The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[sferrin]

Guess it's better to heap all the B.S. in one thread so the rest don't get polluted. Good move.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

If the F-35 is expected to fulfill the role the F-22 was originally intended for (air dominance), I would want it to have the kinematic performance in the same class as the F-22 in order to guarantee it. Considering the addition of stealth technologies reduces the RCS and hence the detection range for theoretically both sides in the fight, BVR combat might actually become quite difficult to perform except for high RCS targets like AWACs. Question is, how sensitive are IRSTs and EODAS now? And how effective was the F-14's TCS camera system at long ranges? I hear aircrews became quite proficient at using the TCS. Wiki (don't know how reliable) mentioned that large aircraft could be detected as far as 60 miles, which really isn't far when two flights are head on.

 

[GTX]

UK Takes Delivery of First Lightning II Fighter Jet

(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued July 19, 2012)

L to R: Royal Navy Fleet Commander, Admiral Sir George Zambellas; Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond; Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton and Chief of Materiel Air, Air Marshal Sir Kevin Leeson stand in front the of first F-35 fighter delivered to the UK. (MoD photo)

The first of the UK’s next-generation stealth combat aircraft has today been handed over to the MoD.

At a ceremony in Fort Worth, Texas, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond formally accepted the first jet which will be known as Lightning II.

The aircraft are Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, manufactured by Lockheed Martin.

The UK is the first country outside the US to receive these aircraft and Mr Hammond today announced that the MoD intends to order a fourth Lightning II aircraft next year to add to the three already on contract.

The RAF and Royal Navy will conduct flight trials of the jets which will operate from land bases and from sea.

Lightning II will be operational from land based airfields from 2018, when it will also commence flight trials off the HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier. Mr Hammond announced that the jets are likely to be based at RAF Marham, Norfolk, but that no decision has yet been made.

The UK will benefit from interoperability with the US Marine Corps which operates STOVL aircraft similar to the Lightning II.

The multi-role jet features the latest stealth and Intelligence, Surveillance Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) technology and represents the cutting edge of combat aircraft design. Fifteen per cent of Joint Strike Fighter work is carried out in the UK and over 130 British companies contribute to the supply chain. It is worth over £1Bn to UK industry each year and will support around 25,000 British jobs over the next 25 years.

After the acceptance ceremony, the Defence Secretary toured Lockheed Martin’s production plant with representatives of major UK sub-contractors on the programme, including BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce.

Mr Hammond said:

“This hugely capable combat aircraft is now officially British and in the hands of our expert pilots. Highly skilled British aerospace workers are also playing a vital role in the delivery of Lightning II with UK companies involved in 15 per cent of the production and 25,000 British jobs sustained as a result.

“Having taken decisions on the final designs of our new aircraft carriers and balanced the MoD’s budget we can now proceed confidently to regenerating our carrier strike capability with these cutting edge stealth combat aircraft. “

The Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, said:

“The delivery of the United Kingdom’s first Lightning II marks the beginning of a new era in our ability to project Air Power from the land or sea. Alongside our increasingly capable combat-proven multi-role Typhoons, the Lightnings provide an additional complimentary capability to our growing Combat-ISTAR force.”

Royal Navy Fleet Commander, Admiral Sir George Zambellas, said:

“Jets at sea offer unmatched persistence and can guarantee the delivery of airpower around the globe. With the advent of Lightning II, UK Defence has its opportunity to maximise the utility of our carriers and this extraordinarily capable aircraft through a range of sea and land basing options. The result will be a strategic capability which will deliver for many decades to come.”


(ends)

United Kingdom Accepts First International Lockheed Martin F-35

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued July 19, 2012)

FORT WORTH, Texas --- The United Kingdom accepted the first international Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II aircraft in a ceremony today with senior representatives of the U.K. Ministry of Defence and the U.S. Department of Defense.

The Right Honourable Philip Hammond, U.K. Secretary of State for Defence, and Mr. Frank Kendall, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, represented their governments.

"We are here to celebrate an important 'first' among so many milestones associated with the F-35 program," said Bob Stevens, Lockheed Martin chairman and chief executive officer. "It's fitting that our first delivery to an international partner is to the United Kingdom, because without sustained British innovation over many generations, we would not have an event to celebrate today."

The U.K. was the first of eight international partners to join the F-35 program and plans to acquire the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft.

Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Headquartered in the U.K., BAE Systems brings a rich heritage of capabilities to the F-35 program, including short takeoff and vertical landing experience, advanced lean manufacturing, flight testing and air systems sustainment, and is responsible for the F-35's aft fuselage, fuel system, crew escape and life support systems. The U.K. will play a vital role in the F-35's global production, follow-on development and sustainment over the next 40 years, bringing strong economic benefits to the country.

The F-35 Lightning II is a 5th Generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. Three distinct variants of the F-35 will replace the A-10 and F-16 for the U.S. Air Force, the F/A-18 for the U.S. Navy, the F/A-18 and AV8-B Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps, and a variety of fighters for at least 10 other countries.


Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs about 120,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation's net sales for 2011 were $46.5 billion.

-ends-

 

[SOC]

Has the UK determined what they're going to designate the F-35 yet? FG.5?

 

[Evil Flower]

But it's a strike fighter, not air dominance fighter.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

erm... ATD-X?

 

[LowObservable]

Lightning FA1 would follow the most recent practice.

The letters also correspond to a common quantification of the aircraft's utility. ;D

 

[LowObservable]

TCS was an ID tool rather than a detector, I believe.

I was told a long time ago that then-SecNav John Lehman, a typically modest and retiring aviator, went up for a backseat hop and combat exercise in an F-14. The adversaries were a couple of relative newbies in another F-14, with TCS, and the RoEs demanded visual ID.

The newbies called ID and splashed the SecNav before he or his pilot ever saw them, and the question of whether the F-14D would have TCS was settled.

 

[Thorvic]

Wouldn't it be Lightning FGA1 as its an RAF owned asset and would use their classification system ?

Question is would these two delivered this year and the ones due next year and maybe the next couple after it which are likley to come from LRIP batches have a different designation to full production aircraft due after 2018 as those aircraft should be at production standard and service ready ?, if the Typhoon is anything to go by.

 

[GTX]

Question is would these two delivered this year and the ones due next year and maybe the next couple after it which are likley to come from LRIP batches have a different designation to full production aircraft due after 2018 as those aircraft should be at production standard and service ready ?, if the Typhoon is anything to go by.

Given the first aircraft will be progressively upgraded to match latest standard (indeed, all F-35s will partake in Spiral development/upgrades throughout their lives), it hardly seems worth the trouble of having different designators.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

TCS was an ID tool rather than a detector, I believe.

I was told a long time ago that then-SecNav John Lehman, a typically modest and retiring aviator, went up for a backseat hop and combat exercise in an F-14. The adversaries were a couple of relative newbies in another F-14, with TCS, and the RoEs demanded visual ID.

The newbies called ID and splashed the SecNav before he or his pilot ever saw them, and the question of whether the F-14D would have TCS was settled.

TCS & IRST in dual pod! It's sort of amazing how much hoopla you see over the Russians (and Soviets previously) having them on the Flanker and Fulcrum, even though there around as early as I think the F-106.

http://theboresight.blogspot.com/2009/07/airborne-infrared-and-supersonic.html

^This guy makes an interesting argument over IRST and what we really lost with the retirement of the F-14D and it's dual chin pod. Makes me really wish the Super Tomcat 21 was around to this day.

 

[GTX]

Then you should be extremely pleased with the F-35's EOTS and EO DAS since they are much in advance of what the F-14 had.

 

[fightingirish]

FARNBOROUGH: Terma from Denmark displays F-35 multi-mission pod

Denmark’s Terma is showing off, for the first time here at the show, the multi-mission pod (MMP) it has developed for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The MMP began life as the gun pod for the F-35, which Terma designed and developed on behalf of General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, but the company has developed it into a more versatile pod that should prove attractive, in particular, to overseas operators of the JSF.

Source: http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/10/fia12-f35-multimission-pod/
PDF: http://www.terma.com/media/199692/terma_update_july_2012.pdf

 

[LowObservable]

Not sure about that, GTX.

The issue is that IRST (F-14/now Super Hornet, Russian and Selex systems) and EOTS are two different animals.

EOTS is a thermal video camera with an optical system that projects an image on to a focal plane array. Like the imager in a targeting pod or on a UAV, it has an instantaneous field of view that is large enough to cover an area of tactical interest on the ground, at acceptably high resolution, from typical slant ranges under 10 km. (Higher-altitude thermal imagers, like the Reaper's MTS-B, require some serious optics.)

An IRST is more like a telescope with a very small instantaneous field of view and a very fast and agile mechanical scanning system. (On Typhoon, it's fast enough to provide a 60 Hz raster-scanned FLIR-type image for landing guidance.) The long focal length/high magnification design is optimized for detecting point IR sources at long range (not taking detailed video images of the ground) and also profiling those sources (spectrum and edges, for instance) to reduce false alarm rates.

That's why IRST-equipped aircraft still use pods for air-to-ground and why the Super Hornet is getting an IRST, even though its targeting pod has (I believe) an IRST mode.

EO-DAS, meanwhile, is essentially a glorified MAWS, with image resolution that is about half that of a cell-phone camera.

 

[sferrin]

EO-DAS, meanwhile, is essentially a glorified MAWS, with image resolution that is about half that of a cell-phone camera.

And yet it gives full-spherical staring coverage. And the chin-mount almost certainly has better resolution than "half that of a cell-phone". Provided they can communicate stealthily the F-35 is going to be a data collection boone to the network, especially when it comes to theater missile defense. (Of course they better make sure the network is secure as I shudder to think the damage that could be done by an enemy who'd been able to infiltrate the network.) BTW what is the rez. of the FPA in Pirate?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Not sure about that, GTX.

The issue is that IRST (F-14/now Super Hornet, Russian and Selex systems) and EOTS are two different animals.

EOTS is a thermal video camera with an optical system that projects an image on to a focal plane array. Like the imager in a targeting pod or on a UAV, it has an instantaneous field of view that is large enough to cover an area of tactical interest on the ground, at acceptably high resolution, from typical slant ranges under 10 km. (Higher-altitude thermal imagers, like the Reaper's MTS-B, require some serious optics.)

An IRST is more like a telescope with a very small instantaneous field of view and a very fast and agile mechanical scanning system. (On Typhoon, it's fast enough to provide a 60 Hz raster-scanned FLIR-type image for landing guidance.) The long focal length/high magnification design is optimized for detecting point IR sources at long range (not taking detailed video images of the ground) and also profiling those sources (spectrum and edges, for instance) to reduce false alarm rates.

That's why IRST-equipped aircraft still use pods for air-to-ground and why the Super Hornet is getting an IRST, even though its targeting pod has (I believe) an IRST mode.

EO-DAS, meanwhile, is essentially a glorified MAWS, with image resolution that is about half that of a cell-phone camera.

The Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) is the world’s first and only sensor
that combines forward-looking infrared (FLIR) and infrared search and track (IRST)
functionality. It provides the Warfighter with an affordable, high-performance, lightweight,
multi-functional system for precision air-to-air and air-to-surface tracking in a compact
package. The pilot has access to high-resolution imagery, automatic tracking, IRST, laser
designation and rangefinding and laser spot tracking at greatly increased standoff ranges.
Integrated into the F-35 Lightning II’s fuselage with a durable sapphire window, the
low-drag, stealthy EOTS is linked to the aircraft’s central computer through a high-speed
fiber-optic interface.


• Rugged, low-profile, faceted window for
supersonic, low-observable performance
• Compact single aperture design
• Lightweight (<200 lbs), including
window assembly
• Advanced, third-generation, focal plane
array
• Air-to-surface FLIR tracker and air-to-air
IRST modes
• Modular design for two-level
maintenance to reduce life cycle cost
• Automatic boresight and aircraft
alignment
• Tactical and eye-safe diode pumped laser
• Laser spot tracker
• Passive and active ranging
• Highly accurate geo-coordinate
generation to meet precision strike
requirements

The EOTS combines a new focal plane
array with advanced sensor technology,
a low profile sapphire window design,
and advanced algorithms to provide long range
target recognition, identification, and
tracking. In the IRST mode, the EOTS will
locate and track multiple airborne threats at
extended ranges ensuring high lethality and
survivability.
The EOTS incorporates proven technology
and advances in optics, stabilization, and
processing. Its modular design and ease of
repair make it simple to support and ensure
true two-level maintenance.

From this LockMArt PDF:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/mfc/pc/f-35-lightning-ii-electro-optical-targeting-system-etos/mfc-f-35-eots-pc.pdf

 

[sferrin]

Of course LowObservable will claim it's LM marketing material which should be dismissed immediately. :

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Of course LowObservable will claim it's LM marketing material which should be dismissed immediately. :

I think I would agree though, especially as a F-14 Tomcat fan-- There is just no topping 1989 Tech. Its all downhill from here. We peaked long, long, ago. even if the EOTS was found wanting in that area, there is just no way you can fit that onto the aircraft at a later date.

 

[Mike Pryce]

The Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) is the world’s first and only sensorthat combines forward-looking infrared (FLIR) and infrared search and track (IRST)functionality.

What about the Eurofighter's PIRATE system? It is a FLIR and an IRST. Not all round cover, but the sentence above does not state that.

There is just no topping 1989 Tech

I agree - in my day job, and in research for my books, I see lots of documents from the late 1970s onwards. It is striking how things evolve until the late 1980s, and then suddenly the systems being discussed are those we have today, albeit today's ones have faster processing of 1's and 0's. Apart from that, no fundamental change, IMHO.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) is the world’s first and only sensorthat combines forward-looking infrared (FLIR) and infrared search and track (IRST)functionality.

What about the Eurofighter's PIRATE system? It is a FLIR and an IRST. Not all round cover, but the sentence above does not state that.

There is just no topping 1989 Tech

I agree - in my day job, and in research for my books, I see lots of documents from the late 1970s onwards. It is striking how things evolve until the late 1980s, and then suddenly the systems being discussed are those we have today, albeit today's ones have faster processing of 1's and 0's. Apart from that, no fundamental change, IMHO.

Which is why things like the F-35 will change the game. Its a revolution, not an evolution.

 

[LowObservable]

Well, of course it's LM marketing material.

However, unless someone has evidence otherwise, what I have gathered is that the EOTS is, in essence, the workings of a targeting and designation pod (eg Sniper) with a different front-end mirror system that allows it to see through a semi-conformal faceted window.

What I don't see, having looked at the thing quite closely, is any sign that the optical sensor includes a massive zoom capability (very small field of view) or that the scanning mirrors could achieve a video-like scan rate.

What the EOTS has, most likely, is the ability to stare and scan ahead of the aircraft within its physical field of view (uplook being somewhat limited) and acquire an IR video image that can be digitally processed to detect and track hot-spots. (It should be noted that it's going to be doing this via a sharply slanted window, and that the best transparency isn't perfect.)

How close the performance of this system comes to a dedicated Pirate or Skyward-G type of IRST, we don't know. But it is not the same thing, hardware-wise.

 

[GTX]

Regardless of the capabilities, the customers (i.e. the growing number of Air Forces around the world wanting the F-35) haven't appeared to be complaining about the capability offered...maybe they know something? :

 

[sferrin]

I'm still waiting for the resolution of Pirate (and the source). ;-)

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Well, of course it's LM marketing material.

However, unless someone has evidence otherwise, what I have gathered is that the EOTS is, in essence, the workings of a targeting and designation pod (eg Sniper) with a different front-end mirror system that allows it to see through a semi-conformal faceted window.

What I don't see, having looked at the thing quite closely, is any sign that the optical sensor includes a massive zoom capability (very small field of view) or that the scanning mirrors could achieve a video-like scan rate.

What the EOTS has, most likely, is the ability to stare and scan ahead of the aircraft within its physical field of view (uplook being somewhat limited) and acquire an IR video image that can be digitally processed to detect and track hot-spots. (It should be noted that it's going to be doing this via a sharply slanted window, and that the best transparency isn't perfect.)

How close the performance of this system comes to a dedicated Pirate or Skyward-G type of IRST, we don't know. But it is not the same thing, hardware-wise.

EOTS is described in a Lockheed Powerpoint as a "high magnification mid-wave IR telescope". That is quite a different thing from what you are speculating here.

 

[LowObservable]

Paul - All TDPs are relatively narrow-field-of-view telephoto devices - that's how you can see people running around from 15000-20000 feet. However, it's also important for them to have an instantaneous FOV on their focal plane array that is large enough to cover an area of tactical interest. And as you get higher (Reaper for instance) you need a bigger lens to combine aperture/array size and focal length (I think the MTS-B has a mirror lens that is almost 17 inches in diameter).

IRST as I understand it has a still smaller FOV and longer focal length, and the only way that it can provide area coverage is through mechanical raster-type scanning.

I'm not sure that the rez of the Pirate or Skyward-G sensors has been disclosed, but remember it's not an FPA like your digital camera or the TDP. Note that I'm not saying that the IRST function on EOTS is useless, but that it does not work in the same way as an IRST. Neither can an IRST do what an EOTS/TDP does.

GTX - Since most of the AFs involved in the program believed the original cost and schedule numbers, their authority in this case is not absolute.

 

[GTX]

GTX - Since most of the AFs involved in the program believed the original cost and schedule numbers, their authority in this case is not absolute.

Or maybe they know a little more then journalists or the general public since they are actually privy to the real information...

 

[sferrin]

I'm not sure that the rez of the Pirate or Skyward-G sensors has been disclosed, but remember it's not an FPA like your digital camera or the TDP.

At some point what is being viewed is converted to digital data by something. Since you've already admitted you don't know at what resolution the data is converted to how can you compare the effectivity?

 

[jsport]

http://defense-update.com/features/2010/november/02112010_das_missile_track.html

 

[Arjen]

GTX - Since most of the AFs involved in the program believed the original cost and schedule numbers, their authority in this case is not absolute.

Or maybe they know a little more then journalists or the general public since they are actually privy to the real information...

Looking at their track record, the AFs are either reticent in sharing their true views, or the accuracy of their views leaves something to be desired. So whatever they publicly state seems less than totally reliable. With hindsight, judging their statements should be easier. To do that, we'll have to wait and see.
In the meantime, LO offers some observations on possible limitations of the F-35's EOTS.

 

[GTX]

Looking at their track record, the AFs are either reticent in sharing their true views

Only if you don't speak to them directly or don't have appropriate security clearances.


It has also been my experience that many journalists only care about the story especially if they can spin it as a scandle...don't worry if the facts get in the way of that and the best way to avoid facts is to avoid pursuing or even talking to those who might have facts!

 

[Arjen]

Only if you don't speak to them directly or don't have appropriate security clearances.

I have no security clearance, I am in no position to speak to them directly. I have to rely on what government officials are willing to share publicly, what manufacturers are willing to tell about their hard-won projects and on what journalists are able to dig up. Government officials are concerned with loss of face, manufacturers are considering their income, journalists are looking for a story. So far, I have been thoroughly disappointed by the forecasts provided by governments and manufacturers. So I turn to journalists, some of whom I trust more than others.

It has also been my experience that many journalists only care about the story especially if they can spin it as a scandle...don't worry if the facts get in the way of that and the best way to avoid facts is to avoid pursuing or even talking to those who might have facts!

I have some bad experiences with a few very inaccurate journalists. Obviously I don't trust them any more. Some other journalists I do trust, because their stories were confirmed by what happened next. The Dutch government seems to be willing to swallow anything stated by the US government. I am not. As for manufacturers' claims: I trust those as far as I can throw them.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

F-35 Pilots and the F-35: A Discussion at Farnborough Air Show 2012

http://vimeo.com/46435390

 

[LowObservable]

JSport - A Falcon 9 at boost has a rather large IR signature, possibly connected with the 3000 lb of flaming RP and LOX coming out of its rear end every second. The DAS did supposedly track the colder upper stage, but that might well be a question of cranking the gain and having a very cold background.

GTX - You have to be able to spell "scandal" to join the club.

No, I don't trust the professionals. Mostly because there is a long history of professional insider forecasts of the wonderful progress to be made by the JSF, many of which were rendered obsolete by reality within months. So either the briefers were dismally unaware of what was happening inside their own program, or they were telling porkies, or there's a mixture of both.

Sferrin - I'm not comparing the "effectivity" of the EOTS in IRST mode and the purpose-built IRST, just pointing out that they are not the same thing. However, I would point out that the USN appears to regard an old-and-updated IRST as being able to do something that the relatively modern TDP on the Super Hornet can't.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I'm not sure that the rez of the Pirate or Skyward-G sensors has been disclosed, but remember it's not an FPA like your digital camera or the TDP.

At some point what is being viewed is converted to digital data by something. Since you've already admitted you don't know at what resolution the data is converted to how can you compare the effectivity?

Because he has a cell phone with a camera in it?

GTX - You have to be able to spell "scandal" to join the club.

From what I can tell that is pretty much the one and only test. (And even if you can't that is what editors are for)

 

[jsport]

JSport - A Falcon 9 at boost has a rather large IR signature, possibly connected with the 3000 lb of flaming RP and LOX coming out of its rear end every second. The DAS did supposedly track the colder upper stage, but that might well be a question of cranking the gain and having a very cold background.

If the light wave hits the sensor and the processing technology continues to evolve you are again way off in the capabilities just the DAS has let alone EOTS. rumour of mansized resolution at over 50 miles...

credible unclassified military aviation publishing..ghosts in a fistfight.

 

[GTX]

GTX - You have to be able to spell "scandal" to join the club.

Oh damn! I guess I miss out then... ;D

No, I don't trust the professionals. Mostly because there is a long history of professional insider forecasts of the wonderful progress to be made by the JSF, many of which were rendered obsolete by reality within months. So either the briefers were dismally unaware of what was happening inside their own program, or they were telling porkies, or there's a mixture of both.

...or they simply don't tell you the doom and gloom stories you want to hear.


In the real world, things change! Having worked on complex technical projects for a number of years I can tell you from experience that you plan/think that something is going to happen a certain way and then, despite your best efforts, careful risk mitigations and the like, something else happens. That's what happens in the real world as opposed to the fantasy perfect world that many live in! When it does, especially on a highly politicised project or one under great scrutiny, it is hardly helpful or appreciated to then have some goon on the outside who knows nothing and has never experienced what you are trying to do throwing stones at you! ...Oh that's right, it's keeping us honest isn't it...and if someone sells a few more magazines or gets a snazzy headline to boot then that's ok!

 

[LowObservable]

TT - I was talking (as I think Sferrin was) about EOTS versus IRST.

DAS is a simpler case.

Six sensors to cover a sphere = 90 deg X 90 deg field of view. The array is about 1 MP. A cellphone has 5MP to cover about 60 deg x 60 deg. DAS is therefore quite low-rez, hence the use of a supplemental helmet-mounted low-light sensor to overlay a higher-rez pic in the pilot's central field of view.

JSport - Mansized resolution at 50 miles? Interesting story, but you're getting into LOROP territory there. And processing technology? Can you explain why the size of the FPA (in pixels) is not a hard limit?

 

[jsport]

TT - I was talking (as I think Sferrin was) about EOTS versus IRST.

DAS is a simpler case.

Six sensors to cover a sphere = 90 deg X 90 deg field of view. The array is about 1 MP. A cellphone has 5MP to cover about 60 deg x 60 deg. DAS is therefore quite low-rez, hence the use of a supplemental helmet-mounted low-light sensor to overlay a higher-rez pic in the pilot's central field of view.

JSport - Mansized resolution at 50 miles? Interesting story, but you're getting into LOROP territory there. And processing technology? Can you explain why the size of the FPA (in pixels) is not a hard limit?

FPA's etc's hard limits.. this presents some question..please notice the main spokesmen's experience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkBh71zZKrM&feature=player_embedded

 

[LowObservable]

Most of us don't have a free hour to listen to a lecture - interesting as it may be - about imaging technology. I might take a look at it later in case it says something about physical limits to FPA element size.

Meanwhile, can you give us a clue as to when in the tape someone explains how a pixelated sensor can have resolution smaller than one pixel? Because the point concerning EO-DAS is that one of a million pixels is really looking at quite a large area, at a range of tens of miles and with a 90 x 90 deg field of view.

 

[jsport]

Overall DAS surveilance with multiple sensors is 360 degrees and is cued by etc.... The single sensor does not need to surveil all at all times so not sure what we are talking about. The number of pixels in final config might not well be revealed and as stated before if the light is there a series of technologies can be brought to bare to increase resolution so cell phone res is nowhere near where it is and will likely go. The original question.