[Logged] Expand FLIR and optical sensor model

[sshepard06]

Hi there,

With this article in mind proving the capabilities of US satellite technology is beyond what Command offers, isn't it time to revise the capabilities of optical satellite technology in the sim?

https://www.wired.com/story/trump-tweet ... 7Nd3TagGxU

And this with modern US FLIR pods:

"Raytheon's Advanced Targeting FLIR assures mission success by integrating advanced EO and IR sensors with one of the most powerful lasers on the market. ATFLIR can locate and designate targets day or night at ranges exceeding 40 nautical miles and altitudes surpassing 50,000 feet"

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/atflir

[PaulTheWolf]

Hi sshepard06. Firstly that article doesn't conclusively assert that Kh-224 took that photo.

'There are, of course, still some unknowns that make it impossible to say for sure that USA 224 took the photo. For example, the orbit data used by Bassa and Langbroek was nearly three days old. If the satellite had adjusted its orbit at all during those three days, it could introduce measurement errors. But given what is known about USA 224’s orbit, its presumed imaging capabilities, and the time the photograph was taken, all signs point to the spy satellite.'

It's likely, but this would place your question of Satellite Optics into a Database Request space rather than a Tech Support issue. (I know Dimitris mentioned posting on the Tech Support forum on Facebook, but there are unfortunately no Tech Support implications within the Satellite Ops you've specified at this time.)

However, I'm investigating the FLIR problem and this looks like there might be a bug with FLIR Identification! I'm testing further and will be consulting with the Team. Thanks for bringing it to your attention!

Paul.

[Dimitris]

Can we a see a save where a low-orbit IMGSAT overflies e.g. a damaged ship or facility and does not provide a BDA update?

[sshepard06]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the follow up.

Yes, conjecture, I do agree, but quite a bit of agreement on what took the footage?

(Please note, as on the FB post, these aren't my headlines and I don't want to engage in a political debate over the the former presidents actions in regards to this satellite).

https://www.universetoday.com/143298/th ... atellites/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-224

https://www.businessinsider.com/intelli ... oto-2019-8

This is a general frustration mine and and some other players I've observed in terms of BDA recon tasks when it appears American observation instruments are far more advanced in the real world.

https://www.wired.com/story/iran-global ... veillance/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_ ... te%20range

Thanks for all you guys do, this is by far one of my favorite sims, I've returned to this community over and over again and will continue to purchase the products/expansions.

[sshepard06]

Hi Dimitris,

It seems to me we have 2 thread discussions going now, the 2nd one hinging on the 1st, "was it KH-224?" I believe it was with the information that's out there.

If my hunch is correct, satellites should be able to pick up much smaller units (tanks, personnel).

But, if it's not a satellite, I suppose the test would be having an FLIR equipped unit drone, aircraft, ect operate above say ~30k feet and be able to see smaller units? This latter point isn't far fetched at all, there's an abundance of FLIR videos out there from ~2001 in Afghanistan that shows aircraft pods are capable of doing this.

Thanks for the followup.

Best,

[Dimitris]

Hi,

ORIGINAL: sshepard06

Hi Dimitris,

It seems to me we have 2 thread discussions going now, the 2nd one hinging on the 1st, "was it KH-224?" I believe it was with the information that's out there.

Yes, it was an "Advanced KH-11". There's no need to further debate that.

If my hunch is correct, satellites should be able to pick up much smaller units (tanks, personnel).

This is where I have to quote SeaQueen with a big fat "it depends...".

Can you detect a truck with a modern IMGSAT? Sure, and the photo above it (and others long before it - check the 1984 Samuel Loring Morison photos of the Nikolayev shipyard) is strong evidence of that.

BUT: the satellite was not actually searching for the truck itself, it was looking at a known fixed target (the launchpad) and the truck happened to be there. (This BTW illustrates a possible need for the sensory model to allow deep-zoom sensors to detect ancillary targets if they are in the vicinity of pre-known targets of interest).

Would the sat have been able to search a large area on its own for that specific truck and detect it? Almost certainly not, because of the "soda straw" effect when using a deep-zoom optical sensor. That very same sensor, when used in wide-area surveillance mode (ie. no zoom) would probably not be able to detect vehicle-sized targets. _However_, if the satellite was cued to the target by another sensor actually capable of performing area volume search (say, a Lacrosse SAR satellite) then it would be possible. (See where the "it depends" comes from?)

(As an aside, the ability to image a large area in one go and pick out targets of interest is commonly referred to as "synoptic coverage", and is a much sought-after capability. See for example the Gorgon Stare system. The NRO & USAF used to have a dedicated satellite for this up to the mid-80s, the KH-9 Hexagon, and its awesome capabilities are still missed.)

This is actually a pretty common multi-sensor collaboration scenario: Volume/area-search sensors (like radars) mass-sweep an area (or airspace) for targets, and then other sensors which are very limited in broad search but very capable in deep-zoom (like satellite close-look cameras or FLIR pods) zoom-in on the detected contacts and classify them, identify them and/or perform detailed BDA on them (and sometimes also other details, such as "what aircraft are on this tarmac"). Sometimes the sensors are co-located on the same platform (e.g. AWG-9 & TCS on F-14, APQ-120 & TESEO on F-4E, APG-71 & LANTIRN on F-15E etc. etc.), other times they are distributed.

[sshepard06]

Dimitris,

Thanks for the follow up,

BUT: the satellite was not actually searching for the truck itself, it was looking at a known fixed target (the launchpad) and the truck happened to be there. (This BTW illustrates a possible need for the sensory model to allow deep-zoom sensors to detect ancillary targets if they are in the vicinity of pre-known targets of interest).

And I would be incredible excited to see such a capability in the game.

It sounds like Paul is looking into the aircraft FLIR detection issue, I appreciate the responses from your team, this ever evolving/changing sim is what makes it world class.

[BradOrbital]

Is this possible?
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/146 ... 20000-feet

From 2013... very impressive. Allows for Activity-Based Intel.

I think the vid isn't showing there, found it on YT now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: bradinggs
Is this possible?
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/146 ... 20000-feet

From 2013... very impressive. Allows for Activity-Based Intel.

I think the vid isn't showing there, found it on YT now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA

IIRC this is similar to Gorgon Stare. I think you could simulate this by making an optical sensor with a search-zoom capable enough to pick up individuals (and carefully controlled slant range). It would probably be more capable than in RL, though.

[PaulTheWolf]

Hi sshepard06.

I've done some further testing with ATFLIR, and Dimitris is correct. If you use your Radar on your Super Hornet to detect a target, then de-activate it and approach to ATFLIR range, you will detect it with the ATFLIR Pod on its own. (I got clean detections on previously cued contacts at ~30nmi with the ATFLIR.)

Concordantly if you run a test with ground facilities or targets that you detect and damage, then site KH-244 over the engagement site, you'll get accurate BDA down to individual units/aircraft sited at the facility. (Though not ancillary units, which is a possible need Dimitris identified.) That should accurately capture the imaging capabilities described in the absence of a Synoptic Coverage capable platform like the KH-9 Hexagon, encapsulated in Dimitris helpful post in the absence of those ancillary use cases.

This would appear to be working as designed, but I'll test with a few more Scenario/Location/Platform combinations in the meantime to see if there are any other shortfalls, but for the present I'd suggest cueing your targets with additional sensors then using your ATFLIR or other IRST's on approach, or on additional platforms.

Paul.

[sshepard06]

Thanks Paul,

I've done some further testing with ATFLIR, and Dimitris is correct. If you use your Radar on your Super Hornet to detect a target, then de-activate it and approach to ATFLIR range, you will detect it with the ATFLIR Pod on its own. (I got clean detections on previously cued contacts at ~30nmi with the ATFLIR.)

I suppose I'm trying to reach a middle ground on this without having to go active on sensor mods. Dimitris I believe hit this on the head in terms of how helpful it could be in the future to integrate points of interest for scans maybe instead of trying to spot everything on the ground below the aircraft? Modern aircraft have this capability, but I understand that's a total different beast in terms of sim development.

The U-2S/SR-71, ect generally fills this role pretty well.

Thanks,

[PaulTheWolf]

Hi sshepard06

No problem! Setting points of interest or Capture Zones for EO/IR Sensors would be quite useful, and hopefully we'll work towards that implementation. In the meantime, without minimizing your concerns or suggestions, something I'd suggest is using additional platforms to spot enemy formations, or their general locations, then pinpointing them for engagement with ATFLIR.

Using a dedicated recon platform with good ELINT/SIGINT capabilities ahead of a strike is certainly doctrinal for most modern militaries, and would provide cueing for your aircraft to search in without necessitating radiating or emitting. It might not be optimal, but it would provide some interesting gameplay and simulation opportunities while any additional implementations are designed and tested.

I'd be happy to provide further advice if you're in need!

Paul.

[WSBot]

0014483