Slashdot Mirror
When Looks Can Kill
Ben Sullivan writes "From the Los Angeles Times: "Test pilots here are flying with sophisticated helmets, resembling a bug's eye, that allow them to aim their weapons and sensors simply by looking at potential targets on the ground or in the air. The helmets, when coupled with a highly maneuverable new missile that is close to deployment, would enable fighter pilots to look over their shoulders and fire instantly at targets, a feat that until now has been matched only in science fiction movies."
Development was done by San Jose-based Vision Systems International, a joint venture of defense electronics maker Rockwell Collins Inc. and Israeli's Elbit. Raytheon makes the sharp-turning AIM-9X missile."
I'm half-way through putting one of these in my car - leaves my hands free to drink coffee, tune the radio etc.
Come Monday morning, if you're driving in Portland, OR, you might want to take extra care at junctions until I've got the bugs ironed out.
0xB
Heeeeeeeeere's - CHINA!
Military capability is not static. Think 20-30 years from now.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
I'm afraid its not on my version of Apache, but I believe the new 2.0 version of Apache may have it.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
you must concede that the United States already has by far the most technologically advanced military in the world, and even without devices like this no other country can seriously challenge the United States in a conventional war
Maybe no other country can challenge the US. At least, not right now. China, for example, has the goal of improving their tech enough that they may become a more equal competitor. And many other nations have interests in targetting the US for any type of war (conventional or otherwise).
Why is it that people say "hey--we've got the best in the business (in this case the business of war). Why should we keep developing?" It's like people really, truely believe that we don't have any competition (or people who want to be competitors). Microsoft hasn't given us much in way of innovation since Win95. And some would say that they are the "best in the business" for desktop OS's. But that's no excuse for them to be sitting around waiting for others to finally catch up. Instead, they should be trying to improve even more. That would only give them a larger lead.
It is a poor rationalization in my opinion to say that we should ever pretend that some amount of military tech is "good enough". There will always be advances. The country who can aquire and use these advances first has an enormous advantage. The US doesn't merely want to have the most powerful military in the world--the intent is to have a military always so advanced and powerful that no other nation would ever question a war. Simply having the technology can prevent war altogether and save many lives.
In my opinion, I would much rather fund military research than many other projects. People like to say that disease, world hunger, and other interests should come first. My only response is: What would it matter if I had cancer if I am dodging bullets? What good does sending food to poor countries do when the food never reaches those people in need do to gangs?
I think people misunderstand the role of the military and its necessity for the US. This world isn't a fairy-tale place. Bad people exist, and they intend to hurt us. It is only by military power that this world is as safe as it is now. Simply look to WWII for inspiration--as well as the Cold War and how two superpowers used their militaries to ensure (mostly) peace stayed in place to prevent WWIII. I don't see any problems with sending my tax dollars in for military research. I'm also quite happy to feed starving kids in Afganistan, too. And education. And... etc.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
I believe this is helmet tracking, not eye tracking (similar to the Apache system).
Point your head at the target, get it in the helmet visor-mounted HUD, lock, and fire.
I am not one to complain about people not reading the article, but this seems like a clear case of it. Almost all posts on this story so far have been about how the Soviets and the Apache helicoptor have had systems similar to this before.
The article mentions the fact that the Soviets designed such a system years ago.
The Apache system also only used a machine gun.
This seems to be much more advanced however.The article mentions the ability to target ground targets for sateelite targetted missles. In addition, this system coupled with AA missles able to make very tight turns means that the pilot does not have to be behind the other plane in order to take down the target.
As the Slashdot story says, the pilot would have the ability to *look over his shoulder* and still target and take out another plane. This would require an AA missle capable of making a reletively tight 180 degree turn and still be able to hit its target.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
NASA developed no such space pen. That is an urban legend.
Raytheon makes the sharp-turning AIM-9X missile.
.)
Please note that the AIM-9x != AOL Instant Messenger for Windows 95/98. (Although the destructive effects on the lives of those who come into contact with them are striking similar . .
Ah well, it sounded better in my head. Honestly.
That's because on Slashdot there are only two possible responses to a story about new technology:
A: This is nothing new, my cousin's friend knew a guy who did something vaguely similar once before.
B: This can't possibly work because it has no foundation.
The problem with swiveling your launch rails is that the airstream does not swivel too. When your aircraft is flying 500 knots, and you try to turn your missile to, say, 90 degrees off the heading angle and launch the missile, the missile will immediately begin tumbling and be utterly uncontrollable. You might be able to make a missile that could be launched successfully at 90 degrees, but that design would not work for 120 degrees. Or zero degrees.
In other words, I would argue that your conclusion is erroneous. Making a missile turn tightly is accomplished with thrust vectoring and other clever aerodynamic tricks. Doing as you suggest would take, well, antigravity, I think. : )
In order to successfully design a high-speed aircraft, it's very important to know which direction it is going to fly. There are, to date, exactly zero exceptions to this rule.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
The AIM-120 is the best medium range missile in the world, and it is American (and widely licensed to our allies). It is a semi-active radar homing missile, meaning that it initially requires a radar fix from the mother aircraft to target the adversary. As it approaches the target, it activates its own radar for final intercept. It's a very smart bird, and is difficult for its target to detect.
It also has a 100% combat launch to kill ratio.
That's why the US hasn't been on the cutting edge of short-range missile development. They have been concentrating on improving their medium-range missile so that they never have to have a short-range fight, and then spending lots of money on pilot training.
Not an ideal strategy, IMO, but it's been darn successful so far.
IRIS-T is not the same thing. IRIS-T is a next-generation short-range missile, similar in capabilities to the AIM-9x.
Incidentally, the major reason that the US has not employed helmet mounted sights is weight. The heavy helmets used by the Russians are dangerous to the pilot in an ejection, and it's not a risk the US has been willing to take. The next-generation lightweight helmets in development for the F-22 and JSF will solve this problem.
So, yes, the US is sorta behind, but only in a very limited sense and for what I feel are good reasons.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Yes its difficult to control, but its doable.
Thrust vectoring is OK as an approach, fairly old hat. However there are some problems with it in complexity/lifetime terms.
The question is not so much what this story is about - this is all fairly old stuff. The question is third party datalinking, high data rate sensors, and high speed terminal manoever.
And as has been said elsewhere, getting those dammed pilots out of the cockpit and on the ground where they belong.