Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Cockpit, radar, helmet-mounted display, and other avionics
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2539
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post20 Nov 2018, 08:25

Taog, like Dragon029 here said, imaging system needs to have enough information about the target to actually detect it. This requires it covers enough pixels in the detector to be detected with certain probability. Here are couple of good references to how it works:

https://www.flirmedia.com/MMC/CVS/Tech_ ... 002_EN.pdf
https://www.flir.com/globalassets/impor ... asheet.pdf

You may notice that 640x480 detector has roughly equal Field of View with 25 mm lens as 320x240 detector with 13 mm lens. However it can detect a vehicle 2.2 km away whereas 320x240 detector can do the same from 840 meters away. This is most likely because the 640x480 detector has slightly higher sensitivity. Human target exhibit similar behaviour.

Here are specs from Thales:
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/defau ... 071005.pdf
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/defau ... eet%20.pdf

Here 768x576 resolution Catherine-XP has 13.5 km detection range against tank and 1280x1024 Catherine-MP has 20 km detection range with narrow Field of View setting. This despite the fact that Catherine-XP has slightly higher sensitivity and narrower Field of View (higher zoom).

As you can see from these examples, higher resolution yields longer detection range against all target types. Sure sensitivity will affect range also, but only against some targets with very low thermal signature. Most targets will have high enough signature to be more affected by the resolution than sensitivity with modern systems.

Here is another document which has some additional info:
http://www.drsinfrared.com/Portals/0/do ... 0-683A.pdf
Previous

Return to F-35 Avionics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests