Are we being fooled ?

F1.2

F1.2

Messages
3,843
Name
Allen
Edit My Images
Yes
Digital film sensors ? 45.7 million pixels , has anyone counted them ?:wacky:
 
Well, there are millions of 'transistors' on the the CPU (chip) driving the computer you are using now.........................so why not millions of photosites on the digital camera sensors!

Edit ~ according to one source (Intel origin?)

Core i7 (Quad) has 731,000,000 of them, so at 731M way more than the camera sensor.

A main difference between a CPU and a sensor is the way the heat is dissipated. So I wonder for the size of sensor & design now in use what is the limit for MP and when will we reach before heat handling methodology also reaches the limit of design???
 
Last edited:
With it being able to 'see' the detail of Big Ben from 75miles away I wonder in MP terms what the camera in the RAPTOR camera pod would be???
 
Box Brownie said:
With it being able to 'see' the detail of Big Ben from 75miles away I wonder in MP terms what the camera in the RAPTOR camera pod would be???
Click to expand...
Not necessarily very much. If you stop to think about it, the reason the Raptor camera pod is so large is essentially because of the lens, not the sensor.

The Raptor uses a Raytheon DB-110 camera package. This has various different optics which can be selected depending on whether it's a low-level or high-level mission, but the biggest lens is 2800mm f/10. Yes, that's not a typo. 2800mm (110 inches, hence the name of the unit) focal length, f/10 aperture, so the front element is probably about the size of a dinner plate. That's a BIG lens. And it has image stabilisation.

I don't know what the DB-110 sensor resolution is. The unit was designed in the 1990s so originally it would have been tiny, maybe only one megapixel or so, but it would surely have been upgraded since. Or maybe it works differently. If its imagery would typically be quite narrow (across the flight path) by very long (along the flight path), it might produce a continuous feed from the sensor without the data being packaged up into arbitrary discrete JPEG files. In that case the total pixel size wouldn't matter and it would just be the width of the picture that defines the performance.
 
StewartR said:
Not necessarily very much. If you stop to think about it, the reason the Raptor camera pod is so large is essentially because of the lens, not the sensor.

The Raptor uses a Raytheon DB-110 camera package. This has various different optics which can be selected depending on whether it's a low-level or high-level mission, but the biggest lens is 2800mm f/10. Yes, that's not a typo. 2800mm (110 inches, hence the name of the unit) focal length, f/10 aperture, so the front element is probably about the size of a dinner plate. That's a BIG lens. And it has image stabilisation.

I don't know what the DB-110 sensor resolution is. The unit was designed in the 1990s so originally it would have been tiny, maybe only one megapixel or so, but it would surely have been upgraded since. Or maybe it works differently. If its imagery would typically be quite narrow (across the flight path) by very long (along the flight path), it might produce a continuous feed from the sensor without the data being packaged up into arbitrary discrete JPEG files. In that case the total pixel size wouldn't matter and it would just be the width of the picture that defines the performance.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the detailed insight.

What info I could find suggested there may not be a RAPTYP even though the Tornado is due for retirement and the current pod cannot be fitted to the Typhoon???
 
Box Brownie said:
What info I could find suggested there may not be a RAPTYP even though the Tornado is due for retirement and the current pod cannot be fitted to the Typhoon???
Click to expand...
Option 1: Use the modified pod that's already been developed for the F-16. It should fit.
Option 2: Adapt the external fuel tank to house the camera.

Source: https://defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com/2016/11/17/raptor-pod-too-big-for-typhoon/

Option 3: Build a time machine, go back to the 1990s or maybe even 1980s, and write the requirements specification properly!
 
StewartR said:
Option 1: Use the modified pod that's already been developed for the F-16. It should fit.
Option 2: Adapt the external fuel tank to house the camera.

Source: https://defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com/2016/11/17/raptor-pod-too-big-for-typhoon/

Option 3: Build a time machine, go back to the 1990s or maybe even 1980s, and write the requirements specification properly!
Click to expand...

Now interesting though option 3 is, what with the cutbacks I am pretty sure there is no budget for such extravagant spending ;) .So no doubt "we" will fudge it like as has happened in the past. As long as it works and does not compromise the Typhoon's performance.
 
StewartR said:
Option 3: Build a time machine, go back to the 1990s or maybe even 1980s, and write the requirements specification properly!
Click to expand...
Box Brownie said:
Now interesting though option 3 is, what with the cutbacks I am pretty sure there is no budget for such extravagant spending ;) .So no doubt "we" will fudge it like as has happened in the past.
Click to expand...
Actually, looking into the history a bit more, I think my comment about doing the requirements spec "properly" and your comment about "fudge" are probably inappropriate.

I think I'd always known in the back of my mind that military procurement projects take a long time, but I don't think I'd really appreciated how long.

Development of the Panavia Tornado began in 1968, or possibly even 1965. It entered operational service in 1979 and the last aircraft were produced in 1998. It is scheduled to be operational with the German and Italian air forces until 2025.

Development of the Eurofighter Typhoon began in 1983. It entered operational service in 2003 and it is still in production: for example the Qatar air force will start taking deliveries in 2022. I guess that means it will probably be operational until the late 2030s, or maybe 2040s.

I don't know when development started on the Raytheon DB-110 system, but the first production deliveries were in about 1996. It is still in production. Of course the electronics in new units will be massively upgraded compared to the older ones, but they still use that 2800mm f/10 lens so they'll still be the same size.

Realistically I can't see how any organisation in the military sphere can plan for equipment "A" to be compatible with equipment "B" over these sorts of timescales!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top