| Author |
Message |
|
mangler-muldoon
|
Posted: Mar 18, 2013 - 11:12 PM
|
|
|
Newbie

Joined: Feb 28, 2013 - 10:43 PM
Posts: 19
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 24, 2013 - 9:06 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
SpudmanWP
|
Posted: Mar 18, 2013 - 11:25 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4274
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
They would be better off with JHMCS-II. If you are going to take the leap to a HMD, do it right.
http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/index.php/jhmcs-ii |
_________________ "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
 |
|
mangler-muldoon
|
Posted: Mar 18, 2013 - 11:55 PM
|
|
|
Newbie

Joined: Feb 28, 2013 - 10:43 PM
Posts: 19
Status: Offline
|
| From what I've read, they both seem to be pretty effective. What makes you prefer the JHMCS II? I'm just glad they're not waiting on the F-35's HMD program. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
SpudmanWP
|
Posted: Mar 19, 2013 - 12:13 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4274
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
| IIRC they are binocular, have a larger FOV, can do full motion video, no cockpit mapping needed, etc. |
_________________ "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
 |
|
ruderamronbo
|
Posted: Mar 19, 2013 - 01:27 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 07, 2005 - 11:36 PM
Posts: 85
Location: Wright Patterson
Status: Offline
|
| Commonality with the rest of the Air Force F-15/16 fleet wouldn't hurt... |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
SpudmanWP
|
Posted: Mar 19, 2013 - 02:39 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4274
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
That too  |
_________________ "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
 |
|
popcorn
|
Posted: Mar 19, 2013 - 03:24 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K

Joined: Sep 24, 2008 - 09:55 AM
Posts: 2038
Status: Offline
|
| I suspect cost is the primary consideration. Scorpion looks to be a snap-on attachment fitting over the pilot's right eye that iscompatible with existing helmets that meets the need for HOBS missile cueing which is the primary requirement. Good enough at an acceptable cost, no other fancy bells and whistles. It would be helpful if we had comparative cost data vs. JHMCS-II. Isn't Scorpion slated for the A-10 also? |
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
493.05 KB |
| Viewed: |
4269 Time(s) |

|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
SpudmanWP
|
Posted: Mar 19, 2013 - 04:16 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4274
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
You want to equip the most advanced combat fighter in the world's inventory with the cheapest HMS possible?
Does that seem short sighted to you?
Given the F-22's premature end of production and it's overall low numbers, shouldn't we be giving them the best equipment possible (and keep in mind the JHMCS is not that expensive for 187 airframes)? |
_________________ "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
 |
|
checksixx
|
Posted: Mar 19, 2013 - 04:20 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 20, 2005 - 05:28 AM
Posts: 1305
Status: Offline
|
| Spud...I guess all you have to do is solve the cockpit mapping problem then. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Prinz_Eugn
|
Posted: Mar 19, 2013 - 04:29 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Aug 03, 2008 - 04:35 AM
Posts: 859
Status: Offline
|
| Probably a lot easier to integrate a missile-pointer than a full HUD substitute, too. |
_________________ "A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
|
|
|
|
 |
|
checksixx
|
Posted: Mar 19, 2013 - 04:30 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 20, 2005 - 05:28 AM
Posts: 1305
Status: Offline
|
| I'd be all for it, but the mapping problem is not going to be solved...hence why they're looking at this. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
popcorn
|
Posted: Mar 19, 2013 - 04:37 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K

Joined: Sep 24, 2008 - 09:55 AM
Posts: 2038
Status: Offline
|
|
SpudmanWP wrote:
You want to equip the most advanced combat fighter in the world's inventory with the cheapest HMS possible?
Does that seem short sighted to you?
Given the F-22's premature end of production and it's overall low numbers, shouldn't we be giving them the best equipment possible (and keep in mind the JHMCS is not that expensive for 187 airframes)?
I trust the people who have to weigh all the alternatives and their respective pros and cons to make the most cost-effective solution. Every dollar going into the F-22 is a dollar taken,away from some other priority. Maybe order the sirloin instead of the fillet mignon. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
SpudmanWP
|
Posted: Mar 19, 2013 - 04:44 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4274
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
@checksixx:
The JHMCS-II-H does not require cockpit mapping.
Quote:
JHMCS II-H provides the same HMD performance with a new opto-inertial tracker and replaces the JHMCS subsystems with a lightweight Aircraft Interface Unit (ACIU) which does not require cooling, a mounting tray or cockpit mapping. JHMCS II provides visor projected video & symbology in a well balanced lightweight HMD and is certified to 600 KEAS.
http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/index.php/jhmcs-ii |
_________________ "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
 |
|
checksixx
|
Posted: Mar 19, 2013 - 04:51 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 20, 2005 - 05:28 AM
Posts: 1305
Status: Offline
|
| That version doesn't, but still requires room to wear it... |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
SpudmanWP
|
Posted: Mar 19, 2013 - 05:38 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4274
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
"Room to wear it"???
How does that not apply to the Scorpion system?
JHMCS-II is no larger than the Scorpion
Before you say it, there is plenty of head room in the cockpit of the F-22 for either system
 |
_________________ "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|