Up close and personal with the F-35 helmet

a reply to: chrismarco

And if you do a search that isn't geared towards proving it's a POS you'll find a different picture.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks! Prompted me to read a bit about the targeting system. Interesting read. No infrared pointer. That's too bad. No image downlink either, another great innovation. Clearly not built for close air support role.

foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...

This is going to make the pilots job a lot easier for sure, just like when the gunsight went from a stationary pipper in most WW2 fighters to the radar controlled sights of the F-86. This coupled with the transparent cockpit technology will make tracking multiple and fast moving targets so much easier in combat the other side would accuse us of cheating.

I`m hoping eventually this sort of HUD and HMD technology will trickle into the trucking and automotive world. I can see lots of potential applications outside of the military. I know some cars have a HUD(my `94 Cutlass Supreme does) but most are limited in the info they display and the area they display it in.

originally posted by: chrismarco

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: chrismarco

Except that the more people fly it and work on it the more they enjoy it and prefer it. It's also both necessary and far better than has been let on.

Would enjoy some evidence to support that??

Google f-35 waste and you will see an overwhelmingly long list of information on what a giant waste of money this waste.

if you go on you tube you can watch a good expose on this lemon including the countries that are pissed for buying into
this piece of junk...

Are they the pilots and ground crews? Those peoples opinions would hold more weight than an accountant, politician or anyone else for that matter. There are far bigger wastes of taxpayer money than this aircraft is.

Thank you, Zaphod, I've been wanting to see this. Sounds awesome, and I can only imagine what the secret capabilities are, and I wonder if we civvies will ever find out.

Any new technology always takes some getting used to. So hesitation or skepticism is to be expected. I could be wrong on this as I'm not exactly well versed in this topic, but I believe a good example of this is the Osprey. It was called the "death trap/widowmaker" etc, but then proved to be a game changer, if I recall correctly...

a reply to: StratosFear

The RAF pilots and ground crew flew it off the Wasp in one round of at sea testing, and raved about it. They commented that landing it, compared to a Harrier was amazing. The Harrier had a touch down point several feet across, compared to less than one foot in the Lightning. They pretty much aimed the Harrier nose wheel at a point on the deck and tried to get near it. With the Lightning, they aimed at a point on the deck, and that's where they touched down.

Maintenance crews rave about how much easier it is to work on, since the jet tells you exactly what's wrong, and what needs fixing. The maintenance software needs to mature more, but it's already at the point where it makes the ground guys job 80% easier.

a reply to: 3n19m470

The Osprey had a lot of problems at first. They made some changes, and called it "Osprey 2.0", and now it's one of the best things out there. It's still not a great aircraft, but it's completely different than the early years, and its early reputation.

Is it any different to the Eurofighter Helmet?

Now I have asked I will see what I can find on google, last I read was the hats were so bulky they prevented the pilots looking behind them?

System agnostic...F35 could buy these?

striker 2

a reply to: Forensick

It's no bulkier than other helmets.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah I was thinking it was a you tube comment but these were the 1st gen helmets, much has changed in technology I suppose.

Do you need to have radar coverage to get a weapons lock, I don't know the spec but say AESA has 180 degree from the nose, that would be the limit of weapons engagement regardless of the helmet?

a reply to: Forensick

No. A radar guided missile needs radar lock, but missiles such as the AIM-9X can lock on after launch. They target anything that the helmet "sees", and curve after launch to point towards the target. Once it can see it, it locks on and guides to the target.

a reply to: Forensick

You don't need a radar lock to shoot heat seeking missiles. Newer helmet systems such as the JHMCS and Scorpion are able to work in conjunction with the new AIM-9X to shoot High Off BoreSight(HOBS) shots with good kill probabilities.

originally posted by: TheBlackTiger
a reply to: Zaphod58

And not to be a total retard, but why can I play a game of WarThunder with people from Russia, China, India, and US and dogfight successfully, but these state of the art jets have bad lag?

a) you have hard wired internet connections.
b) The game server is not intentionally trying to trick you.
c) your opponent is not trying to jam you.
d) your game is not as difficult as air combat
e) all parties in your game have approximately similar lag. Suppose one was playing inside the data center, and you have 200 millisecond lag.
f) If your game opponent tried a DDOS attack on you or your game server, what would the lag be like?

a reply to: mbkennel

Could you do a DDOS on a military loop?

You know what might change this, frickin lasers. Imagine sending packets at the speed of light, unless there was a cloud?!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StratosFear

The RAF pilots and ground crew flew it off the Wasp in one round of at sea testing, and raved about it. They commented that landing it, compared to a Harrier was amazing. The Harrier had a touch down point several feet across, compared to less than one foot in the Lightning. They pretty much aimed the Harrier nose wheel at a point on the deck and tried to get near it. With the Lightning, they aimed at a point on the deck, and that's where they touched down.

Maintenance crews rave about how much easier it is to work on, since the jet tells you exactly what's wrong, and what needs fixing. The maintenance software needs to mature more, but it's already at the point where it makes the ground guys job 80% easier.

Not sure what maintenance crews you know or talk to.
Easier to work on depends what you're looking at. The Raptor was easy to work on. There's a lot of issues that need to get fixed. A lot of issues. The ehole telling you what's wrong will happen, but it's too immature to work great right now. 80% easier is a long shot at best, but this program is working strides in getting better and it will.

The helmet is bulky, somewhat awkward, but it is the getting used to that had been the problem. The way it works along with everything else is amazing.

a reply to: 5GenNext

Sure it's not where it should be yet, and like any new software it false reports, but it's matured a lot since it had all the problems. And it does make the job a lot easier.

When I was running around on the ramp, at any given time a good quarter or more of our writeups were CND. We would have killed to have a system half as good as this is now.

a reply to: buddah6

Yes they had a similar system for the Apache - at least for the front gun..
This is quite an improvement.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 5GenNext

Sure it's not where it should be yet, and like any new software it false reports, but it's matured a lot since it had all the problems. And it does make the job a lot easier.

When I was running around on the ramp, at any given time a good quarter or more of our writeups were CND. We would have killed to have a system half as good as this is now.

It has matured a lot in the past few years. Not saying it hasn't. Making the job easier yes and a lot of times no. Because of the reporting and everything reports a single problem can make it seem like everything is failing and working to get it done to a single part is the part that makes the job harder.
A majority of writeups are still CND.

originally posted by: Forensick
a reply to: mbkennel

Could you do a DDOS on a military loop?

Sure, jamming. Not literally the internet connection, but multi-transmitter radar & optical jamming. And in those moments of confusion a drone can be shot down.

You know what might change this, frickin lasers. Imagine sending packets at the speed of light, unless there was a cloud?!

Yup. Better for satellite to satellite communication. Also consider the receiver, has to be really sensitive in infrared being hundreds of miles away focused on a wee point. How easy is it to overload that too? You can try jamming or frying the satellites from a ground-based station attached to the grid and a massive diesel generator, versus the legit drone or aircraft that generates power on board.

Now, only conventions of war prevent people from using lasers on the Mk 1 eyeballs, because the other side would do it back. No such soft feelings against a drone.

originally posted by: Forensick
You know what might change this, frickin lasers. Imagine sending packets at the speed of light, unless there was a cloud?!

originally posted by: mbkennel
Yup. Better for satellite to satellite communication. Also consider the receiver, has to be really sensitive in infrared being hundreds of miles away focused on a wee point. How easy is it to overload that too? You can try jamming or frying the satellites from a ground-based station attached to the grid and a massive diesel generator, versus the legit drone or aircraft that generates power on board.

Now, only conventions of war prevent people from using lasers on the Mk 1 eyeballs, because the other side would do it back. No such soft feelings against a drone.

I was just quietly reading this thread out of interest - I'm a fan of the F-35 and Zaphs knowledge - but I almost choked on my breakfast when I read you two talking about this....

Radio waves travel at exactly the same speed as a laser - it's all EM radiation, after all - in fact, lasers attenuate much more than normal radio waves, which is why they are not used much for long distance, atmospheric transmission, you're better off using microwaves to be honest.

So yes, "imagine sending packets at the speed of light" is a silly comment really, they are already!

As for the helmet - looking sexy. Put me down for two, it's always good to have a spare.