Fist i want to say a few things i have read some of the other forums on this topic and i want to set some guidelines. I am active duty air force and use nvg's/ thermals on a somewhat consistent basis. So i have an idea of the pros and cons of the technology i am aware of the regulations CAPR- 60-1 and 60-3. i was recently asked by my commander on my opinions on using these devices in a SAR mission.
Hears the question using the devices for a
- stationary ground members
- passengers in a ground vehicle
- or mission scanners/observers.
Now assuming we have the money do you think in any possible way it could be useful.
vehicle passengers I think not so usefull....
Ground staionary somewhat usefull....depending on the search type, and I think that thermal would be an even better option than standard NVG
MS and OBS I think equally as usefull depending on the search type, NVG prefered....
Problem: cost prohibitive for purchase and likely for repair. If available as mil suprlus a better option. The next problem comes in is availability. A/C are easy, 2 sets per A/C. ground units depending on the size of the wing and the number of units, I dont know if there would be enough to go around to make them a force/ability multiplier (ie they will never be in the right place at the right time)
mk
In Wyoming, we have two aircraft that are equipped with FLIR systems. So no real issues there.
Pax in a ground vehicle might be flaky just due to the lack of NVG compatible lighting and such.
What about for dismounted use?
I know from my army days that they take some getting used to, but I don't think it is something that couldn't be overcome.
Prices for NVG have come down considerably, Sportsmans guide has them for around $100.
Here:http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/search/eSearch.aspx?SearchTerms=Night%20Vision&eMode= (http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/search/eSearch.aspx?SearchTerms=Night%20Vision&eMode=)
Quote from: syotos on October 24, 2013, 04:38:40 AM
Now assuming we have the money do you think in any possible way it could be useful.
Yes, they have the potential to be useful, but are cost prohibitive and have a low ROI.
Both noise pollution or the inverse - the inability to provide enough IR illumination are going to severely limit
the usefulness of the kinds of devices CAP could reach for, depending on which technology we're talking.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 24, 2013, 05:36:30 PM
Quote from: syotos on October 24, 2013, 04:38:40 AM
Now assuming we have the money do you think in any possible way it could be useful.
Yes, they have the potential to be useful, but are cost prohibitive and have a low ROI.
Both noise pollution or the inverse - the inability to provide enough IR illumination are going to severely limit
the usefulness of the kinds of devices CAP could reach for, depending on which technology we're talking.
Fortunately, there are suitable IR chemlights, and other beacons. In the depths of Wyoming, I'm not too worried about excess lights.
QuoteIn Wyoming, we have two aircraft that are equipped with FLIR systems. So no real issues there.
Handheld or built-in like the unit in North Dakota?
The OP, from Wyoming, asked about NVG which is signficantly different than FLIR systems on aircraft. Are the questions regarding use of NVG because FLIR is now being used in Wyoming? What is the FLIR being used for, SAR, DR, fire patrol, etc.?
Mike
^ A good point, actually it encapsulates the situation.
NVGs have nearly zero use in CAP.
Why? Because the whole point of NVGs is seeing from concealment - not something you generally do in SAR.
If it requires an IR illuminator to be seen, just use a flashlight and your eyes.
FLIR? Now that's a different conversation.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 24, 2013, 06:26:31 PM
NVGs have nearly zero use in CAP.
Why? Because the whole point of NVGs is seeing from concealment - not something you generally do in SAR.
If it requires an IR illuminator to be seen, just use a flashlight and your eyes.
Really? How did you came to that conclusion? I won't argue the use of NVGs in CAP. But I've used NVGs in the military and, while some may use it to see from concealment, many just use it to see better at night.
A flashlight will either not illuminate the whole area effectively or compromises your night vision. Again, I'm not arguing in favor of NVG use. I see some limitations as it is (cost, training, the use of non-compatible lights such as flashlights, etc.). I just don't agree with the generalization of your statement.
Quote from: sardak on October 24, 2013, 06:18:23 PM
QuoteIn Wyoming, we have two aircraft that are equipped with FLIR systems. So no real issues there.
Handheld or built-in like the unit in North Dakota?
The OP, from Wyoming, asked about NVG which is signficantly different than FLIR systems on aircraft. Are the questions regarding use of NVG because FLIR is now being used in Wyoming? What is the FLIR being used for, SAR, DR, fire patrol, etc.?
Mike
They are built in. Primary use is SAR. We get to thank the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security for the two systems.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 24, 2013, 06:26:31 PM
NVGs have nearly zero use in CAP.
Why? Because the whole point of NVGs is seeing from concealment - not something you generally do in SAR.
If it requires an IR illuminator to be seen, just use a flashlight and your eyes.
Not always, and that they can give you a better depth of visual range in the dark (ie farther than a flashlight) that easily enhances your chances of success. When there is a need to break out white lights, fine that's what you do.
One of the primary goals of this is to be able to work with those aircraft with the FLIR systems. Just because it is not done currently; why should it not be?
There are the obvious concerns about safety procedures, any special limitations that may need to be considered. Whats the harm in being forward thinking about how we could expand our capabilities? Please note that this is just in the exploratory stage.
Quote from: RogueLeader on October 24, 2013, 07:24:34 PMThere are the obvious concerns about safety procedures, any special limitations that may need to be considered. Whats the harm in being forward thinking about how we could expand our capabilities? Please note that this is just in the exploratory stage.
There's nothing wrong with exploring anything and everything, but as said, NVGs are special-case / special use and expensive.
Absent operations which encompass all the the variables, they won't be much use, or may only be useful in certain areas for certain missions.
The last thing we need is another ARCHER, but at least NVGs wouldn't require special aircraft.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 24, 2013, 06:26:31 PM
^ A good point, actually it encapsulates the situation.
NVGs have nearly zero use in CAP.
Why? Because the whole point of NVGs is seeing from concealment - not something you generally do in SAR.
If it requires an IR illuminator to be seen, just use a flashlight and your eyes.
FLIR? Now that's a different conversation.
Oh, come on Bob. You know that's not the case.
The whole point of NVGs is light amplification. The ability to see (aided) what the naked eye cannot see in the dark unaided. It has zip to do with concealment.
And NVGs don't require an "IR illuminator" to see except when the illumination level is low or non-existent (ie. the inside of a tent).
AN/PVS-5 NVGs had a little LED illuminator built in just about where the bridge of your nose would be for those circumstances.
I wore goggles quite a bit, I probably have 100 hrs of flight time under NVGs. When putting a helicopter into a confined area at night (aided) or hooking an external load under goggles, you used the normal "night illumination" levels. Occasionally we'd actually use the pink light, but that thing was more trouble than it was worth usually.
Matter of fact: US Military night operations for a long time (dunno if it is that way now due to the higher tech NVGs) were scheduled based on the "illumination level" (moon, etc) for a particular night. We very, very seldom flew when the illum was below a certain percentage, because the -5 goggles were so crummy at really, really low illum levels.
The PVS-6 googles were a pretty "night and day" (pardon the pun) difference over the PVS-5 goggles.
^ At what distance?
Quote from: Eclipse on October 24, 2013, 09:40:09 PM
^ At what distance?
All distances.
Sling loads are conducted (for the CE / FE) at 5-8 ft from the load. Confined areas can be 2-3 times bigger than the aircraft going into it. Lemme tell you about spotting a UH-60 once while we were doing pinnacle approaches and I called "Traffic, 2 o'clock, approximately 2 miles.." and the pilot said "Two miles? Try that again, chief!" I looked under the cutaways and sure enough, that UH-60 was probably more like 5 miles away.. LOL.
Hell, if NVGs were solely about "concealment" then the gigantic IR searchlight we had on the helicopter (the "pink light") was kind of a dead giveaway. Never mind the hot exhaust, the lights in the cabin/cockpit, and oh, yeah, the fact that you can hear the darn thing coming from like
7000 miles away.
"What is making that racket, Comrade?"
"I don't know, but it is well concealed!"
Quote from: NIN on October 24, 2013, 09:47:22 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 24, 2013, 09:40:09 PM
^ At what distance?
All distances.
Sling loads are conducted (for the CE / FE) at 5-8 ft from the load. Confined areas can be 2-3 times bigger than the aircraft going into it. Lemme tell you about spotting a UH-60 once while we were doing pinnacle approaches and I called "Traffic, 2 o'clock, approximately 2 miles.." and the pilot said "Two miles? Try that again, chief!" I looked under the cutaways and sure enough, that UH-60 was probably more like 5 miles away.. LOL.
Hell, if NVGs were solely about "concealment" then the gigantic IR searchlight we had on the helicopter (the "pink light") was kind of a dead giveaway. Never mind the hot exhaust, the lights in the cabin/cockpit, and oh, yeah, the fact that you can hear the darn thing coming from like 7000 miles away.
"What is making that racket, Comrade?"
"I don't know, but it is well concealed!"
OK - but you've go an IR Searchlight. That's not going to fly anytime soon on a CAP plane.
We're looking for stuff more then 8 feet away, and things without big flashy marker lights, etc. from far distance.
Hey, smoke 'em if you got'em, and if Raytheon is reading this, we'd like about 100 pairs, please.
Arkansas Wing has 2 handheld Thermal Imaging cameras that we use airborne, mobile and on the ground. We even developed a scanner training outline for airborne use through the photo window. This capability was used most recently on Monday the 20th in a night time search for a downed aircraft in Madison County Arkansas......
Are any of the high-speed SAR teams that go on-rope to get out of their Hummers using NVGs for ground SAR?
There are useful aerial applications for thermal imaging, but I'm a little skeptical about their use for ground SAR.
I was wondering if they were deployed. Bill were your guys over in Leflore Co or did OK Wing handle the search exclusively?
Quote from: cap235629 on October 24, 2013, 11:38:22 PM
Arkansas Wing has 2 handheld Thermal Imaging cameras that we use airborne, mobile and on the ground. We even developed a scanner training outline for airborne use through the photo window. This capability was used most recently on Monday the 20th in a night time search for a downed aircraft in Madison County Arkansas......
Quote from: RiverAux on October 24, 2013, 11:40:12 PM
Are any of the high-speed SAR teams that go on-rope to get out of their Hummers using NVGs for ground SAR?
There are useful aerial applications for thermal imaging, but I'm a little skeptical about their use for ground SAR.
In our AO, we have trained with them extensively in heavy brush to look for children or ALZ patients who may have laid down. A body JUMPS out of the heat signature of hedges, brushpiles and vegetation.
Quote from: Jaison009 on October 24, 2013, 11:50:02 PM
I was wondering if they were deployed. Bill were your guys over in Leflore Co or did OK Wing handle the search exclusively?
Quote from: cap235629 on October 24, 2013, 11:38:22 PM
Arkansas Wing has 2 handheld Thermal Imaging cameras that we use airborne, mobile and on the ground. We even developed a scanner training outline for airborne use through the photo window. This capability was used most recently on Monday the 20th in a night time search for a downed aircraft in Madison County Arkansas......
We were put on standby to augment OK wing as we are only 30 miles from the search area
Are we discussing NVGs or thermal equipment?
the OP mentioned both
Ah, Bach!
Quote from: cap235629 on October 24, 2013, 11:50:41 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 24, 2013, 11:40:12 PM
Are any of the high-speed SAR teams that go on-rope to get out of their Hummers using NVGs for ground SAR?
There are useful aerial applications for thermal imaging, but I'm a little skeptical about their use for ground SAR.
In our AO, we have trained with them extensively in heavy brush to look for children or ALZ patients who may have laid down. A body JUMPS out of the heat signature of hedges, brushpiles and vegetation.
Plus our cadets absolutely LOVE watching the A-10's at FSM taking off at night with them. Who knew an A-10 had afterburners!!!!! LOL
A-10s have afterburners?!
:o
Flyer
They might spit a little fire out the back at full mil power, but no ABs.
LaterBlades! Duh! Wrong airplane!
Quote from: flyer333555 on October 25, 2013, 04:22:09 AM
A-10s have afterburners?!
:o
Flyer
No they don't. I was alluding to the thermal image of an A-10 taking off. Through a thermal imager the hot exhaust looks like an afterburner and the cadets think it's cool.....
Quote from: cap235629 on October 26, 2013, 05:04:35 AM
Quote from: flyer333555 on October 25, 2013, 04:22:09 AM
A-10s have afterburners?!
:o
Flyer
No they don't. I was alluding to the thermal image of an A-10 taking off. Through a thermal imager the hot exhaust looks like an afterburner and the cadets think it's cool.....
The TF-34 is a high bypass turbofan engine. As of right now, there are NO high bypass turbofan engines that are equipped with an afterburner.
A afterburner would only work for the core of the engine, which in the TF-34's case only provides 20% of the thrust anyway.
That is what I knew, an afterburner for an A-10 was a technological impossibility. Thanks for the two answers.
Flyer
A Chinook doesn't have afterburners either, and under goggles (even NVGs, not thermals) the hot exhaust looks pretty crazy.
Night Vision CH-47F Chinooks Sling Load: Task Force Corsair (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3s5jtqKhgc#ws)
(ffwd to about the 2 minute mark if you're the impatient sort, as the aircraft flies away)
Aren't the engines on an A-10 the same basic design as the ones used on cargo transports? *admitted ignorance*
Quote from: Garibaldi on October 26, 2013, 01:12:43 PM
Aren't the engines on an A-10 the same basic design as the ones used on cargo transports? *admitted ignorance*
Same "basic" design, i.e. High-bypass Turbofan engine, just smaller. The TF-34 used on the A-10 is also used on the S-3 Viking.
It's bigger version, the GE CF-6 Family of engines is used on 747's and DC-10's and many other airliners.
Quote from: flyer333555 on October 26, 2013, 11:11:55 AM
That is what I knew, an afterburner for an A-10 was a technological impossibility. Thanks for the two answers.
Flyer
Not exactly true. Turbofan engines have had afterburners. The F-14 engines (TF-30, and later F110-GE-400) are a prime example. However, they are low-bypass, and benefit much more from the added thrust than would the high-bypass A-10 engine (TF34-GE-100A).
Possible - yes; practical - no.
Quote from: SarDragon on October 27, 2013, 04:41:26 AM
Quote from: flyer333555 on October 26, 2013, 11:11:55 AM
That is what I knew, an afterburner for an A-10 was a technological impossibility. Thanks for the two answers.
Flyer
Not exactly true. Turbofan engines have had afterburners. The F-14 engines (TF-30, and later F110-GE-400) are a prime example. However, they are low-bypass, and benefit much more from the added thrust than would the high-bypass A-10 engine (TF34-GE-100A).
Possible - yes; practical - no.
Low bypass turbofan engines have had afterburners,
high bypass have not because it's just not practical.
There is a BIG difference!!!
Low bypass turbofans: Pratt & Whitney TF-33, F-100, GE F-404, F-118,
High bypass turbofans: GE CFM-56, CF-6, Pratt & Whitney JT-7, TF-39,
Low bypass turbofans get 20% of their thrust from the fan and 80% from the core.
High bypass turbofans get 80% of their thrust from the fan and 20% from the core.
High bypass turbofans usually have much lower noise signatures and much better fuel economy then a low bypass turbofan of the same thrust.
But they're not usually practical for use in fighter type aircraft due to their size.
So I did a little bit of digging out of curiosity... The last image in the photo lineup (assuming that the marketing folks didn't screw with it too much) makes a pretty compelling case for FLIR, but not for NVGs.
http://www.basspro.com/FLIR-Scout-PS24-Thermal-Handheld-Camera/product/10230040/#chart-container (http://www.basspro.com/FLIR-Scout-PS24-Thermal-Handheld-Camera/product/10230040/#chart-container)
The red is does not appear in an IR image. That was added by someone....
Quote from: cap235629 on October 24, 2013, 11:50:41 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 24, 2013, 11:40:12 PM
Are any of the high-speed SAR teams that go on-rope to get out of their Hummers using NVGs for ground SAR?
There are useful aerial applications for thermal imaging, but I'm a little skeptical about their use for ground SAR.
In our AO, we have trained with them extensively in heavy brush to look for children or ALZ patients who may have laid down. A body JUMPS out of the heat signature of hedges, brushpiles and vegetation.
How big an area were you trying to search with these on the ground?
Quote from: NIN on October 26, 2013, 01:12:38 PM
A Chinook doesn't have afterburners either, and under goggles (even NVGs, not thermals) the hot exhaust looks pretty crazy.
Night Vision CH-47F Chinooks Sling Load: Task Force Corsair (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3s5jtqKhgc#ws)
(ffwd to about the 2 minute mark if you're the impatient sort, as the aircraft flies away)
Is that static electricity in the rotors or light reflection?
Quote from: RiverAux on October 28, 2013, 02:54:00 AM
Quote from: cap235629 on October 24, 2013, 11:50:41 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 24, 2013, 11:40:12 PM
Are any of the high-speed SAR teams that go on-rope to get out of their Hummers using NVGs for ground SAR?
There are useful aerial applications for thermal imaging, but I'm a little skeptical about their use for ground SAR.
In our AO, we have trained with them extensively in heavy brush to look for children or ALZ patients who may have laid down. A body JUMPS out of the heat signature of hedges, brushpiles and vegetation.
How big an area were you trying to search with these on the ground?
We place the imager in the middle of the search line and advance the line as normal. We also use them in a hasty 2 man search..... There is no magnification on the unit.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 28, 2013, 03:02:58 AM
Quote from: NIN on October 26, 2013, 01:12:38 PM
A Chinook doesn't have afterburners either, and under goggles (even NVGs, not thermals) the hot exhaust looks pretty crazy.
Night Vision CH-47F Chinooks Sling Load: Task Force Corsair (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3s5jtqKhgc#ws)
(ffwd to about the 2 minute mark if you're the impatient sort, as the aircraft flies away)
Is that static electricity in the rotors or light reflection?
Static, mostly caused by dust. That's the typical signature of a rotor in a dusty environment.
Quote from: cap235629 on October 28, 2013, 03:18:08 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 28, 2013, 02:54:00 AM
Quote from: cap235629 on October 24, 2013, 11:50:41 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 24, 2013, 11:40:12 PM
Are any of the high-speed SAR teams that go on-rope to get out of their Hummers using NVGs for ground SAR?
There are useful aerial applications for thermal imaging, but I'm a little skeptical about their use for ground SAR.
In our AO, we have trained with them extensively in heavy brush to look for children or ALZ patients who may have laid down. A body JUMPS out of the heat signature of hedges, brushpiles and vegetation.
How big an area were you trying to search with these on the ground?
We place the imager in the middle of the search line and advance the line as normal. We also use them in a hasty 2 man search..... There is no magnification on the unit.
I meant, are you searching an area the size of a football field? 100 acres? 5000 acres?
While I would say that handheld IR equipment is probably going to be more useful than NVGs for ground SAR, I can't see either being a major help unless you've got the search area down to an extremely small size that could be effectively searched by 1 piece of equipment.
The idea (I'm the one that gave the OP- and several others- the assignment) is to be working with the Aircraft with the FLIR system, communicating via radios.
I understand that the NVG's may not be "that" effective as seeing the target, but they are good enough to transit the terrain. Yes, I have used them for land nav, back in my army days.
Airborne IR? All for it. Either mounted on the aircraft or handheld I think it has some great uses.
In so far as using NVGs for terrain navigation on the ground I really don't think they offer any advantage in this particular use. I think I can move just as well, if not faster, easier and safer, with a flashlight or headlamp than with NVGs. Factor in that the whole search team probably isn't going to be wearing them and are going to be using flashlights that are constantly going to be pointing right at you, and I wouldn't even consider using NVGs for ground SAR.
Sure, if you're sneaking around doing Army stuff NVGs are the way to go, but thats the the situation we're discussing.
One use for the NVG, at least in the WYWG, is that our FLIR system is equipped with a laser. We can fire the laser on the target, and anyone on the ground with NVG will be able to see the beam and the target area
Handheld or goggle IR in the aircraft would be ineffective, if I remember correctly (and I may be mistaken) from my fire dept thermal imager training, you cant see thru glass. So if not exterior mounted, NVG is the only option.
As far as on the ground; yes for individual movement I think a flashlight is easier, for search and scan, anything that turns night into day (enva a pale green shaded day) would be an advantage. Flashlights are not the no starter they used to be; modern NVG's have a light dampening effect if you have sudden/unexpected bright light issues.
Based on my use of the two (NVG vs IRG) I would prefer the IRG for ground SAR work for the above mentioned reasons: specifically the heat signatures that being hidden/obscured by ground clutter that NVG's would miss
mk
Again, the FLIR system is in the Aircraft.
I know from my army days, that seeing through NVGs works well for seeing the terrain. How does Infra-red goggles compare to NVG's?
I can see a use for NVG's in a ground SAR incident primarily because you'll be able to see further than any <200 Lumen light. So if you were watching a suspected Boundary for someone walking across a clearing or Power line cut. Although Civil Air Patrol doesn't typically get involved in certain searchs but NVG's might be helpful in situations involving potentially despondent subjects or those others who are avoiding getting found, like some autistic children that think they might get in trouble. There is an application for them, I'm just not sure it's really worth the expense.