lukosStriker will relay to the pilot whatever information the aircraft can give it. So it depends on the aircraft it’s used with.
lukosThe original sensor was 640×480 (NTSC). The 640×512 is most likely a version of the same sensor using PAL standard.
1) If there was a plan to upgrade the EODAS to 1000×1000 FPA in 2006, it is quite likely that something could already have been done.
2) There is no indication about the 2Kx2K sensors, as of yet. The guy on the other forum is deducing that purely from the physical size – hardly a viable argument. At the same time, I have little doubt that the systems will get upgraded some day..
3) Increased sensor resolution has limited impact on the overall effectivity of the system. In simplistic terms, a human eye has some 500-600 Megapixel resolution in shades of grey but that alone doesn’t help us see aircraft at 20 miles or even distinguish a Ford from a Volvo at more than 200 odd yards.
Yawn.
2) Read the links. That is the L3 offering for DAS.
3) Funny you brought it up then.
lukosThere was something about having cameras with Striker II I think but I think the cameras with Striker I are head-tracking cameras inside the aircraft. Could be wrong on that.
lukoslukosSo 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…..???.
Don’t really see what you’re saying there.
lukosLooks like it began with the 640×512 arrays mentioned by MSphere but then got upgraded. Now 4.2 megapixel.
http://www.helitavia.com/books/Mil%20Av%20Sys/Wiley%20-%20Military%20Avionics%20Systems.pdf
2006 Ian Moir and Allan G. Seabridge; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ISBN: 0-470-01632-9
The electro-optic targeting system (EOTS) being developed by Lockheed Martin and
BAE SYSTEMS. This is an internally carried EO targeting system that shares many
common modules with the SNIPER XR pod already mentioned. The EOTS looks
downwards and forwards with respect to the aircraft centre-line, as shown in Figure 5.36.
The EOTS installation and EO sensor window are shown.2. The distributed aperture system (DAS) being developed by Northrop Grumman together
with BAE SYSTEMS comprises six EO sensors located around the aircraft to provide
the pilot with 360 situational awareness information that is detected by passive means.
The concept of horizontal coverage of the DAS is depicted in Figure 5.37. The six
DAS sensors provide a complete lateral coverage and are based upon technology
developed for the BAE SYSTEMS Sigma package (shown in the inset). Key attributes
are dual-band MWIR (3–5 mm) and LWIR (8–10 mm) using a 640 512 FPA. Each
sensor measures 7 5 4 in, weighs 9 lb and consumes less than 20 W. Sensor
devices with megapixel capability (1000 1000) are under development and will be
incorporated.
lukosWow, looks like the deliberately vague ‘megapixel’ description I got was very conservative. From MiG-31’s post:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123066261
http://www.cinele.com/images/Documents/Datasheets/ir2013/2k_x_2k.pdf
4-Megapixel Infrared Sensor Engine
The 2K x 2K infrared sensor engine
So that’s 2048×2048 on a 90deg FoV, equivalent to 4096×4096 on a 180deg FoV like the Rafale (which uses a 1280×1024 sensor). 8 times the resolution.
lukosWow, looks like the deliberately vague ‘megapixel’ description I got was very conservative. From MiG-31’s post:
http://www.cinele.com/images/Documents/Datasheets/ir2013/2k_x_2k.pdf
4-Megapixel Infrared Sensor Engine
The 2K x 2K infrared sensor engine
So that’s 2048×2048 on a 90deg FoV, equivalent to 4096×4096 on a 180deg FoV like the Rafale (which uses a 1280×1024 sensor). 8 times the resolution.
lukosthat 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
With a bit of processing it is.
1. A distant point source is not confined to one pixel, for this reason an algorithm is useful in determining the spread, since the spread is related to the actual sub-pixel position:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN-A6PWRFno
2. Accuracy is not limited to pixel resolution:
Exhibit A
http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1737844
The star’s centroid plays a vital role in celestial navigation, star images which be gotten during daytime, due to the strong sky background, have a low SNR, and the star objectives are nearly submerged in the background, takes a great trouble to the centroid localization. Traditional methods, such as a moment method, weighted centroid calculation method is simple but has a big error, especially in the condition of a low SNR. Gaussian method has a high positioning accuracy, but the computational complexity. Analysis of the energy distribution in star image, a location method for star target centroids based on multi-step minimum energy difference is proposed. This method uses the linear superposition to narrow the centroid area, in the certain narrow area uses a certain number of interpolation to pixels for the pixels’ segmentation, and then using the symmetry of the stellar energy distribution, tentatively to get the centroid position: assume that the current pixel is the star centroid position, and then calculates and gets the difference of the sum of the energy which in the symmetric direction(in this paper we take the two directions of transverse and longitudinal) and the equal step length(which can be decided through different conditions, the paper takes 9 as the step length) of the current pixel, and obtain the centroid position in this direction when the minimum difference appears, and so do the other directions, then the validation comparison of simulated star images, and compare with several traditional methods, experiments shows that the positioning accuracy of the method up to 0.001 pixel, has good effect to calculate the centroid of low SNR conditions; at the same time, uses this method on a star map which got at the fixed observation site during daytime in near-infrared band, compare the results of the paper’s method with the position messages which were known of the star, it shows that :the multi-step minimum energy difference method achieves a better effect. © (2013) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
The same fundamentals are applicable to position determination in other fields. Centroid calculation is a major part of photonics.
Exhibit B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staring_array
In radio astronomy the term “FPA” refers to an array at the focus of a radio-telescope (see full article on Focal Plane Arrays). At optical and infrared wavelengths it can refer to a variety of imaging device types, but in common usage it refers to two-dimensional devices that are sensitive in the infrared spectrum. Devices sensitive in other spectra are usually referred to by other terms, such as CCD (charge-coupled device) and CMOS image sensor in the visible spectrum. FPAs operate by detecting photons at particular wavelengths and then generating an electrical charge, voltage, or resistance in relation to the number of photons detected at each pixel. This charge, voltage, or resistance is then measured, digitized, and used to construct an image of the object, scene, or phenomenon that emitted the photons.
Here (at start of article) is an example of what happens at pixel level:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_sensitive_device
The technical term PSD was first used in a 1957 publication by J.T. Wallmark for lateral photoelectric effect used for local measurements. On a laminar semiconductor, a so-called PIN diode is exposed to a tiny spot of light. This exposure causes a change in local resistance and thus electron flow in four electrodes. From the currents Ia, Ib, Ic and Id in the electrodes, the location of the light spot is computed using the following equations.
x=kx⋅Ib−IdIb+Id
andy=ky⋅Ia−IcIa+Ic
The kx and ky are simple scaling factors, which permit transformation into coordinates.An advantage of this process is the continuous measurement of the light spot position with measuring rates up to over 100 kHz. The dependence of local measurement on form and size of the light spot as well as the nonlinear connection are a disadvantage that can be partly compensated by special electrode shapes.
These are just some examples of the kinds of technologies that might be employed. You can get an X and Y-axis current, the ratio of which gives the position of the centroid on a pixel for positional accuracy purposes and the vector some of which gives the light intensity for imaging purposes.
It’s a 640×480 = 307,200 pixels sensor – 0.3072 MP. Multiply by 6 because that’s the number of sensors – 1.8432 MP – gets you into ‘Megapixel’ range.
Sniper XR uses the same sensor:
http://defense-update.com/directory/sniper-xr.htmAs noted out by many others before, sensors of this size are somewhat behind the state of the art.
Just a tad out of date:
Testing of the pod is scheduled to continue through 2002.(US Air Force photo by Tom Reynolds).
lukos‘Megapixel’ is all I got wrt details.
lukosALHTK is dead.
Oh, any other similar project or is that it now?
lukosGod, that was quick! 😀 Are you watching out for email alerts when you get a reply?; -) 🙂
(I don’t believe in God by the way; – ) )
All those past pages of slippery-sliding, hand-wringing, futile attempts in flogging a dead horse to make out the F-35 had something that could be useful from 800 miles away:D
Thank you for confirming that, instead the reality is, in the distant or not-too-distant future (maybe 10-15 years away?) sensors, not specific to the F-35, might be available for example for use on UAVs that will help pick up launches of ballistic rockets.
And if such sensors are placed on unmanned platforms, useful information could be fed into an actual Ballistic Missile Defence system that is deployed to defend against hostile rocket launches.
No one said it could spot aircraft at 800nm but liquid propelled rockets generally aren’t that easily seen from 800nm away and I bet that would equate to very decent range against the rear aspect of an aircraft in full afterburner. In truth, it can be useful from 800nm away, if you think SM-3 Blk IIA/B. Every eye in the sky helps, the more sources you can detect a source from, the more accurately you can assess its trajectory.
not redundant, even if the sensors was good there would still be no hope of estimating range at this distance,
at this range they couldnt have verify which country it was launched from from 10 km aloft
How many times have you seen aircraft fly solo missions, or operate minus any other assets for that matter. Think about it. I’m sure the radar can also help out at shorter distances and of course ALHTK is also in the pipeline. Obviously that won’t work from 800nm, but still useful.
lukosWhy would you not advertise non-classified capabilities on your internet brochure? And it obviously isn’t classified unless your prisons have internet access.
lukosWhere?! I read back through all of your posts on the IRST debate in this thread since my first post on the issue, and even with you having told me what you supposedly wanted to say I found nothing that I could interpret as meaning that.
As a response to what I said this comment would also completely miss the point, so I’m not surprised I didn’t get it.
-“What time is it?”
-“Green.”
The debate started well before this thread, your first post mentioned the original argument on the F-35 thread (or one of them), which I remember vividly. Now I can’t remember whether you specifically said it was WVR only in that thread, but someone did, so I was just making sure that BS was cast straight out on a just in case basis. You only have yourself to blame yourself for referring to the original argument or, in fact, even mentioning DAS in the first place, especially in the wrong thread.
Yeah, a technology that is not EODAS and will remain in the basic research phase for some time yet – it will not show up in deployed hardware any time soon.
Where did I say it would?
In the video where it tracks the ballistic missile simulators yes, but range was considerably shorter in that case. The Falcon 9 track did not seem to start as soon as it cleared the earth’s limb but only as it rose above the lower of two cloud layers (and contrary to what you claimed it did lose track during the coast phase between first stage burn-out and second-stage ignition – in the ballistic missile video the radar was cueing it through that interval).
Wrong, it specifically says, ‘horizon break’.
Not by me.
Your fault for bringing up the original argument again in an unrelated thread.
Well, no – you’re clearly barking up the wrong tree.
You introduced the tree.
I’ve heard claims of 100nm against a fighter-size, non-afterburning target (unknown altitude but probably high, unknown aspect but likely rear).
Well people ‘hear’ a lot of stuff.
Needless to say, EODAS range will be correspondingly lower against a head-on aspect aircraft as well. No matter how you look at it, EODAS does not offer anything like the same range as a purpose-build IRST.
But to date there aren’t many AAMs capable of kill shots from outside DAS range at medium altitude and it isn’t the only passive system at work – see EOTS and ASQ-239.
I for one never made the WVR claims you are attributing to me, so maybe it’s you who needs to read more carefully (or at least clearly address your comments to the right people – given that you explicitly quoted me though it’s difficult to see how that would have been a mistake).
Again, your fault for referring to the original argument in the wrong thread. Here you go, next time don’t make posts like this referring to old arguments that you can’t remember all the ins and outs of.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?134607-Eurofighter-Typhoon-discussion-and-news-2015&p=2225863#post2225863
lukosI had an argument with BMD over on that miserable forum with regards to Typhoon’s stations 3 and 4. He claimed they were capable of carrying 2,000lb class weapons, I claimed they cannot carry no more than 1,300lbs. He then asked for a source to back up my claim, so I suggested to him to do what I did, i.e. email a contact from Eurofighter.com and he will be given the same figure I got given… He then went on to say he didn’t need to do that because he knew those such stations could carry 2,000lb class weapons… Unable to discuss properly and claim otherwise. Yes, sounds like Lukos.
Don’t know who BMD is.
Sign In
