Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Magic Helmet" For F-35 Ready For Delivery

Posted by samzenpus on from the watch-your-six-and-stay-frosty dept.

Graculus writes with news that the so called "magic helmets" for the controversial F-35 are ready for action. This week, Lockheed Martin officially took delivery of a key part of the F-35 fighter's combat functionality—the pilot's helmet. The most expensive and complicated piece of headgear ever constructed, the F-35 Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) is one of the multipurpose fighter's most critical systems, and it's essential to delivering a fully combat-ready version of the fighter to the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Air Force. But it almost didn't make the cut because of software problems and side effects akin to those affecting 3D virtual reality headsets.

Built by Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems International (a joint venture between Rockwell Collins and the Israeli defense company Elbit Systems), the HMDS goes way beyond previous augmented reality displays embedded in pilots' helmets. In addition to providing the navigational and targeting information typically shown in a combat aircraft's heads-up display, the HMDS also includes aspects of virtual reality, allowing a pilot to look through the plane. Using a collection of six high-definition video and infrared cameras on the fighter's exterior called the Distributed Aperture System (DAS), the display extends vision a full 360 degrees around the aircraft from within the cockpit. The helmet is also equipped with night vision capabilities via an infrared sensor that projects imagery inside the facemask

184 comments

  1. Cost by NoKaOi · · Score: 2

    FTA:

    The helmet runs for about $600,000, which doesn't include software integration with the aircraft’s systems.

    1. Re:Cost by oobayly · · Score: 2

      Don't worry, it'll come down in price:

      The helmet runs for about $600,000, ... But Lockheed Martin hopes the cost will drop as production ramps up.

      Yup, I can see production really ramping up for the F-35. Like most things in life, it's possibly to build something to do everything, just don't be upset when it does everything badly.

    2. Re:Cost by peragrin · · Score: 0

      The F-16 was overpriced for its time. The F-15 took years to work out the bugs. The f-16 was designedin the 70's. Continuing to use70's tech is stupid. Do you still drive a 70's car?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:Cost by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you still drive a 70's car?

      If the price of a new car was $180M, I would definitely stick with my trusty 70s car.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:Cost by timeOday · · Score: 2

      Then I suggest you not enter any races in which the loser will die.

    5. Re:Cost by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      FTA:

      The helmet runs for about $600,000, which doesn't include software integration with the aircraft’s systems.

      How would you like to be the first guy to drop one of these... you know it's going to happen...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    6. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Races are a voluntary event just like air battles.

      The USA is not currently in danger of being invaded and does not currently need a $1 trillion fighter jet. We could have instead used this period of relative calm to assess our needs in a 5th generation fighter and been smart about designing and manufacturing it.

      Instead, we immediately handed over an unbelievably high sum of money to the first defense contractor who shit something out in powerpoint. Then we repeatedly shoved more and more money into their hands as they came back with 'issues' to be solved.

    7. Re:Cost by pesho · · Score: 2

      Oh we are using the car analogy, aren't we? Well let's see... If my brand new 21st century car has the same speed, larger turning radius, shorter range, smaller trunk, costs 10 times more to buy and is more expensive to run.... yes I would stick to my 70's car. F35 is akin to the German Tiger and Panter tanks in WWII. They were technical marvels. Could destroy any tank on such distance that the opposition wouldn't know what hit them. But it didn't matter, because for every Tiger produced there were ~30 shermans and even more T34's. The tigers were scary but at the end they got swarmed and wiped out. The same will happen with the F35's in a real shooting war with a capable opponent. F35 is supposed to be stealthy, but it isn't. It can be picked on a longer wavelength radars. It will be picked by any country that has integrated air defence system. Its main advantage is its ability to integrate sensor information from multiple sources. But this does not warrant building a hugely expensive fighter from scratch. Put the same system on an F18 and F16 and you will have even more capable fighter.

    8. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better collaborate with those gaming console makers and start mass production.

    9. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it'll come down in price once we start selling it to every other country in the world to justify us spending even more money to 'keep our advantage'

    10. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposed to be stealthy? I don't doubt that in the future someone will figure out how to see through their stealth. The very first F117 jets used in the first Iraq were stealthy enough to get through Iraq's integrated air defenses with little trouble. And Iraq's air defense systems were the best you could buy from Russia. And you need to define "capable opponent". Would this capable opponent have the same stealth capabilities? I mean you are claiming the F35 would be detected so wouldn't that make any opponent also detectable even if they do have stealth? During training of the F-22 the only way they could have a fair air combat test was to put it against F-15's with 1-5 odds. Do you really think they have not tested the F35 against the US and Canadian air defense systems?

    11. Re:Cost by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Then I suggest you not enter any races in which the loser will die.

      I would suggest that you give more thought to 'races' where outnumbering the opponent and firing anti-aircraft weapons at them from the ground is acceptable...

      Even if we suspect that a nasty shooting war with a modern adversary is in the cards, it's a bit of a problem that our current next generation super plane costs so much that we'll necessarily have them in quite limited numbers and be unwilling and (in a conflict of any nontrivial size or duration) unable to expose them to serious risks.

      This is especially bad if they turn out to be seriously vulnerable to any missile system developed that isn't ruinously expensive per shot or a closely held secret used only by somebody's elite guard. Obviously the cost of pilots means that the US isn't going to be doing many aerial human wave attacks (short of a WWII-style mobilization); but we certainly aren't going to be fielding larger air forces, or ones better able to resupply after losses, because our fancy aircraft cost north of $100 million a pop.

    12. Re:Cost by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      On the plus side, they might actually survive that. If memory serves aircraft helmets (while probably not as concerned with ballistics as infantry ones) are supposed to at least not endanger the pilot, and ideally to protect him, during fairly violent maneuvers like ejection.

      That said, I wouldn't want to be the lucky guy who gets to find out.

    13. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, we may lose the war, but at least the shareholders will be happy. . .

    14. Re:Cost by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      lol we still have pilots who actually sit in planes? lol.

    15. Re:Cost by clarkkent09 · · Score: 0

      We plan to buy roughly 2,400 of them, plus our allies are buying a whole bunch, so they will hardly be outnumbered by the enemy the way Tiger and Panther were. Also, it is not about speed and maneuverability, its about combination of sensor fusion and advanced networking to maximize situation awareness, also combined with denying the enemy the same through stealth and most advanced electronic warfare ever built into a fighter.

      Situational awareness is what warfare is about. Think about how US infantry in Iraq routinely routed Iraqis in ground battles and city fighting especially at night with 10-1 or better ratio. Are US soldiers 10 times faster than Iraqis or is AR-15 10 times better than AK-47? No, it's the fact that our guys from the command down to squad level knew where they were and where the enemy was and they could choose the time and place of engagement and the enemy had no clue what was going on that made all the difference. Night vision equipment made more difference than guns.

      I think building this from the ground up sets us up better for the next 50 years than trying to hang more and more stuff off the existing platforms. Now, was it worth this much money. Idk, maybe not, maybe something else could have been built that wasn't quite so expensive but its kinda too late now.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    16. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. You can't just have a remote controlled fleet. You're going to need planes flown by people who can make decisions in absence of contact with command for whatever reason. (communication jamming, command got blown up, etc)

    17. Re: Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We hacked and disabled their radar. That's why they couldn't see us. Read Cyber War by Richard Clarke, who confirms this.

    18. Re:Cost by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Only when we aren't trying to figure out why the planes keep asphyxiating them; but in theory, yes...

    19. Re: Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually we are being invaded right now by an army of central american criminals who have killed more usians than the muslims ever have. Yet we do nothing. Learn from history. You don't have to defeat a country militarily, you just have to buy out their greedy leaders. The USA is no longer a sovereign nation. Foreign and corporate powers Hold the purse strings of power. This left _ right divide is just something to keep the masses worrying about stupid shit while out country is sold out from under us.

      Illegal immigration worked for the native americans, the romans, and the dodo bird. I am sure it will work out for the usa. Stop calling the ACA obama care; it is corporate care , created by MIT Romney and endorsed by all the insurance companies to ensure their shareholders profit. unless you have a couple billion dollars stocked away you have no vote and now part in the government and policies of the USA. So I guess you are right about the F35 being a welfare program for the def industry, you r wrong about the USA not being in danger though. We have pretty much already been taken over.

    20. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What??? We're thinking of sending these things to a WAR-ZONE??? Are you KIDDING???

      Get that carrier out of harm's way! It's got *aircraft* on it!

    21. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once i get it fixed, i sure as hell will drive a car from the 70's. Man, i'll enjoy driving then, unlike with these newer cars.

    22. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the first contractor to shit something out was boeing.
      Their fighter is ready to go. Instead the US went with lockheed martin.

    23. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think they have not tested the F35 against the US and Canadian air defense systems?

      Yes, I do think that. Especially since the thing still doesn't work and they keep finding problems, I highly doubt that they've been able to do any kind of serious tests.

    24. Re:Cost by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Problem is foreign air forces might not play the game and instead send up long range stealth cruise missiles at one hundredth the cost or one hundred times as many incoming fighters. All networked together, sharing data and combining their attack.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    25. Re:Cost by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > This is especially bad if they turn out to be seriously vulnerable to any missile system developed that isn't ruinously expensive per shot or a closely held secret used only by somebody's elite guard

      Or if, say, the very large and expensive amount of fuel used b supersonic aircraft can be cut off by the opposing force bombing the oil lines from their own country that we relied on to get cheap fuel. It's a bit of a conundrum when the country you're invading is a major source of your fuel. Or if what you need to "win" the conflict is troops and engineers and nurses on the ground to re-establish water, food, and medical supplies after a decade of civil strife.

      $500,000 missiles that can hit another supersonic craft at speed is a complete waste of resources in most modern conflicts. The more sophisticated US craft, and their pilots, very effectively cleared the air and the ground of Iraqi and Afghanistani armor and military vehicles in the last few wars. But I'm afraid the lessons of Vietnam and Korea were ignored. Successful air campaigns lead to wars of occupation, and both countries have _centuries_ of experience of outlasting foreign invaders.

    26. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Always mount a scratch monkey".

              http://edp.org/monkey.htm

    27. Re:Cost by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Do you still drive a 70's car?

      If the price of a new car was $180M, I would definitely stick with my trusty 70s car.

      Depends on if you're up against other 70s cars or something more recent that could wipe your muscle car off the road.

      What's the requirement?
      What's the cost of meeting the requirement?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    28. Re:Cost by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 1

      "plus our allies are buying a whole bunch"

      And in the meantime we in the UK won't have an aircraft carrier worth the name for the best part of a decade...

      We have the boats... just not the planes (I assume the recent grounding will put back delivery another year or two)

      Should have stuck with the Harrier...

    29. Re:Cost by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1

      \ TL;DR

      Quantity has a Quality all of its own.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    30. Re:Cost by sycodon · · Score: 1

      That's how we ended up battling superior A6M Zero's with technically inferior F-4F Wildcat's during the first years of WWII.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    31. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      outnumbering china?

    32. Re:Cost by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      If the hardware is sufficiently general, wouldn't it be possible to use in other airplanes, or even in remote drone control? That is, if economy of scale is the problem.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    33. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >F35 is supposed to be stealthy, but it isn't.

      Yes, it really is.

      >It can be picked on a longer wavelength radars

      Which really isn't the issue some want it to be.

      RADAR is complicated. It takes multiple types working in tandem to track an aircraft precisely enough to shoot at. Low frequency RADAR is for early warning and produces an essentially low resolution image of the airspace. If the aircraft happens to be difficult to see in the same frequency ranges as the RADAR responsible for targeting and guidance, typically around X band where the F 35 has good frontal aspect stealth, then there's not going to be any missile intercept.

      Think about it- they guys who have been designing stealth aircraft for the past few decades probably understand the capabilities and limitations of the technology pretty well, right? So if that's the case and stealth had this terrible glaring flaw, don't you think they might have noticed? Don't you think the Russians and Chinese wouldn't bother developing their own stealth aircraft?

      Also, Sprey is an idiot.

      >Put the same system on an F18 and F16 and you will have even more capable fighter.

      You can't. The 4th generation aircraft are all out of room for expansion. By the time you've strapped some more conformal tankage, pods and avionic space on them they're heavier, slower, draggier and less maneuverable than the maligned F35 is. Besides that the 4th gen airframes are all nearing the end of their lives. We need to replace them with something. It might as well be something that has a prayer of surviving contested airspace.

    34. Re:Cost by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Depends on if you're up against other 70s cars or something more recent that could wipe your muscle car off the road.

      What's the requirement?

      What's the cost of meeting the requirement?

      I think the more relevant question is "What's the cost of not meeting the requirement?" and perhaps weigh that against the cost of meeting it.

      You don't want to be spending the treasury on hardware you don't need, but neither do you want to be caught riding horses to meet the Blitz.

    35. Re:Cost by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Its main advantage is its ability to integrate sensor information from multiple sources. But this does not warrant building a hugely expensive fighter from scratch. Put the same system on an F18 and F16 and you will have even more capable fighter.

      The F-35, AKA Joint Strike Fighter, is more akin to what happened to the Space Shuttle - it's a single aircraft that is suppose to meet the needs of all the different branches. This also why the Space shuttle was such a brick to fly, so costly, and had wings. Hopefully the F-35 won't meet the same end.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    36. Re:Cost by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Yet in the end Japan lost the war because their industrial power was much inferior.

      Guess where is that industrial power today.

    37. Re: Cost by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      "Army"

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      BTW: You reject most of the brainwashing - don't believe the hype about the brown people, either.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    38. Re:Cost by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "The USA is not currently in danger of being invaded and does not currently need a $1 trillion fighter jet. "

      Especially when the $1 trillion fighter jet started out as the cheaper, less capable, issue-em-in-bulk, pan-forces one-size-fits-all alternative to the Halo product - the F22

      It's turned into a camel and it should go the same way as the F-111B (the last major attempt to produce an all-forces aircraft)

      Actually it reminds me of telco days when some bright spark came up with the idea of a single configurable interface card to simplify stock holdings - we went from having to keep a few spares of 10 lines of $10 cards which seldom-if-ever failed, to 1 line of $500 all-singing-all-dancing electronic cards which were remarkabaly susceptable to ESD had to be carefully configured before being deployed and was easily installed in the wrong position (they were all the same colour and ID code, so we had to add our own labels, etc)

      After a few years the decision was made to mostly go back to the passive cards. Even if you didn't have exactly the right one onhand it was just a matter of changing padding resistors, at a few cents a pop (the PCBs were all the same, it was just relay/attentuator values which varied.) and we managed to bring it down to 4 variants by simply restandardising various legacy equipment line levels to 1 level - 0bm out and -12dBm in. (the variants were all about how the signalling was fed to relays and as we were 99% standardised already, that meant that 1 line of cards would handle almost everything and fitting a jumper to that would handle the other cases.)

      Then there was the radio tone-signalling system which was based on a Z80 (in 1989!) and occupied 4 slots of a 10U frame and took so long to propagate singalling that it was useless for multi-station relay setups - which it was intended for in the first place. An alternative design appeared within 3 months (knocked up by a tech) which worked faster, used 1% of the componentry and was the size of a standard linecard, but "not invented here" meant that the telco persisted with the older design through 5 years, an add-on coprocessor and recall/resdeign of all boards (they never solved the problems and finally dumped it when trunked landmobile took off in the 1990s)

    39. Re:Cost by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "We plan to buy roughly 2,400 of them, plus our allies are buying a whole bunch"

      Yeah right.

      Congress has been squeezing those numbers at every pass. It's simply too expensive to field in those numbetrs. Something has to give.

    40. Re: Cost by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      How America’s immigration wars were poisoned by the military-industrial complex

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    41. Re: Cost by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      How America’s immigration wars were poisoned by the military-industrial complex

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    42. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The F-16 was overpriced for its time. The F-15 took years to work out the bugs. The f-16 was designedin the 70's. Continuing to use70's tech is stupid. Do you still drive a 70's car?

      If I had a nice 1970's Mercedes 450 SL, then yes indeed I would drive it.

  2. Elmer Fudd by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 5, Funny

    Spear and magic helllllemt!

    1. Re:Elmer Fudd by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Spear and magic helllllemt!

      For those under 30 who might not get the reference: What's Opera, Doc?, 1957

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    2. Re:Elmer Fudd by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Brilliant.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:Elmer Fudd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Headline: "...magic helmet..." Click, CTRL-F, "spear". Thank you for being proactive.

    4. Re:Elmer Fudd by Tiger+Smile · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the spear is going to cost extra.

      --
      -- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
    5. Re:Elmer Fudd by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I'm in my 20s and I saw that cartoon a hundred times as a kid. It's probably still being shown.

    6. Re:Elmer Fudd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if you can see yourself naked if looking down with the helmet.. The plane stripping feature takes a whole new turn.

    7. Re:Elmer Fudd by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      For some reason, Conrad Schnitzler's Tonhelm also came to mind.

    8. Re:Elmer Fudd by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      Exactly the first image that comes to my mind at the words "Magic helmet", too.

  3. Outstanding... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now all we need is a functional aircraft...

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:Outstanding... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought when the UK announced their new aircraft carrier recently.

    2. Re:Outstanding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think that the helmet is functional yet?

    3. Re:Outstanding... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      It will likely be one.

    4. Re:Outstanding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this comment modded up? All three models are in LRIP and flying.

    5. Re:Outstanding... by msauve · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, we're paying for many more than one.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:Outstanding... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      What I mean is that the plane isn't even in service yet.

      Lots of people say it's shit but I have no idea how much they know about military hardware and the plane and how it has been with other planes and what not.

      I know there's at least some video on YouTube from at least someone who supposedly should know their shit which say it's bad too but I don't know whatever that's correct or not.

      Here in Sweden people made a lot of fun of the JAS-39 since it crashed in Stockholm during and exhibition and there was shirts saying it was the worlds most expensive rooter (rotary cultivator), maybe it have still been expensive but today it seem like enough other countries consider it a good plane at at least more countries are interested in it now when back then (which may seem illogical since then may have been closer to 20 years back.)

      I guess chances are the F-35 is a better plane 2020 and maybe in 2040 people will be as comfortable with it as the current planes now.

    7. Re:Outstanding... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      What I mean is that the plane isn't even in service yet.

      That's the problem. My country decided to buy these things and participate in the development as a level 2 partner. That has some advantages, and at the time was cheaper than buying off the shelf, plus we got a good deal of offset orders for our own aerospace industry. However, the projected cost per plane has already increased by 45%, and it's still not clear how much the final sticker price will be, or how the plane will perform.

      The one big advantage of buying off the shelf is: you know what you're getting and at what price. However I also know how the Dutch military likes to buy stuff: off the shelf is never good enough, and every design needs "to be peed on", as the expression goes, meaning everyone must be allowed to give input as if marking their territory.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    8. Re:Outstanding... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      the aircraft is functional with several squadrons already stood up and operating. the mechs are already training in how to maintain it. pilots are already running training missions to become proficient.

      the helmet is not required to operate the aircraft, and in many ways should have been its own research and development project, simply because of its own complexity. but once completed the helmet and its systems oan be retrofitted to most any aircraft dramatically increasing pilot capability and awareness.

      there is no doubt the aircraft is WAY over due, and WAY overcost. and IMO they tried to do too much too fast, and were far too lenient with the manufacturer basically turning it into a jobs program for the past decade and a half.

      But it's still one helluva beautiful and capable plane, regardless of the opinions uninformed and ignorant slashdotters who dont live and work within that community.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    9. Re:Outstanding... by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean more than one at a time will ever be in flyable condition.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
  4. Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By a dedicated but somewhat mass produced Russian missile, should a major conflict arise.

    1. Re:Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, maybe, but ours has a MAGIC HELMET!

    2. Re:Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by sribe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why? What evidence or precedent do you have for that statement? When in recent history have our planes been blown out of the sky by Russian-produced missiles?

    3. Re:Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by alen · · Score: 2

      because the russian missiles worked so well in iraq in 1990 and 2003?

      F-35 + electronic warfare will destroy the russian missile batteries

    4. Re:Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 1

      By a dedicated but somewhat mass produced Russian missile, should a major conflict arise.

      Or the dozen "good enough" fighter jets that swarm it.

    5. Re:Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Iraq did not have the Archer (R-73) or Adder (R-77) all aspect missiles available. Had they had those on Su-27 or Mig-29 platforms the result might have been a lot different.

    6. Re:Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Also most of their airforce was composed of utterly obsolete Mig-21s.

    7. Re: Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think US jets are likely to be outnumbered 12 to 1, you may want to look at how rediculous their military budget is.

    8. Re:Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish you people would make up your minds.

      First, it's a pointless, dick-waving waste of time to design and build this plane, because there are no threats and there is nothing for this plane to fight against.

      Then, it's a laughable joke because every country in the world is flying planes designed in the 1970's and 1980's that will easily best it in aerial combat, despite it being designed with an 30 extra years of technological advantage.

    9. Re: Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      You might want to look at how many F-35s are actually being ordered. They could very well be outnumbered 12 to 1 in a given engagement with, for example, China or Russia.

    10. Re:Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the SA 11 has proven VERY effective against civilian planes!

    11. Re: Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      If China, Russia, and India all teamed up they'd field about 2/3 to 3/4 the number of fighter aircraft that the US military is capable of fielding. That's not going to turn into a "12 to 1 advantage" for any other country in the reasonable, foreseeable future.

      Even against Russia or China, we could simply park naval forces offshore, and simply shoot down anything they try to fly around, while bombarding their airfields and other strategic sites with cruise missiles and JDAMs.

      Would a fight against Russia or China be bloody, and costly, since they're pretty well equipped and modern? Sure - and for that reason, it's very unlikely to ever happen - both sides know they have a lot to lose. But would they EVER have a scenario where they outnumber our aircraft 12 to 1? No. No. No.

    12. Re:Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by mirix · · Score: 1

      Serbia managed to wipe out an F-117 with late 50's soviet SAM S-125.

      Maybe iraq army was inept.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    13. Re: Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We hacked and disabled Iraqi radar. That's why they couldn't see us.

    14. Re:Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by X.25 · · Score: 0

      because the russian missiles worked so well in iraq in 1990 and 2003?

      F-35 + electronic warfare will destroy the russian missile batteries

      I certainly hope, for your sake, that your generals are smarter than you.

    15. Re:Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they had actually used their 30 years of experience to make it better you'd have a point.
      But they made a slower less manoeuvrable air-plane. The moment some country finds a way around the stealth, or some electronic warfare thing this thing is done.

    16. Re: Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by dywolf · · Score: 1

      even if those numbers were true the F22 and F35 have been designed with the capability to track and engage extremely large numbers are enemy aircraft. the probably of them being swarmed by even half that number are slim to none as the mission doctrine is to engage from maximum range long before being detected, reducing the enemy numbers before they even know they are being hunted.

      the F22 alone is publicly capable of carrying 6 AAMRAMs and 2 Sidewinders. the AAMRAMs would be fired off first as the distance is closed leaving 6 aircraft to deal with, 4 if the Sidewinders are launched on the way in as well. The maneuverability of the F22, combined with the computers ability to maintain tracking of the enemy fighters make the F22 absolutely lethal in a gunfight. 4 on one and even 6 on one is not much of a threat for our current fighters as it is, unless flown against a comparable nation (EF2000s, Rafales, etc), and the F22 outperforms our current jets considerably.The F35 is similarly overdesigned.

      Simple fact is that a flight four F22/35's, a typical flight size, could engage and destroy as many 24 enemy fighters from long range alone, long before they even knew they were there. That's two entire air squadrons of aircraft. If you want to include mopping up some additional jets with guns, say 1 or 2 each, that's now 28 or 32 aircraft destroyed. So now 3 squadrons decimated. Those are numbers you simply unlikely to even see fielded by a potential enemy in modern air combat. Those numbers are only potentially likely in a WW3 scenario, and even that's unlikely considering how many ways we have to cripple aircraft on the ground.

      There simply is no longer any scenario in which we do NOT have complete air dominance over any enemy country.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    17. Re:Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 1

      Two letters...

      U 2

    18. Re:Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 1

      At which point the industry will present their "new improved" model (at twice the cost, naturally)

    19. Re: Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      The F-35 is not an air superiority craft. I imagine the F-22s will clear the way, absolutely obliterating anything in front of them. There is nothing today that even approaches the air-to-air lethality of the F-22.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    20. Re:Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words... "recent history" 54 years ago is not recent history.

    21. Re:Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, essentially you're saying your parents/grandparents are ancient? How old are you, 13?

    22. Re: Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "The F-35 is not an air superiority craft."

      That's correct. It's supposed to be the _CHEAP_ folllowup when the F22s have done their job.

      Even if everything worked, it was too expensive even before the costs started spiralling.

    23. Re: Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

      Engage 24 enemy airfighters with what? I read "two internal bays with two pylons each". You can add exterior weapons but then the plane is even less stealth. Agile is not a problem as it is never a good flyer.

    24. Re: Watch the F-35 get blown out of the skies by dywolf · · Score: 1

      You must have missed where I said a typical "flight of four" aircraft.

      The F22 is currently capable of carrying 6 missiles (typically the larger AAMRAM) internally in the main bay and 2 Sidewinders (1 each) in the smaller side bays. In addition it has 2 hardpoints under each wing, each of which can carry an additional 2 Missiles, for a total of 8 additional missiles. That's a maximum loadout of 16 AA missiles, at the cost of stealth capability.

      So for a flight of four F22s you're looking at a typical "At Range Engagement Capabilty" of as many 32 enemy aircraft, and up to 64 aircraft if they're loaded for bear. And that's not including the aircraft's dogfight ability using its 20mm cannon.

      The F35 is currently equipped with 2 internal bays capable of carrying 2 missiles each (and is already planned on being expanded to 3 each), as well as 2 underwing hardpoints, and wingtip rails. this combines for a maximum current AA loadout of 8 AAMRAMs and 2 sidewinders.

      So even the F35, for a typical flight of four aircraft, in an all AA loadout, can engage as many as 40 enemy aircraft.
      And the F35 still packs a 25mm cannon as well.

      (and even if you want to factor in countermeasures and get real nitty gritty, the numbers are still impressive)

      And your opinion on its maneuverabilty is frankly ignorant.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  5. What obscene prices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $ 600.000,00 for a fucking helmet ? What's next, $ 200.000,00 for a toilet seat ?

    1. Re:What obscene prices... by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      Yes but the toilet seat has downward facing fricking lasers that scan your "bodily output" to provide full medical tri-corder capability. A bargain at twice the price.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    2. Re:What obscene prices... by XanC · · Score: 1

      You've got your period and comma keycaps swapped. Or you're European, I guess. Either way, it doesn't make sense to write numbers that way.

    3. Re:What obscene prices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got your period and comma keycaps swapped. Or you're European, I guess. Either way, it doesn't make sense to write numbers that way.

      I'm a European and post on /. . Is that a problem ?
      Our decimal separator is the , (even my HP calculator (USA made) allows , or . decimal separator).

    4. Re:What obscene prices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $ 600.000,00 for a fucking helmet ?

      To be fair, half of that is for the paperwork that goes with it.

    5. Re:What obscene prices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Or you're European, I guess. Either way, it doesn't make sense to write numbers that way.
      What you mean with Arabic numerals?

      OK we'll go back to scratching marks on trees with stones.

  6. Is this the same Lockheed Martin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    that's embroiled in the Social Security IT boondoggle?!?

    It's boondoggles all the way down!!!

    1. Re:Is this the same Lockheed Martin... by GenaTrius · · Score: 1

      Lockheed Martin is a major defense contractor. They do damn near everything. They're practically a part of the government. Military-industrial complex and all that.

    2. Re:Is this the same Lockheed Martin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boondoggle is such a stupid word. I wish people would quit using it.

    3. Re:Is this the same Lockheed Martin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just going to (anonymously) leave this right here: https://www.intranetquorum.com/about-us

  7. Bugs... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

    Does this thing acutally work or is it as bugridden as the rest of the F-35? I sure would not want to be sitting in an F-35 when the rendering software has a buffering issue or just plain segfaults in the middle of a dogfight.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:Bugs... by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not sure it'll see many dogfights in any case. I'm told that the F35 is the largest, heaviest fighter with an airframe that produces the most drag, that the US has ever produced, and the huge engine that makes it fly puts out a very clear heat signature without providing much range, speed or maneuverability. It's been described as "can't run, can't fight, can't hide", and missions assume that older fighters go ahead and clean up the resistance so the F35 can complete its mission unchallenged. So, I'd imagine that if the F35 finds itself in a dogfight, something has gone very wrong with the mission.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Bugs... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      It's not bug-ridden, it's handy-capable.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:Bugs... by pkinetics · · Score: 1

      Another flying bus!!! So much for Col John Boyd and the E-M modeling...

      History, we don't need to learn no history!

    4. Re:Bugs... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Can you call them "bugs" when they were specific design specifications?

      The F-35 is a $300billion dollar abomination. Earlier today, there was a story about a $300million dollar IT mess in federal government and there were howls of outrage.

      This useless plane is 1000 times more expensive and unlike the IT mess, the plane's "bugs" are there by design.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Bugs... by alen · · Score: 1

      the AWACS are there to guide the F-35 to kill enough aircraft first so there is no dog fight

    6. Re:Bugs... by Guy+From+V · · Score: 2

      It depends on what role they want the F-35 to play, I've seen that it was designed alternatively either as a fighter or multirole aircraft. As a swing-role or multirole craft this could easily dominate. As a fighter, that is harder to see for the very reasons you brought up...size, drag etc...but the stealth and electronic warfare packages, which I assume this helmet plays a major role in monitoring and interfacing, might be a trump card that overcomes it's deficiencies in air-to-air and air superiority combat.

    7. Re:Bugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The F-15 development started 47 years ago in the late 60's and has been incrementally upgraded over it's entire life cycle which technically means the jet is still in development. Development for the F-22 started 33 years ago. So a few bugs and some unexpected problems are to be expected. The F-35 is most likely the last manned jet fighter that will be built. The air frames and engines in the new generation of fighters are already able to deliver more performance than a human pilot can ever take advantage of. The pilots of these jets are becoming glorified computer operators and that can already be handled remotely. Unless they can come up with some counter mass or anti-gravity technology they have hit the proverbial brick wall when trying to increase performance. For now they will just have to be satisfied with development of cool technology like the helmet the article mentions.

    8. Re:Bugs... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      About the ECM, the story is that the F35 only has effective ECM in the same frequency range that it's own radar uses -- effectively limiting it to C band. It has stealth features, but they are largely negated by the heat put out by that huge engine. These two weaknesses sum up the "can't hide" part of the F35's deficiencies.

      Mind you, I've been out of the war toys business for many years. I only know what I've read. But it's not promising.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    9. Re:Bugs... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      I would not bet on it being the last fighter. There are already proposals for a 6th generation fighter floating around such as the Boeing F/A-XX.

      The pilots have g-limits but it is certainly possible to increase speed or reduce fuel consumption.

    10. Re:Bugs... by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

      Lol, nice. Can it, at least, maybe use the EC to mask it's own signature it's putting out? That would be like covering up your own footsteps by yelling I guess, heh.

    11. Re:Bugs... by timeOday · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm told that the F35 is the largest, heaviest fighter with an airframe that produces the most drag, that the US has ever produced...

      And where did you hear it? According to wikipedia:

      Wingspan:
      F35: 35'
      F14: 64' / 38' (swept)
      F15: 42'
      F16: 32'
      F18 C/D: 40'

      Empty Weight
      F35: 29,000 lb
      F14: 43,700 lb
      F15: 28,000 lb
      F16: 18,900 lb
      F18: 23,000 lb

      Combat radius (internal stores)
      F35: 600 nm
      F14: 500 nm
      F15: 1000 nm
      F16: 340 nm
      F18: 400 nm

      Of what can be verified, none of what you heard is correct...

    12. Re:Bugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But with a magic helmet, at least the pilot will see it coming :-)

    13. Re:Bugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remote control is not useful in every situation. Many countries have anti satellite weapons and jammers...

    14. Re:Bugs... by Xest · · Score: 2

      Every new aircraft gets slated to hell though, people were saying the harrier jump jet was useless for similar reasons. The idea of a VTOL aircraft useful in both air to air and air to ground was an impossible ineffective pipe dream according to many.

      Yet it's still in use by the US now and has seen more combat than most other jets having been engaged in everything from the Falklands, to Iraq (both times) to Afghanistan.

      You only really know how great an aircraft is when it's tried and tested in combat, everything up until that point is hearsay. Many predicted the UK would get slaughtered trying to take the Falklands back because sending a carrier with the laughing stock in some circles which was the Harrier onboard meant they'd get destroyed from the air, yet when it came to the Harrier ended up proving it's worth in defence of the fleet taking on some at the time perfectly capable Argentinian aircraft like French supplied Mirages and Super Etendards, US supplied Skyhawks, and Israeli supplied Daggers. The naysayers were proven wrong, and the harrier was proven an aircraft that was extremely effective and is still so right up until this very day where it's still active in Afghanistan.

      The harrier isn't alone in this story, many other aircraft have been through the exact same thing of being slagged off as worthless only to turn out extremely effective. I think even some of the UK's iconic and most successful World War II aircraft even had their vocal doubters early on.

    15. Re:Bugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm told that the F35 is the largest, heaviest fighter with an airframe that produces the most drag, that the US has ever produced

      Nonsense. The empty weight of the F-35 is 13.2 tonnes, which makes it a roughly-midweight fighter. It's supposed to complement the 19.7-tonne F-22 as a lighter companion - I guess, in the same way that the 8.6-tonne F-16 complemented the 12.7-tonne F-15. You can see a general trend towards heavier fighters - as another example, the 10.4-tonne F/A-18C was eventually upgraded into the 14.5-tonne F/A-18E - but the F-35, though the most recent, certainly isn't the heaviest.

    16. Re:Bugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its a missile and bomb truck. If the local airspace hasn't already been cleared out by AMRAAMs, then something has gone very wrong.

    17. Re:Bugs... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      The F35 doesn't carry enough ordanance to take on more than a couple of opposing aircraft.

    18. Re:Bugs... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "The naysayers were proven wrong,"

      A large part of why Harriers proved so effective in dogfights was that they could swing their nozzles around to provide reverse thrust in midair, changing speed from 500mph to zero very quickly, without stalling. ...At which point the A4 skyhawk (fitted with 1960s avionics) on your tail would lumber past and you could pick it off with your air to air missle or even the cannon.

      If you try that in a F35B you'll rip the airframe apart.

    19. Re:Bugs... by Xest · · Score: 1

      The harrier nozzles can't be put into a forward position, they're shielded from the front.

      The harrier itself was a 60s aircraft, though like the Skyhawk saw upgrades throughout it's lifetime. Aircraft like the Super Etendard, and Dagger were 70s aircraft.

  8. Re:You've been fooled! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modded down by a sympathizer with the war mongering aristocracy.

  9. I knew a former Lockheed employee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He showed me a couple of bits of company culture:

    Lockheed Salute - A shrug
    Lockheed working gloves - puts hands in pockets

  10. Universal antipathy by Tailhook · · Score: 1

    Check out the groupthink.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:Universal antipathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Little known fact: the helmet is cursed and gives -8 to Charisma along with the +4 to Perception.

    2. Re:Universal antipathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out the hundreds of billions of military-industrial compork.

  11. There's still one thing missing by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    Now that we have the Magic Helmet, is somebody going to develop the spear that's supposed to go with it?

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  12. Re:no, just people by Tailhook · · Score: 2, Insightful

    bigoted

    "King Obama" is racist? Fuck you and your race card.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  13. I can build lots of drones for $300B USD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Leave the pilot on the ground and you won't need a fancy helmet.

    1. Re:I can build lots of drones for $300B USD by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Leave the pilot on the ground and you won't need a fancy helmet.

      If you plan to use it as a fighter you will certainly need the "fancy" helmet.

    2. Re:I can build lots of drones for $300B USD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck building a fighter capable drone without the latency dude.

      Once you crack that particular problem, fill in your application for a guaranteed Nobel Prize, because you will have to come up with some nobel worthy technologies to fix that particular problem.

    3. Re:I can build lots of drones for $300B USD by mirix · · Score: 1

      If you put the person controlling the drone inside the drone, it would fix the latency issue... oh wait.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    4. Re:I can build lots of drones for $300B USD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple, you make it semi autonomous, just like a modern torpedo. Use an operator for normal flight, until a foe is found, and then the operator says "kill that fucker", and sits back.

      Can I have my Nobel prize now?

  14. I'm curious by justthinkit · · Score: 1

    What was wrong with the F-22 that the F-35 was going to fix?

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re:I'm curious by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Informative

      What was wrong with the F-22 that the F-35 was going to fix?

      I am out of my element a bit here, but my understanding is that the F22 is an air superiority fighter only, whereas the F35 was supposed to be a multirole aircraft (air-to-air and air-to-ground) with (optional) VTOL features, (which no version of the F22 has) all in the same airframe. It was supposed to be the Windows 8 of fighter aircraft, a single airframe to take the place of a bunch of other craft.

      ...and apparently, it works about as well as you would expect of those types of solutions...

      And, it was (giggle) supposed to (snerk) be (Bwaaaa haa haaa) affordable. Sorry, I can't say that with a straight face.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:I'm curious by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

      Cost.

    3. Re:I'm curious by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 1

      What was wrong with the F-22 that the F-35 was going to fix?

      I am out of my element a bit here, but my understanding is that the F22 is an air superiority fighter only, whereas the F35 was supposed to be a multirole aircraft (air-to-air and air-to-ground) with (optional) VTOL features, (which no version of the F22 has) all in the same airframe. It was supposed to be the Windows 8 of fighter aircraft, a single airframe to take the place of a bunch of other craft.

      ...and apparently, it works about as well as you would expect of those types of solutions...

      And, it was (giggle) supposed to (snerk) be (Bwaaaa haa haaa) affordable. Sorry, I can't say that with a straight face.

      Pretty much. It has similarities to the relationship between the F-15 and F-16 development projects. One was built to do one thing, the other was built as a response to it when it started getting out of control. A kind of "Little and large" relationship. Though now the f35 has gotten out of control...sheesh :(

    4. Re:I'm curious by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      The F-22 is the special fighter with all of the extras that the US is keeping for just itself while the F-35 is able to be exported to other countries.

    5. Re:I'm curious by jkmartin · · Score: 1

      There is a PBS Nova documentary (Battle of the X Planes) that explains that if you took fighter development and acquisition costs and graphed it out that in 50 years you would be spending the entire defense budget on 1 plane. The Air Force would fly the plane 4 days a week, the Navy 3 days a week, and the Marines could have it once every 4 years on leap day.

      The F-35 was supposed to address the soaring costs by use of a fairly standard airframe and parts across 3 distinct users. The F-35 would also provide more of a ground attack capability than the F-22 and be available for export.

      Needless to say the project hasn't gone as envisioned and the F-35 is likely to be the last manned fighter aircraft we ever build. If we weren't already $100s of billions into the process it would probably be better to forget the whole thing and focus on mission-specific drones rather than an unaffordable plane that does nothing particularly well.

    6. Re:I'm curious by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The F-35 was supposed to be cheaper and sold to US partners. Sort of like the F-16.

      It turns out it is costing more per plane than the F-22 however.

    7. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we weren't already $100s of billions into the process it would probably be better to forget the whole thing and focus on mission-specific drones rather than an unaffordable plane that does nothing particularly well.

      That is the fallacy of sunk costs. There is nothing you can do to get the money or time (or whatever it is) back. You just need to decide if what is left in the project is worth the additional cost. Sometimes, even when you are 99% done, it is better to walk away than to throw good after bad. Many boondoggles arose and arise out of that fallacious thinking.

    8. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The F-35 was supposed to be cheaper and sold to US partners. Sort of like the F-16.

      It turns out it is costing more per plane than the F-22 however.

      More like the flying coffin F-104 Starfighter.

    9. Re:I'm curious by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The F-104 Starfighter was supposed to be a cheap Mach 2 fighter. It was precisely that. It was also designed in record time with nothing but drafting boards and sliderules. It was just accident prone. The F-35 has taken forever to develop, costs more than an F-22 per unit, is slower than the F-104 Starfighter from the 1950s. It uses less fuel and has more advanced weapons. That is about it.

    10. Re:I'm curious by jd2112 · · Score: 2

      What was wrong with the F-22 that the F-35 was going to fix?

      I am out of my element a bit here, but my understanding is that the F22 is an air superiority fighter only, whereas the F35 was supposed to be a multirole aircraft (air-to-air and air-to-ground) with (optional) VTOL features, (which no version of the F22 has) all in the same airframe. It was supposed to be the Windows 8 of fighter aircraft, a single airframe to take the place of a bunch of other craft.

      ...and apparently, it works about as well as you would expect of those types of solutions...

      And, it was (giggle) supposed to (snerk) be (Bwaaaa haa haaa) affordable. Sorry, I can't say that with a straight face.

      So, it's a flying Swiss Army Knife. Sure, it has a spork, scissors, tweezers, a nail file, a screwdriver, and a dozen other tools and perhaps even a knife in there somewhere for good measure but it sucks as any of them.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    11. Re:I'm curious by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Once the basics of supersonic flight were understood and the materials science behind the engine tech was perfected, it was easy to produce an aircraft that went Mach 2, so the F-104 isn't something to really be compared to the F-35.

    12. Re:I'm curious by dywolf · · Score: 1

      The F104 wasnt designed for ground attack, or to replace 5 different aircraft.
      It also wasnt designed for manueverability or air superiority, nor did it have much in the way of avionics.
      It was a pure zoom climb interceptor, heance the extreme top speed.
      It's nickname of the Manned Missile is entirely accurate.

      Comparing the 104 to the 35 is like comparing a $500,000 Ferrari with all the bells and whistles to a $1000 VW Bug that's had a rocket strapped on the back.
      (and being slower than the 104 really isnt relevant to anything...lots of perfectly capable modern fighters are)

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    13. Re:I'm curious by citizenr · · Score: 1

      It didnt have a turret, enough armor, and couldnt swim.

      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    14. Re:I'm curious by bkmoore · · Score: 1

      .... It uses less fuel and has more advanced weapons. That is about it.

      It's all about the weapons and the sensors to cue those weapons. The airframe is secondary. It just gets the weapons to where they need to be to be launched.

      The F-104 had the pilot's eyeballs as the long-range sensor, and a primative gun radar. The weapons were the M61 and AIM-9. The F-35 has an advanced radar system, data-link, probably other sensors we don't know about. Weapons would be the AIM-120, AIM-9, JDAM, and other weapons we probably don't know about. The only debate is those sensors and weapons could have been integrated into a less expensive, more conventional airframe.

    15. Re:I'm curious by bkmoore · · Score: 1

      The F104 wasnt designed for ground attack,...

      And that's where most of the mishaps originated, misuse of the F-104 in the ground attack role. The F-104 actually had a good safety record when it was operated as intended: a high-altitude, VFR interceptor. The Italians for example had a good safety record. The Germans, not so much.

    16. Re:I'm curious by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      You mean about as practical in use as this swiss army knife

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  15. Sensory overload? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like a clear example of sensory overload. Such systems take a lot of time to adapt to, and many cannot cope with it. Sigh - "it seemed like such a good idea at the time"...

  16. Prior Art by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  17. How long till it's hacked in combat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "These are not the targets you are looking for, nothing to see here, move along"

  18. I can let him borrow my Rift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here I am all feeling smug for having a more kick ass experience than him. Pfft! He can fly a plane while I fly my VR spaceship around the moon while watching Lara Croft to strut around naked next to me. On second thought... Maybe I don't want to let him borrow my Oculus Rift.

  19. Pretty cool video showing the helmet in operation by Goldenhawk · · Score: 4, Informative

    This video
      http://www.c-span.org/video/?c...
    shows the symbology and operation of the helmet as a reporter wears it. It's expensive, yes, but it's revolutionary.

    --
    --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

  20. If this helmet is that great by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 2

    Why wouldn't you pretty much use this in every fighter plane we use. (I mean besides having to come up with upgraded electronics for the F-15, F-16, F-18, ETC) Why tie it to the F-35?

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    1. Re:If this helmet is that great by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      I would imagine it would take a lot of rewiring to get the camera's etc in place. My father used to work for an aerospace company as an electrician, trust me, there is not a lot of room in fighter jets to just add more stuff. Components would need to be replaced with miniature or more compact versions to make more space for the new equipment, this in turn would require changes to the wiring harness etc. etc. Probably be cheaper to buy an F-35 than try retrofit another plane - well maybe not considering the price tag of the F-35!.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    2. Re:If this helmet is that great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... use this in every fighter plane we use ...

      Because new functionality demands new hardware, or sensors in this case. Stripping aircraft to the frame so new cabling can be installed is counter-productive. A second reason is all those attachments seriously impact aerodynamics which is a vital part of fighter performance. Thirdly, each aircraft has different sized avionics bays so different boards would be needed to retro-fit each airframe; not an insurmountable problem, especially considering the amount of cash being thrown around.

    3. Re:If this helmet is that great by dywolf · · Score: 1

      that is the eventual goal, and the helmet probably should have been its own development project.

      that said, just "adding" something to existing airframes is difficult. unless you've worked on planes, you probably have no idea just how cramped for space they are internally with all the avionics boxes and wiring (miles and miles of wiring)

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    4. Re:If this helmet is that great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > you probably have no idea just how cramped for space they are internally with all the avionics boxes and wiring (miles and miles of wiring)

      gives a new meaning to "fly by wire"

    5. Re:If this helmet is that great by tapi0 · · Score: 1
      > gives a new meaning to "fly by wire"

      well, no, that literally is the meaning of fly by wire

  21. Israeli defense company by msobkow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An Israeli defense company, eh?

    Well, no one is quite the expert at mass murder that the Israelis are, as they're proving in Gaza right now by butchering 4 civilians for every enemy "soldier" that they kill.

    Can you imagine the uproar if 80% of those killed in Afghanistan by US forces were civilians?

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Israeli defense company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, no one is quite the expert at mass murder that the Israelis are, as they're proving in Gaza right now by butchering 4 civilians for every enemy "soldier" that they kill.

      The Israelis are fighting an enemy that intends to destroy Israel and kill as many Jews as possible. The Hamas Covenant says (exact quote from the English translation): There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

      Hamas has repeatedly fired rockets and artillery shells into Israel, indiscriminately trying to maim and kill anyone in Israel. Hamas started this, not Israel.

      Israel has been dropping leaflets: "Get out of here, we will be attacking the area soon." They have telephoned houses and sent texts: "Get out of the area, it's not safe." They have dropped non-exploding payloads on buildings before dropping the bombs.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/14/video-this-is-what-an-israeli-roof-knock-looks-like/

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israeli-troops-raid-rocket-launching-sites-in-gaza-as-residents-are-urged-to-evacuate/2014/07/13/4c1a0528-0a68-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html

      Hamas has been using schools, churches, hospitals, and people's houses to store weapons or launch rocket attacks.

      Given all of the above, there is total moral clarity here. Hamas literally wants to destroy Israel, started the conflict, and endangered its own people; Israel has repeatedly shown that they would be willing to accept a two-state solution, but Hamas will only accept a one-state solution, i.e. Israel destroyed and that land part of Palestine.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-moral-clarity-in-gaza/2014/07/17/0adabe0c-0de4-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html

      http://online.wsj.com/articles/israel-expands-ground-operation-in-gaza-1405836870

      So, yes, it's true that Israel has not managed to fight a war with no collateral damage. But what would you have them do?

      How patient would you be if someone was shooting rockets that were falling in your home town, and from time to time some innocent person (possibly a child) was maimed or killed? How long would you let that go on?

      I am grateful that my own decisions (and especially my mistakes) don't have life-or-death consequences. I don't envy the leaders of Israel, deciding how to handle an implacable enemy that uses the innocent as human shields.

    2. Re:Israeli defense company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded Troll?
      Don't like to hear the truth?

    3. Re:Israeli defense company by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > Can you imagine the uproar if 80% of those killed in Afghanistan by US forces were civilians?

      They mostly are civilian casualties. Much of what's happening now in Afghanistan is guerrilla warfare, not military forces.

    4. Re: Israeli defense company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Afghan soldiers hid behind civilians the way that the Hamas "soldiers" expertly do, that's probably exactly what would have happened. Hamas wants its civilians killed so that useful idiots like you can make propaganda statements against a country that actually values the life of its civilians.

  22. Two words by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    Falcon brain.

    .

    --
    Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
  23. Bad Plane by Chris+L.+Mason · · Score: 2

    This plane is an ef'ing joke, at least from my perspective as Canadian ex-military. Does not operate well in cold weather, and has only one engine. If you lose an engine while patrolling the arctic, you go down. This is an overpriced, overcomplicated piece of shit. Our government has produced at least two reports that have stated that this is an inappropriate and overpriced solution for what we need, yet regardless the federal government (across two parties) seems to keep trying to back it, and even now, another report is surfacing suggesting this might change.

    Small, stupid suggestion: Screw this boondoggle, and pay Canadian companies to produce a world-class, well-designed and actually useful aircraft to replace the well-performing, but old, CF-18s. And if the US doesn't like it, too bad.

    Add to that special helmets? By a country engaged in war-crimes and atrocities? Yeah, that will sell it.

    1. Re:Bad Plane by PPH · · Score: 1

      pay Canadian companies to produce a world-class, well-designed and actually useful aircraft

      We could sell you some Bomarcs instead. Our foreign curtomers will buy what we tell them to. So price and performance aren't issues (to us).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Bad Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an overpriced, overcomplicated piece of shit.

      Why can F-111 and Su-30 airframes outperform modern-day airframes?

      The Australian government which claims it doesn't have money to top-up citizens' pension funds, somehow has the money to buy a few dozen more of these. We just received our first delivery of F-35 craft.

  24. Only a few hundred billion dollars.. by Rick+in+China · · Score: 1

    It'll win all the dog fights US engages in these days! Priorities people, come on.

      Benghazi. Deathpanels. Look over there!

  25. Re:Pretty cool video showing the helmet in operati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was a lot more revolutionary before it got delayed and the competitors developed their own systems, though. (HMSS, Cobra, a few others.)

  26. Sci-Fi Story by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    The main characters' name was Mingolla. He was in a war in the near future in Central America. The chopper pilots wore these helmets that they never took off; they claimed the helmets let them see the future, the helmets told them he would get wounded but in a good way - just enough to get sent home.

    Can't recall the name of the story though.

  27. pffft by tapi0 · · Score: 1

    most expensive and complicated headwear ever constructed?
    obviously never been to Ascot Ladies Day! http://www.bing.com/images/sea...

  28. Re:It's great that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're allowing genocidal Israel, masters of killing people, to work on our most advanced fighter plane so we can also kill more people.

    Hey, you yanks aren't exactly slouches when it comes to killing women and children...(Wounded Knee, My Lai ring any bells?))

  29. Sounds familiar... by yoda-dono · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    (Sorry, only good clip I could find was of the dub, but when Isamu speaks, it worth mentioning he is voiced by a young Bryan Cranston.)

  30. Re:no, just people by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    There's a whole world of bigotry out there that doesn't revolve around racism. Sure, it's typically used in association with easy visual targets, like the color of one's skin or gender, but bigotry can also crop up with regard to sexual orientation, nationalism, wealth, cultural trends (those hipster, amIright?), political orientation, or really anything at all. As soon as you carry negative associations with a group or label, you've engaged in bigotry whenever you deal with that someone of that group. Me? I detest salesmen. Even the nicest of people, if introduced as a salesmen, get the stinkeye from me. What can I say, we all have issues.

    You could quite easily argue that the presumed bigotry from the above post is targeted towards military involvement. Considering he has two references to the "war-mongering military industrial complex". Or kings, as he has two references to that as well.

    So, I guess what I'm trying to say is: Fuck you and your "you played the race card" card.

    Of course, saying that he "doesn't suffer bigoted fools lightly" is a little ironic. "Not suffering [group]" pretty much makes him a bigot himself. It's not that bad of an irony though. I mean, really, bigots. Fuck'em.

  31. thank you for spending my money on shit by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 1

    /rant on fuck this crap, people... fuck all this military shit...seriosuly..we need other things in this world, not this nonsense... we could have free housing and food for everyone...they are not privileges..they are what everyone needs and should have. Work is just slavery and you know that, money is the ultimate enslavement tool. Wake up people.... fuck the 1% and their war shit.. and fuck religion fanatics too...

    1. Re:thank you for spending my money on shit by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

      fuck the 1% and their war shit.. and fuck religion fanatics too...

      Another dreamer wishing in one hand and shitting in the other, I wonder which hand fills up first.

      --
      "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
  32. The real timing question by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

    What does a physically limited human in a helmet in the cockpit bring to the battle that a physically remote human in a helmet cannot do? Is the extra "situation awareness" brought about by the kinesthetic sense and the millisecond lag caused by speed-of-signal issues worth the extra cost of making an expensive toy for pilots over making a slightly less expensive toy for armchair warriors? Do we really expect the on-site human to be able to whip that $600K helmet off, squint Dirty Harry style and squeeze of a few thousand well placed rounds into a target that cannot be seen without the enhancements of that helmet? When I was AF, I'd have raised these issues and probably been told what I was told then, the remote sensing and control technology just is not up to the task.

    "Prove it" says I, and I would invoke the post WWI demonstration bombing that got Billy Mitchell in trouble.

    --
    "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
  33. Re:fuck this category by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    Just like strapping an Oculus Rift, to the back of a turkey.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  34. Radar Cross Section of a Gnat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pearl of wisdom: it does not matter if it has the radar cross section of a Gnat, if you can track Gnats, and discern which one is travelling 600m/s...

  35. hi tech. by axd1967 · · Score: 1

    ... with built-in shades that drop automatically when a BSOD is detected.

    --
    -alex-
  36. But... by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    you have to think in Russian! :)