LITENING II - AN/AAQ 28 (V) pod version in F/A-18C Hornet?

Been watching LANTIRN and WMD-7 videos on YouTube as I don’t have the -14 or Jeff. Why can ED not get us FLIR images that look like that? So much better than the effects we’re seeing with the LITENING... and the LANTIRN should be an inferior pod!

Probably because the majority of players would be disappointed with the results vs satisfying a few rivet counters on the forum. Just saying... :D

It's worth mentioning that the precision of generated coordinates isn't good enough to meet JDAM spec either, I hope some of these inherent inaccuracies get reflected in the sim eventually.

It's worth mentioning that the precision of generated coordinates isn't good enough to meet JDAM spec either, I hope some of these inherent inaccuracies get reflected in the sim eventually.

Yeah, generating TOO coordinates that actually hit from 30-40nm isn't all that realistic for those era pods.

Then again, the JSOW-A not being able to damage (Kill) trucks isn't either... :megalol:

If clusters worked in DCS like they did on the highway of death IRL, the Iraqis would have been a far happier people.

But the list of things DCS needs to actually fix is very very long.

I'll add fix NVG's to the list, but its low on the list.

Probably because the majority of players would be disappointed with the results vs satisfying a few rivet counters on the forum. Just saying... :D

Yeah sadly ED seems to want to cater to the "push button to win" crowd a bit more than I'd like.

I doubt ED does what it does based on wanting casual player to be happy. I just see lack of time and resources for a more complex simulation of certain systems, period.

Electro-Optical systems are primary autonomous search and targeting systems in modern fighters.

They touch basically major parts of combat sorties. And then they are not wanted to be made even semi-realistic by their inferior status?

This is something that needs to be check in future. But ED is redeveloping their FLIR system, as well weather engine. So high hopes would be that it will be changed in future.

Some people just have different priorities. Like they only want best of the best and all improvements for a better, like A-A missile range to be increased, more agility, less drag etc. BUt doesn't accept added realism for all elements, like difficulties to find targets, to identify targets, to track targets, designate the targets etc.

The realism is thrown often out when it would be to make player life more difficult and challenging. To find the limitations for different procedures and tactics.

It goes from small things like a switch position and logic, to major ones like able look directly 6'clock while pulling 9G inverted with MiG-28.

And if someone would get a ultra low resolution targeting system compared to today high MPix cameras and displays, they simply wouldn't like the realism.

Electro-Optical systems are primary autonomous search and targeting systems in modern fighters.

 

They touch basically major parts of combat sorties. And then they are not wanted to be made even semi-realistic by their inferior status?

 

This is something that needs to be check in future. But ED is redeveloping their FLIR system, as well weather engine. So high hopes would be that it will be changed in future.

 

Some people just have different priorities. Like they only want best of the best and all improvements for a better, like A-A missile range to be increased, more agility, less drag etc. BUt doesn't accept added realism for all elements, like difficulties to find targets, to identify targets, to track targets, designate the targets etc.

 

The realism is thrown often out when it would be to make player life more difficult and challenging. To find the limitations for different procedures and tactics.

 

It goes from small things like a switch position and logic, to major ones like able look directly 6'clock while pulling 9G inverted with MiG-28.

 

And if someone would get a ultra low resolution targeting system compared to today high MPix cameras and displays, they simply wouldn't like the realism.

I largely agree, and I look forward to see what they actually manage to do with the "flir model", actually I think a better look at spectral models is probably warranted if they want to keep up to date, as their NVG model needs some work too, as well as "new for the time" sensors such as SWIR sensors and then multispectral sensors that also operate in the UV for the various MAWS systems.

What version do we exactly have?

 

Original LITENING II is from 1999, then LITENING II ER from 2001, LITENING II AT from 2003.

 

Various sources says that base II model share either a 256k FLIR. And ER upgraded it to 512k. But some says it was LITENING III that brought 640x480 FLIR with digital stabilization and zooming, thats one variant is LITENING EF.

 

In "Department of Defense Appropriations: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Volume 4, Parts 36-2005" it is said that AT brought 512k FLIR and capability target J-series weapons, so we must have the AT from 2003 that we have in Hornet.

 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL DANIEL JAMES , III QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CONRAD BURNS LITENING II PODS

 

Question . What are your requirements for the Litening II Pods for the Air Na tional Guard ?

 

Answer . The LITENING family of targeting pods has evolved from the original LITENING II to ER ( Extended Range ) and now to AT ( Advanced Technology ) . The LITENING AT pod is equipped with a 512k FLIR , Laser Spot Track ( LST ) , and the capability to target J - Series Weapons . The Northrop Grumman LITENING AT tar geting pod ( TGP ) is comparable to Lockheed Martin ' s Sniper XR . The total targeting pod requirement for the Air National Guard is 266 pods that includes 203 for Block 25 / 30 / 32 / 42 F - 16s and 54 for the A - 10 . This breaks down to 8 TGPs per squadron plus spares . The ANG has 87 LITENING TGPs in the inventory , with 25 LITENING ATs on order , 12 Sniper XRs on order , and 70 Sniper XRs to be received from the active duty Air Force . The remaining requirement is 63 TGPs at a unit cost of $ 1 . 3 million per pod for a total price of $ 81 . 9 million .

 

F - 16 FLEET

 

Question . Is the Air Force adequately funded to provide these pods to the F - 16 ?

 

Answer . No . The United States Air Force currently has 470 LANTIRN Targeting Pods ( TGP ) in its inventory , which has a single mode Forward Looking Infra - Red ( FLIR ) and does not have a TV mode , Laser Spot Search and Track ( LSS / LST ) , Laser Marker ( LM ) , or the ability to generate J - series weapons.

The total documented requirement for the Combat Air Forces ( CAF ) is 679 3rd Generation TGPs . The United States Air Force has budgeted for 200 Sniper XR targeting pods , with 56 on contract . The United States Air Force , Air National Guard , and AFRC have a total of 134 LITENING pods in their inventories . This leaves the CAF 345 TGPs short of our documented requirements . The United States Air Force and Air National Guard combined forces in February 2000 to develop and procure the Advanced Targeting Pod ( ATP ) . Lockheed Martin ' s Sniper XR pod won an open competition for the ATP contract , and the Air National Guard is supposed to receive 70 of the first 176 Snipers that are procured . Sniper is over a year and a half late , and the Air National Guard is still waiting to receive the first TGP from the United States Air Force . LITENING has helped satisfy ANG requirements in the interim .

We have a 1024x1024 CCD, 640x512 flir ( or 512x512 FLIR depending on source) resolution with 2 FOV ,odes and 9 digital zoom levels,

These are the same FOV and Digital Zoom levels as the you get on the litening 2 on the F16 and A10C which are confirmed AT versioin

The main difference between ER and AT though are datalinking capabilities, IE visual and handoff option to other datalinked aircraft and thier sensors. Althoguh we don't have any TGP datalinking options yet its too early to write it off as ER instead of the AT since Hornet is still in EA.

In practicise of course the resolution of the TGP particularily the CCD mode is far too sharp to be its RL resolution. AS others have discussed there is no way especially with high levels of digital zoom that the resolution should stay the same.

Its all publicly available.

 

Moreover anyone with any sort of background in EOS sensors will take a quick look at DCS T-pods and :megalol:.... I mean DCS doesn't even model basic things like the Dirunal cycle. And the fact they can't see through smoke and some other obscurants. I mean really really basic stuff.

 

DCS doesn't model atmospheric effects, and image degradation. Nor problems with image stabilization and aircraft vibration. Nor do they model issues with earlier FLIRS for calibration drifts or having to recalibrate the pod periodically to account for sensor drift.

 

For GBU's it doesn't model spot jitter or other issues with lasing under poor atmospheric conditions. ETC...

 

For litening II

 

FLIR

LITENING II used a MWIR 320x256 staring array (I believe AT as well)

LITENING II ER used a MWIR 640x512 staring array (improved zoom to 1 deg fov) ~2001

LITENING II G4 FLIR uses a MWIR 1024x1024 starting array with a larger arpature as well as SWIR imager (which can also be used in an "active mode" to detect returns from synchronized laser pulses. (this is a much more recent pod, doubt we see it in DCS)

 

For comparsion the version of ATFLIR I think we are supposed to get used a 640x480 MWIR imager so its actually worse in that regime than then Litening II ER but better than the original.

 

What these numbers also lack is a basic understanding of the technologies used to make the sensor as well as sensor pitch which, up to a certain point will produce better looking images even at the "same" resolution. Though it is fair to assume for a give "era" sensor pitch is likely similar between sensors.

 

Visible:

Litening II/AT Analog CCD 762x480 res

Litening II ER got a 1024x1024 CCD

Litening II G4 Uses a Color CCD (res not specified, probably 1024 or better).

 

G4 also uses a better diode pumped laser than the earlier models with better output and better divergence properties (read longer range).

 

Based on this sort of data its also fairly straightforward to model detection ranges of various objects using Johnson Criteria. Which in DCS are rather optimistic. Nor are things like the fact that the images can be transmitted to JTAC's or other network participants modeled.

 

Of course then the other issue is that "in flight" results, are rather different than "perfect" lab results... For example for LANTRIN... Yes, open source from like 35 years ago...

I dont know what sources you are using but it would not make sense for the Litening 2 AT to have worse CCD and FLIR to the Litening 2 ER. and certainly notr for the original Litening 2 from 1999 to have same CCD sensor as the AT and a inferior one to the ER.

the AT succeeded the ER. It is basically an ER with data linking capabilities added in.

i was a crewman on an M60A3 tank and the thermal sight and range finder on this tank was widely regarded as better than the M1A1. that said it is possible that optics could be less capable from older version to a newer version. i realize my example is for armored vehicles. also i have read that the TGP is so expensive and in short supply that every jet could not get it always. perhaps there were lesser versions available?

We have a 1024x1024 CCD

The 1024 x 1024 came as CMOS sensor, so it is a color one.

In practicise of course the resolution of the TGP particularily the CCD mode is far too sharp to be its RL resolution. AS others have discussed there is no way especially with high levels of digital zoom that the resolution should stay the same.

There are some odd things with the FLIR and CCD. As they do not house the same optics, and CCD is with two own apertures, where you have WFOV and NFOV. But the FLIR is said to have just one narrow FOV and then one ultra wide for low level flying.

FLIR - The large aperture enables a longer focal length, which provides

higher resolution without losing sensitivity. The result is a very narrow FOV

capability with true optical magnification and very high resolution (no image

processing, such as microscanning, is used to artificially increase the

resolution). An available superwide FOV provides a HUD image

that can be used in low altitude flight at night

- RAFAE specs sheet.

The FLIR does not use any digital image enhances like the CCD does. Meanin that you do not have a zoom in capability with FLIR like you have with CCD. And you shouldn't have a NFOV and WFOV change either with FLIR in AT.

So you either use FLIR in ultra wide FOV or very narrow FOV mode, without zooming capabilities.

With CCD you get two optical magnifications and digital zooming with digital image processing, and of course in AT it is a color CMOS so if you have color LCD you get color video.

I dont know what sources you are using but it would not make sense for the Litening 2 AT to have worse CCD and FLIR to the Litening 2 ER. and certainly notr for the original Litening 2 from 1999 to have same CCD sensor as the AT and a inferior one to the ER.

 

the AT succeeded the ER. It is basically an ER with data linking capabilities added in.

Kev

So either there is some mixup in the nomenclature, but from the document I have "Eyes of the Litening" by Eric Moser (Northrup Grumman) SPIE. Its basically an overview of the development of those various pods up through 2016. The AT version specifically isn't mentioned much. The main mention of the "AT" designation are:

"Early versions (LITENING II and AT) incorporated an analog CCD camera, with 762x480 resolution, which was then upgraded to a 1024x1024 format"

"Many upgrades and variants have arisen, including LITENING II, LITENING AT, LITENING G4, LITENING SE, LITENING G4 with LDPTM, and the latest development, LITENING G4 Color"

So, my best guess of the development timeline is Litening II, AT, ER, G4 etc. If that's not your understanding perhaps you can share your source. But given that my source is from Northrop Grumman, I'll go with that. It is also very likely that there were parallel upgrade paths as well.

In terms of magnification, the ER version for FLIR has 3 different FOV's, 4deg/1deg for targeting and a 24deg presumably for navigation.

Also here is the spectral usage diagram for the G4 litening. ( which we don't have, but its instructive to help people understand were the pod works)

i was a crewman on an M60A3 tank and the thermal sight and range finder on this tank was widely regarded as better than the M1A1. that said it is possible that optics could be less capable from older version to a newer version. i realize my example is for armored vehicles. also i have read that the TGP is so expensive and in short supply that every jet could not get it always. perhaps there were lesser versions available?

Yeah, it was better. And it illustrates the point that you never really know the combination of factors that lead to unit acceptance. PodA might have slightly better or worse optics, but .mil doesn't care because the real criteria is that PodA has 3x better MTBF, or costs less per unit or some other combination of factors. "what the pilot likes" does get considered, but its only a very small part of the actual equation.

 

In practicise of course the resolution of the TGP particularily the CCD mode is far too sharp to be its RL resolution. AS others have discussed there is no way especially with high levels of digital zoom that the resolution should stay the same.

Well, sort of. You are talking about several things in that equation.

1. Sensor resolution/magnification basically determines the amount "raw information" (pixels) you have. However just because at max range and max zoom you can have a 3-5px "blob" to "detect" doesn't really mean you can actually detect it if there is ground clutter or the image has crappy contrast. Which 3-5 px blob is the vehicle out 20-30 3-5px "blobs".

2. The processing step(s), and there are usually many can munge that "data" any number of ways but they can never create more "information" out of a scene than exists in the raw data. There is no magic Hollywood "enhance! ENHANCE!" function.

3. This processed information then gets spit out through whatever analog or digital interface (you usually loose information going through analog. And onto your DDI which has its own "resolution" that has nothing to do with the sensor.

A very simple example from ground thermal world are the various handheld units from the early 2000's. Often the sensors would be something stupidly low res like 160x100 (to keep costs down, since you could chop up one 320 sensor plate into 4 lower res ones). Then through simple interpolation algorithm it was sent to a 320x200 LCD or oled screen. All the algorithm did was take a look at 2 pixels and stuff an extra one in there between them that was an average of the 2 real ones. At a basic level Digital zoom more or less works like that, just adding more and more fake pixels to an image.

So the real reason sensor resolution matters so much is how much "real" information you can pull out of scene, and for example a 640 vs 320 sensor class can pull ~4x the amount of information out of a scene.

We have a 1024x1024 CCD, 640x512 flir ( or 512x512 FLIR depending on source) resolution with 2 FOV ,odes and 9 digital zoom levels,

 

512x512 is pretty unlikely IMO, most of those staring arrays were usually built with very standardized sets of parameters and 512x512 isn't one of them, while 640x512 is.

Kev

 

So either there is some mixup in the nomenclature, but from the document I have "Eyes of the Litening" by Eric Moser (Northrup Grumman) SPIE. Its basically an overview of the development of those various pods up through 2016. The AT version specifically isn't mentioned much. The main mention of the "AT" designation are:

 

"Early versions (LITENING II and AT) incorporated an analog CCD camera, with 762x480 resolution, which was then upgraded to a 1024x1024 format"

 

"Many upgrades and variants have arisen, including LITENING II, LITENING AT, LITENING G4, LITENING SE, LITENING G4 with LDPTM, and the latest development, LITENING G4 Color"

 

So, my best guess of the development timeline is Litening II, AT, ER, G4 etc. If that's not your understanding perhaps you can share your source. But given that my source is from Northrop Grumman, I'll go with that. It is also very likely that there were parallel upgrade paths as well.

 

In terms of magnification, the ER version for FLIR has 3 different FOV's, 4deg/1deg for targeting and a 24deg presumably for navigation.

 

Also here is the spectral usage diagram for the G4 litening. ( which we don't have, but its instructive to help people understand were the pod works)

The progression is Litening 2 ( 1999) , Litening 2 ER ( 2001) , Litening 2 AT ( 2003) . Yes there is Litening 2 G4 and even newer variations but there is no point in discussing it as we don't have anything newer than the AT.

https://www.acc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/199176/litening-iierat/

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104571/litening-advance-targeting/

https://web.archive.org/web/20090102201303/http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=146182

So yes my assertion is correct. AT is basically an ER expanded with datalinking

Also this reference from USMC pilots novel. WHich matches research done. Litening 2 AT has 1024x1024 CCD, and 640x512 FLIR . Although not specifically refereed to as AT variation we know its not G4 since we know it has 1024x1024 FLIR, and we know its not the ER because the anther mentions the data linking capabilities and other features that are part of the AT package like the datalink and video recorder functions.

So in short to answer back to the OP what we are supposed to have is a Litening 2 AT.

The progression is Litening 2 ( 1999) , Litening 2 ER ( 2001) , Litening 2 AT ( 2003) , litening 2 G4 ( 2008 )

 

 

https://www.acc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/199176/litening-iierat/

 

 

So yes the assertion is correct. The AT is basically an ER with Datalinking capabilities.

Yeah but the point that the paper drove that due to the modularity of the pod, some things might have been upgraded, while others maybe not. Mix-n-match components. The paper does say the AT started off with older camera and was later upgraded to a 1024 sensor.

So it could be the case the AT was an improved II, with the older vis camera, for whatever reason. I can't account for the discrepancy of the documents. But the page you have is very non-technical and has some innacuracies (512 sensor for example)

Yeah but the point that the paper drove that due to the modularity of the pod, some things might have been upgraded, while others maybe not. Mix-n-match components. The paper does say the AT started off with older camera and was later upgraded to a 1024 sensor.

 

So it could be the case the AT was an improved II, with the older vis camera, for whatever reason. I can't account for the discrepancy of the documents. But the page you have is very non-technical and has some innacuracies (512 sensor for example)

512p sensor isn't necessarily wrong? is a generic term. Like people say for short 1080p for 1920x1080 resoultion for example.

Ive seen 512x512 flir ( that university paper on the Litening 2 generation TGP coordinates for the AV8B harrier)

or more typically 640x512 flir ( published novels and Northrup Grumman brochures and various articles including Eyes of the litening which i also have)

512p sensor isn't necessarily wrong? is a generic term. Like people say for short 1080p for 1920x1080 resoultion for example.

 

 

Ive seen 512x512 flir ( that university paper on the Litening 2 generation TGP coordinates for the AV8B harrier)

 

 

or more typically 640x512 flir ( published novels and Northrup Grumman brochures and various articles including Eyes of the litening which i also have)

Its a confusing term, but yes, I've seen all sorts of weird numbers for FLIR sensors, that IMO don't exist since most are built in very standardized ways by a very small handful of companies.

The 1024 x 1024 came as CMOS sensor, so it is a color one.

 

 

 

There are some odd things with the FLIR and CCD. As they do not house the same optics, and CCD is with two own apertures, where you have WFOV and NFOV. But the FLIR is said to have just one narrow FOV and then one ultra wide for low level flying.

 

 

- RAFAE specs sheet.

 

The FLIR does not use any digital image enhances like the CCD does. Meanin that you do not have a zoom in capability with FLIR like you have with CCD. And you shouldn't have a NFOV and WFOV change either with FLIR in AT.

So you either use FLIR in ultra wide FOV or very narrow FOV mode, without zooming capabilities.

With CCD you get two optical magnifications and digital zooming with digital image processing, and of course in AT it is a color CMOS so if you have color LCD you get color video.

No Litening 2, ER, or at AT are not supposed to have colour CCD. Either IRL or the variation we have In DCS.

The colour 1024x1024 is on much newer pods. Like G4 and above.

achieving 9 levels of "zoom" in FLIR mode , even you claim if its not quite working like digital zoom in nature like CCD mode, those levels are accurate.

achieving 9 levels of "zoom" in FLIR mode , even if its not quite work like digital zoom in nature like CCD modde is accurate.

If anything FLIR images are more "processed" than CCD/vis images IMO. Tons of work on signal processing and sensor fusion have been done over the years on those types of systems.

512x512 is pretty unlikely IMO, most of those staring arrays were usually built with very standardized sets of parameters and 512x512 isn't one of them, while 640x512 is.

See this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj5mYeaztLqAhWRmHIEHZyDDFMQFjAKegQIAxAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrace.tennessee.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6123%26context%3Dutk_gradthes&usg=AOvVaw2aV4JkrwHoXIKjjJ_nEeCe

This quotes a 512x512 image.

See this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj5mYeaztLqAhWRmHIEHZyDDFMQFjAKegQIAxAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrace.tennessee.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6123%26context%3Dutk_gradthes&usg=AOvVaw2aV4JkrwHoXIKjjJ_nEeCe

 

 

This quotes a 512x512 image.

LOL. Thanks, I was the guy who brought this paper to DCS a while back. And honestly I think its an error. The actual Doc from NG in my opinion is the correct one.

Of course we can't start applying a deconvolution for each frame as our CPU/GPU can't handle it at real time like a processors designed for it can, but we can simply at least make a slight sharpening to compensate to it.

Our CPU/GPUs are by FAR more powerful than what's inside a 25yo "teapot" (Litening II is 1995 tech), should be piece of cake even for a PIII. OTOH DCS still can't save a single compressed jpeg image (screenshot) to an SSD without a noticable stutter, but that's most probably a software issue related to the libraries that do the image compression which technically still is stuck somewhere in the 90s even in professional software today, simply because noone actually cares. I see this in literally every game... bad thing about DCS here is that the PrintScreen key is hardcoded regardless of what we map it to in the settings. Raised a bug report on this ages ago, never got acknowledged though.

Just for the lols as it's a completely different topic, the Eurofighter's FCS runs on Motorola 68020s, those were in Amiga 1200 and Mac II in the second half of the 80s...

Our CPU/GPUs are by FAR more powerful than what's inside a 25yo "teapot" (Litening II is 1995 tech), should be piece of cake even for a PIII. OTOH DCS still can't save a single compressed jpeg image (screenshot) to an SSD without a noticable stutter, but that's most probably a software issue related to the libraries that do the image compression which technically still is stuck somewhere in the 90s even in professional software today, simply because noone actually cares. I see this in literally every game... bad thing about DCS here is that the PrintScreen key is hardcoded regardless of what we map it to in the settings. Raised a bug report on this ages ago, never got acknowledged though.

Just for the lols as it's a completely different topic, the Eurofighter's FCS runs on Motorola 68020s, those were in Amiga 1200 and Mac II in the second half of the 80s...

Most if not all of the image processing on those kind of systems aren't done via "CPUs" or "GPUs", but rather via dedicated chips (custom made) or FPGAs.

Saying our CPUs and GPUs are much better than back then has little to do with the processing requirements. We don't have hardware dedicated to apply a specific processing almost instantly, but rather rely on programmable "general use" hardware (even on a GPU).

This is exactly the reason why even the best GPU available can't beat ASICs in cryptomining. Application specific hardware is best in terms of performance.