It cannot create its own range unless... there is one technique I will show you shortly which is just the best... targeting pod is a passive sensor it can only receive information. It can only...[process] the photons that are hitting it, right?

The light that's hitting it, it receives on its sensor and it knows where it's coming from, okay? ... It's very accurate in angle, okay? It knows which angle it is pointing.

Content from External Source

He's saying there's no way a purely passive optical device, or a computer, can tell how far away something is by just by processing the photons it's passively receiving.

This is false. What about an optical rangefinder? How does that work?




C.W. Lemoine - an F-18 Pilot. Also talking about the GoFast video.

So what you see here he is it looks like it's right above the water 4.3 rate it miles is the range so it's four and a half little over four miles from them based on what the computer is ranging now. I don't think he's lazing it, so it's just basically doing, you know, trig to figure out what the math is.

Content from External Source

This implies that the system uses at least one type of optical range finder. But does it use a rangefinder that has two lenses and "does the math" by using parallax?


How did battleships during the Battle of Jutland, in 1916, compute the distance to targets 10 miles away, and more? Long before radar. They used optical rangefinders.


An Argo rangefinder unit (1912)

https://www.jutland1916.com/tactics-and-technologies-4/range-finding-and-course-plotting-2/


A selection of (passive) optical rangefinders from the 30s and 40s.

HMS Revenge



Bismarck



Artillery



FLAK


Article on coincidence rangefinders.
https://www.mathscinotes.com/2013/08/battleship-rangefinders-and-geometry/

There were many variations on the basic rangefinder idea. For my purposes here, we will look more closely at the variant known as a coincidence rangefinder. Figure 2 shows a block diagram of a coincidence rangefinder

There are two prisms (actually called pentaprisms) at the end of two long arms -- each arm often 4 or 5 meters in length. The design brings the images into coincidence by rotating the compensating wedge prisms. In theory, they could have rotated one of the pentaprisms to bring the images into coincidence, but it turns out that is difficult to do accurately on targets at long range. The compensating wedge prisms provide a more accurate solution. There are numerous subtleties in the construction of these devices that are beyond the scope of this note. See the source for some of the interesting details. The compensator prism wedges and their function are particularly interesting.

The basic geometry involved with a coincidence rangefinder is simple enough. Figure 5 shows that the coincidence rangefinder determines range using simple Euclidean trigonometry

Content from External Source

How do humans determine (relatively nearby) distances? Depth perception. We have two eyes. Parallax. Pretty common knowledge.


Question: Does the system in question use an optical range finder that uses two lenses and parallax?

Or does it "do the math" only when it recognizes a known aircraft; using the known dimensions of the aircraft. This type of system doesn't use parallax and only needs one lens. (Cheap golf optical rangefinders use the known height of the pin and have just one lens.)

If this is the case, the computer must have thought it recognized the object; (using TV mode?)

 

[Domzh]

i cant see how it can accurately estimate range without a laser. it also only has one LOS.

it needs to know the size of the object.

maybe it just assumes an average size for A/A objects that you would usually dogfight with, plus/min 40 feet and guesstimates its range.

we now have multiple fighter pilots dismissing the range value. CWL clearly does not have an ET bias and he doesnt seem convinced by the range value either.

i am all for calling authority bias when it comes to misinterpretation and human error but in this case, thats not something linkable to human error. thats experience. if multiple construction workers tell me they cant actually use the screwdriver part of a swiss army knife for serious work, i believe them.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

WWII gunsights used in fighter aircraft and in bomber gun turrets used a ranging system that depended on the pilot or gunner recognizing the enemy aircraft and setting the gunsight for that type of aircraft.

This is too complicated to summarize in words. So I'll refer to this YT video.


(The gunsight used a mechanical analog computer.)

The computer in the system now in question (on the F-18) can recognize aircraft on its own. If this is the only type of passive optical system it uses... since the system provided a range - 4.4 miles - the computer must have thought it recognized the object.

OR does it also have a two lens system that uses parallax? The WWII era rangefinders in the photos in my last post are sizable, but with modern optics and a digital computer to do the processing, it could be much smaller. But does it exist? I don't know.

 

[Domzh]

no it only has a single LOS

its not complicated at all what you describe. it requires a known size and point of reference though. thats how range indices work in binoculars or sniper scopes.

i dont think it recognizes blobs as crafts. maybe we find something in the manual but i am pretty sure it uses an average, assumed size of a jet (what else would you battle in air to air combat?) and matches measurements in pixels with a predefined list (20 pixels at 2 x zoom equals 4 nm, 30 pixels at 2 x zoom equals 2 nm etc) (personal assumption how i interpret "best guess but not reliable" stated my multiple pilots)

edit:

The manual states:

"7. The ATFLIR provides two air-to-air modes: pointed, and autotrack. Air-to-Ground and air-to-air laser range finding is also provided."

weird, so laser for a/a after all?

 

[folly4]

no it only has a single LOS

its not complicated at all what you describe. it requires a known size and point of reference though. thats how range indices work in binoculars or sniper scopes.

i dont think it recognizes blobs as crafts. maybe we find something in the manual but i am pretty sure it uses an average, assumed size of a jet (what else would you battle in air to air combat?) and matches measurements in pixels with a predefined list (20 pixels at 2 x zoom equals 4 nm, 30 pixels at 2 x zoom equals 2 nm etc)

How do you know any of this?

Why would an advanced targeting system guess? Without letting the operator know it was guessing?

 

[jackfrostvc]

The question really is:

Is the F-18's pod computer better at trig than Chris Letho.
Chris says his rough maths are better, I think not.

That's all it comes down to.

 

[folly4]

The question really is:

Is the F-18's pod computer better at trig than Chris Letho.
Chris says his rough maths are better, I think not.

That's all it comes down to.

If the RNG is off, how far can it be off? 5%? 10%? 50%?

 

[Robert Webb]

In Chris's de-de-de-...-debunking video, he shows the gimbal-mounted camera and says that it tracks well most of the time, but shows a glitch when you roll the plane right over, where it loses tracking for a moment and then locks back on. I think he's talking about the wrong thing though. As we can see in the original gimbal video, it doesn't lose tracking. The issue is not losing tracking, or even gimbal lock, but actually an artefact of the gimbal working perfectly correctly. A properly-tracking gimbal camera will rotate its heading and pitch as required to maintain tracking, and then the footage is rotated to compensate. This is what causes the apparent rotating of the IR glare. Chris seems to have missed that point?

The argument now seems to be about how far away the object is, and I must admit I've lost track of why that's relevant. In either case, the gimbal needs to rotate to keep track, and aren't the angles the same regardless of distance? That is, we know all the angles from the plane, whether or not we know the distances, and the gimbal will have to rotate the same way regardless. Maybe there is a separate question about the speed of the object, but as far as the IR glare rotation, I'm missing why it matters.

 

[BrianHoltz]

OR does it also have a two lens system that uses parallax? The WWII era rangefinders in the photos in my last post are sizable, but with modern optics and a digital computer to do the processing, it could be much smaller.

No, there's surely only one LOS. And using a baselength like the diameter of the FLIR pod would seem very impractical, because the range uncertainty increases extremely non-linearly when decreasing the distance between the two lines of sight. See the graph at http://www.engineeringexpert.net/En...ss-Blog/limitations-of-an-optical-rangefinder

 

[BrianHoltz]

The argument now seems to be about how far away the object is, and I must admit I've lost track of why that's relevant.

It's important because a jet only a few miles away should have been easier to detect with radar, and harder for its wings etc. to be hidden by straight-down-the-tailpipe glare.

But this raises another question: if it was that close and (as Sehto claims) the F-18 was closing on it, why does the video conveniently end before contact is lost? Also, why do the aircrew seem uninterested in actually intercepting it? Why does the WSO dismiss the UAP as a "drone, bro" when, according to Lt. Graves, the pilots had all been so baffled and concerned about all the objects they had been seeing? And why does the pilot casually continue his turn, to 6 degrees past the bogey (and still turning) when the video ends?

 

[Mick West]

Maybe there is a separate question about the speed of the object, but as far as the IR glare rotation, I'm missing why it matters.

I think there's some dispute about the distance because a nearby jet would be more identifiable. If it's something really close then it's something small.

 

[Mick West]

Years ago, and likely wrong wrong.

The indicator in the top left of the display "NAR / Z 2.0" indicates maximum magnification. NAR (Narrow) is a FOV of 1.5°, so with Z 2.0 (Zoom 2.0x) (probably digital zoom) that's an effective FOV of 0.75. (By comparison the 2000mm P900 mega zoom has a FOV of about 1.0°)

We can get some ballpark figures for distance from this. Let's say the target is about the size of an F/A-18 Hornet, 44 ft wingspan with a bit extra for IR flare, like 50 feet.
If the apparent long axis of the object is representative of the wingspan, then it's 64/1074 of the width of the image. i.e. 0.75°*64/1074 = 0.0447° (note: linear to angular conversion are fine for small angles)

So converting that to distance, tan(angle) = object size/object distance

50/tan(0.0447 degrees) = 64089 feet. (12 miles away).

Alternatively if it's actually a distant airliner with a 200 foot wingspan, and the "saucer" shape is actually flare, then the effective length on the long visual axis there would be more like 500 feet. Hence 120 miles away.

That was assuming a FOV of 1.5 for 1x, when it seem more likely to be 0.7 (and hence 0.35 for 2x), so everything would appear twice as large, meaning for it to appear the same angular size it would have to be twice as far away. So a Hornet sized object would be around 24 miles away.

 

[jackfrostvc]

The interesting thing about the Gimbal video is what it doesn't show.
ie TV mode footage. Why? Does it give it away?

 

[Mick West]

There's a number of questions about the Gimbal video, but since the rotation is the most dramatic thing, that has been where more of the focus is. But we can analyze:

1. Is it a rotating glare, or a rotating object
2. How big is it?
3. How far away is it?
4. What is its velocity - and does it change
5. What is it?

obviously 2,3, and 4 are related.

 

[Ravi]

There's a number of questions about the Gimbal video, but since the rotation is the most dramatic thing, that has been where more of the focus is. But we can analyze:

1. Is it a rotating glare, or a rotating object
2. How big is it?
3. How far away is it?
4. What is its velocity - and does it change
5. What is it?

obviously 2,3, and 4 are related.

With respect to 1, I just cannot "un-see" the little bumps occurring to the full frame at exactly the same times that the rotations happen. This to me is the nail in the coffin that it is happening inside the camera, and not the object rotating. What are the chances this is coincidental? I am sure statistically insignificant.
But we have discussed it in this thread many times, not everyone agrees.

 

[jarlrmai]

With respect to 1, I just cannot "un-see" the little bumps occurring to the full frame at exactly the same times that the rotations happen. This to me is the nail in the coffin that it is happening inside the camera, and not the object rotating. What are the chances this is coincidental? I am sure statistically insignificant.
But we have discussed it in this thread many times, not everyone agrees.

The bumps are the mechanical components of the ATFLIR moving as it physically moves parts of system, they correlate with the rotation because the rotation and the bumps are part of the same thing, a movement of the system as it avoids gimbal lock. The system tries to avoid doing this type of rotation if it can but sometimes it must occur.

We see the image move when other physical things happen for instance in FLIR when the zoom level changes optically (not the 2x digital zoom) we see the image move.

 

[Agent K]

The computer in the system now in question (on the F-18) can recognize aircraft on its own. If this is the only type of passive optical system it uses... since the system provided a range - 4.4 miles - the computer must have thought it recognized the object.

OR does it also have a two lens system that uses parallax? The WWII era rangefinders in the photos in my last post are sizable, but with modern optics and a digital computer to do the processing, it could be much smaller. But does it exist? I don't know.

The range was provided for Go Fast, not for Gimbal. It's possible that the computer assumed that the object was stationary when it triangulated the range, in which case an object that goes fast on the ground could be mistaken for a stationary object thousands of feet in the air.

 

[Domzh]

The question really is:

Is the F-18's pod computer better at trig than Chris Letho.
Chris says his rough maths are better, I think not.

That's all it comes down to.

Apparently the ATFLIR uses its laser also for A/A range finding.

Manual quote:

"7. The ATFLIR provides two air-to-air modes: pointed, and autotrack. Air-to-Ground and air-to-air laser range finding is also provided."

So why does Chris say its only used for ground target distance gauging but not air to air? Or this CW Lemmoine guy who says the ATFLIR does trigonometry to estimate the distance?

The atflir either uses radar data or laser for A/A range according to its manual.

Im even more confused now, either the manual or the knowledge of these fighter pilots is garbage.. (third option, i suck at interpreting technical manuals)

 

[jarlrmai]

no it only has a single LOS

its not complicated at all what you describe. it requires a known size and point of reference though. thats how range indices work in binoculars or sniper scopes.

i don't think it recognizes blobs as crafts. maybe we find something in the manual but i am pretty sure it uses an average, assumed size of a jet (what else would you battle in air to air combat?) and matches measurements in pixels with a predefined list (20 pixels at 2 x zoom equals 4 nm, 30 pixels at 2 x zoom equals 2 nm etc)

We have discussed range in the Go Fast video, the manual says that range is provided by the RADAR.



Raytheon own a patent for programmatically estimating distances based on a known image database, but this is not mentioned in the ATFLIR manual. It's possible it's part of an IRST system they make.

There are some posts on the simulator forums that basically say that the ATFLIR can contribute to and receive data from the shared AZ/EL system which means that if it is pointing at a track that the RADAR has provided to the same system it can know that it is even if it's not being controlled by that track and then display the range to the track as provided by the RADAR.

It's not clear if this feature is simulated or not, the people on the forums who play the sims often talk about what is missing from the sims, possibly they have actual experience if they were pilots or military technical people obviously they could be wrong. But it matches what is seen in go fast.

 

[jackfrostvc]

Apparently the ATFLIR uses its laser also for A/A range finding.

Manual quote:

"7. The ATFLIR provides two air-to-air modes: pointed, and autotrack. Air-to-Ground and air-to-air laser range finding is also provided."

So why does Chris say its only used for ground target distance gauging but not air to air? Or this CW Lemmoine guy who says the ATFLIR does trigonometry to estimate the distance?

The atflir either uses radar data or laser for A/A range according to its manual.

Im even more confused now, either the manual or the knowledge of these fighter pilots is garbage.. (third option, i suck at interpreting technical manuals)

I think Lehto said Laser finding only happens when you manually? trigger it. And when it occurs an L on the screen blinks.
It was the absence of that blinking that led him to believe no laser ranging occured

 

[jarlrmai]

I think Letho said Laser finding only happens when you manually? trigger it. And when it occurs an L on the screen blinks.
It was the absence of that blinking that led him to believe no laser ranging occured

I agree with him but on ATFLIR LTD/R would flash, It's my theory that in Go Fast the range comes from a ATFLIR LOS correlated RADAR track.