Correct, but I have been talking about elevation coverage from the beginning… So be so kind and don’t move goalposts for reasons of face saving.

Didn’t. Never said anything about elevation.

1) Superior to DAS in the 640×512 version. Inferior to DAS in 1000×1000 FPA.
2) There is no indication about it being a 16.7MP sensor, except wishful thinking.
3) The same accounts for all systems. EOTS is a different story but IMHO, no better than an ordinary modern IRST.

In other words, you cannot find something I have never claimed.. Glad you admit that..

1) Inferior to DAS in 4.2 or 16.7 (likely) megapixel resolution. Inferior in breadth or targets detected.
2) Aperture profile matches precisely. Coincidence? Can you find a 640×512 pixel version in that datasheet list that matches it?
3) Except it has the range of a targeting pod.

No dude, I’ve explained why. I know what you said, but I don’t have the time or patience to re-find that drivel.

Attentively checked. Feeling it is far away from the original.

I know, shame because MP.net was a really good site for new information.

Phazotron is offering Zhuk-AE AESA for MiG-29s. I guess that means from now on all MiG-29s have all AESA radars.. :p

Please stop being deliberately obtuse. The links are very clear. Only the 4.2 and 16.7 megapixel systems fit the footprint.

http://www.cinele.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=30&Itemid=56

In fact the image in AFM and others fit the 16.7 megapixel version:

http://www.cinele.com/images/Documents/Datasheets/ir2013/4k_x_4k.pdf

What has brought it up was your response #328 in the Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 thread where you claimed that EODAS was able to pick IR sources which other systems like DDM-NG were not because [I quote you] DDM-NG is not programmed with the sensitivity to do it because false alarms are a big enough problem for first gen passive MAWs, distinguishing between aircraft and false alarms requires a lot more computing power, which currently the DDM-NG back-end is not capable of.

In the following responses I have clearly shown that EODAS was not any better in terms of sensitivity than DDM-NG. The 640×480 FPA was slightly worse, the 1000×1000 FPA would be slighty better but in reality the differences in resolution and detection range are still marginal because it’s the optics what counts in the first place.

Well, that’s pretty much it.. Any additions from you?

Do you just deliberately ignore all information posted at will? DDM-NG uses a 1 megapixel sensor over 180deg. EODAS uses a 4.2 megapixel sensor over 95deg. Therefore DDM-NG is grossly inferior to DAS and the MBDA datasheet says it’s MWS only, regardless of what it is in your fairy tale land.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/ddm-ng_datasheet-1424428103.pdf

So at present, the Rafale doesn’t have the software sensitivity to detect more than just missiles. As usual everything you’ve posted is garbage.

Is it correct to think the J-20 will be more an interceptor than an air-superiority fighter? The wing profile and projected fuel load seems to suggest that.

Well that settles that. The bbc article is misleading. Probably much like the article that started the idea of Taranis being supersonic.

That’s stated in lots of places. Taranis is supersonic.

FoV is more than that.