nano 51pin

7/28/2019 Nano 51pin

1/9

1

3RD GENERATION THERMAL IMAGER SENSOR PERFORMANCE

Van A. Hodgkin* and Ronald G. DriggersU.S. Army RDECOM CERDEC NVESD

10221 Burbeck Rd

Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5806

1. OVERVIEW

3rd Generation FLIR (3rd Gen) is defined as a dualband (MWIR and LWIR) thermal imager. It is targeted tobe one of the principle sensor systems for the Army'sFuture Combat System (FCS), Stryker, and AirborneReconnaissance System. In early 2005, the Night Visionand Electronic Sensors Directorate (NVESD) created alarge scale project to research and quantify the potentialbenefits of a 3rdGen FLIR.

This research was partitioned up into multipleindividual studies, each of which is focused on aparticular technical area, i.e., topic, to quantify its impacton the performance of a 3rd Gen FLIR. The set of topicsinclude long range target identification (ID), aided targetrecognition (AiTR), apparent high temperature (T)sources of clutter, target and background contrasts andsignatures, conventional and urban search and detection,advanced signal processing, cold weather, atmosphericturbulence, sensor integration time, camouflage, spectralsignature differences, smoke, pilotage, wet targets, lasersusceptibility, and path radiance. Whenever possible andappropriate, actual MWIR and LWIR imagery were usedas inputs in the applicable physics (or psycho-physics)

models. Even though every attempt was made to partitiona research project of this size and scope into individual,independent components of an n-dimensional parameterspace, it was obvious that there were varying degrees ofdependence amongst and between these topics.

In each of these studies, specific benefit of 3rd GenFLIR was assessed from either the direct or indirectimpact upon target discrimination task performance.Examples: in the search and detection study, actual widefield of view (WFOV) imagery was used to directlymeasure target task performance of trained militaryobservers performing laboratory perception tests; in the

phenomenology studies, benefit of 3rd Gen was assessedby the magnitude and distribution of MWIR and LWIRthermal signatures with the assumption that taskperformance was proportional to signature; and in studiesinvolving sensor properties or sensor properties plusphenomenology, benefit of 3rd Gen was assessed by taskperformance modeling with the physics-based NVESDthermal imager model NVThermIP and the USAFatmosphere model MODTRAN.

A majority of the 21 individual research studies hasbeen completed at the time of this writing. Because oflimited space, this paper provides only a very briefdescription of each of those topics that have beencompleted and corresponding results along with the typeof sensor that provides superior performance. Eventhough this overall research is not yet complete, theresults strongly indicate that a 3rd Gen FLIR conceptprovides a significant operational performance advantageover single band thermal imagers alone.

2. INTRODUCTION

3rdGen FLIR is defined as a large format staring arraythat can image in two bands: one in the MWIR (3 to 5

m) and one in the LWIR (8 to 12 m). It may alsoinclude filters to tune the system to one or more sub-bands in the MWIR and the LWIR. However, the dual-band (MWIR and LWIR) focal plane is a cornerstone of3rd Gen FLIR and a great deal of progress has been madein producing it. It may also be dual F-Number (a low F-number mode for WFOV search and detection and ahigher F-number mode for narrow field of view (NFOV)target ID).

As mentioned above, many of these individualresearch investigations have been completed over the pastyear. The overall research is expected to be completelyfinished shortly after the end of CY 2006, but becausesignificant progress has already been accomplished, anumber of papers have been presented at technical,defense oriented symposiums in order to promulgateresults rapidly to interested parties. It is expected thatwhen this project is finished, much of this research will bereported in peer-reviewed literature. In the followingsection, we provide brief summaries of the researchtopics that have been completed and their results (orpreliminary results) where available.

3. RESEARCH TOPIC SUMMARI ES

The 1st topic was long range target identification(ID). The conventional wisdom used to be that theminimumbenefit of 3rd Gen FLIR could be realized byperforming WFOV search and detection with the LWIRband and long range ID with the MWIR. The goal herewas to determine the success of this approach. NVESDperformed an analysis using NVThermIP with real hotand cold target data and nine MODTRAN environments

7/28/2019 Nano 51pin

2/9

Report Documentation PageForm Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,

including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington

VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing t o comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE

01 NOV 2006

2. REPORT TYPE

N/A

3. DATES COVERED

-

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

3RD Generation Thermal Imager Sensor Performance

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army RDECOM CERDEC NVESD 10221 Burbeck Rd Ft. Belvoir,

VA 22060-5806

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITORS ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITORS REPORT

NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

See also ADM002075., The original document contains color images.

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

UU

18. NUMBER

OF PAGES

8

19a. NAME OF

RESPONSIBLE PERSONa. REPORT

unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

7/28/2019 Nano 51pin

3/9

2

for 3rd and 2nd Gen FLIRs, and staring MWIR and LWIRsensors. The research provided two major findings forsensors using the same optics and focal plane geometriesand integration times optimized for minimum noise: 1) inNFOV, MWIR provided significantly larger ID rangesthan LWIR under most conditions; 2) in WFOV, MWIR

detection ranges were similar to LWIR detection rangesunder most conditions (see Figure 1). For long range ID,a high quality MWIR FLIR would provide superiorperformance over a LWIR FLIR and equal performanceto a 3rdGen FLIR.

2ndGen

MWIR

LWIR

3rdGenRange

Fo

gOil

Fo

g

Sandstorm

Maritim

eH

ot

Desert

Tro

pic

al

Arctic

(Dry

)

USStd

2KmVis

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

Atmosphere

TargetTemp.

2ndGen

MWIR

LWIR

3rdGenRange

Fo

gOil

Fo

g

Sandstorm

Maritim

eH

ot

Desert

Tro

pic

al

Arctic

(Dry

)

USStd

2KmVis

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

ColdT

gt

H

otT

gt

Atmosphere

TargetTemp.

Figure 1. Long range target identification

Next was AiTR performance: MWIR day vs night.MWIR Aided Target Recognition (AiTR) performancesuffers in the day compared to the night. Thisdegradation is related to high levels of daytime cluttercaused by solar reflections and loading and shadows.

This level of degradation is not seen in the LWIR. In

addition, nighttime AiTR performance in MWIR has beenshown to be higher than in LWIR due to slightly higherresolution. The goal was to investigate AiTRperformance of MWIR as a function of time of day. To

that end, NVESD collected and processed day and nightimagery in the MWIR for AiTR analysis. The resultsconfirm the reduction in MWIR performance duringdaylight hours, and that daylight performance is afunction of view angle and sun position (see Figure 2).

These results indicate that a dual band AiTR, i.e., MWIR

at night and LWIR in day, could provide a significantincrease in overall system AiTR performance. Thus a 3rdGen FLIR would provide superior performance to either asingle band MWIR or LWIR alone.

False Alarm/deg2

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0

Probabilityof

Detection[Percent]

1400-1600 hrs

1700-1800 hrs2100-2200 hrs

0800-1000 hrs

False Alarm/deg2

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0

Probabilityof

Detection[Percent]

1400-1600 hrs

1700-1800 hrs2100-2200 hrs

0800-1000 hrs

Figure 2. MWIR AiTR Performance as a Function of Time of Day

7/28/2019 Nano 51pin

4/9

3

Next was AiTR performance: 2-Band vs 1-Band. Ithad been demonstrated in an earlier experimentalmultiband sensor program that 3-band (designated asLWIR1, LWIR2, and MWIR) AiTR performance is betterthan either 2-band or 1-band performance. The goal wasto specifically investigate LWIR plus MWIR AiTRperformance versus single band AiTR, either LWIR orMWIR. NVESD collaborated with Raytheon to combinethe two LWIR bands into one and used the associatedMWIR data to investigate 2-band and 1-band AiTRperformance. In addition, NVESD just completed anotherinvestigation of 2-Band (MWIR plus LWIR) vs 1-band(MWIR and LWIR individually) AiTR response basedupon a Signal-to-Clutter Ratio metric. The final resultsare currently being compiled, but they indicate that twobands work better than one, and so a 3rd Gen FLIR wouldprovide superior performance over a single MWIR orLWIR band sensor.

Next was burning barrels, dynamic range, blooming,

and veiling glare. Thermal IR image information isprimarily carried by changes in apparent T betweenimage pixels. For high T sources (i.e., T >469 K), the

change in radiant flux for small T is much larger in theMWIR than in the LWIR. This huge signature in theMWIR compromises the system dynamic range by takingup display levels and saturating large regions of theimage. Not only are a compromised dynamic range andlarge area saturation major impacts, but blooming on thedetector and veiling glare in the optics can result from

such high source quantities. The goal here was toinvestigate the impact of large scene dynamic range in theMWIR and LWIR. NVESD collected imagery of burningbarrels and other hot sources and measured the large areasaturation. Results showed that hot sources compromisethe MWIR much more so than LWIR, and so a LWIRFLIR would provide superior performance to a MWIRsensor and equal performance to a 3rdGen.

Next was conventional target contrast. Visibility oftarget detail in an image is determined by their contrastrelative to the rest of the image. The goal was todetermine if target contrast favored the MWIR over theLWIR, where the target contrasts were computed using

RSST:

( ) 2arg2

arg etTBackgroundetT TTTRSS += (1)

( indicates the average T and 2 is the variance in T).NVESD analyzed a large library of existing imagery of

military vehicles, and when corresponding MWIR andLWIR contrasts were plotted against each other, the datashowed that, on average, the MWIR target contrasts wereapproximately the same as the LWIR. However, thesedata also showed specific cases where MWIR contrastsdominated and others where the LWIR dominated (seeFigure 3). This suggests that the availability of bothbands in a 3rd Gen FLIR provides a significantly greaterprobability of at least one high contrast per target thanwith either MWIR or LWIR alone.

Target #8: MWIR RSS T vs LWIR RSS T(Collection: L ate Fall, Northern Hemisphere, R ~0.1 km)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

LWIR RSS T (K)

MWIRRSST

(K)

MWIR =LWIR

05:00 hrs

07:00 hrs

09:00 hrs

11:00 hrs

13:00 hrs

15:00 hrs17:00 hrs

Target #51: MWIR RSST vs LWIR RSS T(Collection: L ate Fall, Northern Hemisphere, R ~0.1 km)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

LWIR RSS T (K)

MWIRRSST

(K)

MWIR =LWIR

05:00 hrs

08:00 hrs

10:00 hrs

14:00 hrs

17:00 hrs

Figure 3. MWIR vs LWIR conventional target contrast

Next was human target contrast. The goal here was todetermine if human target contrast favored the MWIRover the LWIR, and so the analysis that was performedfor conventional targets was repeated for human targets.NVESD collected a large amount of up close human

data for this analysis. The targets consisted of males andfemales in various uniforms and civilian dress, armed andunarmed, and at many aspect angles. The results showedthat human contrast were slightly higher in the MWIR,but there were specific cases where MWIR contrasts

7/28/2019 Nano 51pin

5/9

4

dominated and others where the LWIR dominatedError!Reference source not found.. As with the conventional targetsresearch, these results suggest that a 3rd Gen FLIR wouldprovide a significantly higher probability of at least onehigh contrast per target than either MWIR or LWIR alone.

Next was conventional (rural) and urban backgroundcontrast. The goal was to determine if backgroundcontrast favored the MWIR over the LWIR, but

backgrounds cannot be described with RSS T; however,the MWIR and LWIR thermal contrasts, i.e., standard

deviation of apparent T (T), of a background area can be

compared. NVESD collected a large variety of rural andurban background imagery from Spring through late Fallat various times of day. The results showed that onaverage, both the rural and urban backgrounds had about

the sameT in the MWIR as in the LWIR. However, theresults also showed specific cases where MWIR contrasts

dominated and others where the LWIR dominated (seeFigure 4). As with the conventional and human targetcontrast topics, these results suggest that a 3rd Gen FLIRwould provide significantly higher performance thaneither MWIR or LWIR alone.

Urban Backgrounds: MWIR T vs LWIR T(Spring - L ate Fall and 0200, 0800, & 1400 hrs)

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5

LWIR T (K)

MWIRT

(K)

MWIR =LWIR

White Building Block

Door

Road

Roof Shingle

Window

Rural Backgrounds: MWIR T vs LWIR T(Spring - Late Fall and 0200, 0800, & 1400 hrs)

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5

LWIR T (K)

MWIRT

(K)

MWIR =LWIR

Cut Grass

Long Grass

Medium Grass

Gravel

TreesWater

Figure 4. MWIR vs LWIR conventional and rural background contrast

Next was conventional search and detection, InWFOV search or detection, sensor resolution is limited bydetector size and sample spacing, and in such a case thereis no diffraction advantage for MWIR over LWIR.NVESD collected WFOV imagery and performed humanperception experiments with conventional targets to learnif there was any advantage of MWIR over LWIR for

search and detection as a function of time of day. Theresults showed that, on average, MWIR performed aboutthe same as LWIR in probability of detection and searchtimes. However, MWIR performed better at night andLWIR performed better in the day (see Figure 5). Theseresults indicate that a 3rd Gen FLIR would providesuperior performance than either LWIR or MWIR alone.

7/28/2019 Nano 51pin

6/9

5

LWIR Mean Detection Time [seconds]

0 5 10 15MWIRMeanDetectionTime[seconds]

Comparison LWIR & MWIRMean Detection Times

Legend

Day

Night

Dawn/Dusk

LWIR Mean Detection Time [seconds]

0 5 10 15MWIRMeanDetectionTime[seconds]

Comparison LWIR & MWIRMean Detection Times

Legend

Day

Night

Dawn/Dusk

Figure 5. MWIR vs LWIR mean detection time for conventional targets in rural environment.

Next was advanced signal processing: LCE andboost. Advanced signal processing techniques such aslocalized contrast enhancement (LCE) and highfrequency boost are currently used to increase thevisibility of details in imagery. The goal here was to seeif these techniques would benefit to LWIR over MWIR.NVThermIP was used to model these techniques for along range scout sensor and a medium range sensor overvarious ranges in both bands. Results show that bothMWIR and LWIR sensors see significant but similarincreases in range performance for high F-numbersystems and high contrast targets. However, rangeperformance benefits are minimal or even negative forlow target contrast. The performance benefits were

judged to be the same for both bands and thus 3rd Genwould not provide superior performance.

Next was cold weather performance. The MWIR isthought of as a photon-starved environment compared toLWIR. (At a T of 300 K the LWIR photon flux is about46 times greater than MWIR.) However, thischaracteristic is only important when sufficient photonscan not be collected within some reasonable fraction of aframe time or a period required to minimize motion blurin imagery. The goal was to use noise modeling andNVThermIP to model how MWIR and LWIR range

performances were affected by cold scene T. The resultsshow that MWIR performance does degrade withdecreasing T whereas LWIR performance is not muchaffected1, and thus LWIR was judged to provide superiorperformance over MWIR at low background T.

Next was turbulence, which occurs where a largeTbetween ground and air causes index of refractionfluctuations in the air. Its impact on image quality is afunction of aperture diameter and wavelength, and so thegoal here was to see if MWIR would perform better thanLWIR in turbulence. NVESD modeled its impact on theperformance of MWIR and LWIR sensors of equalaperture as a function of atmosphere type using

MODTRAN and NVThermIP. The results showed thatwhen turbulence reaches an atmosphere type-dependentthreshold, the LWIR performance can actually exceedthe performance in the MWIR (see Figure 6 for oneatmosphere example)2. Distributions of globalturbulence strength show that MWIR long-range IDperformance would only occasionally be diffraction-limited (see Figure 6)3. Consequently, a 3rd Gen FLIRwould provide superior performance over either MWIRor LWIR alone.

7/28/2019 Nano 51pin

7/9

6

Diffraction-

dominated

performance

Turbulence-

dominatedperformance

ID Range vs. Cn2: NFOV Sensor, US Std 1976 Atmosphere

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1.00E -16 1.00E -15 1. 00E -14 1. 00E -13 1.00E -12

Cn2

Range(km)

LW

MW

Diffraction-

dominated

performance

Turbulence-


Diffraction-

dominated

performance

Turbulence-



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1.00E -16 1.00E -15 1. 00E -14 1. 00E -13 1.00E -12

Cn2

Range(km)

LW

MW


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1.00E -16 1.00E -15 1. 00E -14 1. 00E -13 1.00E -12

Cn2

Range(km)

LW

MW

Figure 6. Example of modeled MWIR & LWIR range performance as a function of turbulence; and a

characteristic day/night variation of Cn2 in an arid/semi-arid climate3

Next was integration time. In IR imagery, a longsensor integration time translates into motion blur that candegrade performance. The goal here was to determinehow sensor performance degraded as a function ofintegration time in the MWIR and LWIR. NVESD

collected imagery of moving targets and stationary targetsfrom a moving sensor for different integration times.Both the imagery and a simple analysis showed that targetmotion at reasonable ranges does not significantlydegrade sensor performance in either band. However,when sensor motion is considered the MWIR resultsshowed that performance is degraded with longer sensorintegration times4. Because of the large photon flux in theLWIR, LWIR integration times had to be small to avoidimage saturation, and thus performance was not affected.Since MWIR sensors require much longer integrationtimes than the LWIR to collect the desired number ofphotons, there is a significant performance degradation in

the MWIR. LWIR was therefore judged to providesuperior performance to MWIR.

Next was smoke. Battlefield obscurants commonlyoccur in combat situations, and fog oil smoke from smoke

generators is a common obscurant that is very effective inthe visible band. The goal was to quantify the impact ofsmokes on MWIR and LWIR range performance.NVESD used existing models (NVTHERM IP withMODTRAN) to predict the performance of a MWIRsensor vs a LWIR sensor against fog oil and phosphoroussmokes. The results showed that smoke does noteliminate the MWIR long range ID advantage due todiffraction, but there was a range advantage in the LWIRover MWIR for WFOV search and detection (see Figure7). Therefore, a 3rd Gen system would provide superiorperformance over a MWIR or LWIR alone.

LWIR MWIR

Range

Clear Fog Oil Phos CL* = 1 Phos CL* = 2

* Concentration Length (gm/m2)

Modeled MFOV MWIR & LWIR Range for P(Det) = 0.7 in Smok esTarget : Military Vehicle

LWIR MWIR

Range



Clear Fog Oil Phos CL* = 1 Phos CL* = 2ClearClear Fog OilFog Oil Phos CL* = 1 Phos CL* = 2


Modeled MFOV MWIR & LWIR Range for P(Det) = 0.7 in Smok esTarget : Military Vehicle

Modeled NFOV MWIR & LWIR Range for P(ID) = 0.7 in Smo kesTarget : Military Vehicle

LWIR MWIR

Range



Modeled NFOV MWIR & LWIR Range for P(ID) = 0.7 in Smo kesTarget : Military Vehicle

LWIR MWIR

Range



Clear Fog Oil Phos CL* = 1 Phos CL* = 2ClearClear Fog OilFog Oil Phos CL* = 1 Phos C L* = 2

* Concentration Length (gm/m2) Figure 7. Modeled MWIR and LWIR range performance in smokes

Next was wet targets. Wet targets in wet backgroundsin the IR are challenging because they have low contrastand markedly different emissivity and reflectivitycharacteristics than when dry. The goal here was toinvestigate the impact of naturally occurring wetting, e.g.,heavy rainfall, in the MWIR and LWIR, and so NVESD

collected imagery of a variety of wet targets andbackgrounds after a heavy rainfall. Preliminary resultsfrom the imagery show that in both the MWIR and

LWIR, the apparent thermal contrast (T) and dynamic

range (T) of target and background materials aresignificantly reduced when they are wet, and when

7/28/2019 Nano 51pin

8/9

7

theyre wet, MWIR and LWIR T and T are almostidentical. This indicates that the IR properties of waterappear to dominate the scene. Some additional fieldmeasurements and sensor performance modeling remainto be completed before final conclusions are reached, butthese preliminary results seem to indicate that

performance would be the same in LWIR and MWIR.

The last of the completed research topics was pathradiance. Atmospheric path radiance occurs in both theMWIR and LWIR as a consequence of thermal radiationand scattering by the atmosphere, and it can reduce theapparent image contrast of targets at long range. Forground based imaging sensors this effect occurs primarilyin WFOV imagery where high path radiance may maskdistant targets. This contrast reduction is less likely tooccur in NFOV because the target and background will beat about the same range and have the same path radiance,which can be subtracted with sensor gain and leveladjustment. The goal here was to determine how path

radiance impacts MWIR and LWIR in the WFOV. UsingMODTRAN atmospheric modeling data provided by theArmy Research Laboratory, an analysis by NVESDshows that the impact on long range detection will dependupon the atmospheric conditions. The results arecurrently being finalized, but they show those conditionssometimes favor the MWIR and sometimes the LWIR.

This indicates that a 3rd Gen FLIR capability wouldprovide superior performance over a MWIR or LWIRalone

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The preceding section show that research into thepotential benefits of 3rd Gen FLIR compared to a singleband MWIR or LWIR sensor consists of a large numberof individual research topics. Table 1 below summarizesthe results of this research project in its current state. The1st column in Table 1 is a list of all of the research topics,the 2nd column indicates their status (note that five are stillbeing researched), the next four columns assessperformance superiority based upon the research results,and the rightmost two columns indicate whether thoseresults point to a 3rdGen FLIR or to a single band FLIR asthe best level of performance for a U.S. soldier in thefield. The logic of that choice is as follows: if onespecific band or availability of both bands provide thebest performance, then a 3rd Gen FLIR wins; however, ifeither MWIR or LWIR would suffice equally, then asingle band FLIR wins.

Even though all of the research listed in Table 1 hasnot yet been completed, NVESD has clearly established

that 3rd Gen FLIR provides a significant operationalperformance advantage over a single band MWIR orLWIR sensor alone. It is true that many 3rd Genperformance benefits are due to particular cases and notthe average performance of the system; however, theseparticular cases occur frequently enough in tacticalsituations that they overwhelmingly warrant theavailability of both bands. A great deal of research hasbeen conducted and the primary benefits of 3rd Gen FLIRare becoming clear. There is still a large amount of workleft, and NVESD will continue to research and publish theremaining topics.

Long Range Target Identification (ID) X 9AiTR Performance: MWIR Day Vs Night X 9AiTR Performance: 2-Band Vs 1-Band X 9Burning Barrels, Dynamic Range, Blooming, and Veiling Glare X 9Conventional Target Contrast X 9Human Target Contrast X 9Conventional and Urban Background Contrast X 9Conventional Search and Detection X 9Urban Search X

Advanced Signal Processing: LCE and Boost X 9Cold Weather Performance X 9

Turbulence X 9Integration Time X 9Camouflage X

Spectral Exploitation of Conventional Targets X

Spectral Exploitation of Urban Targets X

Smoke X 9Pilotage X

Wet Targets X 9Path Radiance X 9

Either

(Same)

MWIR +

LWIR3rd Gen

Single

BandResearch Topic

Work in

Progress

MWIR

Superior

LWIR

Superior

Table 1. 3rd Gen FLIR performance research topics

7/28/2019 Nano 51pin

9/9

8

REFERENCES

1. V. Hodgkin, B. Kowalewski, D. Tomkinson, B.Teaney, T. Corbin, R. Driggers, Modeling of IRSensor Performance in Cold Weather, SPIE Defenseand Security Symposium, Infrared Imaging Systems:Design, Analysis, Modeling, and Testing XVII,Orlando, FL, April 2006.

2. P. Richardson, Turbulence Effects on 3rdGeneration FLIR Performance, SPIE Defense andSecurity Symposium, Infrared Imaging Systems:Design, Analysis, Modeling, and Testing XVII,Orlando, FL, April 2006.

3. Karin R.Weiss-Wrana, Turbulence StatisticsApplied to Calculate Expected Turbulence-InducedScintillation Effects on Electro-Optical Systems inDifferent Climate Regions, Proceedings of SPIE,Vol. 5237, pp 1-12, 2004, Bericht FGAN-FOM2003/11.

4. B. Miller, P. Richardson, R. Driggers, DetectorIntegration Time Effects on 3rd Generation FLIRPerformance, SPIE Defense and SecuritySymposium, Infrared Imaging Systems: Design,Analysis, Modeling, and Testing XVII, Orlando, FL,April 2006.

nano 51pin

Documents