Slashdot Mirror
"Magic Helmet" For F-35 Ready For Delivery
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
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
FTA:
The helmet runs for about $600,000, which doesn't include software integration with the aircraft’s systems.
Spear and magic helllllemt!
Now all we need is a functional aircraft...
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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.
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?
because the russian missiles worked so well in iraq in 1990 and 2003?
F-35 + electronic warfare will destroy the russian missile batteries
bigoted
"King Obama" is racist? Fuck you and your race card.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
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.
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, 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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
Just like strapping an Oculus Rift, to the back of a turkey.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."