Testing Electro optical pods
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: India
Age: 48
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Testing Electro optical pods
Hi,
I was recently involved in testing of Electro optical pod (It had a IR sensor alongside a CCD and an LRF). We were assessing the detection and recognition ranges for this equipment using a target with appropriate IR emission for the test. Since we had to make sure that the assessment was for the 'right' target, we used to 'zoom in' to locate the target and then adjust the zoom level (as in the test order) of the respective sensor for detection and recognition criteria assessment. As this helicopter mounted equipment approached the target, the assessment was made for the ranges corresponding to the zoom level at which detection and recognition was possible.
In this procedure mentioned above, I feel that the ranges of assessment achieved during the test may be overestimated. This 'overestimation' is in relation to an operational scenario where the pilot/ pod operator will be scanning the in the entire field of view available on the display and not only the exact location where the target has been placed. Therefore, I feel that this test must be done with the requisite zoom level set and the ranges for detection and recognition assessed while scanning the entire field of view. In this case the approximate location of the target will be known, however it would be as near to the operational conditions as we could get for the testing.
I would appreciate comments on my opinion and any more experiences that people in this forum would like to share about testing of Electro optical pods.
I was recently involved in testing of Electro optical pod (It had a IR sensor alongside a CCD and an LRF). We were assessing the detection and recognition ranges for this equipment using a target with appropriate IR emission for the test. Since we had to make sure that the assessment was for the 'right' target, we used to 'zoom in' to locate the target and then adjust the zoom level (as in the test order) of the respective sensor for detection and recognition criteria assessment. As this helicopter mounted equipment approached the target, the assessment was made for the ranges corresponding to the zoom level at which detection and recognition was possible.
In this procedure mentioned above, I feel that the ranges of assessment achieved during the test may be overestimated. This 'overestimation' is in relation to an operational scenario where the pilot/ pod operator will be scanning the in the entire field of view available on the display and not only the exact location where the target has been placed. Therefore, I feel that this test must be done with the requisite zoom level set and the ranges for detection and recognition assessed while scanning the entire field of view. In this case the approximate location of the target will be known, however it would be as near to the operational conditions as we could get for the testing.
I would appreciate comments on my opinion and any more experiences that people in this forum would like to share about testing of Electro optical pods.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are making a good point; however, what was the purpose of the trials?
To test the ranges the equipment is capable of, or to test it's operational effectiveness in 'real life' ?
The tests you describe seem to cover the first.
This would not be unusual, for example initial trials of bomb-aiming equipment may well involve flying a pre-determined course and 'attacking' dayglo painted targets.
Once the actual system is proven, the operational effectiveness tests against more realistic targets can be undertaken.
Of course, if realistic trials are not carried out, and the figures from the test described are expected to be repeated in operational use, you would be completely right in expecting people to be disappointed with results, particularly before a good amount of experience with the equipment is gained...
To test the ranges the equipment is capable of, or to test it's operational effectiveness in 'real life' ?
The tests you describe seem to cover the first.
This would not be unusual, for example initial trials of bomb-aiming equipment may well involve flying a pre-determined course and 'attacking' dayglo painted targets.
Once the actual system is proven, the operational effectiveness tests against more realistic targets can be undertaken.
Of course, if realistic trials are not carried out, and the figures from the test described are expected to be repeated in operational use, you would be completely right in expecting people to be disappointed with results, particularly before a good amount of experience with the equipment is gained...
Last edited by Double Zero; 21st Nov 2010 at 05:50.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An epirical assessment for such a device provides little real indication of its operational functionality and operability. data relating to EO/IR resolution and detection range are already measured against standards that the manufactururs will (usually) provide to potential customers to allow them to make informed decisions for particular applications.
Operability will depend on many factors such as type and quality of the mapping and pointing systems (the geo point and tracking capabilties), keyboard and peripheral type, size, layout and ergonomics, monitor selction size and number (or split screen capability), platform vibration (or quality of vibration damping system/software).
An experienced operator will be capable of making subjective assessment by comparison with other sensors and hand controller type, though several assessments are usually needed and each operator will have preferences that can tilt results toward the system with which they are most comfortable. A test card and defined IR sources of known intensity can then perhaps realistically provide a balanced and realistic test of an integrated installation, by qualified operators. initial acquisition parameters can be defined and then a level of operator fluency would illustrate not just acuity but ease of operation and time to acquire stable/useable image could also be measured. Several operators and several sources could yield useful data for end users.
Anticipated operational altitude will play a significant role in such assement as this will infulence haze effect on the slant range as well. high altitudes will have different degradation values results for same slant. Functionality becomes a major issue for such installations, especially in critical tasks where operators can be heavily and intensly task loaded for a period of time, in such situations the system must be straight forward to use.
In the first instance, most operators do not buy such sensor and peripheral equipment from catalogues with a list of capability data, but will be influenced by functionality, industry acceptance, support and reputation.
HD
Operability will depend on many factors such as type and quality of the mapping and pointing systems (the geo point and tracking capabilties), keyboard and peripheral type, size, layout and ergonomics, monitor selction size and number (or split screen capability), platform vibration (or quality of vibration damping system/software).
An experienced operator will be capable of making subjective assessment by comparison with other sensors and hand controller type, though several assessments are usually needed and each operator will have preferences that can tilt results toward the system with which they are most comfortable. A test card and defined IR sources of known intensity can then perhaps realistically provide a balanced and realistic test of an integrated installation, by qualified operators. initial acquisition parameters can be defined and then a level of operator fluency would illustrate not just acuity but ease of operation and time to acquire stable/useable image could also be measured. Several operators and several sources could yield useful data for end users.
Anticipated operational altitude will play a significant role in such assement as this will infulence haze effect on the slant range as well. high altitudes will have different degradation values results for same slant. Functionality becomes a major issue for such installations, especially in critical tasks where operators can be heavily and intensly task loaded for a period of time, in such situations the system must be straight forward to use.
In the first instance, most operators do not buy such sensor and peripheral equipment from catalogues with a list of capability data, but will be influenced by functionality, industry acceptance, support and reputation.
HD
