TY - GEN
T1 - An analysis of the performance trade space for multifunction EO-IR systems
AU - Krapels, Keith A.
AU - Driggers, Ron
AU - Furxhi, Orges
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - As pixels have gotten smaller and focal plane array sizes larger, it may be practical to make EO-IR systems which are inherently multifunctional. A system intended to perform threat warning, pilotage imaging and target acquisition imaging would be a multifunctional system. This notional system could be panoramic or hemispheric, with cameras covering all of space simultaneously. It could save cost and weight over federated systems. However, can all of these disparate tasks be performed successfully by a single system, or will the trade-offs compromise the potential savings? Targeting sensors have typically been designed to create long range, high resolution imagery for detection and identification. The imagery is optimized to suppress the scene/clutter and maximize the target signature. Pilotage sensors have typically been wide field of view, unity magnification systems which maximize scene contrast to enable safe flight. Threat warning sensors are intended to detect non or under resolved (spatially or temporally) targets/events using algorithms, and to discriminate them from clutter or solar glint. The first two applications involve imagery for human operator consumption, while the third feeds algorithms. With these disparate performance goals, there is a wide variety of competing metrics used to optimize these sensors -F/no, FOV/IFOV, frame rate, NETD, NEI, FAR, Probability of Identification, etc. This study is a look at how these performance parameters and system descriptors trade and their relative impacts.
AB - As pixels have gotten smaller and focal plane array sizes larger, it may be practical to make EO-IR systems which are inherently multifunctional. A system intended to perform threat warning, pilotage imaging and target acquisition imaging would be a multifunctional system. This notional system could be panoramic or hemispheric, with cameras covering all of space simultaneously. It could save cost and weight over federated systems. However, can all of these disparate tasks be performed successfully by a single system, or will the trade-offs compromise the potential savings? Targeting sensors have typically been designed to create long range, high resolution imagery for detection and identification. The imagery is optimized to suppress the scene/clutter and maximize the target signature. Pilotage sensors have typically been wide field of view, unity magnification systems which maximize scene contrast to enable safe flight. Threat warning sensors are intended to detect non or under resolved (spatially or temporally) targets/events using algorithms, and to discriminate them from clutter or solar glint. The first two applications involve imagery for human operator consumption, while the third feeds algorithms. With these disparate performance goals, there is a wide variety of competing metrics used to optimize these sensors -F/no, FOV/IFOV, frame rate, NETD, NEI, FAR, Probability of Identification, etc. This study is a look at how these performance parameters and system descriptors trade and their relative impacts.
KW - Infrared Detectors
KW - Infrared System Performance
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84905715671
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84905715671&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1117/12.2052874
DO - 10.1117/12.2052874
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:84905715671
SN - 9781628410082
T3 - Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering
BT - Infrared Imaging Systems
PB - SPIE
T2 - Infrared Imaging Systems: Design, Analysis, Modeling, and Testing XXV
Y2 - 6 May 2014 through 8 May 2014
ER -