lukosIn August 2011, the JSF program was 10 years and 10 months into its test flight programme. For PAK-FA the corresponding date will be in Nov 2020.
Depends if we’re talking prototypes or actual aircraft flight test program. The first actual F-35 flight was December 2006. If we want to include competing prototypes in a bid, then you could legitimately argue that the MiG-1.44 should be included.
Also remember that the F-35 has 3 variants not one.
lukosFD – You have it right. Fundamentally an imaging MAWS, targeting pod and IRST work in much the same way, except that the TDP and IRST have a steerable mirror in front of the lens. The big difference is the FOV (which is inversely related to focal length – long focal length = narrow FOV).
MAWS or EODAS has a wide angle lens. The TDP is more like a telephoto, with a mirror that points and stabilizes. The IRST is a high-power telescope, but with a video-rate scanning mirror.
So now you have zoom data for all IRST systems and EOTS. For someone who thinks that accuracy is determined by FOV/pixels that is impressive. How do you have such information, are you a Chinese hacker perhaps?
AFAIK most targeting pods like Litening etc., have enough zoom to see soldiers on the ground from >50km, nevermind aircraft. The only problem is that the pod drags, takes up a pylon, and it isn’t stealthy, whereas EOTS isn’t any of those.
lukosBecause you mentioned advanced algorithms which, in your opinion, should have increased detection range of the system. The photo was an example of showing you that no algorithms in the world can filter out information that simply isn’t there.
You’re still really struggling with this damn concept. What an IIR sensor actually sees is absolutely nothing like a photo, only what it displays resembles one. Light radiates from a point source in all directions, the position of the point source is calculated by working with the power density spread of the energy that hits each element of the array. The sensitivity of an IR sensor may be a lot different to that of a human eye, which doesn’t even see in IR right!? It may also be different to the camera that took that shot. So it’s not necessary that the camera has the same sensitivity as the given IIR sensor and even if it did, the information might be there, but your eye can’t see it, and hell, the information may even have been lost during upload or conversion. It’s honestly the worst possible example you could have used.
I don’t understand this statement.
Then I suggest an evening class in the remedial English.
There is no “finally you get it”. You haven’t taught me anything new. MiG-29s, Su-27s, J35 Drakens or naval F-4s have been using IRST systems for decades without any dedicated cockpit displays.
Just because you have finally recognized the difference between the functions of EOTS and EODAS two-three days ago in some online crash-course, it doesn’t mean that it’s the same case with me.
Did I say they hadn’t? Could it be possible that a brand new aircraft uses slightly better technology in its EOTS and EODAS systems? What the hell are you blathering about now? You’re still struggling with the propagation of light.
lukosTo the best of my knowledge it is megapixel-class (1024 x 1024 or thereabouts). Pitch (the spacing of detectors) is crucial to IR focal plane arrays and defines the relationship of array size to detector count. As pitches get close to wavelength, which it is in midwave IR, things get problematical, so you just don’t get the density that is possible in visible light, hence you don’t see the increasing pixel counts that you see in cameras. Here’s a recent update from that battlefront:
http://www.sofradir.com/sofradir-unveils-daphnis-line-10%CE%BCm-pitch-infrared-detectors/
The max resolution of any imaging device is defined by its field of view and the resolution of its detector (whether in pixels – sorry, but everyone uses that term for FPAs – or the grain of wet film). Each element in an IR detector gives a single shade-of-gray signal and you can’t make the picture sharper than that, at least not in real time or close to it, any more than you could apply magic in the old days and make Ektachrome 400 look like Kodachrome 25. That’s why we adjust the FOV with optical zooms and telephotos – to get detail of distant subjects.
The EODAS sensors are not dissimilar to a cellphone camera in FOV, so you can do the math from there.
Further evidence, by the way, is the fact that EODAS was never considered adequate for pilotage, hence the incorporation of the low-light camera (EBAPS) in the helmet.
Are you seriously still trying? The number of elements in an array does not determine positional detection accuracy anyway you cut it. An algorithm is used to calculate the position and image processing is used to produce the image.
“So you do the maths” – What maths are you talking about exactly, have you any clue about exactly what maths you’re talking about, or are you just trying to sound smart?
Yes having more elements help with range and accuracy but there is no simple piece of maths that gets you from number of pixels to an accuracy figure. If the processing is better and the sensitivity higher, you can get more accuracy with less elements.
I am no expert so feel free to correct me. I think the final quality of the detected information (not image) is the combination of the quality and fov of he lens and the quality and size of the receptor array in the sensor. A flat sensor without the ability to change its orientation would be limited to a ‘flat’ view much like a fixed security camera. Detection of whatever short comes at the individual pit level were the amount of photons is detected. So it is well sensible to assume that if a hot engine from a fighter comes into view at about 20nm it would probably be (without physical lens zoom) a pixel sized spike at the most, in a high megapixel sensor. In a low resolution sensor, I doubt it would even register. At 10nm the plume might make things a bit brighter so a somewhat bigger cluster of pixels (for lack of a better word) but again for a lower resolution sensor the blob would be somewhat inaccurate without zoom.
Unless I am way off, but I can’t see how I could be. IR and optical spectrum behave similar when translated to a finite resolution sensor array.
Yes, way off. How would light from a distant object only hit one element?
lukosHey Lukos.. how old are you? Do you think you could make one post without any omicons?
You know, its perfectly possible to make a point without them.
This isn’t a facebook kind of forum. We are mostly adults, so go figure.
I used the emoticons to reinforce the sarcasm just in case anyone was stupid enough to take the comment seriously.
lukosIt isn’t. The T-50 is 4 years and 9 months into its test flight programme. The F-35 test programme was certainly far more advanced in August, 2011:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_article.html?item_id=75
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_article.html?item_id=83
You mean the PAK-FA programme is behind the disastrous F-35 programme? That can only mean catastrophe, this is a terrible aircraft, they should abandon it immediately… blah… blah… blah… rant… Pierre Sprey said… etc.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
lukosI try to follow u guys on this..
I do use my Canon 5D and 600D as a hobby.
If i’m not wrong, the 600D has a smaller image sensor, but still has more Megapixel.
The 600D is a newer camera, with a lot of improvment.
But i still find my 5D a better camera due to the larger image sensor.So how large is the image sensor on the DAS on F-35?
I also und3r stand that a Tele zoom lense degrade the image quality, but i still think it is worth it when u are dealing with ground targets.. so what gives?
It started with one person making the very silly assertion that you could calculate a sensor’s bearing accuracy by dividing the FOV in degrees by the pixel width of the display. As you’ve pointed out the number of pixels in the display isn’t necessarily related to the sensor being used and, furthermore, the resolution of the display is nothing to do with detected bearing accuracy which can easily go down to way below sub-pixel level:
http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1737844
The actual calculation of bearing uses sophisticated algorithms and isn’t easily determined by people on an internet forum.
lukosI haven’t kept up with the timeframes, but I think the PAK-FA program is quite a bit faster than the F-35.
I think it’s a bit early to be saying that. There’s about 4 J-20 prototypes and 5 PAK-FA prototypes. PAK-FA first flight was 2010, J-20 first flight was 2011. When it gets to 2018 and 2019, then we’ll sit down and have a chat about time frames.
lukosDream on.. With sensors, I was always referring to FPAs (focal plane array). The reference to pixels was only aid to explain you what the heck I was talking about. Quite on the contrary, it was you who triumphed by having discovered the 10x “zoom” on the EODAS in the post #1644 – until several people had to explain you that digital zoom doesn’t really provide any more information.. A great exhibition of your pathetic knowledge, congratulations.
For IRST, display as utterly unimportant. Most IRST systems like OLS or DDM-NG don’t even work with one. Even Typhoon’s Pirate doesn’t primarily use display – the fact that its scan rate is so fast that it can still be used for realtime video processing in WFOV mode is a pure afterthought.
So explain why you showed a photo, which is a display, to try make a point about detection, when IRST sensors and the like don’t actually see anything that way, it’s just displayed that way after processing? Seems to me you need to brush up on your knowledge a little. For the purpose of display, it does have zoom. Finally you get it, display doesn’t matter because all the sensor has to do is record the position and send it to the ICP to flag it up on the HMD or otherwise process it. This calculated position is independent of any display produced.
lukosthe source for xhat I said is in the text: it says
THE PICTURE ISN’T SHOWING THE SHOT
it’s in full letters. if you can’t read, go back to school and learn
Could you please post the evidence for the 20nm passive rear shot again because I’m frankly tired of this bull**** claim constantly rearing it’s ugly head without any substantiation beyond hearsay and conjecture.
second: they say they did the shoot, while LM spends pretty much all their time saying “it will do it”
This only clearly described an over the shoulder shot:
http://www.defesanet.com.br/rafale/noticia/10893/Shooting-Down-an-Aggressor-on-My-Six–Vive-la-difference-/
http://www.defesanet.com.br/rafale/noticia/10892/Descendre-un-agresseur-a-6-heures—Vive-la-difference-
And over the shoulder shot on its own is not special:
http://defense-update.com/newscast/0309/asraam_loal_test_130309.html
when you look at what the Rafale does in real operations, it’s pretty much as is/was said by Dassault. When, on the other side tou look what the F-35 does in real operations… well… there are no real operations to speak of and as far as achievements go, it’s far from what’s been promised for this date… in every respect
Because it can bomb Libya? Give it a rest. When I see it taking out S-400 systems and shooting down stealth fighters on its own then it’ll be what Dassault says it is… and the moon will glow blue and pigs will fly also. The loss rate is nothing to shout about either. 5 losses in <100,000 flying hours. That’s almost comical, even the ISIS AF would chuckle at that. I can only imagine what will happen to loss rate figures when the IAF start flying it.
you want to compare credibility? simple, LM has pretty much none left with the mess they did with the F-35 (price promised/achieved, dates promised/achieved, performances promised/achieved and so on.. there isn’t a single point on which they were up to their promises… not one
We’ve covered the price already and inflation, just change the record already. Dates? In service schedule is still on. Performance? Okay acceleration times and range slipped a little but I’m sure it’s not the only military project to have seen such issues.
lukosLucos, you mention this almost in a sarcastic way, yet I wonder if you have any realistic idea of what Northern Canada is actually like.
I didn’t mention it sarcastically at all, I was merely noting that the Gripen NG was single-engined and the Rafale has a far higher loss rate than Typhoon.
lukosLOL, this really made my day.. Ceratinly a bold statement from someone who needs a dictionary to recognize what I’m writing about, at all.
Not really. You talk about pixels but pixels refer to a display, which is how the image is displayed, not how it is detected. It is detected by elements and light from any given point hits all elements. You’ve demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of… well everything really.
lukosLast time I checked the DAS was not an IRST but rather a part of the system that offers the pilot extended situational awareness. The IRST in other planes is used to slave weapon to the target. That is kinda hard if your IRST is under and your enemy is over…
So let me get this straight, it’s an IR system that searches for objects and tracks them but not an IRST system? God forbid someone should have to change the direction the aircraft’s nose is pointing in slightly.
lukosI might have been a bit too specific here. So let me rephrase:
… you get dragged into deep discussions trying to prove that the F-35’s EOTS is actually worse than the IRST Gripen-E, Rafale, Typhoon, and all future 5 Gen fighters in existence will have (a claim which is considered as nothing short of herecy).
Now it’s better.
Based on the threat posed by ejection during a North Canadian winter, I’d rule out 2 of those based on engine count and loss rate.
lukosIt’s the same thing. If your algorhitm is unable to distinguish lines and points on the ID plate, it won’t distinguish a dot or a line in the sky…
Your arguments are barmy. As it happens I can see the letters, just not what they say. If I was a computer using sophisticated algorithms I could probably determine the end points of the letters.
You clearly have no knowledge of photonics and centroid calculations whatsoever. Furthermore, from your attempts to relate this to a picture, it’s clear that you don’t even understand how electromagnetic radiation works. Do you think IR light from a distant object only hits one element? Nope, it hits all of them and the centroid is calculated based on the intensity each pixel receives using algorithms.
Next time you show me a picture, you may as well post a cat.
Sign In
