Predator-Style Helmets Allow Pilots to See Through Planes

nitroy2k writes "It is only the neck and shoulders that prove there is a human being in there somewhere. And this isn't any Star Trek or Final Fantasy kind of trick, but the next generation of RAF fighter pilots' look, which kinda makes you wish you were in the army." And you thought Air Wolf had badass headgear.

Comments

Air Wolf

[Cytlid]

And you thought Air Wolf had badass headgear.

  You'll have all the kids thinking "Is Air Wolf a new game for the wii???".

Re:Air Wolf

[GammaKitsune]

Hey, it could hit the virtual console.

Re:Air Wolf

[aktzin]

My skydiving instructor, whose last name is Wolfe, has a sticker on his helmet that says "Airwolfe". He was amused that I got the reference (the show was on when I was in high school).

Re:Air Wolf

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Too bad it's not virtual.

Instead, you can look "cool" while committing war crimes - you know, like Guernica.

Let's bomb Mommies and their babies into hamburger. Their standing over our oil.

Re:Air Wolf

[GammaKitsune]

That's cool. You're a cool guy. Hold on a second.

Re:Air Wolf

[nicolastheadept]

Wrong: its a stealth-strike fighter, not for carpet bombing.

Re:Air Wolf

[finkployd]

I'd buy it, but for the life of me the only real use I can think for the Wii controller would be for when Stringfellow Hawke plays the cello in his secluded mountain cabin.

Finkployd

Re:Air Wolf

[dfetter]

Wrong: its a stealth-strike fighter, not for carpet bombing. And of course we know those "surgical strikes" never go astray, killing wedding parties or friendly forces, right?</sarcasm>

Re:Air Wolf

[CrazyJim1]

Air Wolf was an arcade side scrolling shooter which was very fun but a quarter eater.

Re:Air Wolf

[meringuoid]

And of course we know those "surgical strikes" never go astray, killing wedding parties or friendly forces, right?

From what I've seen in the news, these have generally been the fault of the guys picking out targets, not of the technology. Precision is very good now - the bomb hits exactly what it was supposed to hit. Unfortunately, that isn't always something it was a good idea to be shooting at.

Historically: 'OK, British troops there, enemy troops there... FIRE!... oh, shit, we missed, and those Brits look really pissed off.'
Nowadays: 'OK, bunch of guys down there... are they Americans? No? OK, FIRE!... oh, shit, there are allies in the area? Shit, we're going to jail...'

Re:Air Wolf

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they cut the "NOT! ROFL" at the end from the recording.

Re:Air Wolf

[Anonymous Coward]

old news Daft Punk had those years ago.

Re:Air Wolf

[tempaccount]

I can't believe 30 year old technology is making the frontpage of slashdot. You do realize the Apache helicopter already does this. Heck it's even got 157 power zoom so the gunner can look at the moon and watch satellites go by. The pilot can look straight down at his crotch and see the ground go by underneath him. And if you think vertigo is a problem in a fixed wing aircraft, it's not, rotary wing pilots have adapted to that tech already.

Re:Air Wolf

[JunoonX]

LOL! My thoughts exactly, but don't undermine the kids, plenty of them have a lot of vintage fetish going on.

Re:Air Wolf

[Fred_A]

Wrong: its a stealth-strike fighter, not for carpet bombing. And of course we know those "surgical strikes" never go astray, killing wedding parties or friendly forces, right?</sarcasm> Don't hold your wedding on a carpet, problem solved !

Re:Air Wolf

[Jerry]

What part of " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

IF "the right of the people" in the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you and I then it doesn't mean you and I in the first and freedom of speech is a myth ready to be repealed by some facists or Marxist judge.

Some Federaljudges disagree with your. (http://www.mcsm.org/indivright.html)

The part about "well regulated" is being upheld also in the fact that assult weapons, grenade launchers, and other military weapons for offensive purposes are still prohibited from individual ownership.

So, your assertion that the 2nd Amendment only applies as a collective right to the National Guard or Police is not supported by the courts or by the phrase "right of the people".

Disarming the people only makes them more likely to be victims of those who ignore gun laws anyway. Since Britian outlawed guns in 1997 the number of gun crimes have doubled. http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/factsheetservlet?command=viewfactsheet&factsheetid=102&category=factsheets

Now the British lawmakers are going after bb-guns! Because home owners now have to resort to bats, golf clubs and kitchen utensils to defend themselves from ARMED intruders laws are being proposed to outlaw kitchen knives! There are cases on record where home owners are begin arrested for defending their home and themselves and the police are appearing as witnesses for the intruders after they sue the home owner for injuries suffered while they attempted to rob the home owner. Is that insane enough for you?

Trade the 2nd Amendment for security and you will have neither the 2nd NOR the 1st nor any other admendment.

The words of the Declaration of Independence still apply:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Did you notice that the Right enumerated (and expanded upon by the BIll of Rights) are UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. That means they cannot be taken away nor can they be voluntarily surrendered or given up.

Re:Air Wolf

[neomunk]

I just want to say, I'm pretty damn liberal. Socialized (if that word makes you shudder, don't use my roads) medicine, greater regulations on business, reformation of the tax laws to help stop the income redistribution from bottom to top, all of that... But I'm a 2nd Amendment liberal too, and as such I'd like to thank you for your post. Quite informative.

That's one part of the liberal mindset that I really don't understand. Why in the world would a group of people that think PEOPLE should be self-ruled want to give the power to PROTECT that self-rule to a small group of mostly-unelected authoritarian minded people? Oh, and to the criminals, don't forget the criminals who don't give a rat's ass about the law. Asking me to trust either group (cops or robbers) more than I trust MYSELF should be OBVIOUSLY ludicrous in the extreme.

*shrugs* I dunno, the liberal paradigm seems to make SENSE to me, but this little portion of it baffles me completely. Seems like it would be part of the agenda of a conservative "security mom", not a group of equality-for-all real-freedom lovers.

Slashdotted?

[maxwell demon]

One comment, and already slashdotted? Wow, that's fast!

Re:Slashdotted?

[realdodgeman]

Seems like more people are RTFA than you would think is normal on slashdot :)

Re:Slashdotted?

[G Fab]

I don't think it's surprising that the top article on slashdot is getting the most traffic.

It might be odd that a server is overrun quickly, but if it's going to get slashdotted, it's going to happen when it's a newer story.

Re:Slashdotted?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only /. posters who don't bother to RTFAs.

Re:Slashdotted?

[Brian Gordon]

Guess the UK needs a trillion-dollar defense budget too...

Re:Slashdotted?

[echucker]

Because it's really not a FA at all... It's a blog that links to an article. Would it kill the editors to actually link to a story, instead of just bump up joehaveablog's hit counter?

Re:Slashdotted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clicking the link != actually reading the FA

Re:Slashdotted?

[JackMeyhoff]

UK is great at inventions but sucks at following the up. Invisible tanks, USA will take it and give it to Israel and then capitalise on it just as they did the steam train, faster than sound jet and so on. All British inventions but stolen by the US. The same will happen to this.

Re:Slashdotted?

[xENoLocO]

Yeah, the british and their great inventions... read the damn article... they're buying JSF planes from the USA. UK makes a helmet... omg! amazing!

Maybe you should steam over here in one of your carriers... oh... you mean your last carrier design is from the 1940s? And even then we still had to save your ass? And then you sold the design to the french?

I'm not one for pointing fingers, but maybe you should not be so hasty to point yours. It is not us that needs you... get that right.

Re:Slashdotted?

[Usquebaugh]

You do understand what day this?

Re:Slashdotted?

[Brian Gordon]

I'm not sure I understand that.

Re:Slashdotted?

[Fuzzums]

WOW! You're telling me in those days there was oil in Europe? ;)

Re:Slashdotted?

[YodaYid]

Why should the editors increase some newspaper's hit counter instead? Do they deserve the hits more than the blogger for some reason? I'd bet that the "real" paper's version is just an embellished press release anyway.

Re:Slashdotted?

[l-ascorbic]

Yes, the JSF - jointly built and designed by Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumann and... BAE Systems (formerly British Aerospace). Latest carrier design is the Queen Elizabeth Class, currently being built.

Re:Slashdotted?

[Usquebaugh]

11th Nov
Armistice
Remembrance

Re:Slashdotted?

[sumdumass]

As far as I am concerned, It isn't as much who's hit counter needs increased the most. It is about who's site released the article and how many people can view it.

Obviously, when a site releases an news story, their the ones who should be credited with it. So I guess they shouldn't be attributing this story to some under-bandwidth blogging content thief in the first place. let alone doing so in a way that no one can read the damn article because of some seriously lacking forethought of the submitter or the site in question.

Re:Slashdotted?

[sumdumass]

Actually, the britts didn't do the faster then sound jet engine. It was the Germans and after WW2, we all but abandoned the British design in favor of the German design.

The britts design used complexed compressors and pumps and resemble more of a modern liquid rocket then a modern jet engine. The less complexed german design used a series of fans to compress the air and only injects fuel.

As for this, the US has had it for at least 15 years that I know of. Maybe more. I don't know how that can be stolen from them when the prior art actually exists and is in use today.

Re:Slashdotted?

[HTH NE1]

if it's going to get slashdotted, it's going to happen when it's a newer story. It's still down today. Not a good sign. It may end up being down for the rest of the month, the virtual host pulled for exceeding monthly bandwidth consumption limits.

Enough is enough!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sick of this Terminator-like and Star Wars-like technology. When do we get the actual Terminators and Tie Fighters?

I call shenanigans! They want us to believe that this is futuristic technology yet they take away the droids and killbots.

Re:Enough is enough!

[djmurdoch]

When do we get the actual Terminators and Tie Fighters?

Pretty soon, although Skynet is having launch problems.

Re:Enough is enough!

[meringuoid]

I am sick of this Terminator-like and Star Wars-like technology. When do we get the actual Terminators and Tie Fighters?

This gloriously evil-looking helmet goes along with the F-35 Lightning II fighter. Have you seen what those things are capable of? It's a supersonic fighter jet which can stop dead at will and hover in mid-air, and which has a radar signature about the size of a small duck.

And there are plans to fit them with fricking lasers. LASERS.

I mean, seriously. What more do you want? This is about the coolest jet ever flown. F-22, Typhoon, sure, very fast, very flashy, nice planes, but the F-35 really is something straight out of Macross.

Re:Enough is enough!

[dougmc]

I agree that the F-35 looks way cool, but `stop dead at will and hover in mid-air' ... I doubt it's quite that easy, and it's only the F-35B, and they gave up a lot of other things for the ability to land vertically. They say it's STOL rather than VTOL -- perhaps it doesn't have quite enough thrust to gain altitude from the ground?

Not quite Macross ... but getting closer.

Re:Enough is enough!

[nebosuke]

It is capable of VTOL, but its operational spec is STOVL for a very good reason. Any winged (by which I mean the wings provide the vast majority of lift during operation, as opposed to rotors) craft capable of VTOL can trivially (for relative values of trivial) carry a much larger payload if allowed to operate with a STOVL mission profile instead.

You can specify VTOL as a requirement if you really wanted to, but in the end you'll get far more literal bang for your buck if you take advantage of the ability to do STOVL instead of VTOL whenever possible.

Re:Enough is enough!

[AGMW]

... indeed. So much so that our mini-aircraft carriers, and by mini think roughly as long as a US one is wide ;-), had a "ski ramp" affair at one end which help throw the harriers into the air in Short Take Off mode. Saved a HUGE amount of fuel. They would typically hover alongside the carrier, then shuffle sideways onto the deck to land though - a bit like a large bluebottle landing on a turd!

Our new carriers will apparently be "full size" ones though, which is nice.

This Isn't New

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked on a military aircraft program, and we had the same thing. A head-tracking helmet that displayed the video to the pilot and had an imposed an outline of the aircraft so you knew where you were looking.

This is really just new packaging of an old idea.

Re:This Isn't New

[Provocateur]

Yes, but the earlier models didn't come with Menacing Voice(TM) tech; they just played 'These aren't the droids we're looking for!' over and over.

army?

[TrappedByMyself]

which kinda makes you wish you were in the army

So you could admire the cool helmets the Air Force, Navy, and Marine pilots have?

Re:Army?

[G Fab]

He is saying that the helmet is intimidating, so the Army joke means he is going away from the helmet.

Re:Army?

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you going to be the one to tell the Army's C-12 and C-23 pilots that they are really in the Air Force?

Re:army?

[Tablizer]

which kinda makes you wish you were in the army

W's trying to lour us geeks into Iraq with cool gadgets. What's next, a Beowulf cluster of Linux tanks and a night with Natalie P.?

Re:army?

[Anonymous Coward]

W's trying to lour us geeks into Iraq with cool gadgets. What's next, a Beowulf cluster of Linux tanks and a night with Natalie P.?

but leave looking like goatse

Re:army?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering this is a UK piece and the F-35 is set to replace their ARMY's Harrier then it does make sense and you just look like a dumbass.

Re:army?

[nicolastheadept]

No, the F-35 is more of a stealth fighter than the Harrier, which is actually being replaced by the Eurofighter Typhoon. BAE is in-fact involved in the development of the F-35 as well.

Considering this is a UK piece and the F-35 is set to replace their ARMY's Harrier then it does make sense and you just look like a dumbass. Remember the air force fly planes, and the army drive tanks!

Re:Army?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but someone really should tell them the wings aren't fixed on their craft anymore. They would probably be interested to know.

Re:army?

[meringuoid]

No, the F-35 is more of a stealth fighter than the Harrier, which is actually being replaced by the Eurofighter Typhoon. BAE is in-fact involved in the development of the F-35 as well.

I thought the general idea was that Typhoons would replace Tornadoes, while JSFs would replace Harriers? They were looking into a navalised Typhoon for use on the new carriers, but I'm not sure what became of that.

Re:army?

[Dr. Spork]

I thought this development made RAF pilots wish they joined the army because at least in the army, you can do your job without looking like some doofus in a cylon costume. I admit, it's a pretty compelling argument!

Re:army?

[sco08y]

So you could admire the cool helmets the Air Force, Navy, and Marine pilots have?

No, so you could become a warrant officer with MOS 153A, rotary-wing aviator.

Re:Army?

[bagsc]

The Army pilots of the C-23 Sherpa, C-12 Huron, and UC-35 Citations would disagree with you.

Re:army?

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

Navalised Typhoons are the backup plan in-case the Americans don't come through with the F-35's flight system software, which they are somewhat bizarrely not handing over. I heard there was some progress but it all seems to have gone somewhat quiet of recent.

Apparently the UK has plans to develop a navalised Typhoon, but plans are very different from an actual plane. So, in otherwords.. if the UK doesn't get the flight software for the F35 then the UK pulls out of the JSF program, doesn't buy any F35's and instead develops a navalised Typhoon.

Of course, there are good points and bad points to that:

Good:
* The Typhoon is faster, has a longer range and in every regard except for stealth/low radar visibility outperforms the F35
* We won't be dependant on the USA in the slightest

Bad:
* It will take time and lots of money to develop a navalised Typhoon
* The Typhoon isn't capable of VTOL (useful for the current Invincible class carriers, not so much for the new QE class carriers)
* A navalised Typhoon will cost more maintenance wise than an F35 for carrier usage. (think wear and tear, landing vertically with a nice lift fan doesn't damage an aircraft airframe or under carriage anyway near as bad as an arrestor hook landing)

Re:army?

[Anonymous Coward]

You apologize to the US Army now. You've hurt their feelings, and they are very upset.

Re:army?

[Anonymous Coward]

> * The Typhoon . . . has a longer range

false

it's hard to make a direct comparison, but we can examine some facts and see that this really isn't close

F-35B: 6,045 of internal fuel, internal (clean) weapons carriage (low drag), one engine (good efficiency)
EF: 4,000kg of internal fuel, external weapons carriage (high drag), two engines (worse efficiency)

and don't forget the B variant of the F-35 is the short-ranged version, the C variant carries 8,900 kg of internal fuel

yes the EF can carry external tanks . . . but so can the F-35

> * The Typhoon . . .in every regard except for stealth/low radar visibility outperforms the F35

in today's high threat environments that's like saying, 'Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?'

a plane without stealth is operating at a very very steep disadvantage penetrating defended airspace. Whether you can go Mach 1.6 or Mach 2.5 makes no difference to a Mach 5 SAM. No matter how maneuverable your plane is, it can't outturn a 25-G missile. Your only hope is to not be seen in the first place.

Re:army?

[geekoid]

No, so you can shoot them down!

"Ground control, then is alpha 1. "
"Go ahead alpha1"
"I Can't help but notice a battery of large artillery headed my way."
"Roger that, we'll give your wife your love."

Re:army?

[AliasTheRoot]

Isn't the EF supposed to be an Interceptor / Air Superiority fighter primarily?

Re:army?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does make *some* difference. The kill envelope of a fixed SAM site will be seriously reduced if you can hit the ABs and get another 500mph.

But there is no reliable information about whether 1.6+ means 1.6001 or 1.9 and we aint telling you cause we are not idiots.

The scenic view

[GaryOlson]

Seeing right through their own aircraft fuselage to the ground below...

How many pilots will get vertigo the first time they look down thru their seats at the ground zipping by a few thousand feet below? I would. Will the masks include organic fluid caching and isolation?

Re:The scenic view

[flyingfsck]

The ground doesn't zip when it is a few thousand feet below, even at mach 2. You need to be close for that effect.

Re:The scenic view

[EaglemanBSA]

Good point though, my brother is an airline pilot, but he's terrified of heights. He's fine, as long as he can't look down.

Re:The scenic view

[eMartin]

Something tells me that would be a problem when trying to become a pilot.

Personally, I am terrified when at the edge of a bridge or the roof of a building, but love flying and I have no problem looking straight down when in plane or helicopter. I guess for me it's more of a fear of falling.

Re:The scenic view

[yada21]

Well not really, if you can look down from an airliner cockpit, you're either banking quite steep, or diving too steep.

Re:The scenic view

[Registered Coward v2]

Something tells me that would be a problem when trying to become a pilot.

Personally, I am terrified when at the edge of a bridge or the roof of a building, but love flying and I have no problem looking straight down when in plane or helicopter. I guess for me it's more of a fear of falling.

Not really. I am extremely afraid of heights but have flown supersonic jets and jumped out of a/c; it's all a matter of surroundings.

Re:The scenic view

[Charcharodon]

Well that's probably why you aren't a pilot.

Besides at those altitudes the whole concept of ground and heights becomes more of a theoretical concept rather than a butt puckering reality. You know you are heigh up, but most of your references you're used to associating with hieghts are gone. Same goes for speed. 150mph seems like impending doom behind the wheel of a car. 600mph at 10,000ft seems like a leisurely pace.

Re:The scenic view

[dshk]

You fear of instability. An aircraft is stable. If you sit in it in a seat you are in a stable situation. I haven't tried it but I guess even if you jump out of it with a parachute you feel safe, because the parachute and you together make a stable system (you can assume that you eventually open it, it opens successfully etc.). On the other hand if you stand on a 1 meter tall table you fear because you are in a physically instable position.

Re:The scenic view

[sco08y]

How many pilots will get vertigo the first time they look down thru their seats at the ground zipping by a few thousand feet below?

I just did a jump from a blackhawk a few weeks ago. You sit with your legs dangling out and the ground beneath you. The vertigo's not that bad at all... the wind and the helicopter turning, that's another matter, but I think that's mostly a problem for passengers because they're not controlling it.

Re:The scenic view

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the same basic problem. Tall building are horrible for me. I have to stay away from the windows in anything over ten stories or so. I am also a pilot, and I have absolutely no problem doing anything in airplanes, including mild aerobatics.

Strange how the mind works.

Re:The scenic view

[felipekk]

I get afraid even lower, like 5 stories... But not over a table, like someone posted.
I get also very nervous when I'm seeing a situation like that in a movie. Take, for example, the beginning of MI:2. Just saw it the other day and my hands were sweating lol.

Re:The scenic view

[AGMW]

Perhaps more interesting might be the question of why bother having a see-through canopy on the cockpit at all? Wouldn't the plane be stronger/more aerodynamic, & therefore faster, if it didn't have the clear canopy?

Re:The scenic view

[tehcyder]

You fear of instability. An aircraft is stable. If you sit in it in a seat you are in a stable situation. I haven't tried it but I guess even if you jump out of it with a parachute you feel safe, because the parachute and you together make a stable system (you can assume that you eventually open it, it opens successfully etc.). On the other hand if you stand on a 1 meter tall table you fear because you are in a physically instable position.

No, I can speak from experience and say that, as someone with a pretty bad head for heights, jumping out of an aeroplane with a parachute is approximately one million times more terrifying than standing on a 1 meter high table.

And in a normal passenger type aeroplane, you don't get scared because you are so insulated from the reality of being thousands of feet in the air.

Re:The scenic view

[dshk]

well, maybe skydiving was a wrong example. However, I know quite a few hang-glider and paraglider pilots, including myself, who have more problems with standing on a table then with hanging under their wing at 2000 meters. I was surprised how many pilots have similar feelings about these situations.

Army?

[schwit1]

"... which kinda makes you wish you were in the army."

The Army flies helicopters, not fixed-wing aircraft.

The memories!

[StarfishOne]

And you thought Air Wolf had badass headgear.

Thank you for that bit of nostalgia! Now I'm browsing YouTube for cool startup sequences and intro's of AirWolf again! :)

What can I say more? Dom, give me the turbo's! :D

Re:The memories!

[Opportunist]

While as a kid, I loved Airwolf, looking back I cannot really say I do anymore. I mean, yes, it was the 80s, it was campy as hell, but it also has the rather interesting aftertaste of being a Bellisario show. When you look down this man's production list, which includes gems such as JAG, NCIS and Baa Baa Black Sheep, you have to wonder whether his primary concern is to make shows or whether he got his production money out of the DOD's propaganda funds.

Re:The memories!

[crankyspice]

] ] And you thought Air Wolf had badass headgear.

] Thank you for that bit of nostalgia! Now I'm browsing YouTube for cool startup sequences and intro's of AirWolf again! :)

If you watch the episode Moffett's Ghost, you'll learn Airwolf was programmed in AppleSoft BASIC.

Re:The memories!

[Anonymous Coward]

After you're done, maybe you can browse a dictionary and learn the mind-bending fact that you don't pluralize with an apostrophe. I mean at least be consistent in your stupidity; why didn't you write sequence's?

Re:The memories!

[Disseminated]

He didn't pluralize "intro", he abbreviated "introductions".

+2 to fear bonus

[spineboy]

Just the thought of me being bombed or chased by someTHING that looked like this would make me think twice about it. That helmet looks fricken evil. If it's ever used {I really should say when if GWB :-( is still at the helm}, then advance patrols should drop paper flyers with the image of the fighters helmet on it, saying that these creatures will be bombing you - fear tactics.

Re:+2 to fear bonus

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's ever used {I really should say when if GWB Not to play devil's advocate... but why does GWB have anything to do with the Royal Air Force's helmets?

Re:+2 to fear bonus

[Dr. Spork]

Yeah, because ... what could people looking like that possibly be up to besides bringing democracy to my backwards little country? Suddenly it's all so plausible! I think I'll surrender right now!

Cool designs...

[__aaclcg7560]

So what's wrong with the cool '80s retro look of Air Wolf?

Earlier ...

[foobsr]

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/10/new-helmet-allows-fighter-pilots-to-peer-through-the-jet/

engadget, CA - 23 hours ago
No, the headgear in the photo above wasn't some unused prototype created for The Terminator; rather, it's a snazzy new helmet designed to give fighter ...

CC.

Re:Earlier ...

[Imaria]

Mod parent informative; since TFA is slashdotted, this is the only way we'd see this.

Re:Earlier ...

[foobsr]

OK, I rephrase so that the average intellect may get a grip.

A picture of the device can be found here: http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/10/new-helmet-allows-fighter-pilots-to-peer-through-the-jet/

The link given in the summary is slashdotted, which means that there are too many hits for the server to cope with. A server, in this context ... WTF

CC.

Re:Earlier ...

[Tablizer]

Good God, cyborg cat people! And I thot W was against human-animal hybrids.

Re:Earlier ...

[stu72]

Way earlier.. in fact, the original source material:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=492631&in_page_id=1965&ito=1490

Why not just link to that in the first place?

Reading 18 blog summaries to just get back to the original story is ridiculous. If you want to credit the guy who happened to tip you off, by all means, but stop wasting our time, link to the original article.

And then of course there's the old saw about how blogs will replace newspapers - interesting that their original material often seems to come from them.

I'm sure I'll get flamed with comments like, "but what about the blog writers ad revenue stream - how dare you cheat him out of his living!" - bullshit. What exactly is the blog writer adding to the equation here that entitles him to anything? The Daily mail reporter found & wrote the story, got quotes, graphics & photos and did the layout. The blog writer said, "Hey, this is cool, check it out". Or more likely said, "hey, check out what my blog buddy said about what his blog buddy said about what his blog buddy said about what his blog buddy said about this cool article in the newspaper"

hilarious.

Re:Earlier ...

[ms1234]

The green eyes are somewhat freaky :P Spooked me the first time I saw the picture.

Re:Earlier ...

[maxwell demon]

Did you look at the "what the pilot sees" image? Looks very much like a computer game ... indeed, modern 3D computer games look more realistic. Does the pilot get to see the real world at all?

Re:Earlier ...

[X0563511]

It's a mockup. The article(s) specifically state high-resolution images

That is merely showing the HUD that is projected onto the image.

Re:Earlier ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And just how many Gs can the wearer take before that helmet rips his head off the cervical vertabrae?

It might even useful for a few years

[Fear the Clam]

Within a couple of decades using a fighter aircraft with a human inside will be as quaint as using a missile with pigeons as the guidance system.

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[vanadium213]

Right, I am surprised that we are not moving more quickly in this direction right now. An unmanned fighter could do way crazier acrobatics than one with a fragile human in it, could stay in flight far longer (with in flight refuelings) and probably be better at a lot of other things I cannot think of right now.

We need small unmanned robotic subs also.

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[ScrappyLaptop]

Never gonna happen, not so long as the Generals are still human. You don't get ahead in the armed forces commanding a bunch of autonomous or semi-autonomous machinery; you get ahead by commanding large numbers of troops willing to lay down their lives for God and Country. It'a all about the Surrogate Warrior.

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[Chicken_Kickers]

No it won't. Since the early 80's, people have been saying that the days of human fighter pilots are over. After all, fighters are already flying at Mach 2.0 and missiles will take over the job. It turns out that dogfights happens at much lower speed and nothing beats a human for on the spot decision making. Granted that the current fighter pilots are more system administrators than the seat of the pants pilots of WWII but I don't see them being replaced unless a HAL-like AI can be created.

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[insertwackynamehere]

Is it war if it's just machines (not even sentient robots) fighting? I mean, what happens? Two countries throw enough scrap metal around while no one is really in danger? This would be good, but it misses the point of war.

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[Anonymous Coward]

"Within a couple of decades using a fighter aircraft with a human inside will be as quaint as using a missile"

People have been saying this since the 60s.

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[timeOday]

That's an interesting sociological angle, but it hasn't prevented the rapid acceptance of cruise missles and UAVs in recent years. It's not just predictions any more, it's happening before our eyes.

IMHO a pack of good but moderately priced UAVs will prove more lethal and less expensive than a much smaller number of gold-plated uber-fighers (such as the F22). Add to that removing the pilots from harm's way and the outcome seems inevitable.

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[CrimsonAvenger]

hat's an interesting sociological angle, but it hasn't prevented the rapid acceptance of cruise missles and UAVs in recent years. It's not just predictions any more, it's happening before our eyes.

IMHO a pack of good but moderately priced UAVs will prove more lethal and less expensive than a much smaller number of gold-plated uber-fighers (such as the F22). Add to that removing the pilots from harm's way and the outcome seems inevitable.

Biggest problem with UAVs is that they have to make the fundamental assumption that your opponent can't match your technology. Which is true right now. But won't necessarily be true forever.

It would really suck to send a swarm of UAVs at an enemy plane, only to find that the enemy plane can shutdown communications between UAV and its controller. Suddenly, all your UAVs are useless, and the enemy plane just keeps right on coming.

That said, I expect we'll continue the trend toward unmanned vehicles until something really unfortunate happens because the enemy isn't quite as technologically backward as we'd thought.

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[Riktov]

Human fighter pilots won't disappear, they just won't be physically sitting in the planes they're piloting. Many of the UAVs that the U.S. has flying over Iraq aren't autonomous, they're flown remotely in real-time by guys sitting in control rooms in the Nevada desert.

In the plane described in the article, the pilot receives all visual input from a virtual environment. If the physical environment (gravity, orientation) could also be simulated to a reasonable degree, there's no reason he has to sit in the cockpit and risk death (from excessive Gs as well as enemy fire).

BTW, talk about missiles replacing manned fighters dates to the 1950s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Defence_White_Paper

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[vanadium213]

>>Is it war if it's just machines (not even sentient robots) fighting?

I think the point is you send the robots to attack their infrastructure, their factories, power stations, etc.

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[Nullav]

'Unmanned' can also mean 'piloted remotely'. And there are numerous advantages, such as switching pilots on the fly, not losing people in a crash, not subjecting someone to the lower pressure and temperatures up there, and not having to worry about crazy robot planes. (On the other hand, if you can pilot planes via satellite, you may as well start working on ways to just drop bombs from space.)

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[darthflo]

If the enemy plane can shut down comms between UAV and controller, it can shut down comms between manned aircraft pilot and command centre as well. If UAVs actually get used in that kind of combat situations, they will (I'd imagine they might already) have a fallback similar to what a pilot could do.
If the enemy plane can disrupt the UAVs on-board electronics, it could do the same to a manned aircraft's electronics. Not much of a difference there, I reckon.

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[Jesus_666]

The problem is that a pilot can act autonomously, while the UAV can only do so in a very limited matter. Depending on when the enemy can shot down communications, UAVs trying to guess what their target is and then attacking it can become a liability (they might attack the wrong target, fail to recognize their target, fail to take into account that they're firing at a target just passing over a strategically important oil refinery...). While human pilots can screw up they still are capable of determining that shooting down a plane right above an important structure is a bad idea.

Of course, the wrst case scenario with UAVs would be a hijacking scenario - the enemy shuts down your comms (eg. by destroying your transmitter) and takes over communictions with the UAV, using it against your own troops. Doing so is most likely difficult, but large wars always attract the attention of geniuses.

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[gbjbaanb]

Of course, the wrst case scenario with UAVs would be a hijacking scenario

Oh no, the worst case scenario is where the now-truly-autonomous UAV decides that a civilian target is actually the enemy and starts attacking it. If the UAV comes at you, you have plenty of other defences to tackle it as if it were an enemy unit. If you lost control of your UAV miles away, it could do a lot of damage that you didn't want doing. Considering all wars nowadays are more peace-keeping operations where you're there to protect the civilians against the bad guys, this would be the end of it. And just imagine the political fallout.

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[AGMW]

such as switching pilots on the fly

Hey ... you use trained pilots to take off/land on an airstrip or carrier, some trainee pilots to fly aircraft to the "hot zone" where a combat/dog fight pilot takes over. When that plane is shot down or needs refueling/more ammo, he hands it back to the trainee who has just brought another fueled and loaded plane to the area and they swap! Trainee takes tired plane back for someone else to land ...

I kinda like it! Specialist bombing pilots do a bombing run and hand over to fighter pilots to get out of the area.

Nice.

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[Jesus_666]

Well, a hijacking enemy could just as well launch a couple missiles at civilian homes and then do a tiny reenactment of 9/11 with the UAV and another civilian building. It's pretty much inclusive. It might even be blamed on the AI going haywire by either the owner ("our systems are unhackable") or their enemy ("their system is unreliable and dangerous").

But yeah, the UAV going rogue on its own would be disastrous as well.

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[meringuoid]

Oh no, the worst case scenario is where the now-truly-autonomous UAV decides that a civilian target is actually the enemy and starts attacking it.

Have you looked at the targeting record of human pilots lately?

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[CrimsonAvenger]

If the enemy plane can shut down comms between UAV and controller, it can shut down comms between manned aircraft pilot and command centre as well.

This may be hard to believe, but manned airplanes used to fly without contact with their command center. There was, in fact, a whole war (World War 1), where the manned aircraft didn't have contact with command (or even much contact with other aircraft in their own flight) once they'd gotten out of sight of the runway.

When UAVs have been flying just fine without external control for a decade or so, I'll consider them ready for prime-time as a complete replacement for a manned aircraft. Until then, they're useful, but by no means a replacement for a fighter with a guy in the cockpit.

Re:It might even useful for a few years

[tehcyder]

An unmanned fighter could do way crazier acrobatics than one with a fragile human in it, could stay in flight far longer (with in flight refuelings) and probably be better at a lot of other things I cannot think of right now.

Wow, I'd patent that idea if I were you.

slashdotted already?

[wizardforce]

So pilots in these aircraft won't have as many blindspots as are in current aircraft? Are they planning on using this on current aircraft or as an add-on to future ones because I thought the F-22 Raprtor was the last plane in future production that actually had a pilot rather than a UAV type craft or was that just for testing?

Re:slashdotted already?

[serene_byte]

TFA said it was designed to work with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter now in production which does in fact have a pilot.

cosmetic appeal

[xPsi]

The functionality of this helmet is impressive, but I do take issue with the idea that because it looks good (does it?) it "kinda makes you wish you were in the army." There are potentially a lot of reasons to want to be in the military, but the way a helmet LOOKs should NOT be one of them.

Re:cosmetic appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent (-1, Takeslifetooseriously)

Re:cosmetic appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

Buddy, its called a JOKE. The editor didn't really mean it.

Re:cosmetic appeal

[mangu]

There are potentially a lot of reasons to want to be in the military, but the way a helmet LOOKs should NOT be one of them.

I think you didn't get the idea in the assertion "it kinda makes you wish you were in the army"

That was meant for actual Air Force pilots who know that, if they were in the Army, they wouldn't have to wear those helmets...

Re:cosmetic appeal

[xPsi]

Ahh. Right. Damn. Mod my origional post -1 notpayingattention.

Re:cosmetic appeal

[meringuoid]

There are potentially a lot of reasons to want to be in the military, but the way a helmet LOOKs should NOT be one of them.

No, but it is one of them nonetheless. Militaries have always recruited in part on having a really smart uniform in which you'd look really, really good - that one goes back millennia. And I reckon the opportunity to wear a badass TIE-fighter style helmet with awesome cyber-vision kit will indeed be a bonus for RAF recruitment. That thing is really cool.

Re:cosmetic appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

Look are important, and it is important not to look too good. Take a look at World War II, for instance. The fascist had the best looking uniforms. This was OK because everyone had pretty good looking uniform, Savile row and all. But then some people from across the pond, with some particular bad fashion sense, began to get jealous, and at the first excuse got involved. The rest is history. The lesson is that it does not pay to look too cool.

Not just the UK

[Dolphinzilla]

kind of a weird tag line - but basically the US built Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) which the UK is buying has this feature for all the pilots that are lucky enough to get to fly this beast - most cool - although it might be a good ticket to air sickness :-)

Re:Not just the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno... In some games, the aircraft cockpit just gets in the way. Fly sim combat with equally skilled pilots. Have one where the interior has to be on vs. one where look-through or outside mode is allowed... Who will come ahead more often than not? I think the concept is just an extention of that.

But with virtualization of visibility to this extent, it shouldn't be too long where the pilot doesn't need to actually ride in the aircraft to proficiently control it. Next step would be to move a whole bunch of virtual cockpits into a command and control aircraft. It would be close to theater for low latency, utilize spread spectrum encrypted signal tech. to keep the jamming problem low, and the drone planes being controled by the squadron of operators on the CC aircraft could do manuevers that would turn human pilots into red-fleshy-goo.

pfft

[Digitus1337]

Jerks have been using these things in first person shooters for years.

Yes but...

[haeger]

...couldn't they have used a more sinister look. Now the pilot just look surprised. "Hey, cool, I can see my house from here!".
The tech is cool though.

.haeger

The Pressing Question

[RabidMonkey]

Since when do 'The Terrorists' have fighters?

With the cold war over, and the major super powers having no one to have air battles with, is it really necessary to spend huge amounts of money to fight an enemy that doesn't exist? I mean, back in the Cold War, it made sense-ish, but since the current battle is against "terror", and "terror" doesn't have an air force ...

Granted - the technology is cool, and it's good to have somewhere to spend money to research tools like this, which I'm sure have other, less militaristic uses, but why should military spending dictate research?

Or is the world planning to gang up on China, and just not telling us?

Re:The Pressing Question

[GammaKitsune]

If Civilization has taught me nothing, it's that you should always upgrade your military technology as much as possible, even when you don't seem to need it. Also, Gandhi is a huge jerk.

Re:The Pressing Question

[Thirdsin]

With the cold war over, and the major super powers having no one to have air battles with, is it really necessary to spend huge amounts of money to fight an enemy that doesn't exist? I mean, back in the Cold War, it made sense-ish, but since the current battle is against "terror", and "terror" doesn't have an air force ...
It's not so much about getting ready for war, as it is deterrence. Making sure the potential aggressor is aware of the risk so that he refrains from aggression. (See Iran). You don't need another cold war for a reason to have bigger guns than the next guy...

Re:The Pressing Question

[wjsteele]

With the cold war over, and the major super powers having no one to have air battles with

Right... whenever you have more than one country who thinks they are a superpower, you have a good chance that there will be a war.

A good country that want's to remain around needs to have a strong defense. Just because the current battlefield isn't so obvious doesn't mean the next one won't be.

Bill

Re:The Pressing Question

[Anonymous Coward]

With the cold war over

major super powers having no

is it really necessary ... ?

why should military spending dictate research? I dunno, lets ask China!

Re:The Pressing Question

[T-Bone-T]

why should military spending dictate research? You prepare for the war you are going to fight, not for the war you are fighting.

The whole point of having such badass weapons is so the US can strike when and where it chooses. It is part of the military's doctrine to take action rather than react.

Re:The Pressing Question

[mikael]

The development for the "next generation" Eurofighter has been going on for the past 25 years. Funding was approved back in the mid 1980's. At this time, we still had a Cold War with Eastern Europe, and the threat of dodgy Middle Eastern countries.

Re:The Pressing Question

[meringuoid]

With the cold war over, and the major super powers having no one to have air battles with, is it really necessary to spend huge amounts of money to fight an enemy that doesn't exist? I mean, back in the Cold War, it made sense-ish, but since the current battle is against "terror", and "terror" doesn't have an air force ...

The Russians are probing European air defences again; I think it was just last month one of their bombers was intercepted over the North Sea by the new RAF Typhoons. Used to happen all the time in the Cold War - just testing how watchful the West really is, how quick to respond to an intruder. Nothing outright hostile, just a... friendly... reminder that they're there. North Korea is opening up to outside business investment and to tourism from the South to Mt Paektu, but on the other hand they've been playing with nukes lately, so that one could go either way. Not so long ago there was the war in Yugoslavia, right on our doorstep, yet little got done about it till the Yanks got involved - that was embarrassing. Belarus is run by a weirdo who keeps trying to re-establish the Soviet Union despite the fact that the Russians want as little to do with him as possible. The president of Turkmenistan is an egomaniac who makes Kim Jong Il look positively humble, though he seems content to keep to his own frontiers. Any day now our esteemed allies could drag us into a war with Iran. And it's probably only a matter of time before we have to do something about Zimbabwe.

Sure, today we're mostly fighting Iraqi rebels, against whom the air force can do relatively little - but that won't be the case forever. Britain gets into an awful lot of fights.

Re:The Pressing Question

[Anonymous Coward]

imho, deterrence is a complete myth, if you stop and think about it, you soon realize that every military buildup has been at one time called a 'deterrence' however, in every case, that buildup in armaments was utilized despite all the so-called 'deterrence' it supposedly created

in truth, if you don't have weapons stockpiled, you can't use them preemptively, besides, if America was actually attacked, we could produce all we need at that time

current military budgets have very little to do with military preparedness and everything to do with politics and profits

Re:The Pressing Question

[c6gunner]

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

China, Russia, North Korea, Iran....who knows where the next conflict will arise? And who cares. If the crime rate in my city goes down, we don't respond to it by firing half the police force, or by turning them into meter-maids. If you want peace, prepare for war.

Re:The Pressing Question

[iamwahoo2]

The military is going away from doing this kind of work. Now we pay for contractors to do this kind of work. So before we could at least give stuff back to the general public (GPS), now we allow Contractors to claim proprietary rights to all of the products of the research that we funded.

Re:The Pressing Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Right... whenever you have more than one country who thinks they are a superpower, you have a good chance that there will be a war.

Hell, for as long as the US exists, there will be war. Even after the people realize 'superpowers' don't exist.

Re:The Pressing Question

[liquiddark]

Moreover, the war that a lot of military experts expect to fight is a primarily guerilla war (look up 4th generation warfare). Having a bunch of fighter jets is always great, both for recruitment and for the what-the-fuck-was-that factor, but having a bunch of fast, high-performance jets where the pilots can, via advanced optics, see everything in the immediate neighbourhood seems like it would be especially useful against sparse ground forces.

Re:The Pressing Question

[dbIII]

In that case you are talking about the potential defender - pre-emption and all that. They are not an "agressive" threat. If we have to wait for Iranian forces to move all the way through hostile Iraq, belligerant Syria and most likely by then complete basket case Lebanon to attack Israel we would have to wait a very long time. The same holds for current Iranian missile tech as seen in the recent war in Lebanon where some Iranian missiles were used with little effect.

A loud loony as a figurehead President in Iran's fairly powerless Parliment is really not much of a threat. The place is a Theocracy and is not actually run by it's President.

Re:The Pressing Question

[Jugalator]

One would think the nukes would be enough for the deterrence argument with this though.

Or the stealth fighters/bombers...

Or all the hangars in the gulf...

Or...

Re:The Pressing Question

[darthflo]

To go with your deterrence idea:
I'm sure you'd agree with me that a military kind of deterrence is supposed to be working against an oppossing nation with the potential to engage in a more or less uniformed and geneva-convention-style (that's the one, right?) conflict. Such an enemy would very surely need to be based somewhere, that somewhere usually being a country. (Terrorists are the exception here, but they aren't deterred by a huge army, now are they?)
Continuing, the probably biggest deterrent to an aggressor of that kind would very probably be the possibility of completely and exceptionlessy obliberate the enemy's base. The U.S. is stockpiling nukes, intelligent bombs and so on in the tens of thousands. Even if we exclude nukes and chemical/biological warfare from the equation, the U.S. quite surely has enough firepower to disinhabitate any country on this planet permanently in a matter of hours. What would they need *more* deterrents for? It's pretty common knowledge that any large-scale war (I'm talking "two similar enemies" here, invasions like Iraq and Afghanistand don't count) would destroy the world as we know it. Nobody is going to risk that.

Re:The Pressing Question

[TempeTerra]

Making sure the potential aggressor is aware of the risk so that he refrains from aggression. (See Iran)

I was going to make a joke about how that was why Iran let the US know about their nuclear programme, but then I thought perhaps that was what you meant already... I am unhappy to live in this kind of world.

Re:The Pressing Question

[pmarcondes]

He was not really a jerk. People tend to highlite his (supposed) thought to further their own beliefs (Including me).

"I do believe, that where there is only a choice between cowardice and
violence, I would advise violence" - Mohandas K.Gandhi (Mahatma
Gandhi)

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than
to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence."- Mohandas
K.Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi)

IIRC, those are on the Wikipedia.

Re:The Pressing Question

[rxmd]

The president of Turkmenistan is an egomaniac who makes Kim Jong Il look positively humble, though he seems content to keep to his own frontiers.

The man you refer to, Saparmurat "Turkmenbashi" Niyazov, has been dead since December 2006. His successor, Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedov, is certainly not the strongest man in the world, but one has to hold to his credit that the personality cult around Turkmenbashi has been cut down a little and that the country is opening up somewhat.

Re:The Pressing Question

[TheCoelacanth]

He's talking about Gandhi in Sid Meier's Civilization. Try actually reading the comment.

Re:The Pressing Question

[mcvos]

Right... whenever you have more than one country who thinks they are a superpower, you have a good chance that there will be a war.

Actually, when you've got more than one superpower, you've got a balance of power or a cold war. When you've got a single superpower, then you've got someone who can wage war pretty much with impunity.

Re:The Pressing Question

[jafac]

Sure, today we're mostly fighting Iraqi rebels, against whom the air force can do relatively little

I dunno - a large part of the reason we're seeing so much less violence in the past few months is because of a stepped up air-campaign. (Which is partially the reason for the dramatic increase in costs).

Of course, with a stepped up air-campaign against insurgents, you also need to keep a really tight lid on the press, so they won't report collateral damage as much, because even with precision munitions, you're going to see a lot more incidents of blown up Iraqi women and children. . . (I think that's what you mean by "against whom the air force can do relatively little" - well, it depends on what principles you're willing to sacrifice.)

Re:The Pressing Question

[Thirdsin]

To be honest, I don't think the US has the "balls" to launch a nuke against a country it may be at war with. With the obvious exception for if the war was going badly and was knocking on US shores OR if our enemy had launched nukes.
This is not WWII. Millions of men are not fighting a war against an aggressor that had killed/enslaved millions of innocent civilians and posed a threat to the entire world. As little as we have to lose in terms of respect from the international community, IMO I know that US citizens would riot in a manner never before seen over such a horrific use of force.

Link to original article

[SpectreBlofeld]

Link to the original Daily Mail article: The Terminator-style helmets that allow fighter pilots to see through their planes

  Note to submitters and Slashdot editors: Don't link to blogs. They get Slashdotted.

  It's especially shiatty when a blogger doesn't even provide a link to the article he's pulling his text and images from.

  Interesting how the blogger switched the referenced Schwarzenegger character of choice from The Terminator to the Predator in his 'article' to make it appear as original content.

Re:Link to original article

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're like me and it seems to take about a week to load the actual picture, it was in the "Day in pictures" on FRIDAY on BBC's website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7087000.stm

(see picture #4)

Re:Link to original article

[Anonymous Coward]

Nitroy2k's been spamming a site I'm a member of for months now with shoddily re-written, self-aggrandizing blog articles, heisted from much worthier news sources (as well as the Daily Mail). I felt slightly nauseous when I saw his name pop up here too - as a long-time /. reader, I'm slightly disappointed that the poster didn't go to source.

This is just silly

[popo]

The weak link in this weapon is the human. Get him/her out of the plane altogether.

Re:This is just silly

[Denis Troller]

The weak link in this weapon is the human. Get him/her out of the plane altogether.

I wonder why this makes me think of
- Do you want to play Chess?
- No, I want to play global thermonuclear war.

Re:This is just silly

[maxwell demon]

You have the ultimate AI which can replace humans?

Re:This is just silly

[popo]

Who said anything about AI? I just said get the human out of the cockpit.

terrified

[ConcreteJungle]

yaaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh!

another photo

[TheSHAD0W]

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/news/page8813.html

Clicky for bigness.

Re:another photo

[ColdWetDog]

Completely different picture. It looks like a very annoyed electronic pig.

Band aid for a greater problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pilots are obsolete now, giving them expensive helmets isn't going to fix that fact.

cant see through clothes?

[Anonymous Coward]

who cares.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This technology is fatally flawed

[Anonymous Coward]

The increased vision is comes with the downside that the pilots can no longer communicate as all anyone hears is a series of pops and clicks.

good point

[spineboy]

I imagine that the US will also get something like this as well. The US and Britain also seem to be running hand in hand together thoughout most of the worlds conflicts anyway, and thus he could be egging Britain on, or vise versa.

Re:good point

[T-Bone-T]

I've been seeing this article everywhere and the thing that strikes me as odd is this is being developed mostly by the US but the article just kind of glosses over that.

Re:good point

[meringuoid]

I've been seeing this article everywhere and the thing that strikes me as odd is this is being developed mostly by the US but the article just kind of glosses over that.

The story seems to have originated at the Daily Mail, a far-right UK tabloid (that's probably, oh... slightly left-of-centre by US standards) which has a tendency towards the jingoistic. 'British Pilots Get Awesome Scary Technology' is the kind of thing they're keen on, although they'd usually prefer 'British Pilots Don't Get Awesome Scary Technology Because Of Labour Government' if they could get it.

The F-35 project is mostly American, but there is a substantial British component to it; according to the Wikipedia article BAE Systems are producing, among other things, the electronic warfare systems and flight control software. So it's quite likely that this nifty helmet thing is in fact British.

Hobbes! The Kilrathi are attacking...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get back to the Concordia...

Yeah ...

[JackMeyhoff]

.. X-Ray vision and they say LOOK DOWN hmmm, I would rather not.

"Let him go!"

[cryptogryphon]

"Stay on the leader!"

Re:"Let him go!"

[nicolastheadept]

I have you now!

but the British Army doesn't fly Harriers...

[fantomas]

...except that the British Army doesn't fly Harriers: check here for what the Army Air Corps flies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft ... only the RAF (the Air Force) and Fleet Air Arm (the branch of the Royal Navy responsible for the operation of the aircraft on board their ships) fly Harriers.

Here is a picture of it in action

[JackMeyhoff]

http://www.mactechnews.de/user_images/forum/sonorman_20060408132536_dark-helmet.jpg

predator?

[Anonymous Coward]

looks more like a "marvin-the-martian" style helmet to me.

Subject far more complex than it seems

[franois-do]

True, restituting in front of you the image of what is behind you, though not perfectly, is quite seducing and does provide one of the best possible camouflages, much better than the static ones.

But..

... the problem is that if you do it in only one direction, you can only fool people who are exactly in that direction. If you have to face a battlefront which extends on many miles, it just cannot work anymore.

Unless you get multidirectional lenses and multidirectional LCDs (or whatever), which looks like a very different problem, one for which we do not seem to have solutions (but of course if the militaries have a solution, they will not shout it in the streets ;-) )

What is the point?

[spectrokid]

In almost all current attacks nowadays, you have a few high-tech stealth planes taking radars out, followed by (often weeks) of bomb delivery with almost no danger from the ground. When did a you last hear about a fighter going in a dog fight at supersonic speeds? Is there a point in making anything better than a F16? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on making a cheap fighter plane? Make it slow, robust,non-picky for landing conditions and fuel. Any weapons platform will cost less if it doesnt have to work supersonic...

Re:What is the point?

[smitth1276]

That's the whole point of the JSF... cost effectiveness. It is one modular plane with 3 variants: a traditional fighter, a STOVL marine version, and a more rugged carrier version with a hook, etc. It is designed to be one plane that can be produced for all branches (hence the term "Joint" Strike Fighter), which will lower production costs. It will replace pretty much every fighter-like aircraft in use, except for the F-22.

This plane will be the "high-tech stealth plane" taking radars out. And if it is ever engaged in a dog-fight at supersonic speeds, the pilot has done something wrong. They almost didn't even put a gun on it (only one variant got a gun, IIRC), because it is meant to take out threats WELL before they are visible.

One more thing, supersonic speeds are essential for combat aircraft... they have to get in and hit targets before anyone hears them coming (have you never been to an airshow where they do a low supersonic pass?). Supersonic capability itself isn't all that expensive... supercruising capability is more expensive, and JSF doesn't do that.

Re:What is the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about current threats, it's about anticipating future threats. Better to have it and not need it, and all that. The western nations are not the only ones working on very advanced fighters -- so are the Chinese and Russians.

And there is a fielded "cheap" fighter plane -- the Predator. It's subsonic and very flexible.

Re:What is the point?

[FSWKU]

Make it slow, robust,non-picky for landing conditions and fuel.

Already got you covered.

Re:What is the point?

[ross.w]

Actually if slow, robust, non picky for landing conditions and fuel were the only criteria, you'd want one of these or one of these for an anti shipping role.

Re:What is the point?

[Cederic]

They almost didn't even put a gun on it (only one variant got a gun, IIRC), because it is meant to take out threats WELL before they are visible. I thought that mode of thought went out with the Vietnam War?

Hell, the Falklands was the first proper missile war and there were still a lot of bullets flying through the air there..

The F35 will have this also...

[smitth1276]

I can't see the article, but the Joint Strike Fighter (F35) will have this capability as well. There are multiple DAS cams looking in pretty much every direction, and that imagery (or IR, etc) can be synthesized into a single large image and piped into the HMD, giving the illusion of seeing "through the plane". One cool thing about the JSF is that the computer will mask out the part of the image that would occlude the touchscreen multi-function display, so the pilot can ALWAYS see the important stuff in front of him/her.

Re:The F35 will have this also...

[iacvlvs]

You can find out (a tiny bit) more about the helmet at http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/pages_hmcs/03a_f35day.html (Website of Vision Systems International, LLC, the helmet's developers.)

Re:The F35 will have this also...

[Anonymous Coward]

This IS the helmet for the F-35.

shit

[naticus]

airwolf, my ass. wonderwoman didn't need no stupid helmet.

Actually...

[Guppy06]

It sounds more like the "see-through" cockpit of the YF-19 in Macross Plus.

Re:Actually...

[blincoln]

...or the liquid-nitrogen-cooled (?) VR helmets that the pilots of the stealth fighters in Interceptor (1992) used. "I can see you, but you can't see me!" Poor Jurgen Prochnow.

Bad Title.

[WK2]

The summary title is wrong. According to the article, this allows "pillots" to see through planes, not pilots.

Old Tech

[kunwon1]

US Pilots have had this for a few years at least, it's called JHMCS, Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/jhmcs.htm

Re:Old Tech

[chanrobi]

The point of the submission is that this new helmet allows you to see through the plane. The JHMCS you linked to does not. Your post is 100% wrong.

Makes you see the world like the Terminator eh?

[Weaps]

So will the pilot also see an old COBOL program scrolling up in the lower left of the display like the Terminator's did?

Re:Makes you see the world like the Terminator eh?

[Tildedot]

COBOL?
IIRC, At least one scene scrolls the Apple II+ built-in ROM code in 6502 Assembly. No kidding.

No, it isn't... it's new.

[smitth1276]

The JHMCS you linked to is a HMD projected HUD with visual targeting, off-axis target symbology, etc. The one going on the JSF has all of that (except maybe for the targeting), but it also allows the pilot to look straight through the plane, and see the ground or other objects that would normally be occluded by the airframe. This is only possible because of the JSF's DAS cams, which are synthesized into a single image and piped into the HMD... other planes don't have those, to my knowledge, so they could never have that ability.

Re:No, it isn't... it's new.

[kunwon1]

Well, the USAF fields LANTIRN pods, and piping the infrared sensors through to the helment seems like a pretty trivial exercise to me. I just don't see the point. If you're going to be looking -down- anyway, why not just aim with your MFD?

Nothing to do with "Predator"

[evilviper]

The helmet isn't "Predator-Style" in the slightest. No thermography vision at all. And more to the point, even if it had it, that certainly wouldn't allow you to "look through an airplane". Moron bloggers and the tabloids just saw a helmet that was ugly and thought of Predator.

It's really closest to a VR helmet, hooked up to cameras on the F-35 JSF to give pilots a 360 view.

It isn't about aiming.

[smitth1276]

The cameras aren't for aiming. They are there so that the pilot can see below his aircraft, particularly when landing the STOVL variant. Most of the time, the HMD will simply show the HUD-type symbology (altitude, airspeed, pitch ladder, designated target locations and info, etc). Using the display management switch (DMS) on the stick, the pilot can turn the video on or off.

Most of the time, that DAS video is available through a DAS page on the MFD. It would be overwhelming and pointless to have it on all of the time.

Why does this keep getting atributed to the brits?

[falcon5768]

The helmet was designed by AMERICANS. Its part of the F-35's new flight control system. The fighter is a joint venture with the UK, USA, and EU... but the helmet was designed and developed by the Americans for use on the system... no one co-developed THAT part of the system.

Not to mention the fact that this was discussed like 7 months ago.

Sweet! These helmets get digital cable!

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Check out Number 3 on the diagram.

Interesting story, but...

[PoopDaddy]

Was this just an excuse to use the helmet story icon?

Reminded me much more of the Predator too

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the rest of your comment, but the original author was off the mark comparing this to the Terminator.

It looks much more like Predator stuff.

Re:Reminded me much more of the Predator too

[Anonymous Coward]

"It even will superimpose infra-red imagery on to the visor to allow the pilot to look through the cockpit floor at night and see the world below - like something out of Terminator." I'm having a hard time picturing the Predator flying a fighter jet.

can you take the facepiece off?

[delvsional]

I guess an electrical failure would give new meaning to the phrase "flying blind"

Why is the pilot still in the plane?

[ookabooka]

So uh, couldn't this be routed through some sort of radio interface? With this technology and a few more that already exist, what makes it necessary for the pilot to be in the plane? Is 72ms of latency really going to make that big a difference? Enough to warrant putting a life at risk?

Re:Why is the pilot still in the plane?

[nagora]

So uh, couldn't this be routed through some sort of radio interface?

We're jammin'. Hope you like jammin' too...

Re:Why is the pilot still in the plane?

[trongey]

Because the cockpit of a fighter plane is a lot more fun than a cubicle.

Re:Why is the pilot still in the plane?

[Anonymous Coward]

72ms of latency makes a difference in computer games, let alone real jet fighters.

I play TF2 on local servers at 15ms and score well. I play with some friends in the US on servers local to them and get 160ms. I just can't compete with that big a handicap, even with the latency compensation that the server applies, which you can't do in real life.

Organic Fluids

[Mark_MF-WN]

Makes you wonder how many airplane crashes were caused by the introduction of proteinaceous solutions into the control systems?

Predator-Style Helmet

[DJCacophony]

Hey, this sounds pretty cool, but it sounds like the same thing that was already made and put into the F-35

really???

[denver38]

which kinda makes you wish you were in the army--really?--> http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slideshow?collectionId=1272

crazy lookin helmet

[kaizokuace]

they need to dress these guys with suits that match the helmet, otherwise it looks like some nerd designed a helmet and wears it while playing halo or something.

HACKS!

[The Solitaire]

So wait... this lets pilots see through their planes? I call wall-hacks!

What the pilot sees...

[thedarknite]

reminds me very much of the 1987 version of Falcon (F-16 fighting falcon?).

While it seems to be a good concept, wouldn't it make it more difficult to distinguish non-military targets?

A half-measure at best

[Thagg]

Or maybe a quarter-measure.

Fighter planes design is very compromised by the requirement that the pilot be able to see out the canopy. Typically, you find the cockpit cantaleivered way out in front of the center of gravity. In more recent planes, the requirements of stealth require dramatic measures to enable vision from the cockpit while still maintaining a low radar profile. I feel, too, that in any serious war you're going to find that the easiest way to bring down an airplane is to blind the pilot with lasers.

So, put the pilot right in the middle of the airplane in an opaque cockpit. Put a large number of wide-bandwidth sensors on the plane that would enable the pilot to see better than he could with his own eyes, certainly over a wider frequency and contrast range. You could armor this cockpit much more easily, it could be far more stealthy, and it could be far more structurally sound. You could have redundant sensors that could be deployed if the primary sensors are blinded.

Now, some might say that we should go all the way and put the pilots on the ground -- and they have a point. But, I think that the amount of bandwidth available inside the plane would be far greater than you could ever hope to transmit securely over the air.

Thad Beier

Re:A half-measure at best

[Renraku]

The only problem is that these sensors would probably be pretty weak. Go through some rain and you might lose some sensors. You want to try to complete your air superiority mission if you can only see things in the 3'oclock and 7'oclock positions? What about landing? Without autopilot? At a different airport?

When we start doing shit like this is when WW2-type fighters will stand a chance against our newest planes.

Re:A half-measure at best

[aggie_knight]

Yeah but the problem with that is you get yourself in a cockpit relying on radar to see and freakin Lonestar throws a tub of jam (Raspberry of course) at ya, and all of the sudden you are flying blind. That happens once and all of the sudden, the North Koreans start packin catapults with the stuff. The Chinese will be calling tankers crossing the pacific and having them turn around to bring the new air defense weapon for their use. Smuckers shares go through the roof as supplies run short and all of the sudden you can't get any of the good stuff to put on your crumpets while you drink your morning tea.

Dang Brits aren't think'n ahead ahead.

Re:A half-measure at best

[khakipuce]

Don't put the pilot on the ground put them in a well protected high flighing plane. Now you won't kill him wiht G-Force, the plane can now accelerate at 20-30g and potentially out accelerate a missile. F35, Typhoon and the like may well be the last manned fast fighter jets. As for bandwith, UAVs fligh themselves, they are just tasked for a mission. Under heavy fire a human may be able to pull off more creative avoidance manouvres, but that does not take much bandwith.

I want one

[mrwolf007]

... for halloween.
BTW, does the x-ray trick also work with female clothing?

Link to the actual article

[Jucius Maximus]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Predator-Style-Hemlets-Allow-Pillots-To-See-Through-Planes-70542.shtml

Re:Link to the actual article

[An anonymous reader]

Here is a better link. http://www.comicstatues.com/images/attfightpilot2.jpg The Emperor has already won!

Tag icon

[jagdish]

This story makes the icon for the "military" tag look a bit odd and even anachronistic.

So, you just hack in and eliminate your signature

[Iowan41]

Or otherwise disorient the pilot.

I don't think you're going to see much more tech

[patio11]

I don't think you're going to see rapid investments in fighter technology, for a simple reason: fighters exist to blow up other military aircraft, and the US military already has the capability to sweep a combat space so thoroughly that there won't be a swallow flying without Air Force tattooed on its wings. Similar to how we've pretty much capped out on reasons to improve our tanks -- no Soviet Union to fight, no reasonable prospect of having a battle with hundreds of tanks versus hundreds of tanks slugging it out ever again, no force other than bureacratic inertia for improving the tanks. Granted, moving the Pentagon to reality will take a few administrations (you'd be disgusted how long we hung on to cavalry, of the actual omgponies! variety), but it has to happen eventually.

What will we see in terms of military technologies? More mobile, wired infantry. Even more advanced emergency care options for battlefield treatment. (Those insta-coagulant patches mentioned a year or so back are just the tip of the iceberg.) More use of unmanned vehicles for recon, bomb disposal, and eventually certain combat missions. More less-lethal weapons, some of which quite sci-fi esque, which are probably going to get called "death rays" no matter how much the Pentagon tries to tell folks they should be called by a bloodless official acronym.

More software -- one of the unsung heroes of the Iraq campaign is a glorified geneology program / org-chart organizer which they have been using to map out entire neighborhoods to find out who the bad guys are and, just as importantly, who we can get to flip on them. ("Hey, Mohammed, your wife is Shiite, isn't she? Would be a terrible thing if that Sunni death squad your uncle runs ever forgot she was married to you. It happened to the cousin of the shopkeeper down the street just last week -- didn't you hear? He was at the funeral yesterday. If you should have a change of heart about cooperating with the only folks who are going to save this neighborhood, here is my business card with my cell number.")

All bets are off if the military decides it really needs to have the capability to fight a large conventional land war with China, but I don't think that is too realistic of a worry. For the forseeable future, the new convention is going to be unconventional warfare, figuring out how to present less of a profile to folks armed with a $25 IED (sufficient to kill everybody in an Abrams, incidentally), and figuring out how to use the US' technical, organizational, and doctrinal superiority to crush guerillas as thoroughly as we are currently capable of using those three to crush anybody stupid enough to try fighting, e.g., an armor campaign against us on a flat surface away from population centers. (Hiya, Gulf War One.)

"Pillots"

[ichigo 2.0]

That same stupid typo is in the link to the linkjacked blog version as well! Maybe the "blogger" is just some automated script that grabs stuff from other pages...

New Helmets?

[argStyopa]

Crap, now Google's going to have to redesign their Veteran's day logo ALREADY?

Wonderwoman? Prior art?

[KillaBeave]

So this makes the pilot see through the plane like Wonderwoman? I think DC Comics should sue to protect their IP!!

Impressive, but what if the cameras fail?

[master_p]

This all-in-one helmet does not allow for natural vision, does it? so what happens if the aicraft cameras fail for some reason? if the pilot removes the helmet, then he will not have access to the extra oxygen and other data projected onto his ears and eyes.

TFA wrong AGAIN

[KalgarThrax]

...there is no surprise that the helmet has been compared to Arnold Schwarzenegger's killer robot in The Terminator. Predator? Terminator? Somebody's confused again! Gosh, its just so hard to keep all the popular culture straight!

Better Than Expected

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

Not only can the helmets see through planes, they make the website they are on invisible.

Army?

[lavalamp70]

....shouldn't it read 'kinda makes you wish you were in the Air Force'? Last I checked, no one's Army flies F-35's.....