What’s powerful enough, in your books? T-38 goes supersonic using mere 34 kN of afterburning thrust while other aircraft like J32 Lansen stay transonic even with double the thrust installed.

The intake design will affected how much thrust the engine lost when speed raising
when i say powerful enough , i mean the engine have enough thrust to push Taranis to at least mach 1 even with the loss in thust due to the lack of an intake specialise design for pressure recovery at high speed

No, sorry about it, but i do not want troubles with MBDA. Already had to cut parts of my article…

:confused::confused: so this is the same as the ” 20 nm passive shot” story then :p??????
How do you expect anyone to take your words without any evidence ? :p, may be you didn’t lie about the resolution of DDM-NG, but then there is also equal possibility that you make it up

If we just have to take your words for it without source or evidence then next time we will have to believe anyone about their pilot story whether they made it up or not? :confused:

Oh, I do know it has an ‘IRST’ function (ie. air-to-air modes) however nowhere I have seen stated just what kind of modes they are, what is its scan rate, how big is the FoV etc. If it is similar to targeting pods, then it’s probably mostly good for visual ID of targets acquired by other means (radar). An effective air-to-air sensor requires much wider FoVs than is common with targeting pods.

Yama, as i have explained : any optical systems : whether it is OFS, Private, AAS-42, OLS-35 or EOTS when they want to see target at maximum range they will have to focus their sensor ( zoom) thus have really small FoV, there is no way around it
Btw, since you asking about it, what is the FoV and scanning rate of OFS, OLS-35, Private, AAS-42 at maximum range?

1) Superior to DAS in the 640×512 version. Inferior to DAS in 1000×1000 FPA.

each DAS sensor only have to cover 90 degree, while DDM-NG have to cover 180 degree and using fish eye effect, With 2 times bigger FoV, DDM-NG have to get at least 2 times the resolution to be equal to DAS

2) There is no indication about it being a 16.7MP sensor, except wishful thinking

look at the sensor and lens size, it is at least 4 MP

3) In simplistic terms, a human eye has some 500-600 Megapixel resolution in shades of grey but that

actually, human eye average resolution are alot lower than that, Vsauce made a video about that, you can find it on youtube

So 6 guys back to back with 5 & 5 on both eyes , see better 360 deg round than 2 guys back to back with 10-10 on both eyes…..???.

xman, you have to understand what does it mean by pixels first . and the resolution regarding to FoV

Most budding and professional photographers will tell you that the most important ingredient in the optical system is the sensor, because that’s the part that captures the light. The sensor is essentially the “film” material of a digital camera. No light, no photo.

Light enters through the camera lens, then passes to the camera sensor, which receives the information and translates it into an electronic signal. From there, the image processor creates the image and fine-tunes it to correct for a typical set of photographic flaws, like noise.

The size of the image sensor is extremely important. In general, the larger the sensor, the larger your pixels, and the larger the pixels, the more light you can collect. The more light you can catch, the better your image can be.

The experts I spoke with for this story had colorful ways of describing the relationship between pixels and sensors, but “buckets of water” or “wells” were a favorite (intentionally oversimplified) analogy.

Imagine you have buckets (pixels) laid out on a blacktop (sensor). You want to collect the most water (light) in those buckets as possible. To extend the water-and-bucket analogy, the larger the sensor you have (blacktop), the larger the pixels (buckets) you can put onto it, and the more light (water) you can collect.

Larger sensors are the reason that 8 megapixels from a digital SLR camera (or 5 or 13) best those 8 megapixels from a smartphone camera. You get roughly the same number of pixels, but the pixels on the dSLR get to be larger, and therefore let in more light. More light (generally) equals less-noisy images and greater dynamic range.

The fallacy of megapixels

You can start to see that cramming more pixels onto a sensor may not be the best way to increase pixel resolution. That hasn’t stopped the cell phone industry from doing just that.

Jon Erensen, a Gartner analyst who has covered camera sensors, remembers when we collectively made the leap from 1-megapixel to 2-megapixel shooters.

“They would make the pixel sizes smaller [to fit in more pixels “but keep the image sensor the same.”

“What ended up happening is that the light would go into the well [the ‘bucket’] and hit the photo-sensitive part of the image sensor, capturing the light. So if you make the wells smaller, the light has a harder time getting to the photo-sensitive part of the sensor. In the end, increased resolution wasn’t worth very much. Noise increased,” he said.

The relationship between the number of pixels and the physical size of the sensor is why some 8-megapixel cameras can outperform some 12-, 13-, or even 16-megapixel smartphone cameras.

There’s more involved, too. A slim smartphone limits the sensor size for one, and moving up the megapixel ladder without increasing the sensor size can degrade the photo quality by letting in less light than you could get with slightly fewer megapixels.

Then again, drastically shrunken pixel sizes aren’t always the result when you increase your megapixels. HTC’s Bjorn Kilburn, vice president of portfolio strategy, shared that the pixel size on the 16-megapixel Titan II measures 1.12 microns, whereas each of the HTC One X’s 8 pixels measures a slightly larger 1.4 microns.

As a result, the photo quality on both these HTC smartphones should be comparable at a pixel-by-pixel level.

Unfortunately, most smartphone makers don’t share granular detail about their camera components and sensor size, so until we test them, the quality is largely up in the air. Even if smartphone makers did release the details, I’m not sure how scrutable those specs would be to the majority of smartphone shoppers.

that would be something like 1024×1024 pixels

pretty much any civilian digital camera from the last 10-15 years has a higher resolution than that (some a lot higher). even a smartphone does, and in any case, 1MP resolution, with a wide angle lens is absolutely not suitable for a detailed picture of anything further than a few dozens of meters

I found this :

Most budding and professional photographers will tell you that the most important ingredient in the optical system is the sensor, because that’s the part that captures the light. The sensor is essentially the “film” material of a digital camera. No light, no photo.

Light enters through the camera lens, then passes to the camera sensor, which receives the information and translates it into an electronic signal. From there, the image processor creates the image and fine-tunes it to correct for a typical set of photographic flaws, like noise.

The size of the image sensor is extremely important. In general, the larger the sensor, the larger your pixels, and the larger the pixels, the more light you can collect. The more light you can catch, the better your image can be.

The experts I spoke with for this story had colorful ways of describing the relationship between pixels and sensors, but “buckets of water” or “wells” were a favorite (intentionally oversimplified) analogy.

Imagine you have buckets (pixels) laid out on a blacktop (sensor). You want to collect the most water (light) in those buckets as possible. To extend the water-and-bucket analogy, the larger the sensor you have (blacktop), the larger the pixels (buckets) you can put onto it, and the more light (water) you can collect.

Larger sensors are the reason that 8 megapixels from a digital SLR camera (or 5 or 13) best those 8 megapixels from a smartphone camera. You get roughly the same number of pixels, but the pixels on the dSLR get to be larger, and therefore let in more light. More light (generally) equals less-noisy images and greater dynamic range.

The fallacy of megapixels

You can start to see that cramming more pixels onto a sensor may not be the best way to increase pixel resolution. That hasn’t stopped the cell phone industry from doing just that.

Jon Erensen, a Gartner analyst who has covered camera sensors, remembers when we collectively made the leap from 1-megapixel to 2-megapixel shooters.

“They would make the pixel sizes smaller [to fit in more pixels “but keep the image sensor the same.”

“What ended up happening is that the light would go into the well [the ‘bucket’] and hit the photo-sensitive part of the image sensor, capturing the light. So if you make the wells smaller, the light has a harder time getting to the photo-sensitive part of the sensor. In the end, increased resolution wasn’t worth very much. Noise increased,” he said.

The relationship between the number of pixels and the physical size of the sensor is why some 8-megapixel cameras can outperform some 12-, 13-, or even 16-megapixel smartphone cameras.

There’s more involved, too. A slim smartphone limits the sensor size for one, and moving up the megapixel ladder without increasing the sensor size can degrade the photo quality by letting in less light than you could get with slightly fewer megapixels.

Then again, drastically shrunken pixel sizes aren’t always the result when you increase your megapixels. HTC’s Bjorn Kilburn, vice president of portfolio strategy, shared that the pixel size on the 16-megapixel Titan II measures 1.12 microns, whereas each of the HTC One X’s 8 pixels measures a slightly larger 1.4 microns.

As a result, the photo quality on both these HTC smartphones should be comparable at a pixel-by-pixel level.

Unfortunately, most smartphone makers don’t share granular detail about their camera components and sensor size, so until we test them, the quality is largely up in the air. Even if smartphone makers did release the details, I’m not sure how scrutable those specs would be to the majority of smartphone shoppers.