NYT: GIMBAL Video of U.S. Navy Jet Encounter with Unknown Object

Amber Robot

Active Member
What is perceived as “lens glare” in FLIR images is probably “CCD bloom”. It looks the same, but has a different cause and happens in a different area of the FLIR (the CCD instead of the optical system).

You will hardly find any references to `IR glare’ (except on Metabunk of course), because the absence of glare is considered as one of the unique selling points of FLIR camera’s:
Operating in the LWIR, the ATFLIR would not be using a CCD, but a CMOS system. These are less susceptible to blooming than CCDs, I believe.
 

douglasf13

New Member
Operating in the LWIR, the ATFLIR would not be using a CCD, but a CMOS system. These are less susceptible to blooming than CCDs, I believe.

CMOS sensors are susceptible to less bloom than CCDs, but I'd be surprised if CMOS was used in this tech from 15-20 years ago. Is there a source saying the ATFLIR used CMOS for LWIR?
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
CMOS sensors are susceptible to less bloom than CCDs, but I'd be surprised if CMOS was used in this tech from 15-20 years ago. Is there a source saying the ATFLIR used CMOS for LWIR?
CCDs lose sensitivity at about 1 micron.

the paper entitled “Raytheon advanced forward looking infrared (ATFLIR) pod” by Gerald Uyeno (Proc SPIE 6209 May 2006), which describes their AN/ASQ-228 system says the following:

“The focal plane in the targeting FLIR is 640x480 pixels InSb operating over the spectral band of 3.7 to 5.0 nm [sic].”

the “nm” must mean microns to be infrared.
Maybe this is not the right model under question. But as I said silicon-wafer fabricated CCDs have no QE past about 1micron.
 

Ravi

Active Member
CCDs lose sensitivity at about 1 micron.

the paper entitled “Raytheon advanced forward looking infrared (ATFLIR) pod” by Gerald Uyeno (Proc SPIE 6209 May 2006), which describes their AN/ASQ-228 system says the following:

“The focal plane in the targeting FLIR is 640x480 pixels InSb operating over the spectral band of 3.7 to 5.0 nm [sic].”

the “nm” must mean microns to be infrared.
Maybe this is not the right model under question. But as I said silicon-wafer fabricated CCDs have no QE past about 1micron.
Indeed. Another one is HgCdTe. All need cooling to get the noise down..
 

douglasf13

New Member
CCDs lose sensitivity at about 1 micron.

the paper entitled “Raytheon advanced forward looking infrared (ATFLIR) pod” by Gerald Uyeno (Proc SPIE 6209 May 2006), which describes their AN/ASQ-228 system says the following:

“The focal plane in the targeting FLIR is 640x480 pixels InSb operating over the spectral band of 3.7 to 5.0 nm [sic].”

the “nm” must mean microns to be infrared.
Maybe this is not the right model under question. But as I said silicon-wafer fabricated CCDs have no QE past about 1micron.

Ah, that makes sense. It's MidIR, so an InSb (indium-antimonide) array. I've never use one, but, AFAIK, blooming can happen in an InSb focal plane array. Here's a paper about it, with figures, but it's behind a paywall. Maybe someone can find a better source.

Discrimination between electronic and optical blooming in an InSb focal-plane array under high-intensity excitation.
 
Last edited:

Amber Robot

Active Member
Ah, that makes sense. It's MidIR, so an InSb (indium-antimonide) array. I've never use one, but, AFAIK, blooming can happen in an InSb focal plane array. Here's a paper about it, with figures, but it's behind a paywall. Maybe someone can find a better source.

Discrimination between electronic and optical blooming in an InSb focal-plane array under high-intensity excitation.
I’ll see if I can get access to this, but the abstract says the following:

“We provide conclusive evidence that optical effects of ghosting, diffraction, and lens and housing scatter dominate, resulting in global (i.e., large area of the FPA) loss of image quality, while effects due to electronic phenomena, such as carrier-diffusion, are minimal and locally confined to on-the-order-of-one pixel.”

which suggests that detector level blooming is negligible and optical effects dominate if I’m reading this correctly.
 

Itsme

Active Member
I’ll see if I can get access to this, but the abstract says the following:

“We provide conclusive evidence that optical effects of ghosting, diffraction, and lens and housing scatter dominate, resulting in global (i.e., large area of the FPA) loss of image quality, while effects due to electronic phenomena, such as carrier-diffusion, are minimal and locally confined to on-the-order-of-one pixel.”

which suggests that detector level blooming is negligible and optical effects dominate if I’m reading this correctly.
For the ATFLIR it means that the detector will show little to no bloom. We don't know what the point spread function of the ATFLIR optics is before the de-rotation mirrors, but since this part of the optical path seems to contain only mirrors and a front window that basically coincides with its entrance pupil, I don't expect it to be very large.

I haven't seen any ATFLIR blobs demonstrated yet, only from other IR systems of which we do not have the specs. These could be caused by blooming detectors (maybe combined with the point spread function of the optics).

As for rotating glare, the famous example of the rotating glare of the Sukhoi SU-27/SU-30 engines could simply be the moving outlet of their thrust vectoring nozzles. The SU-27/SU-30 can do all kinds of crazy manoeuvres with its thrust vectoring capabilities.


The 'rotating glare' looks very much like the airflow from its engines, if you look carefully the tip of the 'glare' is lagging behind which seems to indicate varying airflow direction from its engine nozzles that can change direction independently from the jet: (the Russian title of the video says something like "SU-27 in sight of an F18" but a YouTube comment points out the canard wings which indicate it's a SU-30).

Hard to tell because we don't know what manoeuvre it is making (it can even stand on its tail at an angle and hop through the sky).

Edit: it was either a su-27 or a su-30. Both have thrust vectoring.
 
Last edited:

MclachlanM

Active Member
The 'rotating glare' looks very much like the airflow from its engines, if you look carefully the tip of the 'glare' is lagging behind which seems to indicate varying airflow direction from its engine nozzles that can change direction independently from the jet: (the Russian title of the video says something like "SU-27 in sight of an F18" but a YouTube comment points out the canard wings which indicate it's a SU-30).

Are you sure? I don't think that sort of rotation is something you would see from thrust vectoring. It is filmed from the ATFLIR system in the F-18 anyway so we can't rule out that this isn't an example of the F-18s ATFLIR gimbal rotating and causing the glare to appear to rotate. Mick's demonstration with the torch also shows that if the source rotates then the glare doesn't.

Here are the 3-axis of thrust vectoring for reference, not sure which combination you would need to get the effect you are looking for;
Source: https://youtu.be/VQnxcCfrhoM?t=646


(Also it could be a Su-33 but it doesn't matter)
 

Itsme

Active Member
Are you sure? I don't think that sort of rotation is something you would see from thrust vectoring. It is filmed from the ATFLIR system in the F-18 anyway so we can't rule out that this isn't an example of the F-18s ATFLIR gimbal rotating and causing the glare to appear to rotate.
This was filmed from the Russian jet, not from the F18. The F18 is the distant jet you see at the end of the video.

You could be looking at a pretty long exhaust trail that exits the jet at a shallow angle. It only looks more vertical because of perspective.

It is a thrust vectoring jet, we can be pretty sure of that.

What you see is that the exhaust trials are straight when they don't move (top picture) but they curl a bit when the engine nozzles make a sweeping motion (bottom picture). This is what you would expect from an exhaust trail, not so much from a glare. It takes a while for the sweeping motion to reach the end of the exhaust trial, causing it to curl slightly in a fast sweep:
Screenshot_2021-06-18-10-25-37-616.jpegScreenshot_2021-06-18-10-23-23-794.jpeg
It's not that relevant for the discussion anyway, I just think it would be ironic if the material used to demonstrate a misinterpretation of FLIR images is .. a misinterpretation of FLIR images... It only shows this material is not straightforward. Trying to create FLIR images that look a bit like the Gimbal video (for instance by putting a consumer grade FLIR camera in a plastic bag and pointing it directly at the sun) is not proof you have found the answer, though people tend to be easily convinced by such material.
 

Ravi

Active Member
If the jet would be vectoring like described, the plane would make drastic movements, which we do not see.
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
The F18 is the distant jet you see at the end of the video.

Definitely notplanes.jpg
(Su-27 middle, F18 right)
The distant jet has the very characteristic flat belly look from the sukhois, the wing with no canards looks like the Su-27 mentioned in the title, the f-18 has forward swept trailing edges etc.

I don't speak Russian but the description clearly references ATFLIR (Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infra Red) which is the pod made by Raytheon for US stuff that took the UFO videos, the Russians do have similar IR equipment but they are not named in english.
 

Itsme

Active Member
So is it vectoring the thrust in 3 directions simultaneously then? To account for the 3 spikes seen?
There's bound to be some irregular turbulence and heat leaking through the rim indentations around these nozzle edges:
Screenshot_2021-06-18-14-40-11-249.jpeg
It could explain the 'spikes'.
 

Itsme

Active Member
If the jet would be vectoring like described, the plane would make drastic movements, which we do not see.
It's a pretty complex puzzle of forces on the wings and tail plus the forces of the jets, and on top of that there is almost no context to ascertain the pose and trajectory of the jet and the exact length and angles of the exhaust plumes so I think this is impossible to conclude from just this footage.
 

Itsme

Active Member
Definitely notplanes.jpg
(Su-27 middle, F18 right)
The distant jet has the very characteristic flat belly look from the sukhois, the wing with no canards looks like the Su-27 mentioned in the title, the f-18 has forward swept trailing edges etc.

I don't speak Russian but the description clearly references ATFLIR (Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infra Red) which is the pod made by Raytheon for US stuff that took the UFO videos, the Russians do have similar IR equipment but they are not named in english.
No, it's the Russian jet's ATFLIR image posted by a Russian. Just use Google translate on the more elaborate description under the YouTube video and you'll know.
The ATFLIR image quality and additional info on the ATFLIR screen is much less than with the Raytheon ATFLIR.

The main difference between the Sukhoi's and the F18 is the distance between the jet nozzles. They are much closer to each other on an F18. That's how you recognize the Sukhoi in the footage of the engine nozzles.
But it wouldn't surprise me if this video was made by just stitching some different fragments together.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
No, it's the Russian jet's ATFLIR image posted by a Russian. Just use Google translate on the more elaborate description under the YouTube video and you'll know.
The ATFLIR image quality and additional info on the ATFLIR screen is much less than with the Raytheon ATFLIR.

The main difference between the Sukhoi's and the F18 is the distance between the jet nozzles. They are much closer to each other on an F18. That's how you recognize the Sukhoi in the footage of the engine nozzles.
But it wouldn't surprise me if this video was made by just stitching some different fragments together.
it looks more like a crop in of the ATFLIR video that crops out all the side information rather than it having no info, right at the start of the video, you can just see the angle pip indicator, the expanding bars in the middle are like ATFLIRs auto track tracking bars that are relative to object size in view.

The translation of the video title is

Russian Su-27 in the sight of the American F / A-18 E Super Hornet

The jet in the video is not an F/18 so it stands to reason that its being filmed by an f/18 with ATLFLIR and the translation of the main text is not quite right and someone mis id's the exact Sukhoi airframe.
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
No, it's the Russian jet's ATFLIR image posted by a Russian. Just use Google translate on the more elaborate description under the YouTube video and you'll know.
The ATFLIR image quality and additional info on the ATFLIR screen is much less than with the Raytheon ATFLIR.

The main difference between the Sukhoi's and the F18 is the distance between the jet nozzles. They are much closer to each other on an F18. That's how you recognize the Sukhoi in the footage of the engine nozzles.
But it wouldn't surprise me if this video was made by just stitching some different fragments together.

Russian jets don't have ATFLIR.
ATFLIR presently is used only by the US Navy on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the earlier F/A-18C/D and with Marine Corps F/A-18Cs when deployed onboard aircraft carriers. It is normally carried on one of the fuselage hardpoints otherwise used for AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. 410 pods were delivered to the U.S. Navy. Pods have also been delivered to Switzerland and Australia, and six pods will be delivered to Malaysia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ASQ-228_ATFLIR
It's an American system with a name in English produced and sold only to American friendly countries.

Sukhois do have the capacity to lock targets through infrared search and track (ОБЗ ДВБ).
1624022932754.png
They use the OLS-27 IRST system produced in Eastern Europe

But Sukhoi fighters do not have the capacity to look at or record footage
1624023168453.png
Where would the screen for it go?
 

Itsme

Active Member
The more elaborate text below the video translates as:

Tracking the American F / A-18E / F Super Hornet with the ATFLIR complex for the Russian Su-27 in Syria June 18, 2017
The Russians have ATFLIR, too. Although you will not find much about it on Wikipedia.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
The more elaborate text below the video translates as:


The Russians have ATFLIR, too. Although you will not find much about it on Wikipedia.
No they don't ATFLIR is a specific product name owned by Raytheon like Doritos is owned by PepsiCo.

They might have a similar Infrared Targeting Pod for use on aircraft but they don't have ATFLIR as its US technology and not sold to US adversaries.
 

Itsme

Active Member
The Russians have ATFLIR, too. Although you will not find much about it on Wikipedia.
Oh, you do. You just have to read the article on

Infrared search and track​

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_search_and_track

IRST is a generalized case of forward looking infrared (FLIR), i.e. from forward-looking to all-round situation awareness.

You'll find a list including the Sukhoi's here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_search_and_track#List_of_modern_IRST_systems

@jarlrmai: Yes, it seems that ATFLIR is trademarked. But the concept is not unique to US jets.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
IRST is a different type of sensor to the ATFLIR type targeting pods it's meant to be a sort of IR version of RWS mode RADAR ie all round IR detection/angle providing rather than target ID/designation focussed like the ATFLIR type targeting pods.

Looks like Russia is licensing a French targeting pod for Sukhoi aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles_(targeting_pod)
 

Itsme

Active Member
IRST is a different type of sensor to the ATFLIR type targeting pods it's meant to be a sort of IR version of RWS mode RADAR ie all round IR detection/angle providing rather than target ID/designation focussed like the ATFLIR type targeting pods.

Looks like Russia is licensing a French targeting pod for Sukhoi aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles_(targeting_pod)

And the "OEPS-27" as well:
The OEPS-27 Infrared Search and Track System (IRST) connected to a pilot's helmet-mounted target designation system provides unmatched performance during close-range air-to-air engagements, also referred to as dogfight. This electro-optical system is also suitable for designation of ground targets based on infrared/heat emissions. In addition to the IRST capability, the EOPS rangefinding capability using a built-in laser.

Basically, an OEPS system consists of four items: infrared thermal sensor, helmet-mounted target designator, laser rangefinder and a computer. The OEPS-27 was designed for integration into the Soviet/Russian Su-27 aircraft family providing IRST capability day/night, at all altitudes and with intense enemy Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) in both modes, lookup and lookdown. It provides a coverage of -60 to +60 degrees in azimuth and -60 to +15 in elevation and weighs 174 kg.
Source: https://www.deagel.com/Sensor Systems/OEPS/a001912
Azimuth and elevation ranges are pretty much comparable to the ATFLIR. IRST is a generalized term that includes FLIR (according to Wikipedia).
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
And the "OEPS-27" as well:
Source: https://www.deagel.com/Sensor Systems/OEPS/a001912
Azimuth and elevation ranges are pretty much comparable to the ATFLIR. IRST is a generalized term that includes FLIR (according to Wikipedia).
Yes IRST includes FLIR but just because it is operating in infrared doesn't mean it's in anyway similar to the F-18's ATFLIR system, here is someone using the Su27 OLS-27 IRST in a simulator, you see that it has nothing to do with looking at/capturing footage of other planes but instead getting target locks to launch heat-seeking missiles:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ6gWK2v6ds


This is what a SU-30 looked like in 2016:
Just to be clear, are you saying that what we see in the end of this video is a Su-30 looking at an F-18 through ATFLIR?

even though we know ATFLIR is unique to American jets and what we see is clearly a Su-27?
planes_LI.jpg
 

Leonardo Cuellar

Active Member
This was supposedly the location of the Gimbal video event according to Steven Greenstreet who says it came from FOIA's.
It occurred Jan 21st 2015

1624075531358.png

Source: Source: https://youtu.be/Z10B10-Mj0o?t=194
Good morning.
The NYT sources gave January 20 instead.
I did a thorough meteorological analysis on January 21st.
All weather maps can be downloaded here:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/ncep-charts/access/2015/01/
For the wind and temperature charts, a request must be made to a private server here:
http://aviationwxchartsarchive.com/page/home
There is no jet close to 120 knots at an altitude of 25,000 feet.
During the period between January 20 and January 31, a jet stream of 120 knots is present at FL250 off the coast of Virginia between January 24 and 25.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Does he have the actual raw location data or the FOIA response?
Can we get historical cloud cover satellite imagery?
 
Last edited:

Leonardo Cuellar

Active Member
Does he have the actual raw location data or the FOIA response?
Can we get historical cloud cover satellite imagery?
Yes. We have also satellite imagery.
Go to the parent directory, choose the day and then retrieve file beginning with evnt....
There wasn't any thick cloud layer in that zone.
 

TRON

New Member
I looked all over forums, videos, web search, etc... and I cannot find an answer to my question. Which is, does anyone have an image or video that identifies ALL the different facets on the MFD or jet fighter's camera display? I know Mick and some others have pointed out some aspects of the camera display (like the IR mode of white or black, altitude, and a few others). And I realize it will be different based upon the aircraft and camera used.

For the latest UAP videos everyone is buzzing over, I am very interested in being able to understand what I am looking at. Like, is everything in MPH or nautical values? What does the blinking "B" mean next to altitude (banking?), DCLTR, all the stuff on the right and left sides of the screen?

What confuses me in one of the videos is it shows airspeed as a fraction of Mach (M 0.59 which at 25000' averages to be 408 MPH). But then there is a number above that where in some debunking videos they show this to be the aircraft's true airspeed in nautical miles per hour, or knot ("242"). 242 knots = 278 MPH. That's a huge difference!

Then someone also pointed out the "VC" value to be 'closing velocity' so is that how fast the aircraft and the object are approaching each other? To where if the object was somewhat stationary VC is how fast the aircraft is moving toward the object alone? Or is VC just the velocity of the tracked object and the aircraft's velocity is negated. Where a positive VC would mean that the object is closing in on the aircraft and negative means it is outrunning it?

Want to learn what I do not know!!

I used this to calculate speed at altitude: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/machu.html
 

Leonardo Cuellar

Active Member
I looked all over forums, videos, web search, etc... and I cannot find an answer to my question. Which is, does anyone have an image or video that identifies ALL the different facets on the MFD or jet fighter's camera display? I know Mick and some others have pointed out some aspects of the camera display (like the IR mode of white or black, altitude, and a few others). And I realize it will be different based upon the aircraft and camera used.

For the latest UAP videos everyone is buzzing over, I am very interested in being able to understand what I am looking at. Like, is everything in MPH or nautical values? What does the blinking "B" mean next to altitude (banking?), DCLTR, all the stuff on the right and left sides of the screen?

What confuses me in one of the videos is it shows airspeed as a fraction of Mach (M 0.59 which at 25000' averages to be 408 MPH). But then there is a number above that where in some debunking videos they show this to be the aircraft's true airspeed in nautical miles per hour, or knot ("242"). 242 knots = 278 MPH. That's a huge difference!

Then someone also pointed out the "VC" value to be 'closing velocity' so is that how fast the aircraft and the object are approaching each other? To where if the object was somewhat stationary VC is how fast the aircraft is moving toward the object alone? Or is VC just the velocity of the tracked object and the aircraft's velocity is negated. Where a positive VC would mean that the object is closing in on the aircraft and negative means it is outrunning it?

Want to learn what I do not know!!

I used this to calculate speed at altitude: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/machu.html
Hello.
The B close to the altitude means that the data is of the barometric type, i.e. detected by the difference in air pressure between the cruising altitude and the ground.
What you read is the Calibrated Airspeed expressed in knots. It is a correct Indicated airspeed of positioning errors.
The only instrument on board capable of detecting speed is the pitot tube. This measures the difference between the total air pressure and the static air pressure. It then detects the dynamic air pressure which depends not only on true airspeed but also on the density of the air, which changes with altitude.
All the algorithms of the airborne collision avoidance systems are based on a simple formula: slant range / closing velocity. Since the dimension of the result is a time, this indicates between how many seconds from the detection the two aircraft will come into contact. Each system provides a different indication. The TCAS gives you advisories, the F / A-18 one gives you closure velocity. So if two objects are approaching each other the value of Vc is positive, if they are on parallel routes at the same speed it is zero, if they are moving away it is negative. In the video, therefore, the two objects are constantly approaching but with their routes becoming more and more parallel.
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
I looked all over forums, videos, web search, etc... and I cannot find an answer to my question. Which is, does anyone have an image or video that identifies ALL the different facets on the MFD or jet fighter's camera display? I know Mick and some others have pointed out some aspects of the camera display (like the IR mode of white or black, altitude, and a few others). And I realize it will be different based upon the aircraft and camera used.

For the latest UAP videos everyone is buzzing over, I am very interested in being able to understand what I am looking at. Like, is everything in MPH or nautical values? What does the blinking "B" mean next to altitude (banking?), DCLTR, all the stuff on the right and left sides of the screen?

What confuses me in one of the videos is it shows airspeed as a fraction of Mach (M 0.59 which at 25000' averages to be 408 MPH). But then there is a number above that where in some debunking videos they show this to be the aircraft's true airspeed in nautical miles per hour, or knot ("242"). 242 knots = 278 MPH. That's a huge difference!

Then someone also pointed out the "VC" value to be 'closing velocity' so is that how fast the aircraft and the object are approaching each other? To where if the object was somewhat stationary VC is how fast the aircraft is moving toward the object alone? Or is VC just the velocity of the tracked object and the aircraft's velocity is negated. Where a positive VC would mean that the object is closing in on the aircraft and negative means it is outrunning it?

Want to learn what I do not know!!

I used this to calculate speed at altitude: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/machu.html

https://www.mudspike.com/chucks-guides-dcs-f-a-18c-hornet/

This is the manual for the DCS f18 flight sim, the section on the ATFLIR starts at page 293 (quite a bit of reading).

It has lots of screenshots pointing out what different things mean so it could be handy.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I think if you want to look at candidates for what the Gimbal object was. Listen to what the WSO said and what TTSA with Elizondo captioned it as in the Gimbal video.
"It is a f..ng drone bro"

1623048780537.png

Combine that with:

1) Elizondo requesting the Gimbal, Go Fast and FLIR videos under the description Balloons, UAV, UAS. ie Balloons and Drones

2) NEMESIS was tested in wargames that ended in Feb 2015 having been developed on the east coast. The Gimbal video was filmed on the east coast in Jan 2015

3) NEMESIS uses fleets of drones that resemble what graves had described the Gimbal pilots saw. ie small drones and big ones

4) DARPA was heavily involved with NEMISIS who contracted core components of the program to BAE, Northdrop Grumman and 5 others

5) BAE is a self proclaimed leader in Electronic Warfare system

6) Ryan Graves leaves the NAVY and starts working with BAE. BAE is a huge company that make many diofferent things. But where does Graves show up in BAE. Why the BAE Electronic Warfare page in the last video titled "Distributed Electronic Warfare" at 23 seconds in
https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/productfamily/electronic-warfare

1623042811173.png


7) Side notes, I suspect the Tic Tac event which happened on the other side of the country in 2004 may also have been involved in some EW exercises

a) There were plenty of EW exercises in that year -> https://www.metabunk.org/threads/hypothesis-fravors-tic-tac-was-kurths-fa18.11776/#post-250441
b) The area it happened in had plenty of EW facilities -> https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fr...illusion-comparing-accounts.10941/post-249952

Also interesting that:
- Fravor left the NAVY and joined Northdrop Grumman another leader in EW and drones.
- Douglas Kurth ended up with Bigelow for a while, then joined this company, yep an EW specialist https://t3isolutions.com/services/
- The 2004 commander of the USS Louisville ended up with a company with project ties to DARPA


8) DARPA System of Systems tech development which is core to NEMISIS
https://www.defense.gov/Explore/New...open-systems-plug-and-fly-to-boost-air-power/
As I said before, two of the seven contractors for this were BAE and Northdrop Grumman

The picture shows three types of drones
a) Something that looks like this thing: https://newatlas.com/nomad-drone-public/57272/
b) Northdrop Grumman BAT UAS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Bat
c) Northdrop Grumman X-47B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B

If I were to guess , maybe look at whether the Northdrop Grumman X-47B fits the profile of the Gimbal. As Graves said, the GIMBAL object was the largest in the fleet

1623042883474.png


It is interesting the exhaust of the Northdrop Grumman X-47B is oval shaped

1623042577102.png

1623043051747.png

1623043166478.png


I have learnt that Ryan Graves has said that it is not him in the BAE EW video. Ryan does work for BAE as a Technology Development Manager / Tech Scout. However, he has recently said that although his work with BAE does involve a project for DARPA, it is for the Air Combat Evolution project not EW. He went on to say his work does not involve EW. As such, I take him at his word and apologise for any harm caused by saying that was him in the EW video
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Re the B flashing I gather it's flashing because the operator has selected RADAR altitude which is only used for near to the ground but is more accurate, ie for landing etc. But it doesn't work at high altitudes so the plane has switched to show barometric altitude but if it's flashing the B to tell the operator is not on the selected mode, which I found interesting.
 

dimebag2

Active Member
Don't know if all it says has been discussed already, but there is a nice new article on Ryan Graves' description of Gimbal and related events :
https://thedebrief.org/devices-of-unknown-origin-part-ii-interlopers-over-the-atlantic-ryan-graves/

Found that part interesting :
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dimebag2

Active Member
Is he implying the "tilting up" action is the much talked about rotation in the video?
Yeah I suppose so. What's interesting is that he describes the object stopping towards the end of the "chase", and that's consistent with the geometry, in that that the final lines of positioning seem to converge, but the first one does not.
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
Re the B flashing I gather it's flashing because the operator has selected RADAR altitude which is only used for near to the ground but is more accurate, ie for landing etc. But it doesn't work at high altitudes so the plane has switched to show barometric altitude but if it's flashing the B to tell the operator is not on the selected mode, which I found interesting.
This is very strange! Everything I read agrees but why would a pilot have the altitude set to RADAR when that doesn't work past 5,000ft?

The flashing B is present also in the FLIR video and that pilot has the barometric altitude hold autopilot on (indicated by BALT), surely the pilot would choose either RADAR altitude and RALT (RADAR altitude hold) or barometric altitude and BALT.

I'm not sure if it is common practise to have the ALT switch set to RADAR for take-off and let it switch to barometric by itself and ignore the flashing but I would doubt it. Especially two different pilots at completely different times (at least in the DCS checklists you have to switch to barometric at 3,000ft and back to RADAR for landings but I don't know how realistic that is, Wikipedia says civil RADAR altimeters stop at 2,500ft).

1624561296100.png

I suppose this isn't of any consequence but I'd be interested to find out why it looks like both of the pilots seem to be going against SOP.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
This is very strange! Everything I read agrees but why would a pilot have the altitude set to RADAR when that doesn't work past 5,000ft?

The flashing B is present also in the FLIR video and that pilot has the barometric altitude hold autopilot on (indicated by BALT), surely the pilot would choose either RADAR altitude and RALT (RADAR altitude hold) or barometric altitude and BALT.

I'm not sure if it is common practise to have the ALT switch set to RADAR for take-off and let it switch to barometric by itself and ignore the flashing but I would doubt it. Especially two different pilots at completely different times (at least in the DCS checklists you have to switch to barometric at 3,000ft and back to RADAR for landings but I don't know how realistic that is, Wikipedia says civil RADAR altimeters stop at 2,500ft).

1624561296100.png

I suppose this isn't of any consequence but I'd be interested to find out why it looks like both of the pilots seem to be going against SOP.
My guess is pilots really, really care about RADAR altitude when operating from carriers and know it will switch to baro anyway and don't care about the flashing B.
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
My guess is pilots really, really care about RADAR altitude when operating from carriers and know it will switch to baro anyway and don't care about the flashing B.
It'd be nice to get an actual pilots take on this, just reading some of the general literature on this it seems that pilot should be switching to baro above a certain altitude and then having the switch to RADAR altitude a part of the routine during landings as proper procedure.

Here is a different checklist for landings just to double check:
1624563190841.png

And the Flight Operations Briefing Notes from Airbus (really scraping the barrel for sources):

1624563473902.png


Although I could be convinced that Navy pilots are an exception and keep it on RADAR for safety. Could it be a consequence of the decoupled controls in the super hornet (i.e. the WSO sees it flash because he doesn't have a say in what altitude setting is used)?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
bird_up "Gimbal UFO video rendered in 3D" by Abominati0n UFOs and Aliens 5
Leonardo Cuellar Could The Gimbal Video Show an Atlas V Launch? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 323
V Gimbal Video Interactive Software/Program UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 16
J White dot in top left of Gimbal video UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 3
V GIMBAL Video: Simulating the ATFLIR Tracking and Gimbal Rotation UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 20
Mick West Original Flir1, Gimbal, and Go Fast UFO "Raw" Video Files UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 33
dimebag2 Meteorological data to help in understanding Gimbal (January 20 and 21, 2015) UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 9
Edward Current Does the beginning part of Gimbal debunk the claim that the object rotates? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 13
M Gimbal ID of a possible jet? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 36
Mick West Gimbal distance and Speed Range Estimates using Lines of Bearing and/or DCS UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 285
Daniel F F-16 Pilot- Chris Lehto analyses Gimbal footage UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 197
Daniel F Hypothesis - Rotation of Gimbal not caused by lens glare. UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 32
Mick West Why Michio Kaku is wrong about the UFO Burden of Proof & Navy Videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 38
Mick West TFTRH #22: Seth Shostak: SETI Senior Astronomer: ETs, UFO "Disclosure" Area 51 Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 3
Getoffthisplanet Flir1, Go Fast, Gimbal - Navy Releases New Information: Official Dates UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 9
Mick West Gimbal Lock and Derotation in FLIR/ATFLIR systems UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 30
Mick West TTSA's Form DD-1910 for FLIR, Go Fast, and Gimbal videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 69
Mick West The Shape and Size of Glare Around Bright Lights UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 44
J Poltergeist activity caught on video? Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 15
Rory Claim: Pfizer sponsors many mainstream TV shows (with the implication being that can lead to bad things) Coronavirus COVID-19 68
S Did NIST edit WTC building 7 footage? 9/11 4
N Explained: "Jellyfish object" video in Russia [Rocket Launch] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
F Example of a Boeing 737 "Tic Tac" (video) UFOs and Aliens 9
ki_cz Need help debunking FE video Flat Earth 42
R Video of UFOs around/on the sun - Sunspots and a Bird UFOs and Aliens 15
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
LorentzHall Elizondo Claims DoD Have A 50-Feet-Away Photo & 23 Minute Video UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 30
R Explained: Video of Vandenberg UFO shooting down ICBM [reenactment] UFOs and Aliens 8
Vara La Fey Video of all FAA mandated aircraft lights? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
V Needs debunking: flat earthers claim this reflection to show a harness in ISS video Flat Earth 10
M Any explanation for this UFO video? UFOs and Aliens 6
S Does this video footage show a dragon (sea serpent) attacking a manatee? [No] Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
A USS Omaha UFO / UAP Radar Video UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 257
CeruleanBlu Video summary of Independent Forensic Team Report on Oroville Dam Oroville Dam 2
M 'UFO' video just shows contrail formation? Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Mick West Mike Lindell's 2-Hour Election Fraud Claim Video "Absolute Proof": Hacking Claims Election 2020 7
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Trailblazer Reutlingen Fake UFO Video 2013 UFOs and Aliens 3
Rocky Gettysburg 'ghosts’ run across road [Windscreen smudge] General Discussion 4
D Falmouth "Shadow Creature" Video [Black Cat?] Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 10
G Belarus demonstration video Current Events 2
M Fast moving object "intersecting clouds" in Hungarian YouTuber's video [Insect] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
U Looking for debunkings of the “Plandemic” video Coronavirus COVID-19 17
Jesse3959 Being seen from space - methods to demonstrate that sats are real and provide live video? Flat Earth 6
R Claim: Apollo 15-17 Live TV Feed - Antenna signal would be interrupted from all the violent shaking when Astronauts touch the buggy General Discussion 26
J Identifying the Mountains in JTolan's "Rocky Mountains" IR Video Flat Earth 31
Mick West Explained: RARE Video Footage of "Alien Space Craft" WATCHING ISS Astronaut! UFOs and Aliens 1
Wizard Mexican Air Force UFO Video? [Oil Rigs] UFOs and Aliens 14
Mick West Simulating the Nimitz UFO video as a blurry plane UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 51
jarlrmai UFO video in Arizona from Reddit Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 22
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top