Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2011, 03:15
by delvo
What does the one in F-35s do that others don't?

RE: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2011, 03:56
by LinkF16SimDude
It replaces the HUD to start with. And besides being the primary weapon/sensor cuing device, it also gives the driver practically 360 degrees of sensor-fuzed SA at any given time via the DAS and other integrated systems. No other HMD does that AFAIK.

RE: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2011, 04:27
by geogen
Interesting, just read up a little over on the Eurofighter.com site and apparently they are talking about this so-called Helmet Mounted Symbology System (HMSS) HMD with 360 deg SA?

Sounds like it's already operational or at least imminent. Not a bad investment and allocation of funds for a quick off-the-shelf innovation like this, to force-multiply the assets you have. Have to give respects where respects are due, especially to something as apparently game-changing as this system provides.

Re: RE: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2011, 05:07
by Conan
geogen wrote:Interesting, just read up a little over on the Eurofighter.com site and apparently they are talking about this so-called Helmet Mounted Symbology System (HMSS) HMD with 360 deg SA?

Sounds like it's already operational or at least imminent. Not a bad investment and allocation of funds for a quick off-the-shelf innovation like this, to force-multiply the assets you have. Have to give respects where respects are due, especially to something as apparently game-changing as this system provides.


Without a system with 360 degree FOV like EODAS, how exactly are they achieving this level of SA?

Tiffies have 3 main targetting sensors at present (radar, IRST on some and Litening III pods) and they all face forwards...

Edit: Ah, they are not...

Helmet Mounted Symbology System (HMSS)

The HMSS provides flight reference data, an energy cue, and weapon aiming through the pilot’s visor this will allow target acquisition and engagement at large off-boresight angles. The helmet also incorporates night vision aids using light intensification and provision for Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) imagery.

RE: Re: RE: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2011, 05:21
by geogen
That's a good question, Conan and something I was trying to quickly search on as well before posting - I should have included that as an anecdote. They do seem to claim that off-board SA data could be seen on the HMD for one. RWR info displayed on the helmet would probably be another. And it is implied the radar is actually allowing the 'look through the cockpit floor' SA capability, but I couldn't find which vision-capable MWS-type aperture system would complement the Helmet system's capability. At least it's a good fighter HMD and arguably the best today(?), with potential to grow if they integrate panoramic IR MWS vision capability which is apparently available today. I have to say though, the verbal commanded weapons operation function would seem to be a plus, especially when combined with HOBS missiles and a pilot w/ good head turning abilities in the heat of a fight. Cheers-

Re: RE: Re: RE: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2011, 05:41
by Conan
geogen wrote:That's a good question, Conan and something I was trying to quickly search on as well before posting - I should have included that as an anecdote. They do seem to claim that off-board SA data could be seen on the HMD for one. RWR info displayed on the helmet would probably be another. And it is implied the radar is actually allowing the 'look through the cockpit floor' SA capability, but I couldn't find which vision-capable MWS-type aperture system would complement the Helmet system's capability. At least it's a good fighter HMD and arguably the best today(?), with potential to grow if they integrate panoramic IR MWS vision capability which is apparently available today. I have to say though, the verbal commanded weapons operation function would seem to be a plus, especially when combined with HOBS missiles and a pilot w/ good head turning abilities in the heat of a fight. Cheers-


If you are going to include MIDS LVT data, on-board RWR and radar data as "360 degree" SA then every single aircraft mounting JHMCS has it too...

Therefore I'm not quite sure what you mean by "best". The JHMCS and the new SAAB (Denel Optronics) "Cobra" HMS all seem to work pretty well and feature the same basic capabilities too.

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... bra_lg.jpg

The JSF helmet is a step beyond those capabilities though, including them AND replacing the HUD AND streaming real time night vision and IR footage from EOTS and EODAS onto the visor (admittedly that is the functionality of the helmet that is having problems at present)...

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2011, 05:54
by spazsinbad
And just to repeat... The F-35B/C with HMDS night vision (with horizon visible as well as carrier from some distance away) will revolutionise night 'pilot flying' carrier landings - to the 'easier' end. :D Automatic night carrier landings with JPALS will be less stressful also due 'night is day' visibility.

For the B specifically being able to look through the floor during vertical shipboard landing at night must be a terrific help.

SCROLL DOWN to 'night carrier landings': (there are other related threads also)

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-105.html
& [earlier page]
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-90.html

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2011, 06:20
by geogen
Fair points, both. To answer the question, why would I say that the HMSS is the 'best'?? Um... because the Eurofighter website says: 'Nothing comes close'?? :cheers:

Seriously though, I'd have to conjecture that besides the Helmet's verbal command functions, the suggested 'night vision aides' incorporated into the HMSS, as opposed to a separate NVG apparatus(?) might potentially be considered somewhat of a plus going for it, as well as the apparent streaming FLIR imagery provisions incorporated into the helmet?

And I admit I'm not up on my helmets, but I'm interested in the SAAB gear so appreciate that heads up too.

Regardless, this whole sector of evolving HMD technology, with incorporated SA capabilities et al, will surely accelerate rapidly worldwide over the next 10 yrs and get very competitive... 2 cents.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2011, 06:27
by popcorn
If the HMSS requires offboard data to provide the pilot a 360deg SA bubble, the data lag will not allow the A2A SA picture to keep up with events in real time e.g. hard maneuvering in a WVR environment.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2011, 06:47
by SpudmanWP
HMSS coming "soon".. How's that AESA doing that is also "coming soon"?

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 05:21
by tacf-x
The F-35's HMD coupled with EODAS is the only way currently that would allow a pilot to see everything around him in real time with the degree of situational awareness that the EODAS offers. The Eurofighter Typhoon's MAW is merely a staring array for detecting missiles and all of the other sensors save for the RWR point forward. The only way the HMSS could offer 360 SA is through datalinks that I'm aware of.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 05:26
by munny
I thought the JSF HMD did more than just show symbology in a 360 deg sphere. It also displays what the eodas and eots cameras see projected onto the visor as well. Eg... The pilot can look through the floor and see the terrain under him like the aircraft didn't exist. He can zoom into a target in front, or below to look at it more closely using the feed from eots.

The technology for this will just get better and better over time (better response, higher resolutions, colour) and the possibilities are enormous with what can be done with it (eg. as I mentioned before, pilots being able to lay down in aircraft and look straight ahead without having to crane their neck forward...etc. Bye bye 9G turning limitation due to pilot). Its one of those technologies that you need to get started and continually develop. The world may have it one day, but unless they get started now, they'll just fall behind.

Because the code for this is being design to be easily re-used, this will almost certainly become a standard technology on all future US built military aircraft, especially for air superiority fighters.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 05:31
by SpudmanWP
Actually, the Typhoon's MAW is an active radar-based device (ie not optical) and an IR based replacement is [sarcasm]coming soon[/sarcasm].

Per the F-35's HMD: They are having issues (ie jitter and slight blur) with showing nighttime video on the visor. However, the rest of it's functions (display of flight data, target cuing, weapon cuing, etc) are working just fine.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 05:36
by munny
What about daytime video? I was under the impression the problem with night time display resolution is due to limitations of the cameras rather than the display. Jitter was caused by the magnetic motion tracking being too sensitive between the helmet and the chair.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 05:40
by SpudmanWP
There is nothing wrong with the EODAS units, it's with the display in the HMD (not the 8x20 display either).

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 05:53
by geogen
Spud- thanks for the follow-up on Typhoon's MAW system, I was actually thinking the tranche 3 might have the radar based MAW (optimal for WVR combat once the opponent knows you're there anyway). Well, that would evidently still be a helluva capability then, whereas the pilot won't see a visual jet per se, but would still apparently see the precise range and speed and direction of a particular target around his aircraft - friend or foe - night or day and in all-weather. Note the radar MAW is reportedly very precise in this regard in providing accurate range and speed data.

So I would have to honestly say that until F-35s HMD is mature and operational, this HMSS + Eurofighter combo might in fact be the top helmet going today; when considering the incorporated night vision aides and apparent visual feed from the FLIR as well... + voice commands.

And p.s. @ munny - that's an interesting concept you've suggested there with respect to future pilot seating possibilities. I've actually pondered this very 'further reclined' seating potential for a future F-16 derivative also - exploiting big screen displays, panoramic night/day vision and enhanced HMD. I imagine they might be able to better stealth/protect the cockpits with aerodynamic composite shells too?

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 06:06
by SpudmanWP
There is a reason that they are dumping a radar-based MAW and going IR (and why nobody else uses it). btw, they are not AESA based so can only detect sector (right, left, rear), range and speed (to determine time-to-impact).

It's a HUGE Shoot Me sign to anyone with a descent EWS (hence the saying, "those who emit, die")

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 07:17
by geogen
As I said... they would seem to be more effective once WVR and the opponent already knows you're there. Not to knock the helmet's growth potential and rather impressive interim capabilities at least. imho.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 08:15
by shep1978
SpudmanWP wrote:There is a reason that they are dumping a radar-based MAW and going IR (and why nobody else uses it). btw, they are not AESA based so can only detect sector (right, left, rear), range and speed (to determine time-to-impact).

It's a HUGE Shoot Me sign to anyone with a descent EWS (hence the saying, "those who emit, die")


Yeah i've been saying just that for as long as they've been saying they're going to be fitting an AESA, so make that about the last decade. Why on earth ever went with that MAWS I will never know.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 08:42
by SpudmanWP
Why would it be more effective in WVR? It only shows which of the three sensors picked up the inbound (front right/left or rear aspect). The EODAS at least can pinpoint with precision exactly where it is coming from (and track all WVR planes, AAA, etc).

You are also assuming you survive to the WVR stage.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 13:40
by delvo
LinkF16SimDude wrote:It replaces the HUD
Conan wrote:The JSF helmet is a step beyond those capabilities though, including them AND replacing the HUD AND streaming real time night vision and IR footage from EOTS and EODAS
What is normally shown on the HUD but not in the helmet, in other combat aircraft?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 15:21
by Conan
geogen wrote:Fair points, both. To answer the question, why would I say that the HMSS is the 'best'?? Um... because the Eurofighter website says: 'Nothing comes close'?? :cheers:


Nice...

Seriously though, I'd have to conjecture that besides the Helmet's verbal command functions, the suggested 'night vision aides' incorporated into the HMSS, as opposed to a separate NVG apparatus(?) might potentially be considered somewhat of a plus going for it, as well as the apparent streaming FLIR imagery provisions incorporated into the helmet?


The voice command system as I understand it is a cockpit function, not specific helmet functionality, but I could be wrong on that. I'd like to know just how well that voice capability works in the context of a noisy jet fighter cockpit too? I know JSF has some sort of voice command system as well, but they seem less enthused about it then Eurofighter does.

I've got voice command facility on my iPhone 4 too but even in a quiet room, it sucks...

:D

And I admit I'm not up on my helmets, but I'm interested in the SAAB gear so appreciate that heads up too.


No dramas. The HMS market is becoming quite crowded.

Regardless, this whole sector of evolving HMD technology, with incorporated SA capabilities et al, will surely accelerate rapidly worldwide over the next 10 yrs and get very competitive... 2 cents.


If it isn't already.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 17:44
by geogen
With the news out now that yes, BAE systems (the maker of Eurofighter's HMSS helmet) is being selected by Lockheed Martin to supply the next phase HMD helmet for the F-35 Program (NVG HMD), I'd request that this thread possibly be renamed to something like F-35 HMD vs the field?

Anyway, congrats to BAE systems and congrats to the F-35 program who will finally receive this 'next-phase' HMD helmet; the upgradeable 'NVG HMD'.

Sounds like a win-win for the F-35 Program to finally get a reliable helmet - phasing in the technology as it matures for this obviously complex system and for BAE to further demonstrate and advance their technological skill in developing HMD systems.

With respect to Helmet functions, I'm curious about the NVG HMD's disclosed 'Optical Head tracking' device... Is this something incorporated on the JHMCS too, as well as the Typhoon's HMSS?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lockhe ... 2011-10-10

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 18:06
by SpudmanWP
Hopefully this will give VSI some breathing room to fix its issues.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 19:41
by spazsinbad
geogen, this so called news was reported here but it was a bit bewildering because BAE was not mentioned at that time 11 Sep 2011:

F-35 NVG based HMD Selection Youse heard it here furst on FsixteenNet: :twisted: :roll: :lol:
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... mds#203618

"BAE Systems F-35 Night Vision Goggle Helmet Mounted Display with Q-SIGHT(TM) Waveguide Display Technology (Photo: BAE Systems)"

http://mms.businesswire.com/bwapps/medi ... 4797&vid=5

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 20:02
by SpudmanWP
Thanks for the larger pic. It is easy to see that this is inferior (in capabilities) than the VSI rig (on displays info in a small monocle). Hope VSI gets it's s**t together soon.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 20:03
by spazsinbad

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2011, 08:09
by spazsinbad
Another angle on the OLD :D Story here:

BAE Systems to develop a new helmet Display for the F-35 11 Oct 2011

http://defense-update.com/20111011_qsig ... +Update%29

"BAE Systems has been selected by Lockheed Martin to supply a Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) system for the F-35 during the next phase of its development. The new HMD incorporate the Q-Sight waveguide display and feature detachable Night Vision Goggles for night operations. BAE Systems will begin delivery of test assets in 2012 to support the F-35 development and integration laboratories, flight simulators, and flight-test platforms.

The new HMD will also incorporate an optical Head Tracking System for precise weapons delivery and carrier and land-based operations. The accurate optical head trackers allow the system to achieve Head-Up Display (HUD) accuracies and Primary Flight Reference criteria with free moving the helmet display....

...Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor opted to reduce the risk by opting for a near term solution based on a conventional off the shelf technology and the use of NVG when required. According to Lockheed martin, the development of the original VSI HMDS will continue under a new contract recently issued. To further mitigate risk, the alternative HMDS is not required to have binocular symbology or to display image data from the F-35’s DAS. These will be added if the BAE helmet becomes the baseline system, Lockheed Martin said."

BEST TO READ ALL THE ARTICLE AT THE JUMP FOR CLARIFICATION OF WHAT IS HAPPENING.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2011, 00:59
by aaam
Just as an aside, the Marines' new AH-1Z uses the Thales TopOwl HMD/SS, probably the most advanced rotorcraft system extant. However, I believe I read that based on practical tests, and aircrew preferences, they've decided that they will use conventional NVGs in conjunction with it, rather than using the helmet's own night vision system..

Sometimes the latest tech may not always be the best tech.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2011, 01:15
by SpudmanWP

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2011, 02:21
by spazsinbad
Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System JHMCS:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... erview.pdf

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2011, 13:55
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2011, 22:03
by spazsinbad
F-35 Pilots’ New Helmet

http://defensetech.org/2011/10/13/f-35- ... ew-helmet/

"...for F-35, BAE will remove the Typhoon’s display system — housed in the giant forward part of the helmet — and will replace it with a pair of night vision goggles and a single eyepiece showing Heads-Up Display-style info (shown below)....

...Pilots “want the good picture that comes with the goggles that they’re used to seeing, that they’re comfortable with, that they’ve been flying with forever,” Paul Cooke, BAE’s director of business development for defense avionics told DT at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference in Washington. “What we did for Joint Strike Fighter was, we took the same two part helmet [as the Typhoon’s], the same optical tracker, we took out all the electronics and the visor projection system — just gutted that out — put a goggle bracket on the front and we take this quantum sight and hang it down in front of the right eye. So, in daytime the goggles are off and you have a HUD and nighttime you put them on the helmet, flip the goggles down and because it sits between the eye and the back of the goggle tube, you get the symbology and you also have” night vision.

“If you want an even bigger field of view you can have one” quantum sight in front of each eye, added Cooke.

“What we need today is the night vision goggles until the digital stuff catches up on the visual acuity side,” said Cooke....

http://images.defensetech.org/wp-conten ... elmet1.jpg
http://images.defensetech.org/wp-conten ... elmet2.jpg
http://images.defensetech.org/wp-conten ... elmet3.jpg

Image
Image
Image

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2011, 22:18
by spazsinbad
And here is something prepared earlier: (from above OK?)

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2011, 04:26
by spazsinbad
Lockheed: F-35's Major Problems Whittled To 1 (NAVY TIMES 10 OCT 11) ... Dave Majumdar

http://hrana.org/news.asp#Lockheed

"F-35 maker Lockheed Martin said it has a handle on all of the plane's remaining technical problems except the insufficiently sharp night-vision display in the pilot's helmet.

The jet draws imagery from six infrared cameras distributed around the aircraft, and displays the fused image on the helmet visor. Tom Burbage, Lockheed's program manager, said that although the display is good enough for the Navy and Air Force, the Marine Corps may not deem the image acute enough for some "very tightly coupled tasks," such as landing on an amphibious assault ship at night.

"Is it safe or not to use the [distributed aperture system] to do that maneuver? That is the whole crux of the argument," Burbage said. The helmet has a backup low-light camera called the ICE-11, and a second camera will be added to the front of the cockpit to improve forward visibility, he said.

"Eventually, this airplane will have the same level of acuity as night-vision goggles," he said. "It doesn't have it today."[/b]

Burbage said other problems have been fixed or are well on their way to solutions. Software changes have calmed jittery images in the helmet, while design modifications have made it fit better.

"If you talk to the pilots, they'll say they are pretty damn happy with the helmet," he said. "I think we've been able to resolve all the different issues with the helmet except one."...

Different topic starts at the jump URL... BELOW we see skidmark evidence from a fumbly night SRVL attempt - landing rong way hosay - with HMDS! :twisted: :roll: [properpic/explaino here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedma ... otostream/]

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2011, 08:45
by spazsinbad
Olde Worlde Problemos with HMDs PDF (1992):

PILOT ERRORS INVOLVING HEAD-UP DISPLAYS (HUDs), HELMET-MOUNTED DISPLAYS (HMDs), AND NIGHT VISION GOGGLES (NVGs)

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA250719 (7Mb)

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2011, 16:20
by cola
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/tactical-weapons/combat-co-pilot-q-sight/

"Q-Sights can be used day or night and are easily used with night-vision goggles, which snap down into position in front of them. They also have been integrated into FLIR (forward-looking infrared) sources to give pilots the heads-up, real-world information needed as they carry out their mission."

"As the Q-Sight moves toward full-scale production, Nix foresees endless possibilities for it. For instance, door and tail-gunners can hook into their weapon’s thermal-imaging sights with the Q-Sight for uninterrupted sight pictures—in contrast to firing weapons with night-vision goggles that cut out when detecting bright muzzle flashes."

It's rather inconclusive whether a QSight can do this right now (2009 article), but if it can, what's the point in having heavy and complex HMD like VSI's F35 Gen II?

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2011, 19:52
by SpudmanWP
The Q-Sight is too small to replace the HUD (as it is only 1 sq in) and cannot display enough information.

Image

In order to replace the NVGs, the display has to cover a majority of the pilots forward field of view. There is also the issue of image clarity and latency that the Q-Sight cannot handle either.

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2011, 21:47
by cola
SpudmanWP wrote:The Q-Sight is too small to replace the HUD (as it is only 1 sq in) and cannot display enough information.
In order to replace the NVGs, the display has to cover a majority of the pilots forward field of view.

Here's the brochure from 2007:
http://www.filefactory.com/file/ce6ea4f/n/qsight.pdf
From picture on the first page, it seems the HUD fits.
On the last page you'll find some technical data, one of which is FOV, which is 30° wide, similar to HUD.
I think the pictures displayed in brochures refer only to the portion that is visible from greater distance (the one the photo was taken from).
Besides, there are binocular versions as well.

There is also the issue of image clarity and latency that the Q-Sight cannot handle either.

Any reference on that, or this is just your opinion?

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2011, 23:53
by SpudmanWP
The VSI helmet has over a 50 degree FOV, so no, a 30 degree one will not cut it.

Latency has to do with the shipboard computers and image generators and the clarity has to do with the pixel count of the image projectors. The smaller the unit, the lower the clarity due to lower umber of pixels.

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2011, 03:30
by pushoksti
spazsinbad wrote:PILOT ERRORS INVOLVING HEAD-UP DISPLAYS (HUDs), HELMET-MOUNTED DISPLAYS (HMDs), AND NIGHT VISION GOGGLES (NVGs)



http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs-ds ... p?id=11977

The single seat CF188 was flying as the second aircraft in a two-aircraft formation on a Night Vision Goggles (NVG) training mission. The prevailing weather was instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and the accident occurred at night. During a radar trail instrument approach to runway 13L at Cold Lake, Lead called for the landing gear to be selected down. Upon selection of the landing gear, the wingman was almost immediately disoriented by the sudden rush of falling snow as it was illuminated by his landing light, which also reflected enough light through his Head Up Display (HUD) to washout the instrument references he used to control the aircraft. As a result of the visual inputs, the pilot perceived that he had entered a steep descent. In response, the pilot made an aft stick input and pulled the aircraft into a nose-high attitude. Still feeling that he was in a dive and thinking he was rapidly approaching the ground below, but unable to confirm his attitude using outside references or his HUD, the pilot decided to eject.

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2011, 10:01
by cola
SpudmanWP wrote:The VSI helmet has over a 50 degree FOV, so no, a 30 degree one will not cut it.

Well there's this picture from a 2010 brochure (http://www.filefactory.com/file/ce6017e/n/BAE-Systems-Q-Sight-GRSS.pdf) and it's pretty clear the HUD fits.
Also, one can adjust sight's distance between 15mm (sunglasses) and 50mm (NVGs) allowing him from a complete to partial cover of FOV, so I don't think FOV coverage is an issue here.

Image

Then there's this doc (http://www.filefactory.com/file/ce60139/n/bae_pdf_eis_tws.pdf) claiming BAe's TWS features 640x480 resolution and in 2010 brochure it's claimed GRSS' QSight has up to 4 times resolution of the TWS.
What's GEN II res (couldn't find it)?

Also, in 2010 brochure, BAe is quite clear that video streaming works:
"GRSS takes a “line-out” signal from a thermal weapon sight (TWS) and displays it on the Q-Sight display directly in the gunner’s line of sight, relieving him of having to look directly through the TWS viewfinder — like watching a camera on a remote-mounted screen."

So, let me rephrase...can the VSI's GEN II do something else, apart from projecting video stream and HUD symbology (what the GRSS can do too)?
I mean, QSight looks like a way more intelligent (higher tech) solution...

Latency has to do with the shipboard computers and image generators and the clarity has to do with the pixel count of the image projectors. The smaller the unit, the lower the clarity due to lower umber of pixels.

Already noted.
However, QSight seems to be operational in GRSS system and apparently works fine, so do you base your concerns on something solid, or just a hunch?

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2011, 10:55
by spazsinbad
Let us hope that via this report seen above things get fixed pronto: (yeah I know the grass is always greener elsewhere as in the alternate ejection seat [after MB won]). Youse yanks really know how to hold a competition. :D

Lockheed: F-35's Major Problems Whittled To 1 (NAVY TIMES 10 OCT 11) ... Dave Majumdar

http://hrana.org/news.asp#Lockheed

"F-35 maker Lockheed Martin said it has a handle on all of the plane's remaining technical problems except the insufficiently sharp night-vision display in the pilot's helmet...."

White helmets on USS Wasp B's

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2011, 18:08
by fang
I noticed the pilots of BF-02 and BF-04 onboard USS Wasp got white helmets.
Are they different from the blacks?

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2011, 20:36
by spazsinbad
If you open the .JPG in your browser and zoom you will see:
[2nd photo contrast changed to show helmet gubbins better]
[3rd photo zoomed to second distant chap] Looks like HMDS to me.
[Last photo: http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/images/Products ... 5GENII.jpg]

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 34-508.jpg

"111015-N-UM734-508 ATLANTIC OCEAN (Oct 15, 2011) BF-02, front, and BF-04, two Marine Corps variants of the F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter, are secured on the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) during sea trials. The F-35B is capable of short takeoffs and vertical landings for use on amphibious ships or expeditionary airfields to provide air power to the Marine Air Ground Task Force. (U.S. Navy photo By Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Tommy Lamkin/Released)"

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2011, 21:03
by spazsinbad
Even though this 'laughterizer' site refers to the helmets as 'Gen II' they are all 'Gen I' HMDS [with one exception as noted lastly]:

http://laughterizer.weebly.com/1/post/2 ... -hmds.html

Local 'Gen 1' pics here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8379.html

http://www.f-16.net/modules/Gallery2/ga ... alNumber=2
OR
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item224633.html
OR
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2298.html
________________

Lots of TEXT information here:
‘Such A Capable Helmet’ Thursday, July 1, 2010 by Frank Colucci

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/c ... 68788.html

"The Helmet Mounted Display System of the F-35 Lightning II provides the pilot with situational awareness from multiple sensors, slews weapons to head moves..."
________________________

VSI’s F-35 Lightning Gen II Helmet Mounted Display System achieves first flight
February 10, 2010


http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/index.php/news/ ... rst-flight

http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/images/Gen_2_Feb_2010.jpg

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2011, 21:30
by SpudmanWP

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2011, 22:19
by spazsinbad
Publication: Airman | Author: Croxon, J Paul | Date published: January 1, 2010

http://periodicals.faqs.org/201001/2013048741.html

"...I started flying in an F-4 Phantom," said Mr. Beesley. "In the F-4, a large part of my effort was spent flying it. If your attention wasn't on flight, bad things happened. The F-35 is developed so the pilot can spend more time making tactical decisions. He's not given data but rather answers to make better decisions...." More at the ymp!

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2011, 22:51
by spazsinbad
At last some better pics of the HMDS Gen II Helmet for the F-35: [note spelin]

F-35 Lightening II Pilots Get a Futuristic Carbon Fiber Helmet by Ali Kleiman | December 7, 2010

http://www.carbonfibergear.com/f-35-lig ... er-helmet/

http://www.carbonfibergear.com/wp-conte ... helmet.jpg
&
http://www.carbonfibergear.com/wp-conte ... helmet.jpg
&
http://www.carbonfibergear.com/wp-conte ... helmet.jpg

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2011, 23:53
by spazsinbad
On previous page there are a series of 'green' BAE new helmets for night vision for F-35, perhaps this video shows the 'grey' helmets we see in use on USS WASP referred to by 'fang'? Divining stuff from a few photos can be difficult - no? :-) All new helmets seem to be referred to in text URL below and I'm not familiar with the JHMCS helmet. Perhaps others can chime in here. Thanks.

Unfortunately the computer in use here does not have sound capability at moment, so I'm hoping the video below is relevant, along with the text on this page - so many helmets - not enough time.... The 'Q-sight'? is seen along with other Gentex stuff.

[Another text version clarifies what .WMV video showing: 13 Jan 2011
"More Video: Next-Gen Helmet-Mounted Cuing System Continuing our flood of videos this week at Defense Tech is this clip of the Scorpion helmet mounted cuing system that’s been developed by Gentech as a replacement for the 12 year-old Joint Helmet Mounted Cuing System (JHMCS).

http://defensetech.org/2011/01/13/more- ... ng-system/

The new system was developed about three years ago and features customized reticle displays that correspond to the cockpit displays of whichever type of jet the pilot is flying."]

Perhaps Wikipedia can clarify what is what: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet_mounted_display

The Electronic Helmet Evolves with Gentex Scorpion

http://www.usafals.net/JHMCS/The%20Elec ... orpion.htm

Wideo: (15 Mbs .WMV)
http://www.usafals.net/JHMCS/The%20Elec ... %20Up!.wmv

http://www.usafals.net/JHMCS/carla%20&% ... helmet.bmp

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2011, 00:25
by spazsinbad
Old [2006] HMD and HMDS details here:

Helmet Mounted Displays: Adding Night Vision Friday, September 1, 2006 by John Croft

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/f ... _1105.html

"Next-generation pilot head gear, in the form of helmet mounted displays, will paint a wealth of information, including night vision imaging, onto a pilot's visor, yielding tactical advantage...."

...HMDS Update

The F-35 HMDS is slated to be flying on Block 3 aircraft, beginning in 2009, says Lockheed's Branyan. Made by VSI, the helmet displays the same symbology as the current Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, plus imagery from a single forward-looking night vision sensor at the top of the helmet and six 3-to-5-micron infrared sensors surrounding the aircraft, as part of the Northrop Grumman-built distributed aperture system, or DAS. (DAS was originally placed on the aircraft to detect plumes from surface-to-air missiles.) Since the helmet will provide head position, Lockheed can derive and present the appropriate view from the sensor array to the pilot....

...The night vision images are relayed to the visor via optics for a 40-degree horizontal by 30-degree vertical bi-ocular view (binocular vision from a single source). Images sent from the DAS to the helmet will be generated by the aircraft's avionics systems, based on input from VSI's electromagnetic head tracking system.

Branyan says Lockheed has evaluated several sources for the night vision sensor but has not yet selected a unit. The first prototype will have a customized 16-mm image intensifier tube built by ITT interfaced with a charge-coupled device (CCD), says Louis Taddeo, VSI marketing director. Visual information on the CCD will then be transferred to the visor via the optical tube above each eye, on the outside of the helmet.

Though the first JSF will fly Oct. 31, 2006, according to Branyan, the full HMDS suite will not begin flying on the aircraft until the third quarter of 2008. One major change at the moment involves switching out the HMDS visor. The original design called for a bifurcated visor (picture the armor on a knight's face), which simplified the optics path and generated a large FOV. Unfortunately, it also had the potential to distort the outside world due to the peak in the middle of the visor, a finding that emerged in pilot demonstrations. "We were aiming to give the widest field of view possible, but found out that people got distracted by the centerline," says Taddeo, adding that the new design should be flying by next summer. Another potential issue is that the positioning of the night vision camera on the helmet could lead to the outside scene being partially blocked by the canopy bow, causing pilots to have to squat down in their seats to get a good view. This potential blockage of the outside scene by an aircraft structure is relevant to any design where the sensors are located other than in front of the eyes....

...The HMDS is designed to show HUD information when the pilot is looking within about 30 degrees of the boresight, outside of which the attitude indicator is removed. "If we did have issues with development--and I don't see any now--there are options to put a HUD in front of the pilot that shows typical flight data for legacy aircraft," Branyan says....

...Helmet Evolution
The HMD concept caught a second wind around 1990, as the military wanted to find a way for a pilot to launch an AIM-9X Sidewinder missile by looking at the enemy aircraft through the helmet rather than the HUD. Pilots would not have to point the nose of the aircraft at their target to designate it, but could simply look at it, day or night. By default that also meant the system would have to support night vision. VSI ultimately won the contract for what became known as the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, now in use on F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s, though the requirement for night vision was later deferred...."

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2011, 00:37
by spazsinbad
More helmets than youse can stick a poke at:

Put Some Color in Your Face Helmet-Mounted Displays Go Beyond Monochrome
By DAVE MAJUMDAR Published: 21 March 2011

"...It has taken a long time to integrate color into HMDs because although it is comparatively simple to display the color green in a brightly lit airborne environment, red is much more difficult to display and blue even tougher than that, said Bob Foote, VSI's chief technical officer. The problem was overcome by a combination of improved optical lenses and new digital liquid crystal display technology, which allows images to be far brighter.

Both Gentex and VSI use digital LCD technology, which also allows displays to be far smaller while adding color and simplifying software processing. However, every aspect of HMD technology, including the optical systems, has been improved since the debut of the JHMCS and similar displays But the two companies take different approaches.

Gentex's Scorpion presents the information on a "paddle display," which is mounted on a standard pilot's helmet and puts a roughly inch-square transparent display in front of the wearer's right eye....

...Soon, VSI and Gentex will compete to supply an alternative helmet for the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, whose current helmet - under development by VSI - is having problems with jittery images and lag time. VSI has a road map to upgrade and fix the helmet, but JSF program officials want another option.

Gentex will be offering a display with its color technology. VSI, however, declined to offer specifics on any alternative helmet it might offer.

Britain's BAE Systems also is reportedly in the hunt to supply an alternative helmet for the F-35. Calls to the company were unreturned."

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2011, 21:14
by spazsinbad
Lots of stuff that is good and then this:

F-35A Testing Moves Into High Speeds By DAVE MAJUMDAR : 13 June 2011

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6792072

"Jittery Display
The one concern that Griffiths voiced was about the helmet-mounted display, which is still showing jittery images.

But he said new software loaded June 7 onto one of the Edwards jets is intended to help fix the problem. If all goes as planned, the only hardware change that will be required will be to fix the night-vision system, which still does not offer the resolution that is needed...."

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2011, 13:05
by spazsinbad
fang mentioned on page 3 of this thread about F-35B helmets on WASP: "I noticed the pilots of BF-02 and BF-04 onboard USS Wasp got white helmets. Are they different from the blacks?"

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35b-tests-continue/

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2011, 03:33
by spazsinbad
For 'fang' question page 3 of this thread. Original Pic Hi Rez: (F-35B near USS Wasp) ZOOM of HMDS II below:
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 99-001.jpg

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2011, 08:15
by spazsinbad
Cedarburg native testing military's latest fighter jet

http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/ced ... 97828.html

"U.S. Marine test pilot Fred Schenk gives a thumbs-up Oct. 3 after landing the F-35B successfully for the first time at sea, on the deck of the USS Wasp."

http://media.jsonline.com/images/261921 ... _pilot.jpg

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2011, 06:32
by spazsinbad
I don't recall this recent 'oldie' about the HMDS testing and advantages. And yes there is still a 'night vision' problem but this is OLD remember? The interview has insights into HMDS and we see it still in use today. I guess we won't be able to see it at night.

Test Flying the F-35: “A Building Block Approach” The F-35 Pilot: An Interview with Test Pilot “Squirt” Kelly at Pax River. SLD went to Pax River in April 2010 to interview several members of the Pax River test team. [Posted 28 May 2010]

http://www.sldinfo.com/fly-testing-the- ... -approach/

"...SLD: And you don’t need night vision goggles?

Test Pilot “Squirt” Kelly: You don’t need night vision goggles; it’s all built into the helmet. So, depending on the conditions — the light levels, environmental factors, and cultural lighting — you may choose to use the night camera or your DAS system, depending on what gives you the best situational awareness.

SLD: And presumably, because if the helmet is spherical, as opposed to using night vision goggles, you have a much better peripheral vision?

Test Pilot “Squirt” Kelly: Yes. The night vision goggle — the Legacy Night Vision Goggle is just a sensor. It doesn’t provide you with an integrated picture. The F-35 night camera as it’s projected in the helmet is really more like using your own vision, rather than looking through a narrow sensor, or soda straw, so to speak....

...Test Pilot “Squirt” Kelly: With the F35, if my wingmen finds a target on the ground, he can data-link that information to me and now my helmet will tell me where to look on the ground to find that target and I know we are looking at the same target EXACTLY....

...SLD: So you have confidence you’re looking at the same thing?

Test Pilot “Squirt” Kelly: Absolutely. Between you, your wingmen, and the ground....

...Test Pilot “Squirt” Kelly: With this aircraft, I could take off, and after employing weapons on my primary target, my wingmen or someone on the ground can say okay, I’ve got another threat over here, can you provide me some information. Instantly, you can become a flying ISR platform, and adjust to provide the context for that ground commander. So even after employing your weapons, which was your initial goal, you can continue maximizing your capabilities."

Much Much More Much at the URL of course.

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 08:58
by spazsinbad
Time for another screenshot from the video "F-35B Ship Suitability Testing" online:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WK ... r_embedded

HMDS in use F-35B WASP testing Oct 2011.

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2011, 12:09
by spazsinbad
DISPLAYS: BAE selected to supply F-35 joint strike fighter helmet display Nov 1, 2011

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/ ... page=1.htm

"BAE Systems in London was selected by Lockheed Martin to supply a night-vision goggle helmet-mounted display (NVG HMD) for the F-35 Raptor joint strike fighter (JSF) during the next phase of its development. The NVG HMD will feature detachable night-vision goggles and incorporate the latest Q-SIGHT waveguide display. It will also include an optical head-tracking system for precise weapons delivery and carrier and land-based operations. the optical head trackers enable the HMD to achieve traditional heads-up display (HUD) accuracies and primary flight reference criteria.

BAE Systems will begin delivery of test assets in 2012 to support the F-35 development and integration laboratories, flight-test platforms, and flight simulators. The F-35 JSF seeks to revolutionize the way information is collected and presented to the pilot and the NVG HMD is planned to integrate with development work to date. The precise optics and head tracker combination enables F-35 weapons delivery, navigation, landing, and aircraft management under all flight regimes. The HMD’s modular design will allow for a path to binocular visor-projected displays, alternate image sources, and night-vision cameras, depending on customer requirements and program needs."

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/etc/me ... .230.1.gif

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2011, 01:19
by spazsinbad
From the SLDinfo Pilot interview slideshow about HMDS above here is anuvver too graphix:
http://www.sldinfo.com/fly-testing-the- ... -approach/

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2011, 08:26
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Martin Awards F-35 Contract By: Zacks Equity Research Nov 17, 2011

http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/64824/L ... ract?adid=

"ESLT Vision Systems International (VSI), a joint venture between Elbit Systems of America, a subsidiary of Elbit Systems Ltd. and Rockwell Collins Inc., has won a contract from the Aerospace division of defense behemoth Lockheed Martin Corporation to enhance the helmet mounted display system (HMDS) on the F-35.

Comprising of two additional phases in the development, the contract will enable VSI to improve the F-35 HMDS currently in production for the 5th generation Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

The VSI team is already in the process of mitigating display jitter affecting the display symbology, enhance the helmet system's night-vision performance capabilities, and incorporate the latest digital imaging sensor capabilities into the HMDS to improve night vision performance. The joint venture has been working on these attributes since March 2011.

In the process, VSI has modified the current magnetic receiver unit (MRU) contained in the pilot's HMDS to detect both seat and aircraft vibration frequencies and filter them out in both the hardware and software contained in the HMDS display processor. It has already tested and proven the capabilities of the new MRU.

In an effort to enhance the night-vision performance capabilities, VSI is incorporating new digital night-vision sensors in both the fixed camera mounted in the cockpit and the helmet camera with the pilot's helmet mounted display (HMD). The resulting images will be sharper and more viewable at extremely low light levels....

...This contract award demonstrates the confidence Lockheed Martin has in VSI to advance the fifth generation HMDS capabilities that are integral to the success of the F-35 program. VSI expects to deliver the enhanced HMDS beginning in the third quarter of 2013...."

MORE at the URL jump if required...

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2011, 09:09
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Martin Awards Vision Systems International Contract for F-35 Helmet Mounted Display Systems Enhancements

http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/index.php/news/ ... l-contract

"...“We have been receiving very positive feedback from both the System Development and Demonstration (SSD) and Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) pilots using the HMD system, and from those who participated in the successful catapult testing in early August and the shipboard Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) flight tests on the Wasp over a three-week period in October,” Brugal said...."

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2011, 09:31
by spazsinbad
Lots of what looks like out of date info (to me anyway) - good luck finding the date the article was produced. If anyone can find please post that date here - tah. Interesting points to consider but due to article age I'll imagine that these have all been addressed by now. Hokay? :-)

Aerospace - DEFENCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, Issue 41 | Keeping your head
"Frost & Sullivan's Bruno Mucciolo turns the spotlight onto the design and capabilities of the Joint Strike Fighter Helmet Mounted Display, and how it can enhance pilot performance in combat....

http://www.shephardmedia.com/static/ima ... 5GENII.jpg

"...The debate
...The JSF HMD in its essence is being designed to enhance pilot's performance in combat in a highly sophisticated stealth platform. Little experience with HMDS does not give us a clear picture of how enhanced such performance will be. The expectations from the Military are high. Once again the JSF HMD employment takes us to two main assessments: first, the complex integrated technology that will virtually transmit the external world into the cockpit in real-time cannot fail; and secondly, the HMD itself has to perfectly receive, process and transmit the 'world' to the pilot whilst providing he or she with adequate protection. Further to that, this debate could go 20-30 years beyond and evaluate the risks, challenges and opportunities of using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UCAV) to fulfil the fighter aircraft role and the end of human machine interface in air combats. But for now, F-35 customers are waiting for the latest evaluations of a helmet that would become one of the most important subsystems of a fighter aircraft."

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2011, 06:52
by SpudmanWP
Confirmation that the USS Wasp F-35 Trial used the HMD from VSI.

SAN JOSE, Calif. --- Lockheed Martin Aerospace has awarded Vision Systems International (VSI) two additional phases in the development of the helmet mounted display system (HMDS) on the F-35. The contract will enable VSI to enhance the F-35 HMDS currently in production for the 5th generation Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

....

"We have been receiving very positive feedback from both the System Development and Demonstration (SSD) and Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) pilots using the HMD system, and from those who participated in the successful catapult testing in early August and the shipboard Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) flight tests on the Wasp over a three-week period in October," Brugal said. Deliveries of the enhanced HMDS are scheduled to begin in the third quarter of 2013.


Much more after the jump.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... elmet.html

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2011, 08:17
by spazsinbad
Same info at this URL posted 2nd entry above yourn? Therefor a repeat so please don't jump there because it says same thing....

Lockheed Martin Awards Vision Systems International Contract for F-35 Helmet Mounted Display Systems Enhancements

http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/index.php/news/ ... l-contract

"...“We have been receiving very positive feedback from both the System Development and Demonstration (SSD) and Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) pilots using the HMD system, and from those who participated in the successful catapult testing in early August and the shipboard Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) flight tests on the Wasp over a three-week period in October,” Brugal said...."

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2011, 08:25
by SpudmanWP
hehe... been sick in bed for a few days and did not read everything through... my bad :)

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2011, 08:32
by spazsinbad
No worries Spuddie. It is good news re HMDS eh? And hope you are much better! :D

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2011, 08:33
by SpudmanWP
Getting better.. darn flu bug floating around.

Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2011, 09:08
by cola
spazsinbad wrote:The resulting images will be sharper and more viewable at extremely low light levels...


So, what's the deal here?
Can't get enough contrast against the night sky, or the projector has troubles outputting clear enough low light output, for night use?

Besides, this apparently goes for HMD symbology only, that's at about maximum contrast of the projector's output.
What happens to DAS IR imagery, that's filled with half-tones which are obligatory for displaying "look through the floor" plastic image of the world, on the helmet?

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2011, 08:12
by spazsinbad
Perhaps the reason for helmet change to white is for 'over water for "in water visibility"' safety purposes? Wayback RAN FAA Helmets were reflective tape white with a red tape cross on top. This colour combination day/night allowed the helo rescue chaps to find/hover over us if in water much more easily. We were forbidden to alter this combination (although later some aircrew changed the helmet visor cover slightly - but this did not impact the red cross on white). The RAN Helo pilots were insistent that this scheme NOT be changed.

Is the F-35 stealth jet so advanced that it can be flown using one hand only? Picture raise question
November 10, 2011 by David Cenciotti

http://theaviationist.com/2011/11/10/f-35-hotas/

"...Obviously I’m kidding.

Indeed the above picture depicts Marine Corps Maj. Richard Rusnok on board the second F-35B test aircraft “BF-4? as he returns to land aboard USS Wasp on Oct.6, 2011, during STOVL ship suitability testing aboard the land amphibious assault ship off the coast of Virginia. He’s simply resting his left arm on the canopy edge. As someone commented, at least this shows that the F-35 cockpit is quite comfortable!..."

http://cencio4.files.wordpress.com/2011 ... b-bf-4.jpg

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2011, 08:15
by spazsinbad
ERROR CODE had me trying to post the same material again. sigh.

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2011, 08:25
by SpudmanWP
Um.. how about autopilot = handsfree?

RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2011, 19:36
by river_otter
That hardly looks like a comfortable resting angle for his wrist. Look how the fingers are curled to the outside. Try doing that yourself in your car. Also notice his head is turned slightly to look at his hand. He's manipulating something over there. I don't see any pictures that indicate any controls are there, but the canopy frame is pretty wide at that point and may have a bit of a channel set in. Maybe he rested a pencil on it while doing his landing checklist and was snapped while picking it back up.

Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2011, 20:32
by maus92
SpudmanWP wrote:Um.. how about autopilot = handsfree?


F-18 pilots have their hands on the "towel rack" during cat shots.

Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2011, 20:34
by maus92
river_otter wrote:That hardly looks like a comfortable resting angle for his wrist. Look how the fingers are curled to the outside. Try doing that yourself in your car. Also notice his head is turned slightly to look at his hand. He's manipulating something over there. I don't see any pictures that indicate any controls are there, but the canopy frame is pretty wide at that point and may have a bit of a channel set in. Maybe he rested a pencil on it while doing his landing checklist and was snapped while picking it back up.
I concur. He looks like he is concentrating on something, probably only momentary.

RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2011, 21:15
by spazsinbad
I cannot say about 'hand technique' for all recent USN aircraft catapult techniques. Would be easy enough to look in individual aircraft NATOPS for advice (and I don't have them all). However usually the pilot will - in the case of the A-4 - cup his hand in the pit of his stomach (no towel rack to grab as in Hornet) to catch the control column as it relatively slowly is pushed back during the cat shot againt the hydraulic control system pressure holding it vertical/still so that at the end of the launch without any transverse G, the stick can be caught, to then ensure the correct climb out attitude is held (automatically attained by horizontal stabiliser trim position). Similarly the Hornet pilot has aircraft trimmed for launch and puts his right hand out of the way temporarily so as to not interfere with the control column during launch.

RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2011, 18:39
by spazsinbad
Rereading the QLR I was surprised to note that the standby Helmet is also not up to scratch....

"...To reduce technical risk, the JPO instituted an alternate helmet path where night acuity is achieved with currently fielded military Night Vision Goggles (NVG) rather than a camera. An additional subcontract was awarded in September 2011 for the alternate HMD development. This helmet faces issues of buffet and latency for basic symbology, with no DAS video capability (and thus not ORD­ compliant)....
_____________________

HMDS only EXTRACTS from 'dod-quick-look-ahern-report' from AVweek PDF download:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/extra.jsp

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/a ... report.pdf (18Mb)

"(Dec. 14) DOD F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review December 2011

1.1 Operational Assessment OT-IIE Report Topics
The operational test team conducted an operational assessment from June 1, 2010, to June 1, 2011, to assess the F-35’s progress toward operational effectivencss suitability, and mission capability. The team also assessed the program’s progress toward readiness for operational test and evaluation (OT&E).
Air-to-Surface Attack: The OA OT-IIE report cited unsatisfactory progress towards meeting performance requirements for the air-to-surface (A/S) attack mission capability and survivability. The chief concern cited in the report was the lack of a legacy-quality night vision capability, predicated on the lack of progress in the helmet mounted display (HMD), as well as certain classified survivability issues. The report also expressed significant concerns with aircraft performance characteristics, particularly transonic roll-off and buffet, as well as maneuvering performance. Finally, the report noted that recent design changes should improve thermal management within the cockpit but certain operating environments were likely to stress that capability. The QLR confirmed that, although progress had been made against these issues, each remains a source of concern for concurrency risk.
Close Air Support (CAS): Although the test report described progress in this mission area, the report expresscd concern with the lack of certain legacy aircraft CAS capabilities on the F-35, as well as some flaws in HMD symbology. The QLR considered a wide range of legacy (non-ORD) requirements and none were identified as sources of concurrency risk.

Air Warfare: The operational testers cited unsatisfactory progress and the likelihood of severe operational impacts for survivability, lethality, air vehicle performance, and employment. These conclusions were driven by certain classified issues, critical performance criteria for the helmet mounted display, air vehicle performance, and air-to-air weapons employment. While the QLR did not consider weapons employment requirements for the UK’s Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM), the team did find concurrency risks for both the helmet mounted display and air vehicle performance, particularly for structural loading.

Electronic Attack (EA): The OA report cited specific concerns related to EA performance for suppression and defeat of enemy air defenses as well as classified lethality and survivability issues. The QLR team evaluated the classified concerns and determined that while program plans were in place to address those risks, the aforementioned concerns with the HMD and aircraft maneuverability still held....

...Deployability/Mission Generation/Training/Fleet Support: The report concluded with an assessment of the F-35 system’s readiness to forward base, deploy, and retrograde; to generate missions in the intended operating environment; to train pilots and personnel; and support flight operations. Chief among their concerns were the readiness of the ALlS and its multiplicity of configurations; the thermal management system; the integrated power package (IPP); the overall logistics footprint and systems interoperability; progress on the HMD; and low observable (LO) maintenance. While it did not explicitly review the F-35 logistics footprint, the QLR found sources of concurrency risk in several of these areas....

...3.0 Key Technical Findings
Based on the list of topics reviewed, found in Appendix Table 1, page A-6, the team identified technical issues that indicate a lack of adequate stability in the basic design which reduces confidence in additional concurrent F-35 procurement. The technical team separated these issues into four categories:
I. Areas where a fundamental design risk has been identified with realized consequences sufficient to preclude further production
II. Areas where major consequence issues have been identified, but root cause, corrective action or fix effectivity are still in development.
III. Areas where potentially major consequence is likely pending outcomes of further test discovery.
IV. Areas where consequence or cost is moderate, but the number of moderate issues poses a cumulative concurrency risk.

3.1 Findings Summary:
The following highlights the key findings:
I. The team identified no fundamental design risks sufficient to preclude further production.

II. There are 5 areas where major consequence issues have been identified, but root cause, corrective action or fix effectivity are still in development.
Helmet Mounted Display System:
The Generation II Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) has deficiencies in three areas which currently detract from mission tasks and its use as a certified primary flight reference: display jitter, night vision acuity, and Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS) image display latency.

III. There are 3 areas where potentially major consequence is likely pending outcomes of further test discovery.
Buffet:
The aircraft are experiencing higher than predicted buffet during flight test, and tests have not reached the areas of highest predicted buffet loads (above 20 degrees angle of attack). High buffet loads can produce higher-than expected airframe loads, particularly on the vertical tail surfaces, as well as poor ride quality and associated workload distractions. It can also interfere with use of the helmet mounted display system (HMDS)....


...I. The team identified no fundamental design risks sufficient to preclude further production.
II. Areas where major consequence issues have been identified, but root cause, corrective action or fix effectivity are still in development
Helmet Mounted Display System:
The Generation II (Gen-II) Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) has deficiencies in three areas which currently detract from mission tasks and the HMDS use as a certified primary flight reference: display jitter, night vision acuity, and Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS) image display latency. The Gen-II HMDS is currently rated as a program-level high development risks.

Aircraft buffet induces HMD display jitter, making symbology unreadable under those conditions. This is tactically significant, especially for visual-range air-to-air weapons employment (gun tracking, high off-boresight [HOBS] missile cueing) and surface-to-air / air-to-air threat reactions. Turbulence may induce significant effects even during low-g, administrative phases of flight. A Micro Inertial Measurement Unit is being considered in an attempt to cancel out jitter effects, but this remains to be tested.

The current JSF system provides poor night vision acuity with the existing Gen-II night vision camera. Acuity of the current night vision camera (approximately 20/70 under best-case full moon conditions) is not as capable as the currently fielded military night vision goggles (NVG) (approximately 20/25). Also, camera acuity drops off more rapidly than NVG acuity as illumination levels decrease. A proposed improvement to the night vision camera is currently planned. However, it is not expected to achieve legacy acuity, and it is not yet available for integrated testing.

HMDS latency is excessive and detracts from mission capability. Currently, DAS video imagery latency is approximately 130 msec and basic symbology latency is approximately 50 msec, while the specifications are less than 40 msec and less than 30 msec respectively. A full-motion simulator study will be conducted in the spring of 2012 to characterize effects of different time latencies. The results of this study will help to inform a technical solution. It should also be noted that the simulator is very limited in its ability to duplicate the effects on the HMDS due to buffet environment, g-loading, or vestibular phenomena, so the effects of latency may not be fully understood until the chosen corrective action is flight tested.

To reduce technical risk, the JPO instituted an alternate helmet path where night acuity is achieved with currently fielded military Night Vision Goggles (NVG) rather than a camera. An additional subcontract was awarded in September 2011 for the alternate HMD development. This helmet faces issues of buffet and latency for basic symbology, with no DAS video capability (and thus not ORD­ compliant). PDR is currently scheduled for early 2012.

An ORD-compliant Gen-II helmet remains high technical risk. It will require changes to the overall system architecture, including new integrated processor, DAS sensor modifications, and helmet modifications.

Conclusion: Major Concurrency Risk - The HMD system is integral to pilot safety, situational awareness, and tactical effectiveness and faces hardware / architecture changes to meet full requirements...

...III. Areas where potentially major consequence is likely pending outcomes of further test discovery
Buffet:
F-35 flight test aircraft are seeing higher than predicted buffet loads during flight test, and flight test has not yet been conducted in the regimes where the highest buffet loads are predicted (above 20 degrees angle of attack). One effect of buffet can be high airframe loads, particularly on vertical tail surfaces. Buffet loads on vertical tails have appeared on all twin-tailed tactical aircraft, and have often been larger than predicted, particularly for the F/A-18A/B and the F-22 programs. The consequences of these high loads can include structural retrofits and increased inspections of in-service aircraft. This risk will not be retired until high angle of attack loads flights are completed and their results are fed into airframe structural analyses. These flights cannot be performed until aircraft have been certified as stable for these flight regimes, so the full extent of buffet issues may not be apparent until CY2014.

Buffet also affects the ride quality of the aircraft, and the ability of the pilot to manage workload, perform fine tracking operations, such as required for HOBS missile targeting and gun-tracking tasks, and manipulate controls that require fine motor skills. Although the buffet severity experienced so far has been described as similar to that seen in previous tactical aircraft, thc buffet does occur in an important and large part of the flight cnvelope. Appendix Figure 12, page A-13, shows an example of buffet flight test data at 10000 ft MSL.

Completion of flight test is critical to determining the full extent of this issue. Currently this testing is scheduled to begin fall of 2012. There is significant risk that buffet spectrum will not match inputs for durability testing, affecting confidence in results. In addition, as described previously in this report, buffet detracts from HMDS utility.

Conclusion: Major Concurrency Risk - Potential structural impacts and retrofit costs as flight test explores areas of greatest predicted loads - Impacts tactical employment due to effect on cockpit environment and utility of helmet mounted display system....


...4.0 Conclusions
In the team’s review of F-35 data and analyses, no fundamental design risks sufficient to preclude further production were identified.

Five issues were found where major consequence issues have been identified, but root cause, corrective action or fix effectivity are still in development: Helmet Mounted Display System,
Fuel Dump Subsystem, Integrated Power Package, Arresting Gear System (CV variant) and a classified issue.

Three issues were found where potentially major consequence discovery is likely pending outcomes of further test discovery: Buffet, Fatigue Life, and Test Execution.

Five issues were found where consequence or cost is moderate, but the number of moderate issues poses a cumulative concurrency risk: Software, Weight Management, Thermal Concerns, ALlS and Lightning Protection.

The combined impact of these issues results in a lack of confidence in the design stability. The QLR team concludes that this lack of confidence, in conjunction with the concurrency driven conscquences of the required fixes, supports serious reconsideration of procurement and production planning."

RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2011, 20:37
by sprstdlyscottsmn
so the whole thing comes to a grinding halt because of the HMD. Gee, I hate to say it, but if this were a UCAV it would be a non issue.

RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2011, 21:00
by spazsinbad
Much like the hook problem there are other polite noises on this thread by those responsible that 'the HMDS GenII fix is in' but yet to be implemented and flight tested. Perhaps by April 2012 the 'hook/HMDS' issues will be solved? As mentioned I was surprised to discover the alternate HMD was suffering jitter/ buffet/ latency problems. They have work to do also to stay viable.

RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2011, 23:51
by hcobb
Remember that the current "solution" for night vision on the F-22 has already helped kill at least one pilot so the F-35 system just needs to be less dreadful to get copied over to the F-22.

RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 00:31
by spazsinbad
'helped' would be the key word IMHO with 'hypoxic' another word/cause left out of the accident report I read. But this is not the F-22 thread eh.

RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 00:41
by alloycowboy
But "Strike Eye" looks so good in the video don't you think?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=O0AXb2LFw84

RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 00:50
by spazsinbad
Thanks, I had not seen that video before - with the HMDS symbology. There are claims by VSI (on this thread) that the problems can be fixed.

RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 01:14
by FlightDreamz
Helmet always looked like something out of "The Fly" to me.....
Image

......but as long as they get it working!

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 02:52
by maus92
I think there are several problems with the HMD system. Both the helmet mounted and cockpit mounted night vision cameras don't provide the specified acuity and low light performance. The image latency issue is in part caused by processing and bandwidth limitations of the F-35 core processor and EO-DAS sensors. The jitter is caused by aircraft buffeting, seat vibration and helmet fit. There is also a problem with symbology, both due to jitter and incorrect symbols. Fixes include upgrading the camera sensors and tweaking the magnetic receiving units, or possibly integrating accelerometers into the system to cancel out vibrations. I would think other changes are in the works.

Re: RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 02:53
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks, I had not seen that video before - with the HMDS symbology. There are claims by VSI (on this thread) that the problems can be fixed.


Same here.. VLSI produced the video and the scenaio had the B supercruising to the engagement.. anyway, it was entertaining.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 03:26
by spazsinbad
page 4: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-45.html
of this thread has some 'jitter' potential fixes that have worked - or not - because it is mid-year.

page 3: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-30.html
of this thread has the extra night vision camera solution amongst others mentioned.

page 5: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-60.html
of this thread has the recent fixes as reiterated here again:

Lockheed Martin Awards F-35 Contract By: Zacks Equity Research Nov 17, 2011

http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/64824/L ... ract?adid=

"...The VSI team is already in the process of mitigating display jitter affecting the display symbology, enhance the helmet system's night-vision performance capabilities, and incorporate the latest digital imaging sensor capabilities into the HMDS to improve night vision performance. The joint venture has been working on these attributes since March 2011.

In the process, VSI has modified the current magnetic receiver unit (MRU) contained in the pilot's HMDS to detect both seat and aircraft vibration frequencies and filter them out in both the hardware and software contained in the HMDS display processor. It has already tested and proven the capabilities of the new MRU.

In an effort to enhance the night-vision performance capabilities, VSI is incorporating new digital night-vision sensors in both the fixed camera mounted in the cockpit and the helmet camera with the pilot's helmet mounted display (HMD). The resulting images will be sharper and more viewable at extremely low light levels...."

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 03:44
by spazsinbad
Some piccie screenshots as seen by THE FLY (as seen above) from the movie above.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 23:25
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:.... The resulting images will be sharper and more viewable at extremely low light levels...."


Now this got the juices flowing again. :lol: Making this helment work is the cement that holds the "merging of the sensors" together. Not brinigng it to the helmet is almost like b/w tv. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2011, 00:27
by popcorn
Do the same problems manifest themselves on the panoramic display?

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2011, 01:21
by spazsinbad
None reported, as SWP has pointed out this would be the alternate display if problems with HMDS.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2011, 22:57
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:..In an effort to enhance the night-vision performance capabilities, VSI is incorporating new digital night-vision sensors in both the fixed camera mounted in the cockpit and the helmet camera with the pilot's helmet mounted display (HMD). The resulting images will be sharper and more viewable at extremely low light levels...."


NVG, does it work outside the cockpit, as in after ejection? May be better than a flashlight! :idea: :lol: Happy New Year

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2011, 01:58
by FlightDreamz
That's an interesting question neptune I wonder if the F-35 helmet has any use at all after exiting the aircraft (my guess aside from protecting from windblast, not much :shrug:)? But it's an interesting idea, night vision goggle's can be useful on the ground, so no reason the F-35 helmet wouldn't be useful in a <a href="http://www.f-16.net/varia_article10.html">Scott O'Grady situation</a> (if a bit cumbersome).
Look forward to someone with some inside information to shed more light on the subject (no pun intended).

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2011, 02:56
by spazsinbad
What is the power source for the HMDS outside the aircraft?

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2011, 03:44
by spazsinbad
On page 6 of this thread about mid-level of page is a quote about 'improved HMDS' for whatever reason this important part was left out: :-(

Lockheed Martin Awards F-35 Contract By: Zacks Equity Research | Nov 17, 2011

"...This contract award demonstrates the confidence Lockheed Martin has in VSI to advance the fifth generation HMDS capabilities that are integral to the success of the F-35 program. VSI expects to deliver the enhanced HMDS beginning in the third quarter of 2013...."

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2011, 04:34
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:On page 6 of this thread about mid-level of page is a quote about 'improved HMDS' for whatever reason this important part was left out: :-(

Lockheed Martin Awards F-35 Contract By: Zacks Equity Research | Nov 17, 2011

"...This contract award demonstrates the confidence Lockheed Martin has in VSI to advance the fifth generation HMDS capabilities that are integral to the success of the F-35 program. VSI expects to deliver the enhanced HMDS beginning in the third quarter of 2013...."


One hopes the enhanced HMDS remedies all the issues raised in the QLR.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2011, 04:46
by spazsinbad
Yep. Who wants to night fly like this?

[AV-8B] Harrier Lands and Takes Off From USS Makin [Island] (Night Video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=840Syzuh ... tube_gdata

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2011, 08:16
by spazsinbad
A recent July 2011 LSO newsletter had the initial carrier trials scheduled for 1st Quarter 2013 so I guess night is not included at that time to have the new HMDS available by 3rd Quarter 2013.

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... ly2011.pdf

"...“The F-35C will also not include a HUD and, like the F-16, will feature a side-mounted control stick. Most notably is the fully-customizable 8” by 20” touch screen that will replace the separate displays that Hornet and Rhino pilots have become accustomed. Test pilots indicate that the F-35 is a very stable platform and overall flies “slightly better than a Hornet,” and initial Sea Trials are scheduled for the First Quarter of 2013.”

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Wasp B

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2011, 20:39
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:What is the power source for the HMDS outside the aircraft?


The helmet cam would be limited to both battery life and a data processing module, Both packs would be about the size of a pack of cigarettes, each. Night ejections, it would allow for canopy/ riser checks and surface impact "heads-up". :!: Happy New Year :D

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Was

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2012, 06:45
by spazsinbad
Now that you mention 'canopies' here is some info:

The IGQ Aeroconical Parachute and Ribbon Drogue for F-35 JSF by Adrian Jones Ph.D

http://www.safeeurope.co.uk/media/3561/ ... _jones.pdf (0.4Mb)

"Irvin-GQ Ltd
The IGQ Aeroconical Parachute and Ribbon Drogue for F-35 JSF
Andrian Jones Ph.D
http://www.safeeurope.co.uk/symposium-a ... 5-jsf.aspx
Objective
Present the capabilities of the:-
IGQ Aeroconical Parachute
IGQ Ribbon Drogue
Outline their advantages to the Ejection Seat System Designers
Show the advantages of the escape system to the users
Background
There have been many advances in the science of Ejection Seat Escape Systems
The parachute has an important part to play in surviving an escape
Many systems use 30 year old designs of parachute and deployment systems
Select and Deselect steering required
Training required to optimise advantages "

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Was

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2012, 07:06
by spazsinbad
An updated 2009 PDF with extra pics in action here:

Advances in Ejection Seat Parachutes Adrian Jones 2009

http://www.safeeurope.co.uk/media/2614/ ... 0jones.pdf (0.9Mb)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: White helmets on USS Was

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2012, 19:12
by spazsinbad
Some random and some pertinent details from a long article about some recent HMDS and BAE F-35 helmet mounted display developments. Best to read the entire article at the source URL because it is long and somewhat complicated.

Keep One Eye Out Dec 01, 2011 By Frank Colucci

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/militar ... 75101.html

"Tied to a monocular helmet display, the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) still promises Joint Strike Fighter pilots all-round situational awareness...

...The Northrop Grumman AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) is flying on Lockheed Martin F-35 test aircraft AF-3, BF-4 and BF-5, and on two systems test beds. With its binocular Helmet Mounted Display System still in development, DAS will be integrated in 2012 with a monocular display compatible with night vision goggles....

...The ICP generates DAS target symbology on the F-35 panoramic cockpit display and guidance cues for weapons...

...“The DAS autonomously locks on and tracks those airborne targets. The JSF system will then use the information and decide how it presents the information to the pilot.” The infrared search and track function in DAS can potentially cue the seekers of AIM-9X infrared or AIM-120 radar missiles in the F-35 weapons bays....

... a DAS visor display able to match the performance of the ITT AN/AVS-9 night vision goggles, now used by United States tactical jet pilots, is still in development. In October, Lockheed Martin chose BAE Systems in Rochester, U.K., to supply a night vision goggle helmet mounted display system for F-35 development. “Essentially, on the visor-projected helmet, the video source is not compatible with night vision goggles. To put the goggles on, you have to take that visor off,” said Paul Cooke, director, business development, defense avionics, at BAE Systems, in Johnson City, N.Y. In contrast, the BAE Q-Sight puts a holographic waveguide display close to one eye. “If you want it to be compatible with NVGs, you just clip them to the helmet and flip them down.” BAE has offered the joint program a follow-on binocular solution. VSI meanwhile continues to mature integrated night vision capability in the second-generation helmet mounted display system....

...With the magnetically tracked binocular helmet mounted display system continuing development, Lockheed Martin intends to integrate DAS with an optically tracked monocular night vision goggle helmet mounted display. BAE is under contract to integrate its Q-Sight holographic display with a helmet shell similar to that worn by pilots of the Eurofighter Typhoon....

...The F-35 version will cover 40 degrees and put JSF symbology or video about 25 mm before the wearer’s dominant eye. Night vision goggles can be flipped down just in front of the display to annotate goggle imagery with flight symbology. “The goggles are furnished by the customer,” said Cooke. “We don’t provide those as part of the solution; we’re just compatible with them.” The Q-Sight will give the first F-35 pilots a choice of DAS or annotated night vision goggle imagery at night. “I don’t think you’d ever want to mix DAS video and goggle video,” said Cooke. “It would be like watching two TV channels at once on a single screen.”...

...Northrop Grumman has no upgrades planned for the F-35 DAS, but the company does see growth applications beyond the Joint Strike Fighter. “The sensor system is currently looking at any IR event it sees,” said Edwards. “We think it’s got some capability to detect rockets, mortars, RPGs, etc., and to provide warning to people on the aircraft and off that aircraft.” An all-round system able to track airborne targets may also give true sense-and-avoid capability to unmanned aircraft systems. “Much like radars were in the past (the DAS system), as it gets used and fielded, operators will have new sorts of applications we haven’t envisioned yet.”

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2012, 20:20
by maus92
"The F-35 version will cover 40 degrees and put JSF symbology or video about 25 mm before the wearer’s dominant eye."

I wonder what exactly the 40 degrees equates to? Is it a 40 degree (segment of 360) field of view as you turn your head?

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2012, 20:31
by spazsinbad
Field of view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view
FWIW
"The field of view (also field of vision, abbreviated FOV) is the extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment.

Different animals have different fields of view, depending on the placement of the eyes. Humans have an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view, while some birds have a complete or nearly-complete 360-degree field of view. In addition, the vertical range of the field of view in humans is typically around 100 degrees.

The range of visual abilities is not uniform across a field of view, and varies from animal to animal. For example, binocular vision, which is important for depth perception, only covers 120 degrees (horizontally) of the field of vision in humans[citation needed]; the remaining peripheral 60 degrees have no binocular vision (because of the lack of overlap in the images from either eye for those parts of the field of view)...."

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2012, 09:34
by spazsinbad
More detail on the alternate F-35 HMD BAE contract.

BAE wins high tech jet helmet contract - F-35 fighter work worth $39 million
By David Brooks / The Nashua Telegraph January 9, 2012

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/3 ... t-contract

"The latest funding for the multidecade contract to build the F-35, the country's next-generation fighter jet, will bring about $39 million to BAE Systems in Nashua this year for work on a helmet-mount display system.

The money is part of about $5 billion that Lockheed-Martin, the jet's main contractor, should get this fiscal year, the fifth in the long-term contract to create the stealth fighter, said Mike Rein, spokesman for Lockheed-Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter division.

On Wednesday, the Defense Department announced the release of $485 million of that annual F-35 total to cover "non-recurring materials," about 8 percent of which will go to BAE's Electronic Solutions section in Nashua.

BAE Systems in Nashua is developing a "display and sight helmet," or DASH, which includes a head-tracking system that allows equipment to know where the pilot is looking.

BAE was selected by Lockheed-Martin in October to develop the system as a possible replacement for an earlier design that has suffered problems...."

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2012, 19:42
by neptune
It continues to boggle my mind that the JSF program is wasting it's time on "display compatible with night vision goggles....". It amazed me that the poor pilot in the doomed F-22 was struggling in an environment with this "clap-trap" strapped to his helment and ultimately contributed to his demise. Regardless of a scenario where exiting the a/c in milliseconds with this "c..rap" affixed to your helment into a jet stream. I clearly have seen the benefit of night vision environments outside modern jets but this has to be the ultimate "Rube Goldberg" concept "in jets". I only hope that the integration of this funtion into the HMDS is truly integrated and not some silly "clip-on". VSI expects to deliver the enhanced HMDS beginning in the third quarter of 2013 (without googles?). What kind of neck training exercises must these kids endure? http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/05 ... ry-pilots/ :?: :wtf: Can we not get some type of radar dish to clip on to the flight helment, as well :lol: :lmao: :poke:

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2012, 20:20
by hcobb
Procedure to handle pilot breathing problems in the 21st Century.

When a pilot is having trouble breathing, he hands off control of the aircraft to another pilot, either in the same building or another facility. He then rolls his office chair back, stands up and walks over to his desk for his inhaler and perhaps goes outside for some fresh air.

Gimmicky personal breathing gear is so 20th Century. :devil:

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2012, 01:13
by quicksilver
maus92 wrote: Is it a 40 degree (segment of 360) field of view as you turn your head?


Yes.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2012, 01:49
by southernphantom
quicksilver wrote:
maus92 wrote: Is it a 40 degree (segment of 360) field of view as you turn your head?


Yes.


That's not especially good, IMO. I have ~200 degree FoV naturally, so that's literally an 80% reduction for me. Is this any better than preexisting goggles??

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2012, 17:11
by SpudmanWP
Compare that 40 FOV to the miniscule FOV looking through NVGs and you will quickly see (pardon the pun) the improvement.

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 22:00
by spazsinbad
Pilots discuss their experience flying the F-35 Lighting II during an LMCO webinar GO TO URL TO HEAR STUFF....

http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/index.php/blog/ ... co-webinar
(then a sound file link to click on the page)

Quotes about VSI’s F-35 HMDS from LMCO F-35 Test Pilots Alan Norman and Bill Gigliotti:

“It always gives you that outside world view so, what that gives the pilot is the opportunity to look through the aircraft essentially and Al and I have both flown this and immediately fallen in love with the capability and the idea of looking through the cock pit looking through the airplane, seeing the ground seeing a target below the airplane and being able to place another sensor on it is just unheard of and the F-35 is the first and only aircraft to do that. “ – Bill Gigliotti

“This helmet is amazing. The things that it allows us to do are amazing and what people have to realize is that this is an integrated system with a heads up display that we can move around anyway we go anyway we look.” – Alan Norman

“We get to see a 360 degrees spherical view of the world around us and honestly it brings night into day if you will- it turns night into day and gives us just a background view of what is up and what is down and which is the right way to go and in addition, the night vision camera is integrated into this so no longer do we have to wear goggles so all those things combined really are a good news story about the helmet.” – Alan Norman

“This plane is so second nature to fly that after flying once you fall in love with it and that helmet is one of those systems that is like that.”- Bill Gigliotti

“I was just telling someone yesterday the view that you get is amazing I go back and forth with one day flying the F-35 and one day flying the F-16 and even with the wide HUD on the F-16 its too little I have to move my head"

Alan (Al) Norman, F-35 Chief Test Pilot, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
Prior to joining Lockheed-Martin in 1999, Al served in the United States Air Force for 23 years as a fighter pilot and test pilot. In 1999, Al left active duty and became an experimental test pilot for the Lockheed-Martin Corporation on the F-22 program at Edwards Air Force Base. Al tested all aspects of 5th generation fighters and the Raptor’s flight regime while in the Combined Test Force at Edwards. In addition to flight test and production work on the F-22 and T-50, Al has performed production and test work on all models of F-16. Al has over 6,000 hours of flying time in more than 70 different aircrafts. Currently, he works out of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Fort Worth, Texas on the F-35 Lightning II program. Al is a native of Sherman Oaks, California. He holds a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Astronautical Engineering from the United States Air Force Academy. He worked on his Master’s and PhD in Electrical Engineering at the University of South Florida. He is a graduate of the United States Air Force Test Pilot School. Al and his wife Cyndi live in Aledo, Texas with their two daughters, Alexandra and Amanda. Quote: “I feel very honored and privileged to be named the F-35 Chief Test Pilot. This is a very fast-paced and challenging time for the F-35 program. I am thrilled and humbled to be working with such a tremendously talented team that spans industry and government across the world. Over the next few years, I very much look forward to contributing to our effort of fielding the most capable multi-role 5th Generation fighter, the F-35 Lightning II.”

Bill Gigliotti, F-35 Test Pilot, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
A graduate of the US Naval Academy, Bill is a combat proven US Navy fighter and test pilot. He is a graduate of both the US Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN) and the US Naval Test Pilot School. He joined Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company in December 2003 as a project pilot for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. As one of the initial cadre of Lockheed Martin test pilots to fly the F-35, he is involved in all aspects of engineering design and flight test operations, is one of only three Flight Examiners and is currently the Fort Worth Site Lead Test Pilot and Production Lead Test Pilot. Additionally, he is the Chief Air Show Pilot for the F-16 and routinely performs acceptance, delivery, test support, and air show flights on all models of the F-16 aircraft. He has accumulated over 6,000 hours of flight time on over 25 different aircraft types and has logged over 400 carrier landings."
_____________________

VSI Appoints Phil King as President

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/557513

"SAN JOSE, Calif., Jan. 23, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Vision Systems International (VSI), a leader in advanced Helmet Mounted Display Systems for tactical aircraft, has appointed Philip King as president.

Phil King will replace Drew Brugal as the senior executive at VSI, reporting to the company's board, which has representatives of the two parent companies — Rockwell Collins and Elbit Systems.

Prior to joining VSI, King held a variety of management and leadership positions at McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing over a 26-year career. He also managed the Joint Helmet Mounting Cueing System program for six years, from its inception to early 2011, and is considered one of the "Founding Fathers" of the program. King began working on helmet displays in 1986 with the original Kaiser Electronics Agile Eye.

Prior to Boeing, King served 13 years as a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force, flying the F-4, O-2A (FAC), and the F-15. He also served in the U.S. Navy Reserve from 1988 to 2005, assigned to the Naval Air System Command.

Originally from Cleveland, King earned both a Bachelors and Master's Degree in electrical engineering from Case Western Reserve University and Florida Institute of Technology...."

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 23:06
by hcobb
Yeah, it's all fine to look out any direction from where your aircraft is now, but when are we going to get god mode?

The pilot is sitting in his cockpit and a 3D map of the target area is displayed in mid air. He releases his control stick and traces with his gloved finger the path his flight will take for the attack and points at the targets to be hit. The computer adjusts the path to not run into obstacles, while staying within the G-limits of the pilot and his UCAV wingbots and plots out the release points for the weapons.

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 23:18
by southernphantom
hcobb wrote:Yeah, it's all fine to look out any direction from where your aircraft is now, but when are we going to get god mode?

The pilot is sitting in his cockpit and a 3D map of the target area is displayed in mid air. He releases his control stick and traces with his gloved finger the path his flight will take for the attack and points at the targets to be hit. The computer adjusts the path to not run into obstacles, while staying within the G-limits of the pilot and his UCAV wingbots and plots out the release points for the weapons.


You play too many video games, methinks.

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2012, 23:56
by hcobb
Ah well, it's been done already.

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/te ... &zoneid=56
Pilots testing F-35 simulators generally have preferred to have the aircraft’s tactical situation display (TSD) presented on one screen, Rubino relates. He describes this display as “the God’s eye view” of the aircraft’s situational awareness system. Pilots can program any of the three TSDs to fuse all information or break it down into different elements.

The TSD comes with a cursor that the pilot manipulates from the left-hand (throttle) control. The pilot places the cursor on air or ground target icons for identification or target designation. After placing the cursor, the pilot can zoom in on an icon or a group of icons, and the display will show an arc that reports the position of the zoomed-in targets relative to the aircraft—4 o’clock, 10 o’clock or 2 o’clock, for example. A numerical readout gives the range—the display also informs the pilot of whether the target is within range of the aircraft’s weapons—and the targets are differentiated by circles for air targets and triangles for ground targets. The display also shows the time to release and the time to target.


Why can't I ever come up with anything original?

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2012, 00:03
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2012, 01:05
by Gums
Salute!

The pilot I talked with last Friday said that the "look thru the floor" mode was most useful for landing the "B" in the VTOL mode.

The other thing of interest was how critical the alignment of the helmet and the sensor that tracks the actual eyes of the pilot was to avoid orientation problems and headaches. Apparently, tracking the basic helmet LOS by the cockpit sensors is not a big deal unless that buffet thing is making itself known. Maybe there's a calibration procedure that lets the pilot to look at something and zero out any mis-alignment.

The symbology of an old HUD was absolutely glued to the airframe line of sight, and even if you couldn't see all the symbology when looking out to the left/right/behind, then BFD. The sucker was not affected by buffet, although the pilot's vision may have been, heh heh.

I am all for a HMD for off-boresight aiming and tgt acquisition.. Simply wonderful. But for basic HUD-type data I have grief. I am thinking about landing in 100 and a fourth or on a boat. So the doofer has a mis-alignment problem and you're back to the 1950's.

Next tour at Eglin I hope to try out the thing and report back, but there are actual 33rd Wing folks looking at these forums and maybe one can sign in and post using a neat, anymouse name.

I do not mean to denigrate anyone in the program, but the USAF/USN/USMC spec seems too "cosmic" to this old curmudgeon. I can't understand why the jet could not have a basic HUD and then use the HMD for neat, new things.

respectfully, Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2012, 01:10
by spazsinbad
The F-35C at least will have high precision JPALS carrier landing ability for those without optimum 'eye'sight. :D

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2012, 01:52
by quicksilver
southernphantom wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
maus92 wrote: Is it a 40 degree (segment of 360) field of view as you turn your head?


Yes.


That's not especially good, IMO. I have ~200 degree FoV naturally, so that's literally an 80% reduction for me. Is this any better than preexisting goggles??


Your eyes don't perform as well in the dark regardless of the FOV advantage.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2012, 03:11
by southernphantom
Gums wrote:Salute!

The pilot I talked with last Friday said that the "look thru the floor" mode was most useful for landing the "B" in the VTOL mode.

The other thing of interest was how critical the alignment of the helmet and the sensor that tracks the actual eyes of the pilot was to avoid orientation problems and headaches. Apparently, tracking the basic helmet LOS by the cockpit sensors is not a big deal unless that buffet thing is making itself known. Maybe there's a calibration procedure that lets the pilot to look at something and zero out any mis-alignment.

The symbology of an old HUD was absolutely glued to the airframe line of sight, and even if you couldn't see all the symbology when looking out to the left/right/behind, then BFD. The sucker was not affected by buffet, although the pilot's vision may have been, heh heh.

I am all for a HMD for off-boresight aiming and tgt acquisition.. Simply wonderful. But for basic HUD-type data I have grief. I am thinking about landing in 100 and a fourth or on a boat. So the doofer has a mis-alignment problem and you're back to the 1950's.

Next tour at Eglin I hope to try out the thing and report back, but there are actual 33rd Wing folks looking at these forums and maybe one can sign in and post using a neat, anymouse name.

I do not mean to denigrate anyone in the program, but the USAF/USN/USMC spec seems too "cosmic" to this old curmudgeon. I can't understand why the jet could not have a basic HUD and then use the HMD for neat, new things.

respectfully, Gums sends...


I'm not actually sure that the giant mega-LCD of doom has an airspeed indicator in most configurations, but I agree. It would be good to either have a conventional HUD or steam gauges as backup, or both. A one-giant-screen-and-six-button-style cockpit doesn't sound like a good sign for reliability. Steam gauges and physical switch backups may not be glamorous, but they are proven technology.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2012, 03:29
by spazsinbad
There is a standby instrument group: http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/ ... ept_06.pdf {5.9Mb) (page 37)

"Standby Flight Display System: The standby display system independently displays attitude, altitude, airspeed, vertical velocity and angle of attack. The display system is centrally located in the cockpit front panel and incorporates fully agile performance."

Location of text: http://www.smiths.com/press_release_det ... easeID=203
________________

Will Projection Displays Give F-35 an Edge? June 1, 2004 by James W. Ramsey

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/militar ... e_922.html

"...While the F-35 features an 8-by-20-inch viewing area, the display system currently is limited by processing capacity to the two adjacent 8-by-10s. "We had looked at using a 9-by-16-inch HDTV [high-definition TV] format, but based on redundancy needs in the cockpit, we felt better off with two 8-by-10s built together as a single 8-by-20—you get more display surface for the same redundancy that we needed," Frey points out. The displays incorporate a zoom-in capability to make features larger.

The redundancy allows one computer to substitute for the other if it should fail. "When using voice recognition, for instance, the master display computer takes the digital voice stream coming in and does all the appropriate commands, and then the slave computer knows that, if the master goes down, it picks up those extra functionalities," Frey says.

Each 8-by-10-inch section of the 8-by-20-inch display has its own graphics processor and projection engine that create the symbology. The airplane's different sensors ship the video to the display system, which inserts it in the correct portal, Frey explains....

...Smiths Aerospace, of Cheltenham, UK, is providing the F-35's standby 3-by-3-inch active matrix LCD flight display system, which independently displays attitude, altitude, airspeed, vertical velocity and angle of attack. The display system is centrally located in the cockpit front panel. And VSI Systems International, a joint venture between Collins and Israel's Elbit Systems, provides the JSFs helmet-mounted displays...."
_______________

Some may find this info interesting:

IEEE 1394 standard takes controls of F-35 fighter Oct 1, 2007

http://www.interconnectionworld.com/ind ... ghter.html
&
IEEE-1394 is proving to be a Stalwart of Aviation Vehicle Management Systems
By Richard Mourn, Astek Corp. [X-47B but related to F-35]

http://www.1394ta.org/press/WhitePapers/2011_AVMs.html

"IEEE 1394b (also known as beta) is completing its second successful deployment as an aircraft Vehicle Management System (VMS) network. It was first used in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and now it is being used in a similar capacity in the X47B Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration (UCAS-D)...."

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2012, 08:51
by spazsinbad
http://driven-technologies.com/prod_pages/prod1.html

http://driven-technologies.com/prod_pic ... 35_sfd.png

"STANDBY FLIGHT DISPLAY
3 ATI Indicator
480x480 Pixel Resolution
High Intensity LED Backlight
Integrated Switch Bezel
NVIS Compatible"
_______________

Another LONG story about displays here:

JSF: Integrated Avionics Par Excellence Sep 1, 2003 by Charlotte Adams

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/cover/1067.html

"...Standby 3-by-3-inch active matrix LCD flight displays are provided by Smiths Aerospace...."

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2012, 08:54
by spazsinbad
http://driven-technologies.com/prod_pic ... 35_pcd.png

"PANORAMIC COCKPIT DISPLAY
8x20 Viewing Area
2560x1024 Image Resolution, 1280x1024 Per Slide
Separate Left/Right Video Imaging
Auto Select to DVI or VGA Video Input
< 0.150" Mulion Between Images
Integrated Infra-red Touchscreen with RS 232 Communication
High Intensity LED Backlight, Brightness Range: 0 to ? 200fL
Integrated NVIS Control Panel
Identical Dimension to Future Aircraft PCD"

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2012, 09:02
by spazsinbad
IF 'GEOGEN' is ever buying one of these then he can get one for me - thanks! :D

http://driven-technologies.com/prod_pic ... p_side.png
http://driven-technologies.com/prod_pic ... _front.png

" F-35 DESKTOP TRAINER
Multi–Functional ? Low Budget F–35 Trainer
Qualified Panoramic Cockpit Display
Active Stick & Throttle with Control Loading
Flight Grips Built to Aircraft Specification
Completely Portable with Shipping Container
Quick & Easy to Assemble and Dis–assemble
Rugged Aluminum Fabrication
Mounts to any Desktop or Table
High Resolution Monitor and Custom Computers Optional

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2012, 09:23
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2012, 09:31
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2012, 09:54
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2012, 02:06
by quicksilver
southernphantom wrote:
Gums wrote:Salute!

The pilot I talked with last Friday said that the "look thru the floor" mode was most useful for landing the "B" in the VTOL mode.

The other thing of interest was how critical the alignment of the helmet and the sensor that tracks the actual eyes of the pilot was to avoid orientation problems and headaches. Apparently, tracking the basic helmet LOS by the cockpit sensors is not a big deal unless that buffet thing is making itself known. Maybe there's a calibration procedure that lets the pilot to look at something and zero out any mis-alignment.

The symbology of an old HUD was absolutely glued to the airframe line of sight, and even if you couldn't see all the symbology when looking out to the left/right/behind, then BFD. The sucker was not affected by buffet, although the pilot's vision may have been, heh heh.

I am all for a HMD for off-boresight aiming and tgt acquisition.. Simply wonderful. But for basic HUD-type data I have grief. I am thinking about landing in 100 and a fourth or on a boat. So the doofer has a mis-alignment problem and you're back to the 1950's.

Next tour at Eglin I hope to try out the thing and report back, but there are actual 33rd Wing folks looking at these forums and maybe one can sign in and post using a neat, anymouse name.

I do not mean to denigrate anyone in the program, but the USAF/USN/USMC spec seems too "cosmic" to this old curmudgeon. I can't understand why the jet could not have a basic HUD and then use the HMD for neat, new things.

respectfully, Gums sends...


I'm not actually sure that the giant mega-LCD of doom has an airspeed indicator in most configurations, but I agree. It would be good to either have a conventional HUD or steam gauges as backup, or both. A one-giant-screen-and-six-button-style cockpit doesn't sound like a good sign for reliability. Steam gauges and physical switch backups may not be glamorous, but they are proven technology.


Similar utterances were made when the F-18 arrived in the early 80s. :wink:

The PCD is actually two separate 8x10" displays placed side-by-side. They run on two separate channels/display generators. The helmet runs on a third and the backup/standby display (that Spaz' post above illustrates) runs on a fourth.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2012, 02:45
by spazsinbad
Previous page on this thread has info and the associated story has more detail on the display redundancy/backup.

Old displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2012, 16:44
by Gums
Salute!

Be careful, Spaz, about commenting upon our dinosaurs' impressions of new technology and displays/controls.

Similar utterances were made when the F-18 arrived in the early 80s.


Long before the Bug entered service, we Sluf pukes were flying with the most cosmic displays and the best-integrated nav/bomb system in the world!!! Think OT&E in the 69 - 70 tome frame and operational during 1971. See my article in the FWR about the projected map.

http://sluf.org/misc_pages/fwr_winter_1973.pdf

The HUD took two seconds to love, and I mean LOVE!! Not sure if the late-model Scooters had a great HUD, but all who flew the Sluf off a boat will attest to the warm, comfortable feeling you had when coming off the cat into a dark, moonless night. Could see your flight path vector to crosscheck with the baro gauges/attitude indicator, and the "indexers" were redundant.

The Viper didn't have a simulator in 1979, so the newbies did not have a sim to prepare them as we had in the Sluf back in 1971. Same reaction a few seconds after gear up - " this is really neat".

The initial cadre for the bug was similar to our Viper cadre. About half from the Sluf, so we were used to the HUD and other advanced displays. On the Northrop-McAir lawsuit teams, only one pilot went from the F-4 to the Bug( he was on the McAir team). All others had flown the Sluf or Tomcat first. Two of us had flown the Sluf followed by either the Viper or Bug. Yeager ( on my Northrop team) had flown EVERYTHING! Heh heh.

I only flew about 4 or 5 hours in the Bug sim, but 30-40 hours in the F-20 sim. Very easy to become accustomed to, and the Bug had a better map than the Sluf, plus all the hands-on controls like the Viper and two MFD's/up front data entry/mode select on the HUD. It also had the MacIntosh "mouse" feature to select modes and such using the cursor control on the controls. Both had the neat radar feature that changed range scale when you slewed to within 5% of the top or bottom of the screen, so no need to reach up and hit a button.

So even the old dinosaurs had no problems with the new technology.

The HMD is a different breed of cat, and I have yet to run into a pilot that doesn't wish to have a minimal HUD. Not just for that "comfort" feeling, but for no-kidding FUBAR helmet problems and loss of capability to deliver ord except JDAM's.

I hope they get the thing working better, and I guess we have to play the cards we are dealt.

Gums sends...

RE: Old displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2012, 18:54
by spazsinbad
Gums, as they say in the classics 'twas not me Chief' [making dinosaur comment: "Similar utterances were made when the F-18 arrived in the early 80s. :twisted: ]. Funnily enough the Kiwi Air force referred to their original A-4Ks as 'dynosoars' when they had converted to the KAHU upgrade. Apparently particularly the new pilots - not having flown the original version - referred to it as such. As for me I have never ever seen a HUD. I thought it was a movie. :D

Have read stories and been told by e-mail by other HUD users that it is a great feature. Apparently some more recent Hornet pilots in the USN use the HUD exclusively to carrier deck land but are termed 'HUD cripples' when it don't work or when asked to use the AoA Indexer and IFLOLS exclusively. That would be all I know as an A4G pilot for example and it works well. So bear with me - I'm always astonished by all this hi-tech stuff. :D

Some people want to hold up the early Skyhawk as some paragon of virtue. It tweren't. Quickly it was realised that it needed 'stuff' so a lot of 'shite stuff' was added, which was in effect useless. The radar for one was that as well as the Nav Computer which was just a missile nav system and also useless for anything but 'which country am I in today' reference. And so it goes. I spent more time briefing then walking out and then walking back from U/S [UnServiceable - not flyable] A4Gs because that useless and other tech did not work - so we also got used to flying the aircraft with unserviceabilities that did not affect the flight. Again I'm just amazed by the serviceability record of modern aircraft. But I digress....

Our Oz BeenCounters refused to upgrade our WWII fixed (but depressable) gunsight to a Thomson-Ferranti gyro sight (which I believe was used in some more modern aircraft). So there we were 'iron bombing' and 'air to air' banner bashing with a fixed gunsight for gorsake! It was OK for AIM-9Bs though. Sigh. What was good was the ABBAJABBA (so called) All Attitude Indicator - a modern marvel compared to our earlier aircraft artificial horizons. Onesuch in the dual seat trainer Vampire was affected by gyro precession during the acceleration from nought to flying speed during takeoff which was a fatal hazard if not catered for during night takeoffs. One had to use a slightly higher than usual attitude for takeoff with a five degree left bank to counter what would be a fatal five degree nose low bank to right and into the ground - in our case as students the line of hills to the east of RAAF Pearce. One student did exactly that on his first night solo leaving an ugly burnt scar in these hills as a warning to us all. So having radios that worked and a modicum of night lighting was 'sheer looxury'. :D Otherwise visual flying was the way to go. Power plus Attitude equals Performance. Meatball Lineup and Airspeed (under one's breath - Optimum Angle of Attack). :D

Pretty much the A4G otherwise had no fancy doodads whatsoever except perhaps a radar altimeter which was only switched on once in a blue moon. The leading edge wing slats could be a hazard if not looked after but again I digress. The A-4M upgrade must have been astonishing (with HUD). The KAHU upgrade (also with an all singing all dancing HUD) apparently made that Skyhawk into an F-16 like air to air killer with the new radar being excellent by all accounts. However I have not actually seen any of this stuff meself. And Trainers? That was a tandem seat Skyhawk. Otherwise one sat in a cockpit to go through the switchology (of which there were many which could migrate around the cockpit until this practice was stopped for the left/right console switches). And when it was figured out that the radar display should be properly secured for catapults it was all good. :D

Good old days, huh?

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2012, 19:37
by Gums
Salute!

Without getting too far off-topic, I feel this is as good as any thread to review the history for the pinball wizards here who have never landed in 100 and an eighth using old attitude indicators that precessed and such. That plus no HUD or radar altimeter or ground map radar to confirm the nav system inputs by inertial or doppler ( GPS was science fiction).

Otherwise visual flying was the way to go. Power plus Attitude equals Performance. Meatball Lineup and Airspeed (under one's breath - Optimum Angle of Attack)


Until the late 80's, USAF official policy was that the HUD was not to be considered a "primary" flight instrument. If you couldn't hack it using the steam gauges, you weren't worth sh%$#. However, from 1969 or so, our ADI was run by the inertial units we had, and were not self-contained units. So we didn't have gimbal lock at 87 degrees of pitch, or precession on takeoff roll going down the deck, and the suckers showed heading ( or track when available from nav system). That, plus steering commands to get you on to the landing approach angle/track. Somehow, they didn't think about that.

The ILS steering, and I assume the carrier approaches had super displays in the Bug to keep you on the desired path, but not the AoA. Flying an ILS in the Sluf and Viper were so good that it felt like cheating. Trust me, I was weaned in the T-33 and three other steam gauge jets before getting to the Sluf. Think J-8 atttude indicator.

As with the Scooter, the A-37 had a fixed, depressed sight and we bombed using TLBAR ( that looks about right). No nav system other than TACAN and ADF. We did just fine for most missions in those days, but only thing that saved us was approach speeds at 120 knots and great maneuverability. about 1400 hours in that neat little jet, 300+ combat missions.

For Spaz and others, go hunt my series of posts about the Sluf being ahead of its time.

Believe it or not, even some of the dinosaurs in the first Shutttle group did not like the HUD when first introduced. My roomie took over the effort during the Challenger stand down and got a "real" HUD for the beast, and the old farts recanted. Simple solution. He let them see the Sluf and Jaguar HUDs in action. The NASA computer folks were using crappy time constants, external processing for all the symbology position, slow update rates, etc. The display jumped about, as it was not properly synched with everything, filters and time lags were FUBAR, and the beat goes on.

The point about HUD cripples is my very point.

The F-35 does not have a reliable, simple back-up when the HMD goes to lala lala land and the flat screens are fried by an electrical mal that didn't affect the back-up stuff, etc. Sad part is that there are many self-contained instruments that didn't need a nickel of R&D $$$ to use, and the cockpit space would have allowed them.

Good thread.

Gums sends...

RE: Good old days, huh?

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2012, 20:00
by spazsinbad
Gums, as indicated on another thread... There is a concern about 'backups' such as an AoA Indexer for 'hud uncripple' ('HUD Cripple' not my term - just repeating what is said a lot by USN LSOs etc.) F-35C carrier landings using the IFLOLS (mirror) only.

On the 'shuttle' topic. I saw an online video 'through their HUD' of an actual landing. Mighty impressive glideslope. Similar I guess to any delta wing (such as A-4) HPA (High Precautionary Approach) with a dead engine. Perhaps used not a lot in real life but fun to practice! :D

The F-35 Standby Flight Display is fine for 'head down' instrument flying but for carrier landings it is 'heads out' MLA (meatball, lineup and airspeed etc.). Perhaps the JPALS precision instrument approach will suffice for loss of the main display. I'll have to read the NATOPS. :D

And Gums, yes I recall reading your posts about SLUF over the last several years and good ones they were also. Thanks for your insights into all this tech from your 'olde worlde' perspective. Sometimes the olden tymes were not so excellent as newbies imagine - as long as the new stuff works reliably - which it seems to do.

There are good stories in USN APPROACH Safety Magazine about 'no HUD' Hornet carrier approaches or similar caused by 'smoke in cockpit' or simple malfunctions. Always good to be able to fly with the basics.

RE: Good old days, huh?

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2012, 20:51
by spazsinbad
FWIW here is an HUD view of RW 26 at NAS Nowra in FSX Acceleration with the KAHU upgrade - this HUD is said to be accurate (in limitations of the flightsim of course). & a WickedPedia reference about KAHU upgrade:

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

RE: Good old days, huh?

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2012, 20:59
by spazsinbad
Approach / March, 2003

No-HUD nugget - head up display - troubleshooting instead of flying by Dan Cochran

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... 100172332/
_________________________________

Approach / Jan, 2002
No HUD and counting on the paddles upgrade!
I noticed my heads up display began to flicker before eventually kicking off-line - HUD - F-18 flight mission, Iraq
by Joe Alden

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _84090767/

Re: RE: Good old days, huh?

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2012, 21:18
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:... Perhaps the JPALS precision instrument approach will suffice for loss of the main display. I'll have to read the NATOPS. :D
...There are good stories in USN APPROACH Safety Magazine about 'no HUD' Hornet carrier approaches or similar caused by 'smoke in cockpit' or simple malfunctions. Always good to be able to fly with the basics.


http://defensetech.org/2011/07/07/navy- ... rrier-ops/

On July 2, the F/A-18 (shown above) performed dozens of arrested landings without any input from the pilot in the Atlantic Ocean off the Virginia Capes.
.. this jet simply received a command from the carrier’s air traffic control to enter the landing pattern and executed the landing all on its own; the same way a piloted jet would.... “Once he’s on his approach, we actually take (automatic) control of the aircraft via the systems we have installed (on the a/c) as part of the demo and actually the aircraft is controlled by flight [rules] we put in place, all the way down to trap,”... “There is no remote control of the aircraft, there is no pilot control of the aircraft; we’ve given it instructions and it executes those instructions.” NO HUD, no displays, no steam gauges, ....no hope!! :lol: :wink:

RE: Re: RE: Good old days, huh?

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2012, 21:27
by spazsinbad
Yes I understand that UAVs have to fly to the deck without a pilot onboard. :D However with a pilot in such circumstances when he is completely blind - night, fog, no nuttin' - then doing a 'blind' carrier landing is going to be a big ask. Anyway here is some perhap old now input into what it does take:

Approach / July, 2003
Bad-weather CV approaches - ORM corner - operational risk management and constant velocity
by Brian Schrum

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... 109130560/

"Let's stop right here and ask the question, "With the weather minimums continuing to drop, just how far along an approach can we wave an aircraft without a paddles contact?"

"Paddles contact" refers to a call the LSOs can make to "grab" an aircraft from CATCC and talk him down to the landing area. To help answer this question, here are some ORM controls for the bad-weather hazard:

1. Weather minimums for our approach.
a. For an ACLS approach and ILS with PAR
monitor, the minimums are 260 feet, one-half-mile
visibility. [extra 60 feet is for the flight deck height above the waves]
b. If ACLS and ILS are not working, minimums
are 660 feet, one and one-quarter miles for jets
and 460 feet, one mile for props.
2. CAG and squadron paddles experience levels.
3. Individual pilot training and experience levels.
4. CATCC equipment and crew experience.
5. LSO platform equipment.
6. Ship's instrument-approach equipment.

What was the status of these controls during our recovery? Approach minimums, like those we fly with at our destination airfields back home, are hard and fast. Just like at the field, if we don't see our landing area and cannot complete a safe landing, we wave off--as mandated in OPNAV 3710....

...How about Hornet pilots flying a Mode 1 approach (basically an autopilot approach to the carrier deck)? The letter of the law states that even Mode 1s can only be flown to ACLS approach minimums. A deviation would require a waiver from higher authority...."

RE: Re: RE: Good old days, huh?

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2012, 22:13
by spazsinbad
As a reminder of the future perhaps (and I agree with 'neptune' it is very likely to come about).

‘Bedford Array’ May Have F-35C Uses After All

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... caj#201204

SCROLL DOWN to specifically:
WHAT THE FUTURE BEHOLDS... VX-23 Salty Dogs

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... st2011.pdf (1.7Mb)

"C-2, E-2, and Prowler pilots, have you ever made fun of a Hornet guy for declaring an emergency at the boat for a HUD failure? Doesn't everyone realize that the HUD is our primary attitude reference? Have you ever thought less of someone for doing a Mode I? Well things are about to get better or worse, depending on how you look at it. This month's article is about the Tomorrowland projects coming down the pipe...."

Complete text with explanatory graphics on the thread page.

Back ups, et al

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2012, 22:24
by Gums
Salute!

@ neptune

There's the "abort" button for the drone pilot. I assume the drone goes to some alt and course for the next attempt. And remember, "drones are fearless".

For all:

Sometimes the cosmic systems make things easier when the old stuff fails.

To wit:

So one day with solid WX from 15K down to maybe 1500 feet, started down to a st-in ILS approach at the Beach. About 12K the airspeed began to increase from 300 kt and altitude remained at about 12K. The pitot-static heaters had failed.

Not to fear. The inertial data was independent and still good. So used basic power setting for the descent and flight path vector in the HUD and on the ADI. Groundspeed data from inertial was still valid, so I didn't get slow or fast.

About 5 or 6K the air data came back and no big deal. If the freezing level had been down real low, then the HUD would have been critical.

Gums sends...

RE: Back ups, et al

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2012, 22:50
by spazsinbad
Gums, you remind me of the recent Air France accident when pitot icing brought down the aircraft with pilots unaware of the bad situation they were in. Anyway I have a mass of stuff so bear with my often late additions of extra info to threads. Here is an F-35 front panel graphic from the LSO Newsletter July 2011 showing the actual position of the SFD Standby Flight Display:

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... ly2011.pdf (3Mb)

This July 2011 LSO Newsletter is referred to in the first page of this thread about 'Bedford Array' and potential use in USN etc.:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ham#199972
_____________________

I did not realise that the Main Display has the 'HUD' in it as shown from same newsletter above PLUS zoom of the HUD portion added.

RE: Back ups, et al

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2012, 23:46
by meatshield
How many billion has been spent on this Bird? And that's the best graphics they could come up with??? :doh:

RE: Back ups, et al

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2012, 23:53
by SpudmanWP
More graphics requires more coding, more CPU power to display, more energy to process, and more money.

No thanks

RE: Back ups, et al

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2012, 00:16
by meatshield
I'm hoping it's a dumbed down version for display only.

RE: Back ups, et al

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2012, 00:29
by spazsinbad
meatshield, perhaps you might think about the process under which the graphics above have been processed. I would guess that a hand held camera took the F-35 PCD photo not under ideal conditions. Then it was used in Microsoft Publisher to make a poor quality PDF (yes I can tell these things from the LSO newsletter PDF). Then I have zoomed into the PDF on screen to make a screenshot which has then been made into a .GIF graphic. No wonder the quality is CRAP! <sarcasm> Oh and I forgot once the .GIF graphic is uploaded to this website it is displayed in a dumbed down way - not the same as if one would download the graphic to view on your own computer. Of course real life viewing would be best but I cannot arrange that - not even for myself.

IF you refer to the quality of the symbology seen then keep in mind that it can all be zoomed by the pilot and adjusted for suitable viewing. What is really important will be displayed on the HMDS whilst the PCD is for 'head down' flying only. Computers find/select suitable targets and screen out irrelevant material. The pilot is familiar with what is displayed whereas we do not have that same familiarity. It is all meant to be recognisable (with training) in an instant. Go back to previous page to read about quality/brightness and presumably quality of display.

RE: Back ups, et al

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2012, 01:47
by spazsinbad
Of course no one would expect to fly (except in a warbird) with such woeful instrumentation today but it was useful to ponder with head down instrument flying that one's hand on control column obscured the Attitude Indicator (this is the one with Gyro Precession - the later Sea Venom did not have this problem)! This JPG is of the dual Vampire trainer setup. The three needle altimeter was also an acknowledged killer. It was easy to misread the smallest thickest needle if it happened to be obscured by the others - hence possible to misread altimeter by 10,000 feet which is likely what happened to one chap over the water at night on an instrument approach back to NAS Nowra.

RE: Back ups, et al

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2012, 02:45
by alloycowboy
For the F-35 cockpit display, you want the symbology as simple as possible. There is nothing gained by graphic intensive symbology which floods the cockpit with light and ruins the pilots night vision.

Image

Re: RE: Back ups, et al

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2012, 14:49
by quicksilver
alloycowboy wrote:For the F-35 cockpit display, you want the symbology as simple as possible. There is nothing gained by graphic intensive symbology which floods the cockpit with light and ruins the pilots night vision.

Image


Shack.

Would also add that excessive light and/or poorly conceived cockpit lighting create reflections on the inside of the canopy that can diminish NVC/NVG performance.

Cowboy's pics show some representative 'admin' displays only. Important to note that each 8x10 can be divided into as many as six separate display tiles (one larger on top, 2 smaller at the bottom -- times 2), one large display on each 8x10, or combinations thereof.

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2012, 15:38
by popcorn
Hopefully helmet fires will be a thing of the past with the F-35.

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2012, 19:43
by outlaw162
Hopefully helmet fires will be a thing of the past with the F-35.


I've heard of fighter pilots in the older jets flying around with their 'hair on fire'. :shock:

Re: RE: Back ups, et al

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2012, 00:02
by meatshield
alloycowboy wrote:For the F-35 cockpit display, you want the symbology as simple as possible. There is nothing gained by graphic intensive symbology which floods the cockpit with light and ruins the pilots night vision.

Image


Yep I get that.

I work in heavy industry(power station) and we used similar type of graphics for our HMI 20 years ago! We also had a light pen instead of a mouse to use it. My point is modern HMI in industry today are light years ahead for what those screens look like. Current Fighter pilots might like it that way for a reason but I bet the next generation coming out of school today will look at that and think they can get a better display on a nintendo!

I read an article about the upgrades to the SH and the displays in the PR stuff showed colour 3d screen showing threats from ememy radar. Display was simple, clear, modern and 3d. I thought the F35 would have something like that.

I'm not trying to argue with anyone but if bought a f35 for .............(insert price here!) then I would have thought the displays were going to be cutting edge.

RE: Re: RE: Back ups, et al

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2012, 00:12
by spazsinbad
'meatshield' how about you show us (or show us where to get it) this SH PR stuff display to illustrate what you mean? Thanks.

Here is a video screenshot about a HORNET trainer - I don't know fidelity of display though.

F/A -18c Cockpit Module
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... p_8GV-HvVg

The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2012, 00:53
by Gums
Salute!

Hard as it to believe, we had folks back in 1972 that turned off the 'scales" that showed speed and altitude. Real simple HUD display, with only flight path marker, pitch lines, heading doofer at the top and the AoA bracket if you pulled hard or were slow.

The Viper had a similar de-clutter mode.

The new Viper HUD is extremely busy, and I hope there's a way to get rid of lottsa stuff.

Someone here pointed out the "information overload" concern. This is a topic worthy of discussion on a whole new thread, IMHO.

Problem we had back in the 80's was the tendency for the pilots to try to look at all the stuff that was presented. Before the new, cosmic displays we had to look at individual instruments and such. It was easy to mentally de-clutter. Just not look at the gauge.

I have yet to see what info is displayed in the F-35 HMD, and hope to see it next month. I will be sad if there's a whole bunch of useless crap for the tactical situation at hand.

Gums sends...

P.S. How many folks here other than Outlaw have flown a jet with a great HUD?

RE: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2012, 01:09
by spazsinbad
Gums if you can relate / show what is displaye on the HMDS that would be great. Thanks. AFAIK the HMDS is seemingly a simple display. I have seen some vague text descriptions but don't recall those vague details right now.

Here is an example from: (which is on this thread somewhere AFAIK - nope it is on this following thread) [UKmodINmuddle]: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... elm#203571

Helm

http://www.f35netherlands.nl/f-35-technische-data/helm/

"...“We’ve taken pieces that are essential for combat operations, such as targeting information, crucial flight measurements, and night vision capability, and merged them into the helmet to give the pilots more complete situational awareness.”

The helmet-mounted display system, or HMDS, displays head-steerable symbology, meaning the pilot’s line of sight dictates the content that appears on the visor. As soon as, or even before, a pilot sees another aircraft in the distance, the system projects a marker on the visor to locate, identify, and track the aircraft. If the designated aircraft is determined to be hostile, the pilot can use the targeting info to cue weapons—without looking down at the cockpit displays and while pulling g’s.

“No matter where pilots look, they have all the flight information right in front of their eyes,” says Dave Perkins, lead engineer of HMDS integration. “The helmet displays airspeed, altitude, rate of climb, and the aiming information for all the weapons. The helmet even displays all the information needed should something go wrong. For example, it provides an alert and directs the pilot’s attention if there’s something nasty coming from the nose of the airplane while the pilot is looking somewhere else.”...
&
"...For the display to correlate with what direction the pilot is looking, a magnetic field in the cockpit senses the direction the helmet is pointing. A transmitter on the seat emits the field while a receiver on the helmet reads the magnetic flux as it moves in that field. “Most HMD systems require pilots to go through an alignment process before each flight,” explains Beesley. “They may have to realign the system several times during a flight because the systems can drift. This magnetic tracking system makes all the corrections itself, so that we pilots never have to adjust the alignment.”...
&
"...“At first we keep things easy because the helmet is new,” he says of the training process. “Pilots train some with the HMD in the simulator, but it falls short of what it’s like to really fly. One of the best testimonies I’ve heard is that, after they’ve flown for a while, pilots forget they’re flying with the symbols on their heads.”
_______________

‘Such A Capable Helmet’ July 1, 2010 [same article referred to on this thread: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ble#205993]

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/c ... 68788.html

"...(HMDS) that superimposes flight and target symbology on the view seen through the pilot’s helmet visor. This virtual Head-Up Display slews sensors and weapons to pilot head movements, and it enables the wearer to de-clutter the picture and zoom into targets with hands on sidestick and throttle."... [and voice commands]
&
"...Target analysis and designation are done largely on the cockpit display...."
&
"...In production fighters, the pilot will see symbology created by Lockheed Martin. “Those same symbols that he sees in the cockpit are replicated in front of his face,” said Brugal.

Without the color cues available on head-down displays, Lockheed Martin engineers flag items with flashing, cross-hatching and other man-machine interface tricks...."
&
"...In contrast to the monocular JHMCS, the binocular HMDS covers a 30 by 40 degree field of view and supplements projected day and night video with raster-like symbology. The field of view is determined by packaging tradeoffs. “You have a limited amount of space available on the pilot’s head,” Brugal said. “You can only displace those projectors so many degrees. Displace them farther, and the helmet gets very wide and causes interference.”...

...The pilot can turn EO DAS helmet imagery on or off and stabilize the image at a given point to look away, study targets on the head-down display and return to the head-up scene. The HMDS also cues the pilot to air and ground threats outside the immediate field of view...."

"...AN/APG-81 radar generates HMDS cues for the pilot in combat. The high-resolution radar with Ground Moving Target Indicator functions zooms into ground targets or tracks and prioritizes targets in the air. “It’s really a target designator, whether it be an air-to-air target or a designated point on the ground. Any of that stuff can be put on that symbology on the HUD. You have an arrow pointing to that target in space,”...

RE: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2012, 03:29
by spazsinbad
Gums, it will be interesting also to know if this video simulation? of the HMDS display is accurate. Thanks. See page 6 of this thread for: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-75.html

StrikeEye (F-35B) - Mission 9.mov
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 0AXb2LFw84 (found by 'alloycowboy')

There are three screenshots from the video on that page also.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2012, 10:34
by Gums
Salute!

Great video from the PR folks about the HMD.

It's what I expect - a "virtual" HUD when the pilot looks toward the front. And it does not appear to be cluttered. Over the years the Viper HUD added more and more stuff, but at least the pilot could de-clutter.

One thing we helped the newbies with was to concentrate on the essential data in the HUD and on the displays. Don't try to contemplate all the data from all the sources. Let your mind "de-clutter". A "busy" display has its human factor problems. So the pilot needs a means of restricting data that is not relevant to the task at hand. Ya think?

I am trying my best to get into the sim at Eglin and provide a no sierra report to this august body of F-35 fanatics, heh heh. I have some serious payback checks to cash, so the goal is within reach.

I'll keep on keeping on.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2012, 14:12
by fiskerwad
Morning!
And it is not just the HUD, the MFD pages in the Viper had declutter settings, too. As developers it was our job to provide as much information as possible but still allow the actual user to tailor what he wanted to see. More is not always better.
fisk

Re: Back ups, et al

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2012, 19:09
by neptune
Gums wrote:..There's the "abort" button for the drone pilot. I assume the drone goes to some alt and course for the next attempt. And remember, "drones are fearless"....


..the drone should rtb for armament or "end of mission". Aborting would be by the LSO, with the fearless drone hook accuracy is within inches of "the wire". With the BAMS flying for 30 hours, a "broken" drone could return to land with tanking. This "automatic landing stuff" will be available to all tailhooks (COD, F-18, UCAS) as additional options or info for the aviator to rtb. The F-18 that has flown this system is the only one with actual experience. :)

Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2012, 23:53
by Orangeburst
Gums wrote:Salute!

P.S. How many folks here other than Outlaw have flown a jet with a great HUD?


Gums..

I have never flown a jet with a HUD, but had quite a bit of experience with my personal remote control flyer, ie drone. All I used was (2) MK 1's. Sometimes just one when the sun was bright.

None of those shmancy high tech gimos. Never even botherd too look at any gauges. Just pure flyin ability, I tell ya. Until I crashed it. Luckily, I walked away unharmed.

RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2012, 00:42
by spazsinbad
Chapter 5
Head-Mounted Displays
by James E. Melzer | Kaiser Electro-Optics Inc.

www.davi.ws/avionics/TheAvionicsHandbook_Cap_5.pdf (2.6Mb) JHMCS

"...U.S. Air Force and Navy’s Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System helmet-mounted display..."

RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2012, 08:01
by spazsinbad
RHINO (Super Hornet) Cockpit (somehow better than F-35?). As usual the graphic quality is not good because of the many processes under which it has been put (see earlier post). ['meatshield' complaint here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-135.html SCROLL DOWN]

Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2012, 14:53
by sprstdlyscottsmn
spazsinbad wrote:Chapter 5
Head-Mounted Displays
by James E. Melzer | Kaiser Electro-Optics Inc.

www.davi.ws/avionics/TheAvionicsHandbook_Cap_5.pdf (2.6Mb) JHMCS

"...U.S. Air Force and Navy’s Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System helmet-mounted display..."


So I see heading, speed (KIAS and Mach), Altitude, horizon, boresight, weapon selected, target direction indicator, taget box, target alt, target distance, and some other things I can't be sure of at this point. And it looks clear-cut to me.

RE: Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2012, 21:24
by spazsinbad
This recent F-35 simulator view from a recent UK article suggests what the pilot sees with the HMDS HUD view superimposed over the runway in the simulator: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/ ... 34x445.jpg Caption: "Instrumentation inside the cockpit of an F-35 simulator"

RE: Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2012, 22:50
by F16VIPER
CodeOnemagazine has published a series of fotographs of the pilots wearing their flightgear.
Very interesting
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_ ... em_id=1692
Does anyone have clear, sharp photos of the white taped helmets.
F16VIPER

RE: Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2012, 23:37
by spazsinbad
Apart from white helmet style HMDS II photos on this thread there is only one other AFAIK here - and good luck with the 'clear/sharp':

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-180.html
http://www.f-16.net/attachments/rusnok_ ... 4b_919.jpg

Image

Another ordinary style view: http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_lrg/f35helmet-3.jpg

RE: Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2012, 23:56
by SpudmanWP
Image

RE: Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2012, 01:01
by spazsinbad

RE: Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2012, 01:36
by spazsinbad
Probably too blurry but a zoom from: http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 37-524.jpg
from this thread: First Deck Landing F-35B / USS Wasp
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-75.html

on same thread as above there is this one:
http://www.f-16.net/attachments/aw_6_fi ... l2_139.png
also probably the worst white helmet photo in this mix:
http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f_35bhm ... ot_139.jpg
and of course this one also repeated above (but youse knew that):
http://www.f-16.net/attachments/rusnok_ ... 4b_919.jpg

RE: Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2012, 23:44
by spazsinbad
This bit about DAS fix is repeated elsewhere but added here for archive purposes:
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 587#217587

Lockheed Martin Releases F-35 Testing Records 23 Feb 2012 by Tamir Eshel

http://defense-update.com/20120223_f35_ ... +Update%29

"...Performance issues associated with DAS have limited the use of the F-35 unique helmet display and sight, developed for the program by VSI. The sight was designed to use DAS live image feeds to display the outside view for the pilot, alleviating the need for night vision goggles for night flight. BAE Systems and VSI were asked to work on temporary solutions using NVG, to provide a near-term solution. However, using NVG on top of the standard helmet will limit the use of the sophisticated display and information fusion capabilities that make the F-35 unique. Therefore, it is anticipated that the objective helmet will be reinstated once DAS will deliver imaging within the required spec. Among the fix being considered are fixed camera mounted in the cockpit, and another, coupled to the helmet, both reducing the latency of night imagery imported from the DAS...."

RE: Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2012, 00:00
by spazsinbad
A long informative article here but only the last few paragraphs are excerpted because the issues have been canvassed already but please go read the article if interested. Thanks.

BAE Drives Dual Approach To Fixing F-35 Helmet Display Issues Singapore Air Show » February 15, 2012

http://www.ainonline.com/node/102293

"...Should VSI resolve development problems with its Gen II HMDS, BAE’s alternate system likely would be terminated, said Cooke, adding, “I don’t believe it’s anybody’s intent to fly indefinitely with a night-vision goggle based solution.” But achieving the same night-vision acuity with digital inputs now possible with analog NVGs may still be years away, he said.

“The fact of the matter is, the digital input devices to visor-projected helmets, the kind of solution that allows you to eliminate night-vision goggles, the number of pixels are not equivalent to the picture you get on an analog night-vision goggle today,” Cooke said. “They will be at some point. But the bottom line is the pilots are not willing to trade that visual acuity and the clarity of the picture they get on a night-vision goggle for what the digital input devices can deliver today.

“The real limiting factor is not the VSI helmet, I think it’s really the digital input devices that generate the picture,” he said. “Until they’re equivalent or better than the analog, I think that you’re going to see night-vision goggles remain part of the equation.”

Preliminary design review of the alternate helmet display is scheduled for early this year. BAE said it will begin delivering test assets in 2012 to support F-35 integration laboratories, flight simulators and flight-test platforms.”

Caption: "BAE Systems’ alternate helmet-mounted display system for the F-35, below, would combine Q-Sight display in front of the eye with pull-down night-vision goggles."

http://www.ainonline.com/sites/ainonlin ... isplay.jpg

RE: Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2012, 06:18
by spazsinbad
Big Week for JSF Jan 20, 2012 By Jay Friess | Editor

http://lexleader.net/dote-report-f35-jsf/

“...The [DOTE 2011] report specifically called out the aircraft’s new helmet, which integrates sensor input and the jet’s displays into a single field of vision for the pilot. The report noted the plane’s “poor performance in the human systems integration (e.g. helmet-mounted display, night vision capability)” as a factor that needs to be addressed to pass its operational assessment.

“We get what some pilots call jitter,” Norman admitted at the Lockheed press event, referring to test pilot reports of the helmet lagging and getting out of sync. But he said the problem is overblown and is being addressed. He said press reports of the helmet under-performing is “not the full picture of what’s going on with the helmet.”

Bill Gigliotti, a Lockheed test pilot stationed at Pax River, stated that engineers are adding micro intertial measurement units to the helmet to help its reaction time and stability. “We love the helmet, and we’d rather have the helmet,” Gigliotti claimed, stating that the helmet is intuitive to use and displays information in a better way than traditional displays....”

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2012, 19:40
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:[..........Bill Gigliotti, a Lockheed test pilot ...stability. “We love the helmet, and we’d rather have the helmet,” ..the helmet is intuitive to use and displays information in a better way than traditional displays......”


It is interesting that the F-35 helmet problem solutions willl further enhance the helmet display industry and lead to better helmets for both planes and helos. I'm relieved to hear the progression of development in the "night vision" is total integration without some "kluge" of existing limited goggles. Star Lite technology was from my teenage years, googles are for civilians, and us "old timers". :lol:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2012, 17:07
by archeman
spazsinbad wrote:Caption: "BAE Systems’ alternate helmet-mounted display system for the F-35, below, would combine Q-Sight display in front of the eye with pull-down night-vision goggles."

http://www.ainonline.com/sites/ainonlin ... isplay.jpg


Hey Spaz, it looks like that helmet mounted display is coming apart already!
I can't belive that the pin is falling out for the publicity photo

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2012, 17:32
by SpudmanWP
I can't believe the inserted the pin from the bottom instead from the top.

But yeah, LMAO. :)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2012, 22:03
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Martin Awaits U.K. F-35 Decision Mar 13, 2012 By Robert Wall

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... e=Lockheed Martin Awaits U.K. F-35 Decision

"...O’Bryan notes that progress also is being made on fixing helmet problems, although work on an alternative helmet display will continue until there is certainty the existing issues are worked out.

Vibration problems that led to jitter are being addressed through the introduction of inertial measurement units to cancel out the vibration, while a new infrared camera as part of the distributed aperture system ahead of the cockpit is being eyed to aid landing of the F-35B aboard ships in lights-out conditions...."

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2012, 22:16
by spazsinbad
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (Public)
FRIDAY, 16 MARCH 2012

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... 8e/0000%22 (.8Mb)

Starting from Page 62 seems relevant: [I guess we have to ginore teh spullin from Oz {Australia}] :-)

"...Air Vice Marshal Osley: It is the first aeroplane that has three things, basically, in it. It has no head-up displays, so it has the ability to display aircraft data so you can fly the aeroplane in instrument met conditions. Also it has a sight so that you can drop bombs through the helmut—and that has been on other helmuts before. But, most importantly, it also displays all your sensor information, so basically as you look around the environment around you—360 degrees around the aeroplane—even at night or in poor conditions, you will basically see a representation of the Earth around you. Superimposed over that are threats and friendly forces out there. So it is quite an incredible amount of information coming through the helmut.

The issue with that is that by the time you put all that information through the helmut you end up with a delay—a latency in the helmut. They have now demonstrated that that latency is not impacting the ability of the pilot to do normal tasks out there. They have had pilots, with that delay in the helmut, landing on simulated LHDs, doing tasks such as low-level flight and strafe, and so far that has been good. The only occasion on which there has been a problem whereby the latency became an issue was night air refuelling against a tanker using the probe and the basket with the lights out on the tanker. We do not do that, and I do not think the United States Air Force would regularly do that either. It would only be done if you were trying to do night refuelling in a hostile area at relatively low altitude. So the latency does not really appear to be an issue with the helmut.

The second thing that came up was jitter. Because the seat moves when you are pulling a lot of G, the helmut display is not compensated for, so you get some jitter, and it makes it hard to read at high angles of attack when you are pulling G. They have put an accelerometer on the seat to measure that and then compensated for it in the helmut, and that appears to be working. Either way, they have an alternate path that the United States military is going to fund. So we are not funding it, but it is all being done as part of the SDD phase—the development phase. They are taking some of the sensor data away and putting night vision goggles on the outside of one of the helmuts, and everything else remains the same. That is there as a risk mitigator. They will keep doing both paths until they get to a decision point, which will probably be the end of next year, and they will probably make a decision to cancel the alternate path and just proceed with the other path. So that is the current status of it. But so far it is showing quite good promise with the things they have done with it...."

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: The de-clutter doofer

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2012, 23:53
by count_to_10
So, when do we get a video game accessory that can do this?

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2012, 01:32
by popcorn
Aside from the night refuelling scenario, it would appear that the display system is adequate for "normal tasks" i.e. Navigation, landing, even strafing ground targets. My concern would be how the latency performance issues previously identified affect pilot awareness and performance in a more demanding scenario e.g. WVR 1V1, 1V2 etc. No doubt such tests to stress the system are in the cards.

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2012, 01:37
by spazsinbad
These improvements with further testing have been mentioned on this thread but how far along not stated. On a similar note and probably not worthy of the OBOGS thread here is a snipped of news about research on jitter but not just for F-35....

AF-Navy collaborate to find answers on hypoxia | Units are working to solve a ‘common issue’ for military pilots. By Barrie Barber, March 25, 2012

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/day ... 49794.html

"...The Navy brought one-of-a-kind machines that mimic conditions in flight to test human limits. An Air Force Institute of Technology researcher, for example, will use the Navy’s 12-foot-tall Vertical Linear Accelerator on base to test more effective ways to keep an image stable, such as on a Heads Up Display during vibration in an aircraft, Simmons said.

A Heads Up Display beams flight data, such as speed and altitude, on a windscreen in front of a pilot. Vibration during flight can be a particular problem in helicopters, said Simmons, a physiologist and an aviator...."

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2012, 21:15
by spazsinbad
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (Public) FRIDAY, 20 MARCH 2012 (0.5Mb PDF)

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... 70/0000%22

"...Mr Burbage:...The helmet itself is an element of the mission system. It is new technology that allows the sensors on the airplane to pull up information and project that on the pilot's visor. The helmet has been flying on the airplane since 2007. Only seven of the 1,800 flights that we have had were without the helmet—all the others have had a helmet. The pilots like the helmet and say it is performing quite well. The question in front of the group today is whether, when we get into night flying, the acuity of the images that are pulled in from the sensors on the outside of the airplane are accurate enough to do an all lights-out landing on a small ship in a rough sea state, or to do tanking behind an airplane that has not lights on. Those are the two high gain tests.

Today, there are night vision goggles in use but this is a 5th-gen airplane and we do not want to have night vision goggles if we can avoid them. We are currently looking at an alternative path that, if those sensors are deemed not adequate for those two tasks, there is a possibility to use some night vision goggles. But the helmet is tracking. You saw the pilot wearing it in the movie and that is the actual helmet he wears in the airplane. All of these are part of the development program and the helmet is part of the mission system. It no longer just protects the cranium of the pilot.

Mr McCoy: Mal Norman, the chief test pilot, told me that the visual out of this thing is very significantly different compared to night vision goggles, when you look through a tube. He said that the flight literally turns night into day—it is incredible...."
_____________

...Mr Burbage: We have just started flying the aeroplane at night, just now. We have not done a refuelling at night [at this time]. You may be referring to the tasks that were done in the simulator with the helmet. It is a high-gain task. We are not tanking on a blacked-out aeroplane right now, but one of the tasks in the future would be to be able to tank behind an aeroplane that has no lights on and see whether or not the helmet gives a pilot enough visual acuity to maintain station while he is being refuelled. So that is all in simulation now. We are not actually doing it in flight tests. All of the aeroplanes, all three versions, have been fully qualified behind the tankers, and there is no problem tanking the aeroplanes themselves. It is a matter of whether the pilot can maintain his station using the sensors on the aeroplane that are displayed on his helmet...."

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2012, 00:12
by spazsinbad
http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589695.pdf (13.6Mb)
OR
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-15765.html (0.3Mb) 2 page PDF

Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs GAO-12-400SP, Mar 29, 2012
F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)
Program Office Comments

"...In reference to the helmet, officials explained that due to the need to demonstrate at the milestone B recertification that all technologies had been demonstrated in at least a relevant environment, the program is adding a second helmet as a risk-reduction effort while continuing to improve the first helmet. The program has a plan to mitigate development risks for the original helmet through developmental testing. DOD also provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate."

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2012, 06:24
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Martin Awaits UK F-35 Decision Aviation Week's DTI | Robert Wall | March 13, 2012
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,242692,00.html

"...O'Bryan notes that progress also is being made on fixing helmet problems, although work on an alternative helmet display will continue until there is certainty the existing issues are worked out.

Vibration problems that led to jitter are being addressed through the introduction of inertial measurement units to cancel out the vibration, while a new infrared camera as part of the distributed aperture system ahead of the cockpit is being eyed to aid landing of the F-35B aboard ships in lights-out conditions...."

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2012, 04:01
by spazsinbad
A White Paper By: Lockheed Martin An Overview of The F-35 Cockpit

http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/an-o ... all-about/

"...Currently, the helmet is working well but with any new technology there are developmental challenges. Mitigation pathways for the issues facing the helmet have been developed and are being implemented. The fact is that the helmet is already in use and the reviews from the pilots are overwhelmingly positive. One pilot went so far as to say, “I could fly the whole mission with a helmet bag over the top of my head and just look through the sensors and fly the airplane safely.” :D

Another pilot recently stated, “I wouldn’t go back to a fixed HUD (Head-Up Display). It is clear that the potential of the helmet and what it’s going to be able to do for the war fighter is overwhelmingly positive and I would never want to go back."..."


Graphic from the .PPTX file at:
http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/t ... t/download

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2012, 04:25
by SpudmanWP
That's what I call HOBS... over the shoulder AAM launch :)

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2012, 05:12
by popcorn
So how dumbed down are those graphics from the real thing?

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2012, 05:24
by spazsinbad
This is the HMDS which is simple so as to not confuse the pilot, HMDS shows only vital info. A previous entry describes some of it here [also repleated on another thread: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... elm#203571]:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-150.html

This Thread Page entry replicated here below:

Helm

http://www.f35netherlands.nl/f-35-technische-data/helm/

"...“We’ve taken pieces that are essential for combat operations, such as targeting information, crucial flight measurements, and night vision capability, and merged them into the helmet to give the pilots more complete situational awareness.”

The helmet-mounted display system, or HMDS, displays head-steerable symbology, meaning the pilot’s line of sight dictates the content that appears on the visor. As soon as, or even before, a pilot sees another aircraft in the distance, the system projects a marker on the visor to locate, identify, and track the aircraft. If the designated aircraft is determined to be hostile, the pilot can use the targeting info to cue weapons—without looking down at the cockpit displays and while pulling g’s.

“No matter where pilots look, they have all the flight information right in front of their eyes,” says Dave Perkins, lead engineer of HMDS integration. “The helmet displays airspeed, altitude, rate of climb, and the aiming information for all the weapons. The helmet even displays all the information needed should something go wrong. For example, it provides an alert and directs the pilot’s attention if there’s something nasty coming from the nose of the airplane while the pilot is looking somewhere else.”...
&
"...For the display to correlate with what direction the pilot is looking, a magnetic field in the cockpit senses the direction the helmet is pointing. A transmitter on the seat emits the field while a receiver on the helmet reads the magnetic flux as it moves in that field. “Most HMD systems require pilots to go through an alignment process before each flight,” explains Beesley. “They may have to realign the system several times during a flight because the systems can drift. This magnetic tracking system makes all the corrections itself, so that we pilots never have to adjust the alignment.”...
&
"...“At first we keep things easy because the helmet is new,” he says of the training process. “Pilots train some with the HMD in the simulator, but it falls short of what it’s like to really fly. One of the best testimonies I’ve heard is that, after they’ve flown for a while, pilots forget they’re flying with the symbols on their heads.”
_______________

‘Such A Capable Helmet’ July 1, 2010 [same article referred to on this thread: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... le#205993]

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/c ... 68788.html

"...(HMDS) that superimposes flight and target symbology on the view seen through the pilot’s helmet visor. This virtual Head-Up Display slews sensors and weapons to pilot head movements, and it enables the wearer to de-clutter the picture and zoom into targets with hands on sidestick and throttle."... [and voice commands]
&
"...Target analysis and designation are done largely on the cockpit display...."
&
"...In production fighters, the pilot will see symbology created by Lockheed Martin. “Those same symbols that he sees in the cockpit are replicated in front of his face,” said Brugal.

Without the color cues available on head-down displays, Lockheed Martin engineers flag items with flashing, cross-hatching and other man-machine interface tricks...."
&
"...In contrast to the monocular JHMCS, the binocular HMDS covers a 30 by 40 degree field of view and supplements projected day and night video with raster-like symbology. The field of view is determined by packaging tradeoffs. “You have a limited amount of space available on the pilot’s head,” Brugal said. “You can only displace those projectors so many degrees. Displace them farther, and the helmet gets very wide and causes interference.”...

...The pilot can turn EO DAS helmet imagery on or off and stabilize the image at a given point to look away, study targets on the head-down display and return to the head-up scene. The HMDS also cues the pilot to air and ground threats outside the immediate field of view...."

"...AN/APG-81 radar generates HMDS cues for the pilot in combat. The high-resolution radar with Ground Moving Target Indicator functions zooms into ground targets or tracks and prioritizes targets in the air. “It’s really a target designator, whether it be an air-to-air target or a designated point on the ground. Any of that stuff can be put on that symbology on the HUD. You have an arrow pointing to that target in space,”...

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2012, 05:40
by popcorn
I didn't realize that the HMDS is monochromatic.

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2012, 09:38
by spazsinbad
SLDinfo has got to be one of the most weirdly designed websites. IMHO. :D Found this extra info in the WHITE PAPER section here:

The F-35 Cockpit: Enabling the Pilot as a Tactical Decision Maker
Dr. Michael L. Skaff created this briefing. Skaff described his background in a recent interview as follows: I was an F-16 pilot out of the Air Force Academy. I was prior enlisted, and I’ve been with Lockheed Martin for about 23 years working on the F-35 cockpit since ’95. I flew out of MacDill, Shaw, and Luke during the Cold War. For a full discussion with Skaff regarding the baseline F-35 please see:
[http://www.sldinfo.com/understanding-the-basic-f-35-what-is-in-the-baseline-aircraft/]

http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the- ... ion-maker/

End of page quote below is about the last two graphics as seen above (13th & 14th slides).

"...The HMD with vHUD opens the view into over 41000 square degrees. This is the full sphere surrounding the aircraft.

The thirteenth slide provides an example of the vHUD when the pilot looks directly forward where a physical HUD would be. F-35 pilots report that in about 10 minutes they become accustomed to the vHUD. The pilots recognize the potential improvements in lethality and survivability of the HMD.

The final slide provides an example of off axis symbology. In general, Lockheed only take key flight parameters and tactical symbology off axis. In the future Lockheed will investigate off axis attitude awareness symbology. The mil standards don’t yet address HMDs and off axis symbolgy. Lockheed will work with the Services to improve and update The standard as well as the HMD symbology."

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2012, 18:00
by Gums
Salute!

TNX for the graphics, Spaz.

The "virtual" HUD when looking forward is interesting for a few reasons.

- Notice no "tapes" for altitude and speed, just digital readouts.

- Vertical velocity seems to be a "tape" on right side, with an indication of radar alt besides baro

- De-clutter on some data might be in order, but field-of-view is so great that it may not be a biggie.

- Note that when not looking forward ( where the jet's velocity vector is) much of the data is de-cluttered. This is prolly for tgt/theat acquisition and such

I see much of the Viper approach we had after first few sfwe changes.

Would love to see the "look thru the floor" view for the Bee when landing. Pilots at Eglin said it was one of the best displays ever.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2012, 03:00
by spazsinbad
Some people have e-mailed about problems with the .PPTX file so here is a 'best quality' PDF recreation of that .PPTX. 'thef-35cockpitapproach-120417081628-phpapp01.pdf'

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2012, 17:31
by quicksilver
Gums wrote:
- Notice no "tapes" for altitude and speed, just digital readouts.

- Vertical velocity seems to be a "tape" on right side, with an indication of radar alt besides baro

- De-clutter on some data might be in order, but field-of-view is so great that it may not be a biggie.


Vertical velocity is the number just above the RADALT (with the [-] sign in front). Tape is a weapons envelope.

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2012, 13:23
by count_to_10
I wonder: do these helmets have some kind of angle distortion in them so that the pilot can still see the information from the angles that he physically can't turn his head to face? I may be underestimating their flexibility in the cockpit, but I have a hard time imagining a pilot pointing his helmet directly aft, particularly angled downward.

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2012, 14:47
by munny
You'd expect a button that reverses the view. Increasing the sensitivity could be a bad thing.

Wouldn't want the button to get stuck tho.

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2012, 18:22
by SpudmanWP
Why would you want to display something other that aspect-specific info in the HMD?

Anything else should go to the main display so as not to disorient the pilot.

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2012, 01:52
by spazsinbad
'Hit Me with your Rhythm Stick' (by Ian Dury and the Blockheads)

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Sidestick Grip P/N 9021490300-7

http://essexindustries.com/aero-defense ... iew?nid=60

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Sidestick Grip, along with the throttle grip, is the main pilot/aircraft interface for flight, avionics and armament systems. Manufactured from precision cast aluminum, this grip is resistant to environmental and structural conditions per MILSTD-810. In addition to an adjustable palm rest, the stick grip contains a variety of single and multi-function switch assemblies for pitch/roll trim, display management, aerial refueling, nosewheel steering, autopilot override, weapon select, air-to-ground weapon release, gun and air-to-air weapon release."

http://essexindustries.com/sites/defaul ... rols_1.pdf (0.35Mb)

Compilation View made from Photos at above webpage.

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2012, 02:09
by spazsinbad
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Throttle Grip P/N 9021490400-1

http://essexindustries.com/aero-defense ... iew?nid=59

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Throttle Grip is machined from a high-strength aluminum alloy casting. It contains a transducer, optical encoder and several single and multi-function switches. In addition to engine power control, these features allow for display cursor control, menu scroll/select, speed brakes, countermeasures, communications and weapons system functions. Along with the stick grip, Essex conducted a comprehensive qualification program for the F-35, including full environmentals, vibration, shock and EMI testing."

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2012, 02:49
by outlaw162
I can foresee the primary reason for VA disability claims from retired F-35 drivers being carpal tunnel related.

(not withstanding an occasional ED claim)

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2012, 02:56
by spazsinbad
oops - wrong - moved to 'voice recognition thread'

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2012, 13:17
by spazsinbad
April/May 2012 AUSN Magazine (Assoc. USN) PDF 6Mb

http://www.ausn.org/Portals/0/pdfs/maga ... y-2012.pdf

How the F-35 is designed to work By CASEY W. COANE

"Lt. Col. Taylor:...The F-35s are designed from the ground up to tell the pilot, “Here are your targets” and “You may engage or not.” It does that in a fashion where the pilot may not even know what sensor is giving him that information. He can find out if he wants to, but ultimately, does he really care? Not really. What the pilot wants to know, “Where is the bad guy?” and “Can I engage him or not?” That is how the F-35 is designed to work.

AUSN: One difference with this airplane is that your visual cues are presented on your helmet visor vice the HUD (headsup display). Is that difficult to get used to?
Lt. Col. Taylor: There is some amount of learning, but it isn’t as different as you might think. The F-35 has a virtual HUD with the off-boresight symbology just like the F/A-18 JHMCS. Then, when you look forward, it has what appears to be a stabilized HUD, only projected in your visor. There is nothing physically there like in the F/A-18. What is different about the F-35 is that it uses both eyes [for the imagery], not just one, so there is a bit of a learning process. It is a bit like learning to use binoculars or learning to read with bifocals.

AUSN: The helmet will also be your night vision goggles, is that true?
Lt. Col. Taylor: The helmet also has a night vision camera built into it and that image is projected onto the visor. You also have DAS (distributed aperture system) imagery that is also projected on the visor from fixed cameras all around the airplane.

AUSN: We have heard that there are some issues regarding integrating all that data into the helmet?
Lt. Col. Taylor: The current helmet, in general, works very well. The one area where it needs improvement is in reference stabilizing to the airplane. Like the virtual HUD, it is stabilized to the airplane whereas the off-boresight symbology is stabilized to the helmet. Lockheed and the subcontractors understand that problem and they have proposals that look reasonable to me. I think it is worth saying that the problem with the current helmet is a very small percentage of the total capability of the helmet. We fly with it every single day.

AUSN: As a pilot with at least several thousand hours of F/A-18 time, what lights you up about this aircraft?
Lt. Col. Taylor: What lights me up is the integrated fashion of the mission systems combined with the performance of the individual sensors. In the F/A-18, and in any airplane, there are times when you struggle to have good situational awareness. That’s everything to a tactical pilot. I think this airplane is going to be a leap ahead in how well it keeps the pilot aware of what is going on around him. Awareness is what enables the pilot to stop worrying about trying to get information and allows him to think tactically...."

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2012, 15:38
by lamoey
I wonder how many switches have been kicked off that F-22 trhottle by clumsy pilots or ground crew?

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2012, 21:04
by spazsinbad
F-22 Throttle Grip Graphic from:

http://essexindustries.com/aero-defense ... ew?nid=241

F-22 Raptor Throttle Grip P/N 1495HC13123-103, -107

"The F-22 Raptor Throttle Grip is the main pilot/aircraft interface for flight, avionics and armament systems. Manufactured of precision cast aluminum, this grip is resistant to environmental conditions per MIL-STD-810."
_______________

F-22 Cockpit Front Graphic from: http://www.0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%2012.pdf

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2012, 21:32
by spazsinbad
F-22 Raptor Stick Grip P/N 1495HC13122-105 [3 View Compilation from:]

http://essexindustries.com/aero-defense ... iew?nid=64

"The F-22 Raptor Sidestick Grip is the main pilot/aircraft interface for flight, avionics and armament systems. Manufactured of precision cast aluminum, this grip is resistant to environmental conditions per MIL-STD-810. The stick grip provides a variety of single and multi-function switch assemblies for flight control, nosewheel steering, aerial refueling, display management and stores management."

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2012, 21:49
by delvo
spazsinbad wrote:
Lt. Col. Taylor wrote:The F-35 has a virtual HUD with the off-boresight symbology just like the F/A-18 JHMCS. Then, when you look forward, it has what appears to be a stabilized HUD, only projected in your visor. There is nothing physically there like in the F/A-18.
So some stuff is still only presented in front of your body regardless of which way your head is turned; turn your head and this information doesn't stay in front of your face (although some other information does). In terms of positioning, that would be the same as with a conventional HUD, just without the need for a second display device physically located there. I guess they did that to avoid letting the view get too cluttered and the clutter be inescapable. But what information is it that they put there?

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2012, 22:16
by spazsinbad
Have a look at the fore and aft views on this thread page: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-180.html

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2012, 04:31
by spazsinbad
Fixes for F-35 Helmet in the Works May. 8, 2012

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... |FRONTPAGE

"The head of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program touted a fix for the jet’s troubled, high-tech helmet, which officials hope will solve jitter picture and lag time issues.

A “micro-inertial measurement unit” is expected to fix the jitter, while “signal processing changes in the software and the architecture” could fix the lag, Vice Adm. David Venlet, the F-35 program manager said after testifying at a May 8 U.S. Senate hearing.

“What I am focused on is seeing he demonstration of those fixes working and being effective,” Venlet said. “That will be paced out through the remainder of this year and into 2013.”

Program officials also plan to improve a camera installed on the helmet which they believe will fix “the acuity and night vision,” he said.

The fixes will be eventually demonstrated through a flight test or in a laboratory environment, Venlet said. The program has funding to work on the fixes to the primary helmet, made by Vision Systems International, as well as a back-up helmet system.

In 2011, Lockheed Martin, the F-35 prime contractor, selected an alternated helmet made by BAE Systems.

“I’m not going to let go of that alternate until I’ve got demonstrated performance of the one I really want,” Venlet said."

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2012, 05:22
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Fixes for F-35 Helmet in the Works May. 8, 2012

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... |FRONTPAGE

"The head of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program touted a fix for the jet’s troubled, high-tech helmet, which officials hope will solve jitter picture and lag time issues.

A “micro-inertial measurement unit” is expected to fix the jitter, while “signal processing changes in the software and the architecture” could fix the lag, Vice Adm. David Venlet, the F-35 program manager said after testifying at a May 8 U.S. Senate hearing.

“What I am focused on is seeing he demonstration of those fixes working and being effective,” Venlet said. “That will be paced out through the remainder of this year and into 2013.”

Program officials also plan to improve a camera installed on the helmet which they believe will fix “the acuity and night vision,” he said.

The fixes will be eventually demonstrated through a flight test or in a laboratory environment, Venlet said. The program has funding to work on the fixes to the primary helmet, made by Vision Systems International, as well as a back-up helmet system.

In 2011, Lockheed Martin, the F-35 prime contractor, selected an alternated helmet made by BAE Systems.

“I’m not going to let go of that alternate until I’ve got demonstrated performance of the one I really want,” Venlet said."


Good feedback, the Program,seems to have the helmet issues covered.

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2012, 07:22
by geogen
Totally random thought, but what about a completely unconventional interim alternative proposal... say two 6x9 display +/- mounted within the cockpit at the pilots 9 and 3 o'clock? Let's say $1,000 COTS per display. Display the essential data on those displays as the pilot is turning his head (wow, a 30 yr old fighter pilot needs to turn his head when in combat) and simply cue it with a cueing piece attached to the helmet; whether with NVG or not?

And simply integrate voice commands to supplement the executions, as appropriate?

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2012, 07:35
by spazsinbad
Travelling F-35 Simulator was in Canberra, ACT, Australia today. Photo shows the HMDS display over the runway above the PCD.

Strike fighter controls all about the kill David Ellery | May 15, 2012

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nationa ... 1yncy.html

PHOTO: http://images.canberratimes.com.au/2012 ... -420x0.jpg

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2012, 13:16
by southernphantom
geogen wrote:Totally random thought, but what about a completely unconventional interim alternative proposal... say two 6x9 display +/- mounted within the cockpit at the pilots 9 and 3 o'clock? Let's say $1,000 COTS per display. Display the essential data on those displays as the pilot is turning his head (wow, a 30 yr old fighter pilot needs to turn his head when in combat) and simply cue it with a cueing piece attached to the helmet; whether with NVG or not?

And simply integrate voice commands to supplement the executions, as appropriate?


Probably not a bad idea, in my opinion. I'm not sold on the data density of the single-pane display, just looking at it gives me a serious headache.

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2012, 02:01
by quicksilver
southernphantom wrote:
geogen wrote:Totally random thought, but what about a completely unconventional interim alternative proposal... say two 6x9 display +/- mounted within the cockpit at the pilots 9 and 3 o'clock? Let's say $1,000 COTS per display. Display the essential data on those displays as the pilot is turning his head (wow, a 30 yr old fighter pilot needs to turn his head when in combat) and simply cue it with a cueing piece attached to the helmet; whether with NVG or not?

And simply integrate voice commands to supplement the executions, as appropriate?


Probably not a bad idea, in my opinion. I'm not sold on the data density of the single-pane display, just looking at it gives me a serious headache.


What would they put on the 3/9 displays that isn't already on the TSD or the helmet?

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2012, 02:06
by quicksilver
Phantom -- youngsters handle it just fine;they grew up on this stuff. 'Adults' too when they get enough familiarity -- i.e. where to look to get what without having to think about it.

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2012, 03:46
by munny
Good VSI video showing how the Gen II HMD looks (and could look with future upgrades) from the pilot's perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHoVQA1_ ... re=g-all-u

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2012, 04:15
by spazsinbad
Great find, thanks 'munny' (on the money). The previous 'StrikeEye' video was not 'F-35 specific' and this new one is. Is the audio any good? Seems like the captions explain most of it anyway. I had the 9th view but volume was at 11! :D

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2012, 21:55
by f35phixer
geogen wrote:Totally random thought, but what about a completely unconventional interim alternative proposal... say two 6x9 display +/- mounted within the cockpit at the pilots 9 and 3 o'clock? Let's say $1,000 COTS per display. Display the essential data on those displays as the pilot is turning his head (wow, a 30 yr old fighter pilot needs to turn his head when in combat) and simply cue it with a cueing piece attached to the helmet; whether with NVG or not?

And simply integrate voice commands to supplement the executions, as appropriate?


We can't just be patching STUFF in the cockpit.. Do you undertsand the dynamics of a cat and trap :oops: HMD will be fine once they fix it...

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2012, 22:39
by spazsinbad
'geogen' statement above: "... the pilot is turning his head (wow, a 30 yr old fighter pilot needs to turn his head when in combat)..." A pilot head/helmet/oxy mask combination weighs 'weight times G' at any given moment. Here is some info about problems created for pilot (and there would be more info out there).

Doc, My Neck Hurts by Lt. Mark Jacoby and Tina Avelar in USN Flying Safety Magazine APPROACH March/April 2007 pages 16-19

http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/D ... pril07.pdf (2Mb)

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2012, 13:46
by spazsinbad
Excerpt from this recent 'flight test report page' - good to have it here for reference:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-480.html

F-35 problems on their way to being fixed 18 May 2012 By Dave Majumdar

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ed-372074/

"...Lockheed is also set to test fixes to the jet's troublesome helmet-mounted display (HMD) this summer, O'Bryan says. Lockheed has reached an agreement with the US government on the HMD requirements, which will help the company to fix imagery lag on the helmet by tweaking the system's software, he says.

The company is also adding micro inertial measurement units (IMU) to the helmet and pilot's seat to dampen out jittery images. "We're going to fly those micro-IMUs this summer," O'Bryan says.

Lockheed hopes that the new ISIE-11 camera, which replaces the existing ISIE-10 cameras, will resolve jet's night vision acuity problems. The new system will undergo testing at MIT's Lincoln Labs later this summer. The system will now consist of two ISIE-11 cameras, one of which will be mounted in the helmet and another on the canopy bow, and imagery pumped in from the F-35's six distributed aperture system (DAS) infrared cameras.

"We're optimistic, we've got a good plan," O'Bryan says.

Meanwhile, the pilots have started to test the imagery from the distributed aperture system. Initial results look to be very promising, O'Bryan says. But there will need to be tweaks as flight tests reveal potential issues...."

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2012, 01:13
by spazsinbad
F-35 helmet’s jitter problem should be fixed by this summer 30 May 2012 By Barry Graaf

http://whythef35.blogspot.com.au/2012/0 ... ld-be.html [fixed by 'lamoey']

Best to read the post and only some bits are excerpted here:

"...Vision Systems International (VSI) has identified the fix for the jitter problem:...
...The correction:
To correct that deficiency, King said VSI is installing a micro-inertial measurement unit (IMU) on its helmets that will dampen the vibrations on the transmitter, similar to the way noise-canceling headphones are able to block out background noise. That technology is set to be flight-tested on a JSF flight sciences test aircraft in late May or early June, and a more rigorous test involving an F-35 equipped with full mission systems software and hardware will take place in late June or July...."

...VSI President Philip King says:
"What I think is going to happen is we're going to find out there's a vibration component or a frequency component we weren't aware of, and we're going to have to tweak the algorithm to dampen out that last little piece," he said...."

...The helmet also has two other issues. Night vision:
A solution to the second major challenge on the HMDS, night vision quality, is further off, but King expressed confidence that VSI and its partners can improve the helmet camera's acuity at night from its current level of about 20/70. An F-35 test pilot told ITAF last year that the program's requirement is 20/40 vision....

...That new sensor will still provide somewhat inferior acuity than legacy night vision goggles, but it will be able to link up with the F-35's advanced sensors, which goggles cannot connect to.
VSI is looking at March of 2013 for that improvement to be functioning.

The third and final issue with the helmet – image latency:
The third challenge to the HMDS' functionality, image latency, demands a more collaborative approach because it requires improvements to a variety of systems on the F-35, not only the helmet....

'''It appears then, that all three issues are solvable. Once done, they will provide an advantage to the F-35 that legacy aircraft don’t enjoy:..."

BEST to go to the BLOG post to read the entire article so don't just read these excerpts and expect to understand 'HOW THE FIX IS IN!" Fanks. :D

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2012, 02:34
by lamoey

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2012, 05:06
by spazsinbad
Technology bridges past and future at Pax by Doug Abbotts NAWCAD Public Affairs

http://www.dcmilitary.com/article/20120 ... ure-at-pax

"...In the Operator Vehicle Electro-optics and Habitability Branch, the Helmet Mounted Displays Lab is developing helmet displays to allow an F-35 pilot's head angle to direct air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons seekers or other sensors to target. This would allow “targets to be designated with minimal aircraft maneuvering, minimizing the time spent in the threat environment, and allowing greater lethality, survivability and pilot situational awareness,” Strategic Initiatives Manager Joe Notaro said...."

http://www.dcmilitary.com/storyimage/DC ... 319889.jpg

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2012, 07:12
by spazsinbad
SUBJECT: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program
WITNESS STATEMENT OF: Vice Admiral David J. Venlet | Program Executive Officer F-35 May 8, 2012

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statem ... -08-12.pdf

“...The pilot’s helmet for the F-35 is a major technological advance and a design challenge. Three helmet technical risks affecting the original helmet design are night vision acuity, stability of the symbology or frame “jitter”, and the latency of the displayed information. The second generation of the original helmet is the desired solution for its capability to display all information on the visor, day and night, without goggles. As a result of testing, the program now understands the measured latency that is acceptable for pilot tasks and this understanding is leading to cost effective system adjustments. Improved night vision acuity will be evaluated with new camera technology and visor symbology jitter will be evaluated with small inertial measurement units embedded in the helmet itself. As risk reduction, the program has funded development of a night vision goggle-based alternative helmet solution. The goggle-based helmet development will continue until we see demonstrated improvement in the three risk areas. A system-level design review will occur in the Fall of 2012 where the program will evaluate the development performance of both helmet designs....”

WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES UNITED STATES SENATE

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2012, 10:41
by spazsinbad
oops - wrong thread... :oops:

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2012, 10:48
by spazsinbad
OOps wrong thread. Something weird happens when clicking through with 'search' to then enter text on the search thread. Oh well... Don't use search or sumpin...

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2012, 10:50
by spazsinbad
F-35 pilots' equipment and training match the jets' technology 05 June 2012 Justin Heinze

http://www.individual.com/storyrss.php? ... 1b3ada912b

"EGLIN AFB, Jun 05, 2012 (Northwest Florida Daily News - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX)...

...At the 33rd Fighter Wing's Pilot Fit Facility, Navy Cmdr. David Dorn stared ahead as a circular metal scanner was lowered over his face, droning ominously.

"Not gonna squish me, is it?" he laughed, a latex mold pulled over his face and neck.

The scanner was reading the contour of his face and skull, one of the first steps in the custom design of helmets for F-35 pilots.

"There is no heads-up display (in the F-35) like in an F-16 or F-18," said Dorn, the executive officer for the Navy's VFA-101 training squadron at Eglin. "All the information is displayed on the visor of the helmet. Such a high level of precision is required because the display has to maintain an alignment to each eye of the pilot."

The fitting process takes two days. The first day involves measurements of the pilot's head, including an "interpupilary" measure between the pilot's eyes. On the second day, the pilot sits in a chair for up to 3 1/2 hours in a process called "laser etching."...

More about 'ceiling wax and other fancy stuff' at the URL! :roll:

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2012, 10:59
by spazsinbad
OK now I got it - on page 7 of THIS thread [http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16223-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-90.html ] there is a 'neptune' query about chute descent... At least this is practised in a VR environment.

F-35 pilots' equipment and training match the jets' technology 05 June 2012 Justin Heinze

http://www.individual.com/storyrss.php? ... 1b3ada912b

"EGLIN AFB, Jun 05, 2012 (Northwest Florida Daily News - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX)...

...A little later, Dorn climbed into a metal frame-supported harness of the parachute descent trainer, which allows pilots to practice post-ejection safety. Wearing a virtual reality helmet which simulated an actual ejection, Dorn's goal was to navigate his parachute to the ground.

"We run through scenarios where we create different malfunctions, Air Force Chief Master Sgt. Shawn King said. "His ropes will be mixed up or something will be wrong."

Dorn's progress in his virtual environment was displayed on a large TV screen mounted on the wall...."

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2012, 15:47
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad"][b]F....The fitting process takes two days. The first day involves measurements of the pilot's head, including an "interpupilary" measure between the pilot's eyes. On the second day, the pilot sits in a chair for up to 3 1/2 hours in a process called "laser etching....quote]

Wow, this is a bit more than being issued a size "L" and cinching up the chin strap, till it's snug! :)

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2012, 15:56
by spazsinbad
'neptune' my first helmets in a Winjeel and Vampire were a cloth inner helmet with radio earphones and an outer helmet of cardboard and shellac; with cotton webbing on top (underside) as a cushion - all easily adjustable as you mention. Sea Venom was more robust but similar. The A4G helmet was even more solid, made of plastic or similar I think; but it had foam plastic bits on the inside cut/shaped to fit. When it was wrong it was just the worst kind of torture - to be fixed - adjusted as best one could manage instantly when back on the ground. There was no kind of inner helmet. And with the Skyhawk roll rate, when in the back seat of the TA-4, you really needed it whilst getting banged around by the front seater. :D

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2012, 05:32
by spazsinbad
Page 12 [ http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-165.html ] of this thread does not explain quite as clearly perhaps the location of the forward camera as this item...

F-35 Testing Progresses; UK Rethinks Switch to F-35C AIN Defense Perspective 16 Mar 2012

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... itch-f-35c

"...The Block 2A software is now flying on the aircraft, three months behind schedule. Lockheed Martin vice president of F-35 customer engagement Steve O’Bryan noted that Block 2 contained seven million lines of code, and there “had not been a single abort” of an F-35 flight due to software.

O’Bryan said that the jitter and latency problems in the VSI helmet-mounted display are being solved. The helmet’s night vision deficiency will be fixed by relocating the camera from the top of the helmet to the exterior of the aircraft, just forward of the canopy. The transonic buffet issue can be addressed through changes to the flight control system software. The fuel dump problem on the F-35B will probably be solved by a tighter seal on the flaps that will prevent dumped fuel from pooling in that area. The arrestor hook on the F-35C is being sharpened at the shank, and the hold-down damper is being modified. This combined solution should ensure that the hook catches the wire, O’Bryan said. But the hook problem has probably delayed the first F-35C test flights on a carrier from late 2013 into 2014, he added...."

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2012, 04:10
by spazsinbad
OLD news perhaps now but wondering if it also applies to HMDS II 'fixes'? Anyhoo...

Kopin Delivers World’s Highest-Resolution Microdisplay To Vision Systems International (VSI) 12/12/2011

http://ir.kopin.com/Investors/Press-Rel ... fault.aspx

"2K x 2K AMLCD is Targeted for Next-Generation Night Vision Systems

TAUNTON, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Kopin® Corporation (NASDAQ: KOPN) today announced the delivery of the world’s highest resolution micro-display to Vision Systems International, LLC (VSI) of San Jose, California. The display, which exceeds High Definition (HD) resolution, was developed by Kopin under funding provided by VSI and the U.S. Government. This ultra-high resolution display boasting a resolution of 2,048 x 2,048 is specifically targeted for the next-generation night vision systems for the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).

“Kopin has a solid history in the development of microdisplays for an array of U.S. Army thermal imaging programs and has proven to be a valuable partner in our development of advanced night vision systems for avionics,” stated Drew Brugal, President of VSI. “This new high-resolution display was developed and delivered on-time to address the aggressive imaging system requirements of advanced night vision Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) systems. This partnership places VSI on the forefront of next-generation night vision HMD systems that will replace the traditional image intensifier implementations with an all-solid-state, ejection-safe solution for our aviation community,” continued Brugal.

“Kopin is once again expanding the boundaries of micro-display resolution and performance by developing an active matrix liquid crystal display (AMLCD) with a 2048 x 2048 monochrome pixel resolution in a 0.96-inch diagonal form factor,” said Kopin President and Chief Executive Officer Dr. John C. C. Fan. “This new display reflects the strategic research and development initiatives we have undertaken over many years, efforts that have resulted in innovations including low-voltage and clock driverless architecture, small pixel geometry, and specialized and ruggedized LCD processes. The new 8-inch processing line Kopin developed in partnership with the U.S. Government was critical in the design and fabrication of such a high-resolution display.”

“This new display will provide users with night vision resolution which rivals the current image intensifier tube,” stated Michael Presz, Kopin’s Vice President of Government Programs and Special Projects. “Targeted for use with the Intevac ISE4000 sensor, this device will allow for target detection at extreme ranges and the ability to detect hazards such as power lines and towers, thus improving mission effectiveness and reliability. In addition, the AMLCD display solution allows for the HMD system designers to integrate the night vision imagery into the avionics and weapon system suites, an extremely powerful capability which is not possible with direct-view image intensifiers.”
_________________

INTRODUCTION TO HELMET-MOUNTED DISPLAYS

http://www.usaarl.army.mil/publications ... splays.pdf (5.8Mb)

"...Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) (United States)
The Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) (Figure 3-20) [original HMDS] is being developed for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) by VSI. It has completed all required safety of flight tests, allowing in-flight seat ejections up to 450 KEAS (knots equivalent air speed). It has demonstrated structural integrity to 600 KEAS as a critical risk mitigation step towards full flight certification. The HMDS had its maiden flight on 4/10/2007 on the 10th test flight of the F-35 JSF.

The HMDS provides the pilot video with imagery in day or night conditions combined with precision symbology to give the pilot enhanced situation awareness and tactical capability. For tactical fighter jet aircraft, the F-35 JSF will be the first to fly without a dedicated HUD, with the HMDS providing this functionality. The HMDS uses the same symbology implemented in the JHMCS. The CRT display in the JHMCS has been replaced by two 0.7-inch diagonal SXGA resolution AMLCDs. The HMDS provides a FOV of 40° (H) x 30° (V)."

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2012, 04:15
by spazsinbad
Someone commented 'why is the HMDS II not used in the F-35 Simulator?' Here perhaps is a part answer....

Improving the Utility of a Binocular HMD in a Faceted Flight Simulator

http://www.saphotonics.com/wp-content/u ... -Final.pdf (0.4Mb)

"ABSTRACT
Faceted simulator displays are widely used because they are relatively compact and economical. One drawback, however, is that viewing distance changes depending on where users are looking. This variation creates a challenge for the integration of binocular head mounted displays (HMDs), because confusing imagery and visual fatigue can result when the user views symbology presented by the HMD at one distance and simulator imagery at different distances. Understanding the best approach to presenting symbology with a binocular HMD in a faceted simulator has become an important issue, with the deployment of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and its binocular HMD. Successful integration of a binocular HMD would not only allow current faceted simulators to be retrofit with the F-35 simulator HMD, but would also allow future simulators to have either a dome or faceted design, thus affording acquisition agencies greater flexibility. Binocular HMDs are becoming more prevalent, so solving this integration issue will likely become important for multiple platforms.

We performed an experiment to quantify the best method of presenting symbology on a binocular HMD when used with a faceted simulator display. Five viewing conditions were tested: 1) HMD converged to 36”, 2) HMD converged to 42”, 3) dynamic HMD vergence, 4) monocular presentation on the HMD, and 5) on-screen presentation. Screen distances ranging from 36” to 54” were tested.

Our results suggest that adaptive vergence is the preferred solution. Both static vergence conditions and the monocular condition resulted in lower comfort scores and poorer performance. The on-screen condition, although rated comfortable, does not represent the real-world flight condition where symbology is displayed using an HMD. Although additional evaluations under more operational conditions remain to be completed, these results indicate that adaptive vergence is a viable solution for the integration of binocular HMDs into faceted flight simulator displays."

...Discussion
...In summary, we believe that adaptive vergence provides a viable solution for integrating a binocular HMD with faceted display systems. This recommendation is supported not only by viewing comfort data, but also by user performance data. We believe these results apply not only to the M2DART, but also to other faceted simulator displays with similar viewing distance ranges.

We will seek to confirm our conclusions by integrating the F-35 simulator HMD with dynamic vergence control into a state-of-the-art faceted display system with pilots executing realistic training tasks under more operational conditions.

Development of an adaptive vergence control system would provide existing users of faceted display systems with a solution for integrating binocular HMDs for future training applications, and provide acquisition agencies with additional alternatives when evaluating competing display system designs for training systems requiring binocular HMDs in simulators."

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2012, 04:23
by spazsinbad
And I missed the memo about the 'StrikeEye' being another version of HMDS but guessed it - here is confirmation...

StrikeEye and F-35 HMDS Product Update

http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/index.php/blog/ ... uct-update

“You may have seen in the news this past Wednesday (8/31) [2011?] that two F-35As, an AF-10 and AF-11, & two F-16 chase aircraft are poised for take-off at Eglin AFB, & that the F-35 JPO authorized a return to flight operations for F-35 production aircraft, all equipped with HMDS.

Our StrikeEye HMDS product is effectively the equivalent to the F-35 HMDS product. As the F-35 avionic architecture is unique, we created the StrikeEye product line to address other potential platforms requiring a Wide Field of View (WFOV) binocular HMD. And I just want to mention our StrikeEye HMDS recently completed highly successful testing of the next-generation night vision camera.

Though the technology of our next-generation night vision camera is revolutionary, we at VSI are committed to making it better, faster & more cost effective. As we continue to invest in the technology, we’re confid-ent that we are on the right path to achieving night-vision capabilities previously unavailable to fighter pilots. The bottom line: our combat-proven HMDS are the “low risk” solution for fixed-wing tactical aircraft.”

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2012, 04:42
by spazsinbad
“Just do it”: A test pilot speaks By Colonel (Retired) Jim Sandberg May 6, 2012

http://www.sldforum.com/2012/05/%E2%80% ... ot-speaks/

“Helmet-Up” the Harriers, Now! - Published in USNI Proceedings, November 2009 By Colonel Jim Sandberg, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve (Retired)

"By 20[ZZ]—in less than [YY] years—the Marine Corps will have completed sufficient individual and organizational training and received enough aircraft to declare an initial operating capability with their first operational squadron of F-35Bs, the unique short-takeoff/vertical landing variant of the long-awaited Joint Strike Fighter....

...Accelerating and Unifying Operations
With the introduction of the F-35B, the Corps continues to merge its TACAIR capabilities and cultures from the Harrier, Prowler, and Hornet communities into a more cohesive supporting force for Marines and joint and coalition forces. AV-8B pilots and their Harrier squadrons, with their short-takeoff/vertical landing expertise and VMA culture and TTPs, will be joined by EA-6B and F/A-18 pilots and their own VMAQ and VMFA experiences.

I wonder if the Harrier and Prowler warfighters will marvel at the magic of the Lightening(sic) II’s HMD as their primary flight and combat display. I wonder if the HMD-experienced Hornet drivers will say something like, “Hey, neat helmet! I wonder if I can do [fill in the blank] with it.”

Colonel Art Tomassetti, USMC, Vice Commander of the 33rd FW, Eglin Air Force Base, sums up the situation:

All F-35 students walk to the airplane for the first time by themselves, without an instructor in their plane. We should strive to reduce the number of times that a pilot says ‘this is the first time I’ve done this or used this’ with actual flight hardware to the max extent possible. Side stick, HMD, touchscreens, Distributed Aperture System, voice activation, Fly-By-Wire, and so on, some of these we can do well in the simulators and some we can’t. The only other thing these pilots bring is their aviation experience. If that experience includes some of these F-35 capabilities, great. If not, well. . .

Colonel Sandberg flew A-4 Skyhawks in the early 1970s. Graduating from USAFTPS in 1977, he served as operational test pilot in VX-4, Point Mugu, California, flying the A-4, F-4, F-14, and new F-18. He was the 31st pilot to ever fly a Hornet. After leaving active duty in 1982, he worked for Northrop as an engineering test pilot and finally as Director of the F-35 Integrated Test Team at Pax River. A former president of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots, he now works as an independent consultant. One of his clients is GENTEX Corporation, an HMD developer.
Republished with the permission of USNI"

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2012, 05:53
by spazsinbad
There was a question about 'voice recognition' in F-35 with this company supplying it. More to follow...

U.S. Air Force - Test Pilot School | Test Pilot School Avionics Familiarization Simulator

http://www.zedasoft.com/solutions/tps.jsp

"...An Adacel eSRS voice recognition system is integrated and used to demonstrate advanced voice command interfaces like the one being proposed for the F-35 Lightning II fighter....

...Helmet-Mounted Display Upgrade to USAF Test Pilot School’s Avionics Familiarization Simulator

In May 2010 ZedaSoft delivered a Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) upgrade to USAF Test Pilot School PSD. The HMD upgrade used an NVIS nVisorST see-through helmet-mounted display design with a 40 degree vertical field-of-view that simulates the field-of-view of monocular J/HMCS designs as well as the binocular design used in the Joint Strike Fighter cockpit. ZedaSoft integrated this HMD with the original InterSense IS-900 head tracker system. The HMD symbology was modified so it could be rendered either directly in the IG or in the HMD. When rendered in the HMD the symbology can be optionally combined with simulated NVG imagery generated by one of the MetaVR VRSG channels."
________

Speech Recognition – The Adacel Difference

http://www.adacel.com/solutions_service ... erence.pdf (200Kb)

"...Flexible Speech Recognition: Adacel’s unique software architecture allows its systems to identify and analyze commands regardless of the speed or pattern of speech. As a result, users do not need to artificially modify their method of speaking to suit the software. The Company’s simulation and training systems are capable of identifying commands even if the speaker stutters, hesitates or corrects himself in the middle of a command. The result is a system that allows students to focus on key objectives without unnecessary distraction.

No Accent Bias: Because of the Company’s unique approach to developing its speech recognition software, Adacel’s simulation tools function regardless of the operator’s accent. This capability allows Adacel to market its systems to a wide range of customers without significant modifications or customization...."

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2012, 07:21
by spazsinbad
Seein' as how already there is 'flight suit info' (previous page) in this thread may as well put this brochure info here also (a pic or two to follow).

SURVITEC JSF F-35 AGILE PILOT FLIGHT EQUIPMENT 15 June 2011

http://www.militarysystems-tech.com/fil ... ochure.pdf (1.1Mb)

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2012, 21:58
by spazsinbad
Another take on fitting the HMDS with added info: [see also previous page on this thread]

State of the art technology supports F-35 pilots June 15, 2012 JUSTIN HEINZE / Daily News

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/pi ... ports.html

"...A little later, Dorn climbed into a metal frame-supported harness of the parachute descent trainer, which allows pilots to practice post-ejection safety. Wearing a virtual reality helmet which simulated an actual ejection, Dorn’s goal was to navigate his parachute to the ground.

“We run through scenarios where we create different malfunctions, Air Force Master Sgt. Shawn King said. “His ropes will be mixed up or something will be wrong.”

Dorn’s progress in his virtual environment was displayed on a large TV screen mounted on the wall.

The room also contained a hypoxia flight simulator, a system obtained by aerospace physiologist Air Force Capt. Ryan Seymour. In the past, oxygen-depletion training was done in chambers where pilots would be asked simply to complete math problems or crossword puzzles to test their mental capacity under hypoxia-like duress, Seymour said.

Seymour’s simulator allows pilots to perform in-flight tasks while under the influence of hypoxic symptoms, which can include color-blindness, hot and cold flashes, tingling sensations and altered consciousness....

...Perhaps even further behind the scenes, King said explained how the F-35 flight suits expanded on previous models’ protection from gravity forces.

“This is a full coverage suit
,” King said. “It allows them to sustain higher G’s for longer. It basically forces blood to stay in the right place in the body.”..."

Always a more at the URL.

Photo caption: "Strapped into a harness, Navy Cmdr. David Dorn practices guiding a parachute using a simulator that projects a virtual image of the parachute and ground below onto the glasses he is wearing. Devon Ravine|Daily News"

http://images.onset.freedom.com/nwfdn/g ... p4suit.jpg

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2012, 23:37
by spazsinbad
Lockheed’s comprehensive Q&A on the F-35 By Philip Ewing, June 19th, 2012

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/19/lockh ... -the-f-35/

"...Q: Sounds pretty high speed, but isn’t the helmet the pilot needs to use all this jacked up?

A: Lockheed wouldn’t use that term – O’Bryan said the company believes it can make its original pilot helmet work as promised. He detailed the three major problems it has faced: “Latency” — a lag between what DAS sees and what it shows the pilot; “jitter” — the effect a jet’s natural shaking has on the image the pilot sees; and “night acuity” – how sensitive an F-35’s sensors are in total darkness.

O’Bryan said Lockheed believes new software – ah yes, software; we’ll get to that in a moment – can eliminate the latency problem. As of now the lag between what DAS sees and what a pilot sees is “measured in milliseconds.” Engineers think they can solve “jitter” by incorporating “inertial stabilization units,” like the ones you might find in a digital camera lens. And a new camera will enable Lockheed to improve an F-35’s night acuity, to the point where you can land a B on an amphib at midnight, in the middle of the ocean, with no lights.

In the meantime, as you read here last week, the program is also pursuing a second, less wham-o-dyne helmet in case the first one doesn’t materialize as promised. But could it take advantage of the cameras and sensors built into the F-35? O’Bryan said he didn’t know. The original helmet has flown “successfully” more than 2,000 times, he said, and Lockheed believes it can bring it into spec.

Meanwhile, the GAO report said it’s costing $80 million to both improve the original helmet and pursue a second one in parallel...."

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2012, 16:49
by BELA
A bit confused. Code one is showing the current and newest Pilot (40th) but he seems to be wearing the old HMD can anyone shed some light?

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/m ... 7_6912.jpg

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2012, 21:24
by spazsinbad
Odd indeed. Cropped photo of old HMDS being worn attached from above source. Must be a NAVY thing. :D

Lightning 40 - USN Lt. Cdr. Michael Burks

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_ ... em_id=1891

"USN Lt. Cdr. Michael Burks becomes the fortieth pilot to fly the F-35 when he took off from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, in F-35B BF-2 on 9 June 2012. Photo by Andy WolfePosted: 9 June 2012"

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2012, 21:34
by spazsinbad
How the HMDS II appears in a recent 'pilot roster' photo (cropped):

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/m ... 7_7842.jpg

Lightning 36 - USAF Maj. Matt Phillips

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_ ... em_id=1891

"USAF Maj. Matt Phillips becomes the thirty-sixth pilot to fly the F-35 when he took off from Edwards AFB, California, for a test mission in F-35A AF-3 on 3 May 2012. Photo by Paul WeathermanPosted: 3 May 2012"

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2012, 21:36
by spazsinbad
Dual path development maintained for F-35 helmet 28 June 2012
"Lockheed Martin will continue with its dual path development for the F-35 Lightning II's helmet, despite the company's confidence in the system under development by Vision Systems International (VSI). VSI - a collaboration between Elbit Systems and Rockwell Collins - is the incumbent manufacturer of the F-35's helmet-mounted display system (HMDS); however, a number of issues have arisen with the unit and in March 2011 Lockheed Martin announced a competition to purchase a helmet made with commercial off-the-shelf night-vision goggles (NVGs) and components."

first posted to http://idr.janes.com - 28 June 2012
FROM THIS WEB PAGE: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... te?page=98

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2012, 23:09
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Martin Reports Progress on F-35 Helmet Display 06 July 2012 by Bill Carey

http://ainonline.com/aviation-news/2012 ... et-display

"A Lockheed Martin executive reported “lots of progress” in fixing problems associated with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter helmet-mounted display system (HMDS). But the company continues developing an alternate helmet display in case the existing system fails to meet requirements. Critical design reviews of both systems are planned in the fourth quarter.

In a briefing in mid-June, Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin vice president for F-35 program integration and business development, described progress with three fixes aimed at mitigating night-vision, latency and jitter problems with the Gen II HMDS supplied by Vision Systems International (VSI), a joint venture of Elbit Systems of America and Rockwell Collins. Those problems identified by pilots led Lockheed Martin to award a contract to BAE Systems last September to develop an alternate HMDS with detachable night-vision goggles.

To improve night-vision acuity, an upgraded ISIE 11 electron-bombarded active pixel sensor from Intevac, of Santa Clara, Calif., will be mounted on the helmet and in the nose of the aircraft. The higher-resolution sensor will be tested this summer at MIT Lincoln Laboratory, O’Bryan said. Latency in acquiring imagery from the F-35’s distributed aperture system, quantified in milliseconds and described as “excessive” in a 2011 review by the Department of Defense (DoD), can be improved with “software tweaks,” according to O’Bryan. “We believe latency is very much on track,” he said. The issue of helmet display jitter, which the DoD said makes flight symbology difficult to read and is “tactically significant” for engaging weapons, will be addressed by incorporating micro inertial measurement units (IMUs) to stabilize the image. IMUs have been installed in the laboratory and will be tested in flight this summer, O’Bryan said.

BAE Systems, which has not yet flown on the F-35. “Until we are sure that we can meet the needs of the warfighter, we’re going to have a ‘dual-path development’ with the alternate display,” O’Bryan said...."

ONLY HMDS II on display/demo at Farnborough info at URL.

http://www.fighterhelmets.com/images/Ho ... s_Home.jpg

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2012, 09:03
by spazsinbad
A bit more about the esoteric world of the F-35 Flight Safety/Survival Equipment....

Diverse And Growing Cobham Quietly Contributes To Major Aircraft Programs by Bill Carey July 10, 2012

http://ainonline.com/aviation-news/2012 ... t-programs

"...In the military arena, Cobham supplies 100 components and $1 million worth of content on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. These include the fifth-generation fighter’s refueling probe, the cryocooler used to cool the infrared detector of its electro-optical targeting system, the pneumatic bomb racks, integrated microwave assemblies supporting electronic warfare systems in the tail and the cartridge actuated cutter, which automatically cuts an air passage in the pilot’s oxygen mask hose when the pilot resurfaces after being submerged in water...."

Nothing else relevant to F-35 at the jump. :-(

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2012, 21:41
by spazsinbad
Posted here due pic of pilot gear...

Wing flies 100th F-35 Lightning II sortie July/13/2012

http://www.aetc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123309844

"July/13/2012 - Marine Lt. Col. David Berke, commanding officer for the Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 is all smiles after he flew the 100th F-35 Lightning II sortie at the 33rd Fighter Wing, Eglin AFB, Fla. July 11. The 33rd FW’s 100 flights completed include 74 F-35A sorties and 26 F-35B sorties. Current flying operations at the wing consist of Marine and Air Force fighter pilots checking out in the F-35 variants for each service. (U.S. Air Force photo/Maj. Karen Roganov)"

LARGE PIC (2.5Mb):
http://www.aetc.af.mil/shared/media/pho ... 99-101.jpg

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2012, 09:43
by spazsinbad
First RAAF JSF starts to come together Max Blenkin, August 23, 2012

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/b ... 6456895641

"...Mr Burbage said the test program was making good progress on fixing some problems, including making the helmet-mounted display work properly at night using the aircraft's sensors...."

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2012, 12:35
by munny
Nice video of the F-35 display and helmet. View it in HD and full screen.

http://www.viddler.com/v/eebd59ed

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2012, 12:57
by spazsinbad
Looks like the same video mentioned here for the second time:

"Thanks - that video looks similar to the one mentioned earlier on another thread:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... art-0.html (stroll down to):

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter cockpit demonstrator hands-on (video) By Zach Honig posted Jul 11th 2012

http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/11/lock ... -hands-on/

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2012, 00:35
by munny
Well I bet ya haven't posted this one yet :)

Fluff piece from VSI.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NpIqft2ZF0

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2012, 01:07
by spazsinbad
I'm No.5 - that's quick. Thanks.

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2012, 12:24
by spazsinbad
I weep for SLDinfo and there (deliberate) lack of proof reading and spelling ability. It is shocking.

Evolving the Life Support System for the F-35 By Robbin Laird Whenever September 2012

http://www.sldinfo.com/evolving-the-lif ... -the-f-35/

"...With the new helmet, the approach is to integrate the systems.

The challenge, of course, is to get the integration right.

This means as well that the new challenge will be to maintain the integrated helmet, rather than piece repairs.

This poses its own challenge as the pilots are fitted with an interrelated helmet which is uniquely his or hers. How do you fly if your helmet is not working?

One alternative over time might be to have a backup helmet, but more plausibly, the ability to repair an integrated helmet will evolve over time with the input from top Aircrew Flight Equipment technicians like TSgt Baskin and SSgt Velasquez.

TSgt. Baskin: “Instead of attaching mission specific devices to the helmet, the F-35 helmet has the key elements fully incorporated; one example would be night vision capability. The helmet essentially pulls up the sensor data from the jet and allows the pilot to focus more effectively on his tasks and avoid cockpit distractions.

When you fly with a legacy helmet, you have to wear earplugs. With the new helmet you don’t. It has active noise reduction incorporated in the helmet. It basically reduces all the noise all around them, so they can focus on what’s coming through inside this aircraft.

And each pilot has their own helmet.

The sizing process is actually laser scanned, so once it’s fit to them, it’s their helmet and their helmet only.

There’s no swapping helmets among pilots...."

Best read at sauce (deliberate mispelin) sargent. :D

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2012, 04:19
by spazsinbad
More problems raised at Pentagon F-35 fighter review 10 Sep 2012 By Andrea Shalal-Esa

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/1 ... EstateNews

"...The Pentagon's Defense Acquisition Board huddled for more than four hours on Friday evening in a meeting described by one participant as "very painful" given ongoing challenges facing the high-tech F-35 helmet that is integral to the craft's weapons systems.

Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos told Reuters in an interview on Saturday that he had not been briefed on Friday's review meeting, but said he was closely following work on the helmet, since its completion was needed to allow operational use of the new jets.

"The helmet is a critical piece that needs to be solved," Amos said, noting that the Marines urgently needed the short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) version of the plane to replace their aging fighter jets, which include older model F/A-18 Hornets built by Boeing Co..

The Marine Corps had hoped to become the first military service to start using the new F-35B jets this year, but a series of program restructurings has pushed that date back several years.

If the helmet being developed by Vision Systems International (VSI), a joint venture between Israel's Elbit Imaging and Rockwell Collins succeeds, it will be the most advanced ever built.

It is supposed to let pilots see data from all the plane's sensors, effectively allowing the pilot to look right through the floor of the plane and all around it. But the project has run into problems with night vision, delays in displaying the data and a green glow at the visor's edges. [OH NO! The GREEN HORNET BUG?] :D

Lockheed Martin has brought in an alternate contractor, BAE Systems to work on a substitute helmet in case the VSI helmet does not meet its deadlines. Current F-35 program manager Navy Admiral David Venlet is meeting with BAE officials during a trip to Europe this week.

Lockheed has also agreed to provide an F-35 jet for dedicated testing of the helmet in coming weeks, the sources said. "These kinds of challenges are normal in a developmental program," Steve O'Bryan, a Lockheed executive, said...."

This excerpt is JUST ABOUT THE HMDS issues - another thread has the gist of the meeting elsewhere.

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2012, 21:51
by neurotech
This may be repetitive, but I can't figure out why VSI/Rockwell/Elbit are having such a problem with the helmet itself. Elbit have successfully integrated combined display/targeting helmets to the F-15I & F-16I and Elbit also make EVS systems. Rockwell Collins makes the EVS fitted to the G550 which is one of the best civilian systems out there. One clue to this SNAFU is that the F-35 uses electro-optical and electro-magnetic tracking, but other systems use gyroscopic tracking.

One thing that curiously comes to mind, is that the Integrated Core Processor(ICP) is a PowerPC based system with no real GPU acceleration. Cray and IBM have tested PowerPC chips with AMD/ATI Firestream Processors, and they work quite well. From what I've been able to find out, the F-35 ICP is made by L3 and only has a relatively basic GPU for display output fitted. CPU-Only processing for the F-35 might explain why they have issues with lag, and tracking.

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2012, 22:16
by neptune
[quote="neurotech"]This may be repetitive,...ditto..PCIe x16 2.0 ... quote]

I obviously don't know the architecture/design but as nt indicated loading the main processor with graphics is a slower road. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2012, 10:39
by cola
neurotech wrote:...but I can't figure out why VSI/Rockwell/Elbit are having such a problem with the helmet itself.


Indeed.
BAe seems to have solved it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19372299

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2012, 14:22
by SpudmanWP
1. That article made no mention of latency or lag
2. Let's see them put in a fighter with all the sensor fusion going with a video feed displaying (of the same resolution) at zero lag and then you claim they solved it.

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2012, 14:41
by cola
Well I don't know, but Striker operationally flies in RAF and Luftwaffe begun adopting it as well, so I'd assume various (including latency) problems have been solved, when helmet got cleared for use.
I don't think MoD would let RAF boys fly the plane if the latency was large enough to compromise safe handling of the plane.
Got nothing more on the subject, though. Do you?

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2012, 14:51
by spazsinbad
AFAIK the LM F-35 test pilots have not used the alternate helmet from BAE so far. They like what they have in the HMDS II and will be patient to see it fixed as soon as. Below is an old 2006 article which has info on both helmets and how they differ (bear in mind since then changes may have been made).

Helmet Mounted Displays: Adding Night Vision Sept 1, 2006 by John Croft

"Next-generation pilot head gear, in the form of helmet mounted displays, will paint a wealth of information, including night vision imaging, onto a pilot's visor, yielding tactical advantage"

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/f ... _1105.html

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2012, 07:08
by batu731
neurotech wrote:This may be repetitive, but I can't figure out why VSI/Rockwell/Elbit are having such a problem with the helmet itself. Elbit have successfully integrated combined display/targeting helmets to the F-15I & F-16I and Elbit also make EVS systems. Rockwell Collins makes the EVS fitted to the G550 which is one of the best civilian systems out there. One clue to this SNAFU is that the F-35 uses electro-optical and electro-magnetic tracking, but other systems use gyroscopic tracking.

One thing that curiously comes to mind, is that the Integrated Core Processor(ICP) is a PowerPC based system with no real GPU acceleration. Cray and IBM have tested PowerPC chips with AMD/ATI Firestream Processors, and they work quite well. From what I've been able to find out, the F-35 ICP is made by L3 and only has a relatively basic GPU for display output fitted. CPU-Only processing for the F-35 might explain why they have issues with lag, and tracking.



I can't imagine jet like F-35 lacking of floating point power , it must be something more hidden as the problem has been around for quit a few years.

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2012, 20:47
by cola
Thx, spaz.

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2012, 02:59
by neurotech
batu731 wrote:
neurotech wrote:One thing that curiously comes to mind, is that the Integrated Core Processor(ICP) is a PowerPC based system with no real GPU acceleration. Cray and IBM have tested PowerPC chips with AMD/ATI Firestream Processors, and they work quite well. From what I've been able to find out, the F-35 ICP is made by L3 and only has a relatively basic GPU for display output fitted. CPU-Only processing for the F-35 might explain why they have issues with lag, and tracking.

I can't imagine jet like F-35 lacking of floating point power , it must be something more hidden as the problem has been around for quit a few years.

Actually, pretty much all CPUs have poor FP performance compared to a GPU. Lets say they use a 4-core PowerPC processor (I think they are still single core in the F-35). A 256-Core GPU is quite typical these days, and executes FP instructions in parallel, with with many times the performance of a PowerPC core.

Early LRIP jets only had basic HMD features in software, so full testing couldn't happen earlier in development. That is why these problems weren't caught years ago.

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2012, 03:23
by neptune
neurotech wrote:
batu731 wrote:
neurotech wrote:...Early LRIP jets only had basic HMD features in software, so full testing couldn't happen earlier in development. That is why these problems weren't caught years ago.


The exciting part of this is that the system design will allow them to continue upgrading the performance of both the processors and software without having to replace the basic structure or system I/Os. As the sub boys found out; if you soup up the I/O processing there is a lot more info in those old sensors than your antique alogorithms were able to squeeeese out.

I'm still a little ancy about the appearance of lack of distributed processing for I/O like the video you mentioned earlier, I hope I'm wrong!

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2012, 10:54
by spazsinbad
F-35 helmets face tough tests By Keith Rogers LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL Sep. 17, 2012

http://www.lvrj.com/news/f-35-helmets-f ... 01266.html

"...DellaVedova said among the challenges are jitter that occurs from aircraft vibrations and "latency," the time delay of camera images transmitted to a pilot's helmet. Although they are tiny fractions of a second, the time delays encountered are magnified with the pilot's binocular vision as the plane flies at up to 1½ times the speed of sound.

He said another issue that needs to be ironed out is "night-vision acuity," or the ability to see sharp, clear images.

Next week, the Joint Strike Fighter program will start more rigorous testing on the helmet, which is critical to flying the F-35 safely. Meanwhile, operational testing of the aircraft can proceed, "but there are test points we can't get to until the helmet is on track," DellaVedova said.

Already the helmet has been used to fly the plane at night and during the day, and while weapons are released. The solutions to the problems "are at hand" and will be solved, he assured.

"The maturation of technology systems to arrive at suitable night vision, weapons employment and all the flight parameters on the visor without the need for goggles is critical," he said...."

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2012, 00:21
by spazsinbad
Despite concerns, general confident in new F-35 fighter By Peter Urban Sep. 17, 2012

http://www.lvrj.com/news/despite-concer ... 00666.html

"...And he said there are ongoing problems with the cutting-edge pilot helmet that is critical to flying the plane.

"Today we have a helmet that works in a very rudimentary way," he said.

The carbon-fiber helmet, rigged with night-vision cameras, is designed to give pilots a 360-degree view of their surroundings. Early testing has found that the pictures and symbology transferred to the visor suffer from split-second delays, jitters and other problems for pilots flying beyond the speed of sound.

Bogdan said he does not expect that Vision Systems International, a Lockheed Martin subcontractor, will be able to resolve all of the issues with the helmet by 2015, when the Marine Corps hopes to begin using the aircraft in combat.

"Some things we can fix fairly quickly by 2015. Some things just are not going to happen because they are hardware-related," he said.

Bogdan said he was confident of having a workable helmet in the long term but more testing is needed to see if pilots can get by with the helmet available today. The Pentagon has dedicated one of its F-35 test planes in Maryland to explore that question.

"Over the next 60 to 90 days we are going to gather as much information about the helmet as we can," he said.

Project managers will also evaluate a backup helmet being developed by BAE Systems over the next 120 days, Bogdan said."

That is it for the HMD in this story.

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2012, 09:28
by spazsinbad
AFA 2012: F-35 HMDs to undergo further testing 17 September 2012 - 22:24 by Tony Skinner in National Harbor

http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/digit ... r-testing/

"The two helmet-mounted display (HMD) systems now under development for the F-35 Lightning II will undergo flights tests on a dedicated aircraft to overcome remaining technical issues, it has been revealed.

The deputy executive officer of the Joint Strike Fighter programme, Maj Gen Christopher Bogdan, told reporters at the Air Force Association's Air & Space conference that a number of issues with Vision Systems International’s (VSI) HMD were still to be ironed out.

Bogdan said issues with the HMD provided by VSI - a joint venture between Rockwell Collins and Elbit Systems - include a lack of acuity, latency, 'jitters', alignment and queuing.

The ongoing problems led to BAE Systems being awarded a contract in October 2011 to deliver a HMD system for the programme for use with detachable night vision goggles.

Bogdan said the alternative helmet was introduced in order to meet programme requirements should the VSI HMDS fail to deliver.

Now, a dedicated aircraft has been set aside at Patuxent River Naval Air Station for 60-90 days of tests of both HMDs. This is likely to lead to a critical design review and a possible down-select to one helmet,

‘The problem we have at the moment is a lack of data so we need to learn as much about the [VSI] helmet as we can. This will include night flying, flying in weather and coming up with fixes for some of these issues,’ Bogdan said.

He noted that the tests would also determine whether BAE Systems’ Night Vision Goggle Helmet Mounted Display (NVG HMD) system, which includes the Q-SIGHT waveguide display and detachable NVGs, was a suitable ‘back-up plan’.

Lockheed Martin has previously outlined its own solution to the HMD issues, including 'small tweaks in technology' to remedy latency issues; the addition of micro-IMUs to stabilise imagery for the pilot; and integration of a night vision, near-IR cameras to be mounted in the nose of the aircraft."

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2012, 01:24
by alloycowboy
One F-35 Devoted to Testing Troublesome Helmet Sep 18, 2012 by Amy Butler


"F-35 program officials have set aside a single aircraft for testing only of the Vision Systems International helmet that has plagued the program for more than a year owing to jitter, latency and other operational problems discovered in testing.

The aircraft will be flown on these special helmet missions at NAS Patuxent River, Md., says Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, deputy F-35 program director. Bogdan has been nominated to take the top F-35 post once approved by the Senate, and he made his remarks Sept. 17 at the Air Force Assn. conference here. The testing will take up to 90 days, he says."


Mor at the jump:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/09/18/one-f35-devoted-to-testing-troublesome-helmet.html

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2012, 02:17
by archeman
Why can't this testing be done by the primary contractors on the CATBird?
Isn't it capable of being equipped with all the same stuff that this F-35 is equipped with?
Wasn't that the point of the CATBird, to validate systems and allow lots of systems engineers to see the results themselves onboard without having to have a real F-35.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2012, 02:40
by spazsinbad
The HMDS has been aboard the CATBird. However I doubt the CATBird has the actual performance of an F-35 under G loading or Mach Number.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com./images/ ... 7_1876.jpg
&
http://codeonemagazine.dialogs.com/imag ... 7_3936.jpg

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2012, 03:50
by archeman
Great post Spaz as usual.
Well perhaps the dedicated F-35 is a validation staging point for fixes that are being evaluated in the CATBird first?
That way if the fix isn't validated the whole fleet isn't affected by a patch or firmware/hardware that doesn't deliver as expected???

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2012, 04:25
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:The HMDS has been aboard the CATBird. However I doubt the CATBird has the actual performance of an F-35 under G loading or Mach Number.

Perhaps Lockheed Martin should get a Gulfstream G550 or something for their next CATBird. When operating under an "experimental" classification, the G-limit is higher than most people think. I've heard unconfirmed figures that the G550 structural limit is around 4Gs That is the NATOPS limit of the older T-39 sabreliner in Navy service.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2012, 04:30
by spazsinbad
Perhaps LM will dedicate an F-35 to HMDS II testing? Oh wait - they have.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2012, 04:46
by archeman
spazsinbad wrote:Perhaps LM will dedicate an F-35 to HMDS II testing? Oh wait - they have.


Well that F-35 isn't theirs, belongs to the good people of the US of A doesn't it???
:wink:

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2012, 04:50
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:Perhaps LM will dedicate an F-35 to HMDS II testing? Oh wait - they have.

One of the biggest issues in earlier programs was recording enough data for analyzing test results. The EA-18 test aircraft (EA-1 & EA-2) had excellent instrumentation for analyzing avionics performance and debugging. They can record high bandwidth streams in real-time, for later analysis. The F-35 is even better instrumented, but they are still bumping into avionics issues that can be debugged and tested on the ground, given enough data.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2012, 06:26
by spazsinbad
neurotech says: "...The F-35 is even better instrumented, but they are still bumping into avionics issues that can be debugged and tested on the ground, given enough data." Where do you see this information? The CATBird has sorted out a bunch of avionics stuff that has been successfully tested in exercises such as Northern Edge.

F-35 JSF Sensors Successfully Tested at Northern Edge 2011
http://www.azosensors.com/news.aspx?newsID=2874 June 29, 2011 By Andy Choi

http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... n-Edge.jpg

This thread is about the Helmet and associated bits and pieces. AFAIK the avionics testing is OK. What is not known or tested is the HMDS in the operational environment of High G and bumpy fast speed. Hence a dedicated F-35. It is important to get the HMDS working correctly and nice to see that this may happen soon enough.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2012, 06:32
by spazsinbad
"F-35 program officials have set aside a single aircraft for testing only of the Vision Systems International helmet...." Hair Splitting is good.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2012, 18:28
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:neurotech says: "...The F-35 is even better instrumented, but they are still bumping into avionics issues that can be debugged and tested on the ground, given enough data." Where do you see this information? The CATBird has sorted out a bunch of avionics stuff that has been successfully tested in exercises such as Northern Edge.

Perhaps I was unclear. I was suggesting the avionics associated with the HMDS is problematic. The data from the helmet is processed in the ICP. The HMDS is more than a helmet, its an associated avionics software/hardware integration.

spazsinbad wrote:This thread is about the Helmet and associated bits and pieces. AFAIK the avionics testing is OK. What is not known or tested is the HMDS in the operational environment of High G and bumpy fast speed. Hence a dedicated F-35. It is important to get the HMDS working correctly and nice to see that this may happen soon enough.

The problem of jitter and lag, can be analyzed more thoroughly if the inputs and outputs are recorded in flight, then re-ran on the ground, and debugged by the programmers.

There is nothing more frustrating than debugging an issue in a real-time system where there is insufficient data (or logfiles) to get a clear picture.

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2012, 02:22
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Martin Tests Some JSF Fixes By Amy Butler 24 Sep 2012

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 21.xml&p=1

"Lockheed Martin is inching closer to solving some of the technical challenges encountered with the F-35 during developmental testing....

...Meanwhile, program officials have set aside a single aircraft for up to 90 days of tests solely of the Vision Systems International helmet that has plagued the program for more than a year with jitter, latency and other operational problems discovered in testing, says Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, deputy F-35 program director.

Helmet performance is key to ramping up pilot training on the F-35, which is slated to begin early next year. Without this helmet—or possibly a backup model being quickly developed by BAE—the U.S. Marine Corps cannot declare operational capability as planned, as early as 2015. Bogdan doubts fixes to all of the problems will be implemented by then, but the government's plan to dedicate a test aircraft to the problem signals how critical the helmet is to the program's future...."

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2012, 07:48
by twistedneck
Interesting that out of all the technologies to surprise the F35 its the lack of very fast comptuting in a small space thats the issue.. Moore's law will take care of this aspect over the next 5 years and we will see reduced latency of the digital processors and improve all of the jitters and night vision. i'm glad they bit off more than they could chew now its time to get some really fast arm processors and data pathways.

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2012, 14:08
by quicksilver
Most of the reporting seems to forget that the "problem" helmet is in use everyday in both flight test and at Eglin. What constitutes a "problem" in an engineering sense is not necessarily a problem when it gets to operational pilots. Jitter occurs in a relatively narrow part of the flight envelope (at some G levels above sustained turn performance) as a consequence of aircraft motion. They're tweaking the algorithms in the DMCH to compensate. But, for the most part jitter is not apparent to the Eglin guys.

Latency "problem" was analytical -- ie engineers arguing over what latency value was acceptable and what was not (and only relative to the projection of DAS images on the inside of the visor). Some expected that it should be on the order of the human eye (about 30-35ms). Very bright PhD (from AFRL I think) constructed a test event in a simulator where they could "dial a (latency) value" and have real live in the flesh pilots perform a variety of routine tacair tasks -- air refueling, low level flight, and recoveries to an amphib ship. Pilots were unaware of the latency value dialed in for any of their tasks and afterward rated the ease or degree of difficulty of each task performed. The results were compelling. Expect that we'll hear reporting in the next few months that reflects same -- and just like all the hoo-haa about melting flight decks and tro and (name your issue), it will magically be "solved" and the reporting will move on to the next "problem."

Was watching Apollo 13 last night and took note of the scene where Gene Kranz (Ed Harris) goes to the blackboard and draws a big circle for the earth and a smaller one for the moon and starts to discuss with a substantial group of engineers whether or not they should perform a direct abort or make the swing around the back side of the moon. Group of engineers immediately react with much hand waving and drama (ach, eke, screech...it will never work) but Kranz sets them off to find solutions to a range of challenges for the option. Later after considerable work, Kranz (Harris) reassembles the group when it becomes clear that the path they have chosen will only get them to a point about 2/3 of the way from the moon back to the earth. Upon delivery of the message and Kranz' dictate that they find a solution that gets them the rest of the way home -- more hand waving and drama (ach, eke, screech...it will never work). But it did 'work.'

Well, in spite of the "ach, eke, screech...it will never work" by many over (name your issue) -- the helmet will work. For the most part it already does -- and the pilots at Eglin will tell you so.

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2012, 18:49
by batu731
quicksilver wrote:Most of the reporting seems to forget that the "problem" helmet is in use everyday in both flight test and at Eglin. What constitutes a "problem" in an engineering sense is not necessarily a problem when it gets to operational pilots. Jitter occurs in a relatively narrow part of the flight envelope (at some G levels above sustained turn performance) as a consequence of aircraft motion. They're tweaking the algorithms in the DMCH to compensate. But, for the most part jitter is not apparent to the Eglin guys.

Latency "problem" was analytical -- ie engineers arguing over what latency value was acceptable and what was not (and only relative to the projection of DAS images on the inside of the visor). Some expected that it should be on the order of the human eye (about 30-35ms). Very bright PhD (from AFRL I think) constructed a test event in a simulator where they could "dial a (latency) value" and have real live in the flesh pilots perform a variety of routine tacair tasks -- air refueling, low level flight, and recoveries to an amphib ship. Pilots were unaware of the latency value dialed in for any of their tasks and afterward rated the ease or degree of difficulty of each task performed. The results were compelling. Expect that we'll hear reporting in the next few months that reflects same -- and just like all the hoo-haa about melting flight decks and tro and (name your issue), it will magically be "solved" and the reporting will move on to the next "problem."

Was watching Apollo 13 last night and took note of the scene where Gene Kranz (Ed Harris) goes to the blackboard and draws a big circle for the earth and a smaller one for the moon and starts to discuss with a substantial group of engineers whether or not they should perform a direct abort or make the swing around the back side of the moon. Group of engineers immediately react with much hand waving and drama (ach, eke, screech...it will never work) but Kranz sets them off to find solutions to a range of challenges for the option. Later after considerable work, Kranz (Harris) reassembles the group when it becomes clear that the path they have chosen will only get them to a point about 2/3 of the way from the moon back to the earth. Upon delivery of the message and Kranz' dictate that they find a solution that gets them the rest of the way home -- more hand waving and drama (ach, eke, screech...it will never work). But it did 'work.'

Well, in spite of the "ach, eke, screech...it will never work" by many over (name your issue) -- the helmet will work. For the most part it already does -- and the pilots at Eglin will tell you so.


Very informative, thanks

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 01:33
by spazsinbad
Excerpt from Main Article posted elsewhere.

Slow Climb for the F-35 By John A. Tirpak Executive Editor Oct 2012

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... 2slow.aspx
OR
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... 12slow.pdf (0.8Mb)

"...A number of fixes are being considered for the F-35 helmet. A new short-range night vision camera will be installed, Lawson [LM VP] said. The existing one was "the very best camera that was available at the time the helmet was designed and built," but the improved version should eliminate some of the concerns. The program office and Lockheed are discussing whether to retrofit existing helmets or build new ones.

Software fixes may resolve problems with jitter, in which data displays on the inside of the faceplate are not as rock-solid as pilots would like. There’s also some lag in displaying night imagery from cameras all around the aircraft, as the pilot’s head traverses the field of view of one camera to another. That latency will require another software fix.
"We’ve had over 2,000 flights" on the F-35, "and every one of those flights has been with this helmet." There’s no concern that it’s a safety issue, he asserted...."

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2012, 11:41
by spazsinbad
Repeated here for the record (from: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 384#233384 )

Lockheed Martin Provides F-35 Flight-test Update AIN Defense Perspective
October 19, 2012 by Chris Pocock

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... est-update

"...O’Bryan also described the status of efforts to resolve development problems with the F-35’s unique helmet-mounted sight. In the latest simulations, the device demonstrated a latency of only 130 milliseconds, against a 150-millisecond requirement. A new near-infrared camera to improve night-vision acuity is being tested at MIT Lincoln Laboratories and will be flight-tested next year. The “micro-IMUs” (inertial measurement units) that are designed to solve the “jitter” problem are already in flight-test...."

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2012, 22:27
by spazsinbad
Lockheed cites good reports on night flights of F-35 helmet By Dan Williams Oct 30, 2012

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/3 ... 4320121030

"Oct 30 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp said on Tuesday that it was making progress on resolving technical issues facing the cutting-edge helmet being developed for use by F-35 fighter pilots, and it cited positive initial reports from night flight tests of the system.

Lockheed Martin Executive Vice President Tom Burbage said that night vision performance was the "only real question" left on the helmet, which was designed by a joint venture of Rockwell Collins Inc and Israel's Elbit Systems to display all the information F-35 pilots need to fly the plane.

The question was whether the helmet system would allow pilots to see well enough at night to carry out precision tasks such as refueling or landing on a ship, Burbage told Reuters before an event at the Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies in Herzliya....

...Yossi Ackerman, president and chief executive of Elbit, declined to comment except to cite what he called "dramatic progress" on the helmet.

No comment was immediately available from the Pentagon's F-35 program office.

Burbage said the company had logged almost 5,000 flights (HOURS?) using the primary helmet, and it would be used by the U.S. Marine Corps when they start flying the new fighter in 2015, a deadline Bogdan had called into question last month.

He said until it received full approval from the Pentagon for the primary helmet, the company was continuing to fund work on a less ambitious, alternate helmet being developed by BAE Systems, which uses goggles.

"No one really wants to use goggles in a fifth-generation airplane. It affects your ejection envelopes and everything else. We are trying to get away from the goggles," he said.

He said the primary issue now facing the Rockwell-Elbit helmet was whether pilots could see well enough to refuel the plane from a dark refueling aircraft and land the F-35B variant, which lands like a helicopter, on a dark ship at night.

Burbage said the night flights under way now would help answer that question. He said there had also been concerns about a lag in getting sensor data to the helmet, but that was not an issue anymore."

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2012, 23:25
by count_to_10
For very delicate work, wouldn't it be possible to just display the relevant video stream on the main display?

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2012, 23:28
by spazsinbad
That happens if pilot selects it however bear in mind giving up on having night vision via HMDS II gives up a marvellous boon for any kind of night flying; particularly without other lights potentially. Even taxiing on an airfield - particularly an unfamiliar one - at night can be hazardous. Go aboard to find out what that might mean. :D Then go ahead and land son, this is where the food is.... :roll: :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2012, 23:33
by SpudmanWP
For delicate, close up lights-out night refueling they will likely use the camera built into the helmet itself as it has the best resolution and lowest latency.

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2012, 23:35
by count_to_10
Well, just using the big screen when the HMDS isn't stable enough doesn't mean giving up the HMDS.
I was thinking more along the lines of "could it be good enough as is".

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 00:14
by Gums
Salute!

Good grief.

If the requirement is a tenth of a second latency, all bets are off.

In the latest simulations, the device demonstrated a latency of only 130 milliseconds, against a 150-millisecond requirement.


You can use sfwe to "smooth out" the display, but for realistic use the frame rate should be 20 milliseconds or less. The data rate updates could be 50 hz or so, but even the 40 year old Marconi HUD's in the SLUF and Jaguar were closer to 60Hz. Ditto for the Viper. They were also vector versus digital scan. Hard to add new symbology, but real smooth.

My old roomie worked on the shuttle HUD and they had the same problem. The display was "jittery", and the old farts like Young and Crippen and others didn't like it. He had flown the Jaguar and A-7D, and knew what a "real" HUD should be like. The shuttle main data bus had "x" frame rate to work with, and it was decent. So it was a matter of getting the flight path vector and such to the HUD at a good update rate, then let the HUD smooth it out. So he got the problem solved, and you can see several shuttle HUD displays and landings on You Tube.

With everything being digital these days, you must have the display inputs at a higher update rate than the actual display rate. Hell, 60 frames per second is super for the display. But the data update has to be faster, then let the display doofer smooth it. Olden days it was analog, so no "frame rates" except for the display itself - like the older TV sets. Even the new digital TV sets show you a difference between refresh rates. Higher refresh rates cost more $$$, but you can see the difference, especially on sports programming.

To see what I am talking about, try to find a video game that you can adjust the frame rates for the display. Good luck. If you build your own input device, you could use your PC's inherent updates for the screen, then interpolate between data updates. OTOH, try iEnt's online Warbirds simulation, which likes 10 herz or so, same as the Darth Vader display +/- They let your home PC front end smooth things out between data updates ( display frame rates of 100 frames per second depending on your PC), but we're not talking about a real world attack jet with cosmic sensors and such.

I shall still maintain my position that the jet should have a simple, cheap, off-the-shelf fixed HUD to back up the helmet. We have used them for 40
years, and they work just fine. They are firmly mounted on the jet's airframe and so no jitter when the plane is shaking at high AoA. Your head might be shaking, but not the HUD display. OTOH, the cosmic helmet has to read pilot eyeball angle ( not basic helmet angle) at "x" rate, then get with the sensor suite, then put up a new display frame before the pilot just moves his eyeball less than a degree or so in 20 milliseconds. BEAM ME UP!

gotta go,

Gums sends, opines....

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 00:24
by spazsinbad
I guess we all have to see it - then believe it. However those wot see it in flight are impressed and they think improvements are working. Perhaps the high angle of attack tests may change opinions. We are patient.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 02:07
by quicksilver
Gums wrote:Salute!

Good grief.

If the requirement is a tenth of a second latency, all bets are off.

In the latest simulations, the device demonstrated a latency of only 130 milliseconds, against a 150-millisecond requirement.


You can use sfwe to "smooth out" the display, but for realistic use the frame rate should be 20 milliseconds or less. The data rate updates could be 50 hz or so, but even the 40 year old Marconi HUD's in the SLUF and Jaguar were closer to 60Hz. Ditto for the Viper. They were also vector versus digital scan. Hard to add new symbology, but real smooth.

My old roomie worked on the shuttle HUD and they had the same problem. The display was "jittery", and the old farts like Young and Crippen and others didn't like it. He had flown the Jaguar and A-7D, and knew what a "real" HUD should be like. The shuttle main data bus had "x" frame rate to work with, and it was decent. So it was a matter of getting the flight path vector and such to the HUD at a good update rate, then let the HUD smooth it out. So he got the problem solved, and you can see several shuttle HUD displays and landings on You Tube.

With everything being digital these days, you must have the display inputs at a higher update rate than the actual display rate. Hell, 60 frames per second is super for the display. But the data update has to be faster, then let the display doofer smooth it. Olden days it was analog, so no "frame rates" except for the display itself - like the older TV sets. Even the new digital TV sets show you a difference between refresh rates. Higher refresh rates cost more $$$, but you can see the difference, especially on sports programming.

To see what I am talking about, try to find a video game that you can adjust the frame rates for the display. Good luck. If you build your own input device, you could use your PC's inherent updates for the screen, then interpolate between data updates. OTOH, try iEnt's online Warbirds simulation, which likes 10 herz or so, same as the Darth Vader display +/- They let your home PC front end smooth things out between data updates ( display frame rates of 100 frames per second depending on your PC), but we're not talking about a real world attack jet with cosmic sensors and such.

I shall still maintain my position that the jet should have a simple, cheap, off-the-shelf fixed HUD to back up the helmet. We have used them for 40
years, and they work just fine. They are firmly mounted on the jet's airframe and so no jitter when the plane is shaking at high AoA. Your head might be shaking, but not the HUD display. OTOH, the cosmic helmet has to read pilot eyeball angle ( not basic helmet angle) at "x" rate, then get with the sensor suite, then put up a new display frame before the pilot just moves his eyeball less than a degree or so in 20 milliseconds. BEAM ME UP!

gotta go,

Gums sends, opines....


How 'bout we inject a little precision into the 'seemantics' of the HMDS. The HMDS provides a range of functions for the pilot. One is the virtual HUD or VHUD. The VHUD is projected on the visor where one would find a conventional HUD in a legacy jet -- oriented on a fixed reference to the aircraft -- e.g. the waterline, FRL or whatever they call it in the jets some of you have flown. VHUD has no latency issues; other issues from early DT have been resolved.

The latency question involves the projection of imagery on the inside of the visor. The latency value of the human eye is between 30 and 35 ms. IOW, when we humans shift our central vision from one object to another, it takes about 30-35ms for the updated image to register in our gray matter as something other than what we were just viewing. That is a total 'system' latency -- transmission of light thru a medium where it is focused onto certain receptors, communicated to the brain etc. During the period your central vision is in motion you have no ability to focus; you can 'see' and recognize things, particularly in familiar surroundings, but you have to stop the motion in order to register detailed differences. Try it it the room you're sitting in right now.

Once you stop the motion of your central vision -- or more importantly, once you shorten the distance you shift your central vision and/or slow down the rate at which you shift it -- the apparent 'latency' diminishes. Try it -- move your head around really fast and see what your brain registers; slow it down and do the same.

It is the same in the jet. The greater the distance, or the faster one moves ones head, the greater the 'apparent' latency. Conversely, one can manage the 'apparent' latency of the imagery in the HMDS in the same fashion depending on the task.

When we fly at night using artificial vision, we do not use our eyes in the same fashion, mechanically speaking. We tend to stop and look, move our head, and then stop and look again over and over and over. The reason is that the artificial vision provides an image to our visual system that is, in a word...artificial. It's not the usual stuff with color and other intrinsic values that our brain 'naturally' recognizes and thus it takes more time to process that into action. We also tend to build in more dwell time on each object of our focus since errors in perception or recognition can cost us our lives as well as the lives of those we're carting around.

USG has done latency testing in task-oriented simulator events where they could 'dial a latency value' without pilot knowledge and then get the pilots to characterize a range of relative performance metrics. The assessed cut-off value for acceptable latency was apparently 150ms. F-35 HMDS DAS latency performance is better than that value.

Gums, talk to the guys at Eglin flying the jets. To a man, they are some of the most highly qualified aviators in the USAF and the USMC. They don't want a conventional HUD.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 02:18
by spazsinbad
Thanks for explanation 'quicksilver'. Night vision unaided can play many tricks. Our eye will 'move around' a single light source attempting to determine distance or other details. If a single light in distance is stared at, after a few seconds it will start to rotate around a central point, which can be disconcerting if forming up in night formation. Probably slime lighting helps as your aircraft gets closer but I'm talking about when only a single light may be visible.

Being catapulted on a dark night with no visible horizon and a single light a long way ahead (fishing boat) can cause similar issues just after the shot (in my case causing extreme disorientation). Having even ghostly night vision, so as to have at least a horizon, or a vague aircraft shape (at distance) will help a great deal. USN aviators have been overwhelmingly positive in their published remarks about HMDS night vision (even before it has been improved).

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 05:06
by Gums
Salute!

Good dicussion, Quick.

And for Spaz - talk to one of the Hornet dudes down where you live about how neat a HUD was when coming off the cat on a dark, moonless night.

I fully understand the latency and frame rate requirements for a useful display, with about 1600 hours of "HUD" time in two different jets. And then as a systems engineer for cockpit controls and displays and weapon integration.

For the target acquisition and such, a slow update rate is fine. But for a "virtual" HUD when landing on a pitching/rolling carrier deck it's better to have not only decent update rates, but less dependency upon the helmet measurements and eye position that the F-35 uses. The virtual HUD now being used is certainly faster than a seventh of a second update rate. And the display rate is likely 20 msec or better ( Viper data bus in 1979 was 20 msec for most data). I posit that the helmet positional data rate is lots higher.

And BTW, I HAVE TALKED WITH a pilot or two at Eglin. They would not talk about the "jitter" with high AoA, but liked the thing for the most part. They especially liked the VSTOL view thru the floor!

Make no mistake. I am not a dinosaur WRT to new technology or displays. Hell, I flew the leading edge jet - the A-7D. We had more goodies than anything around for another ten years. I loved it.

My only concern is that a fairly cheap backup to the helmet might let the jet get on to operational status faster and cheaper. I also wonder how good the pilots will be when the helmet goes tango uniform and the pilot is basically flying steam gauges from 40 years ago.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 12:57
by quicksilver
Gums wrote:Salute!

Good dicussion, Quick.

And for Spaz - talk to one of the Hornet dudes down where you live about how neat a HUD was when coming off the cat on a dark, moonless night.

I fully understand the latency and frame rate requirements for a useful display, with about 1600 hours of "HUD" time in two different jets. And then as a systems engineer for cockpit controls and displays and weapon integration.

For the target acquisition and such, a slow update rate is fine. But for a "virtual" HUD when landing on a pitching/rolling carrier deck it's better to have not only decent update rates, but less dependency upon the helmet measurements and eye position that the F-35 uses. The virtual HUD now being used is certainly faster than a seventh of a second update rate. And the display rate is likely 20 msec or better ( Viper data bus in 1979 was 20 msec for most data). I posit that the helmet positional data rate is lots higher.

And BTW, I HAVE TALKED WITH a pilot or two at Eglin. They would not talk about the "jitter" with high AoA, but liked the thing for the most part. They especially liked the VSTOL view thru the floor!

Make no mistake. I am not a dinosaur WRT to new technology or displays. Hell, I flew the leading edge jet - the A-7D. We had more goodies than anything around for another ten years. I loved it.

My only concern is that a fairly cheap backup to the helmet might let the jet get on to operational status faster and cheaper. I also wonder how good the pilots will be when the helmet goes tango uniform and the pilot is basically flying steam gauges from 40 years ago.

Gums sends...


You're conflating DAS latency and VHUD frame rate -- not the same. There is no VHUD frame rate issue.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 13:06
by spazsinbad
At the end of long screed 'Gums' says: "...I also wonder how good the pilots will be when the helmet goes tango uniform and the pilot is basically flying steam gauges from 40 years ago." I thought we had covered this dire eventuality if by your sentence you mean 'only the HMDS' is U/S (unserviceable). If HMDS and PCD (Panoramic Cockpit Display) are also u/s at same time then it is time to go home. There is a small separate backup AI display (SFD StandBy Flight Display). Somewhere there must be an backup airspeed display probably on the SFD. What more do you need? :D Power Plus Attitude Equals Performance - right?
________________

Head on over to the recent LM Test Pilot interview regarding the magical HMDS and PCD gizmos.... He's impressed.

Canadian F-35 Aerial Refuelling Considerations (Flying the F-35)

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20548.html

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 16:00
by SpudmanWP
STANDBY FLIGHT DISPLAY
-- 3 ATI Indicator
-- 480x480 Pixel Resolution
-- High Intensity LED Backlight
-- Integrated Switch Bezel
-- NVIS Compatible

Image

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 20:08
by spazsinbad
Thanks SWP, looks like everything is there: http://driven-technologies.com/prod_pic ... 35_sfd.png

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 20:09
by Prinz_Eugn
480x480 sounds absurdly low to me but I guess that's all you need...

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 20:26
by spazsinbad
I'll attempt to find more info about the EFI Electronic Flight Instrument (full colour). A bajillion examples of various for the use of EFISs here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6948520/EFIS (PDF 9.3Mb)
__________________________________________

F-35A--OPERATIONS PROCEDURES 07 June 2012
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-2F-35A, VOLUME 3

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/m ... -35AV3.pdf (0.5Mb)

"INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES
4.1. Display of Endorsed Primary Flight Reference.


4.1.1. Anytime flight conditions (illumination, visibility, weather) or procedures (National Airspace System) require flight by reference to instruments, the pilot MUST select and continuously display an endorsed primary flight reference (PFR). The Standby Flight Display (SFD) and Helmet Mounted Display are not endorsed PFRs. Currently approved single medium PFR displays are heads-down, either:

4.1.1.1. Helmet Mounted Display Virtual Heads-Up Display (HMD v-HUD). Note that under some flight regimes, the horizon line and pitch ladder collides (coexists) with the airspeed, altitude and heading symbology, causing potential readability issues; or,

4.1.1.2. Full-color Electronic Flight Instrument (EFI). When using this display, pilots are prohibited from using the pop-up data entry keypad overlaid on the EFI.

4.1.2. The primary unusual attitude reference is the HMD v-HUD. Do not use the HMD or SFD to recover from an unusual attitude or when executing lost wingman procedures except when no other attitude reference is available."

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 22:16
by spazsinbad
F-35 PCD and Graphics Processor info [LAAD Large Area Avionics Display]

Get the 'LAAD(2011)_LR.pdf' 0.5Mb PDF - PCD graphic from this PDF
&'ICP(2011)_LR.pdf' (0.3Mb) from menu at:

http://www2.l-3com.com/displays/product ... s_a-z.html
______________

LynuxWorks LynxOS-178 RTOS to Power F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's (JSF) Next-generation Panoramic Cockpit Display System 15 May 2006

http://www.lynuxworks.com/corporate/pre ... isplay.php

"LynuxWorks to provide DO-178B-certifiable ARINC 653 and POSIX-conformant RTOS for safety-critical, multi-role stealth fighter.

LynuxWorks™ Inc. today announced that L-3 Communications Display Systems has chosen its LynxOS®-178 Real-Time Operating System (RTOS) to power a portion of the Panoramic Cockpit Display (PCD) subsystem for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft.

This display system delivers information for all the major functions of the F-35, including flight and sensor displays, communication, radio and navigation systems as well as an identification system which gives the pilot total situational awareness.

The key factors in L-3 Display System's choice of LynuxWorks' RTOS, which is DO-178B certifiable, were its adherence to open standards, its Linux compatibility, the interoperability benefits of a POSIX® API and support for the ARINC 653 specification. In addition, LynuxWorks will deliver an embedded software product with a complete set of artifacts, along with world-class engineering services....

...In an industry where safety, time and cost are essential factors, L-3 Display Systems is leveraging a series of product features and services from LynuxWorks' LynxOS-178, which includes an RTOS that is designed specifically to fulfill the stringent needs of multithread and multiprocess applications in safety-critical systems. Based on open standards, the LynxOS-178 RTOS provides security through virtual machine brick-wall partitions that make it impossible for system events in one partition of the RTOS to interfere with events in another. It's as if each partition were its own separate computer providing the highest levels of robustness...."

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 22:50
by spazsinbad
For context NATOPS advice about HUDs...

NATOPS INSTRUMENT FLIGHT MANUAL 15 Nov 2006 NAVAIR 00-80T-112

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54516351/Nato ... ght-Manual

"CHAPTER 14 - Attitude Instruments
14.1 GENERAL

The primary flight instrument in all naval aircraft is the attitude indicator. It provides the pilot with a substitute for the Earth’s horizon as a reference in instrument flight. The instrument shows a horizontal bar representing the horizon, upon which a miniature aircraft is superimposed. There are graduated scales on the instrument face to indicate angles of bank and pitch. The combined indications provide a constant visual presentation of the flight attitude of the aircraft as to longitudinal, vertical, and horizontal information. Some aircraft installations may have additional information displayed on the instrument, such as heading, glideslope information, turn and bank, and yaw and course deviation. The pilot should refer to the appropriate NATOPS flight manual for detailed operation of a particular system (Figure 14-1).

14.2 HEADS-UP DISPLAY
Heads-Up Displays (HUDs) are electronic instruments with a centralized means of displaying a large amount of information. They can be used for display of attitude, performance, and position depending on the aircraft and its technology. Figure 14-2 shows a typical HUD configuration and some of the terms for its symbology. The pilot should refer to the appropriate NATOPS flight manual for detailed operation of a particular system.

14.2.1 HUD Limitations
HUDs not endorsed as a Primary Flight Reference (PFR) may be integrated into the normal instrument cross-check, but concerns about insidious failures and its use in maintaining attitude awareness and recovering from unusual attitudes preclude its use as a sole-source instrument reference. Improvements in information integrity and failure indications have increased confidence in the reliability of HUDs; however, the combination of symbology and mechanization enabling their use as a sole-source attitude reference has not been incorporated into all HUDs.

14.2.2 Global Orientation
Many HUDs are incapable of providing intuitive global orientation information because of the small sections of space that they represent. Also, because many HUDs provide only a partial picture of the aircraft attitude, a pilot who tries to use the HUD to confirm an unusual attitude may see only a blur of lines and numbers. In a fast-moving environment, the pilot may not be able to differentiate or recognize the difference between the solid climb lines from the identical, but dashed, dive lines in the flightpath scale. Any confusion or delay in initiating proper recovery inputs may make recovery impossible.

WARNING
Unless your HUD is endorsed as a PFR
, do not use it when spatially disoriented, for recovery from an unusual attitude, or during lost wingman situations; use the heads-down display anytime an immediate attitude reference is required. Typically, heads-down displays are inherently easier to use in these situations because of the larger attitude coverage, color asymmetry between the solid ground and sky, and reduced interference from the outside visual scene (glare, optical illusions, etc.).

14.2.3 HUD Field of View
HUD symbology may also obscure objects within the HUD field of view. When nonessential HUD information is displayed or when the HUD brightness level is excessive, the probability of obscuration is dramatically increased. Proper HUD settings (including elimination of non-task-essential information and adjusting the brightness to the proper level) are imperative to prevent potential hazards to safe flight.

14.2.4 Conventional Cross-Check
Pilots should remain proficient in the conventional instrument cross-check for their specific aircraft. Regardless of the type HUD you have, it is important to fly an instrument approach or accomplish a level-off occasionally without using the HUD so you retain your proficiency in the event of a HUD malfunction. Using HUD information incorrectly or at the wrong time can actually increase pilot workload, but timely, proper use of it can help you fly more precise instruments on a routine basis."

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 22:58
by SpudmanWP
One thing to keep in mind is that the panoramic display is actually two pieces of hardware that can act independently (each 8"hx10"w). They each have their own power and data pathways to the ICP.

In other words, you can put a bullet in one and the functions can be moved to the other.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 23:51
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:At the end of long screed 'Gums' says: "...I also wonder how good the pilots will be when the helmet goes tango uniform and the pilot is basically flying steam gauges from 40 years ago." I thought we had covered this dire eventuality if by your sentence you mean 'only the HMDS' is U/S (unserviceable). If HMDS and PCD (Panoramic Cockpit Display) are also u/s at same time then it is time to go home. There is a small separate backup AI display (SFD StandBy Flight Display). Somewhere there must be an backup airspeed display probably on the SFD. What more do you need? :D Power Plus Attitude Equals Performance - right?
________________

Head on over to the recent LM Test Pilot interview regarding the magical HMDS and PCD gizmos.... He's impressed.

Canadian F-35 Aerial Refuelling Considerations (Flying the F-35)

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20548.html


What if a HUD fails during a cat shot? That's never happened before I guess... :wink:

The HMDS, the two halves of the PCD (as Spud points out) and the SFD all have their own independent power and display generation.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2012, 00:16
by spazsinbad
Two 'No HUD approach' stories on this page of this thread: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... den#215304 Stroll down to btm.

The two links don't work now (aaaahhh the internet) perhaps they can be found again but anyway here is the ALDEN story....

No HUD and counting on the paddles upgrade! I noticed my heads up display began to flicker before eventually kicking off-line by Joe Alden | Approach 08 Jan, 2012?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _84090767/

"Four months into our cruise, the USS Theodore Roosevelt and Air Wing 8 team found itself in the steamy Persian Gulf. After three months of combat in Kosovo and Serbia, we were anxious for our crack at Saddam.

Cyclic ops in the Arabian Gulf always have their share of gotchas: slipper seals that fail, aircraft that slide toward the scupper while turning onto cat 4, diverts into Al Jabbar to hang with the Air Force for a day. Everyone had a story of adventure or misadventure.

Starting at VFA-106, fledgling Hornet drivers practice making circus landings. Unfortunately, FCLPs in the Hornet are not challenging unless done in conjunction with circus approaches. Getting off to a good start and putting your velocity vector next to the lens is a snap and usually will get you one OK-wire after another. Even the circus approaches at the beach don't take on the real-world feeling you get when they actually occur in the middle of some faraway ocean.

This flight wasn't supposed to be exciting, a 2 v 2 with the Toms next door, restricted to the E-2-defined bear cave. We flew the standard, cyclic-ops, max-endurance profiles during the runs, then knocked off to check in with marshal. After completing my fence checks, I noticed my heads up display (HUD) began to flicker before eventually kicking off-line. It had happened to me once before during RAG CQ on the JFK. Cycling the HUD on-off switch usually fixed the problem, but not this day.

Still a nugget, I did the smart thing and "fessed" up to my buddy on AUX. I jiggled the HUD, cycled it on and off, played with the intensity, tested it with BIT, but nothing worked. Now was the time to talk to the ultimate troubleshooter, the CATCC rep. He was our XO and could draw the schematics of the Hornet from memory.

Switching to button two to speak with a rep invites fellow aircrew to listen in. Being a new guy, that was in the back of my mind. With the ship between Farsi Island and Iran, there wasn't room for error. Being head down with my displays and going through an IBIT with a small AOB on the standby gyro halfway between mom and Farsi was inviting trouble. I couldn't bear it any more and stopped the BIT. I found myself two miles from the Farsi standoff range and headed directly for it. I went to mil power and pulled away just before nicking the airspace boundary. My equilibrium was whacked at this point. The next thing I thought of was the helicopter crew that flew over Farsi the week before. Upon their arrival, our battle group commander impounded their helicopter and grounded the crew. I had dodged that bullet.

Back to the rep: He asked if I felt comfortable bringing aboard an aircraft without a HUD. I replied, "Yes." Why? Because I knew from experience that a degraded pass in the Hornet often brought a bonus, usually the OK or the upgrade from paddles. I told the rep I would do it.

Checking into marshal and setting up holding was easy with the HUD on my left DDI. After completing the HAIL checklist, I pushed on time and made my descent. I had bull's-eye and needles frequencies dialed in and received them 4.0. I had all the tools to get me the good start we are accustomed to. Needles showed me with the nice up-and-on, and bull's-eye had me the same. Setting the glide slope with the auto throttles eased the workload tremendously. Still, something in the back of my mind was reminding me of flying the ball in the simulator.

After setting the standard 720 fpm rate of descent, with auto throttles engaged, I clicked them off and began manhandling the throttles. My heart began to race. I was telling myself those Tomcat and Prowler guys do it without a Gucci HUD like ours. I wasn't comfortable looking down at the left DDI for everything I needed to fly the approach. I was used to looking through the HUD. When I called the ball, I only saw meatball, lineup and AOA; no VSI. That is where an NFO would come in handy.

I got off to a great start with needles centered on the velocity vector. I transitioned to head-out-of-the-cockpit and added power to get the ball to crest. That didn't happen. The ball began to rise until it screamed to get off the top of the lens. I knew that it was getting ugly, but I remembered that according to our RAG paddles, no-HUD in the Hornet was an emergency. I bought a bolter bigger than anything.

I had plenty of fuel for several more cracks at it. It never crossed my mind to ask for a mode-one approach. That probably would have been too easy. I wouldn't even have had to deal with the problem, but I wanted to prove to myself I could get the OK 3-wire.

"Four Zero Four, airborne," I sadly called, as I made my ascent to angels one point two.

There were no lights anywhere, except for CVN 71 and her aircraft flying around. I knew what I'd done wrong. Hooking in around six miles, I dirtied up and referenced my DDI. Once again, I made it to a great start with a centered ball and blew it off the top.

"Power back on, bolter, bolter, bolter," was the call as I bought my second one.

My heart was beating out of my chest. Now I was thinking to myself that CAG and the skipper were biting their nails as the only lieutenant junior grade in the two Hornet squadrons was flailing around the gulf. Our ready-room bolt was surely hanging over my lonely seat, suspended from the ceiling by a steel-fishing leader. I came around for the third time and did the same thing. It was getting ugly. I had one pass left before I would either hit the tanker or head to Kuwait. Mustering what little brainpower I had left, I visualized what the pass should look like and went over it again and again on downwind. Getting to a good start was easy; it was flying the ball that was slapping me around. This was it, I was coming aboard.

"Four Zero Four, on and on, three-quarters of a mile, call the ball," I said.

After the ball call, it was my turn to troll. I was coming aboard. So what did I do? I kept leading the low, breaking one of the five LSO rules-to-live-by. Well, I led the low all the way to the ace.

"Welcome aboard," was probably resounding around the ship. It was good to be home. Heading down to the ready room, I couldn't pick up my head. I had just flown four ugly passes in a row. I reassured myself that the Hornet-no-HUD emergency would get the bolters no-counted and the ace auto-no-grade brought up to at least a fair. When I saw the CAG paddles walk into our ready room, I could tell by his look that I was sadly mistaken. After all, he was a Prowler guy, and they do it all the time.

I took it in the face, but it was my own fault. By the way, that shiny bolt was hanging over my ready-room chair as expected. My Ops O showed me his own four-bolter entry in his log book from when he was a J.O. I learned even the best have had their night in the barrel. He had my three bolters and one no-grade beat but not by much.

Starting back in CQ, I should have done more no-HUD and other circus passes in the FCLP pattern. Thinking the no-HUD emergency would buy me the paddles upgrade was ludicrous. My concentration was about half of what it should have been. Thinking about the auto OK was the wrong thing to do. Almost flying over Farsi Island could have been avoided with better aviating and navigating. Trolling the low to get aboard could have been fatal.

What could I have done? Flying the ball to touchdown would have been nice for a start. Applying the LSO rules-to-live-by would have helped as well. Furthermore, this all could have been avoided with a mode-one approach. It was a learning experience and one that could be avoided in the future by preparing and focusing. There are those who have and those who will.

Lt. Alden flies with VFA-87."

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2012, 00:41
by spazsinbad
The other 'HUD fails on Catapult' story....

No-HUD nugget - head up display - troubleshooting instead of flying by Dan Cochran Approach March, 2003

http:/ findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKE/is_3_48/ai_100172332/

“Blue water in the South China Sea—last launch of the night, and the ship was steaming in a driving rainstorm. The cloud bottoms started at 2,000 feet, and there were layers upon layers through FL300; it was very dark. I was one month out of the RAG, and only four days had passed since our last liberty port. Aside from my day-to-go-night sortie earlier in the day, it had been two weeks since I’d flown.

As I ducked through the hatch leading to the flight deck, my first thought was, “They’re gonna make me fly in this?” It was dark, and the flight deck was slippery. I thought my most dangerous task of the night would be getting to my Hornet, which was parked farthest up the bow. My flashlight did not help much, as I kept my head down to keep the rain from my eyes.

After a cursory preflight, the PC opened the canopy long enough for me to get in the cockpit, but, in the time it took to jump into the jet, the consoles and instruments got soaked from the downpour. I dried off the displays and continued with the launch. The deck was slick, but I managed to taxi to the catapult. As a part of my ever-solidifying habit patterns, I went through my emergency-catapult-flyaway procedure.

I went into tension, wiped out the controls, and made sure I hadn’t popped any flight-control codes. Once assured the jet was ready to fly, I brought up my ADI (gyro) on the right display, flipped the pinkie switch on the outboard throttle, and waited for the cat stroke that would send me hurtling into the black void at the end of the angle deck.

As I felt the reassuring acceleration of the stroke, my HUD blanked out. I instinctively checked my engine instruments, knowing if they were good, I shouldn’t have a problem getting away from the water. My scan went to my right display and the ADI. I rotated to 10 degrees on the ADI and concentrated on keeping my wings level while climbing. It was a few seconds before I remembered to scan the HUD symbology on my left display, and I continued my departure climb.

It wasn’t until passing 10,000 feet, and still in the goo, that I radioed my lead to tell him I had lost my HUD on the cat shot and couldn’t get it back. I was so preoccupied with troubleshoot- ing I neglected to fly the jet. It wasn’t until passing through 25 degrees nose high, with airspeed rapidly dropping, that I focused on the priority task of aviating. I reevaluated my plan of action, and decided to fly my jet, to get out of the clouds, and then to worry about getting back my HUD.

I broke out and my lead— the CAG operations officer— and I joined at 33,000 feet, trying to stay out of the rising clouds. We broke out the PCLs and started to troubleshoot the problem. Our good crew coordination was a plus. It was all I could do to fly formation and not get vertigo. I concentrated on staying in position, as my lead read the PCL and talked me through recovering my HUD—no success. What now?

We agreed I should penetrate the weather on my lead’s wing and have him drop me off on the ball. We started down, and the bright stars quickly were obscured as we descended into the weather. My thoughts went to my last simulator flight in the RAG, which was my emergency carrier-landing hop. I had to fly the no-HUD approach three times because I almost hit the ship on my first two attempts.

At 1,200 feet and eight miles from the ship, we configured for landing. There were no AOA indications in my cockpit. The gear showed three down and locked, and I had an E bracket on my left display but no red chevron. I checked to see if the AOA lights were burned out and discovered I had neither a fast or slow chevron, but the amber donut worked. I told paddles of the possible AOA failure.

At a mile and a half, I saw the lights of the ship appear out the corner of my eye. Lead did a nice job, dropping me off with a centered-ball start, and I transitioned from flying form to flying a good pass. I felt good about the pass until, suddenly, the waveoff lights illuminated, and I heard paddles’ frustrated call, “Wave off, foul deck.”

As I climbed away from the carrier, I spied my flight lead in perfect position at my 10 o’clock. I still had fuel for two more looks before I would have to visit the tanker. We flew around the bolter pattern. Again, at three-quarters of a mile, I transitioned from form flying to ball flying. The transition was too much for me; somewhere in the middle, the ball crept off the top of the lens.

My correction wasn’t enough, and I had to call clara as the ball went off the top of the lens. The LSOs told me to make an easy correction and to keep it coming. My correction wasn’t too easy, and I slammed down before the 1-wire with AB fully engaged. My head flew forward, and it felt like I was riding my nosewheel down the deck as I felt all four wires pass beneath me. I was airborne again! My heart sank as I realized, even after that horrible pass, I had to bring it around for another attempt.

After assuring the tower my hook was down, I decided I needed to fly the pattern myself, so my lead turned downwind without me. Practicing my new scan during the circle around the boat turned out to be the right call. It took me a minute or so to cool down and to get it back together. We were blue-water ops, and I didn’t want to do anymore no-HUD passes.

For the third pass, I was on my own. Although I was turned in early, I still got a good start, which gave me confidence. I concentrated on keeping a better energy package and got aboard without as much terror as the prior pass.

I never was happier to get out of a jet in one piece. I learned a lot that night. All aviators are taught to aviate, navigate, communicate, and to prioritize tasks. Despite looking at the display after my HUD failed on the cat stroke, I did get safely airborne. However, rather than continue to fly away from the water on a black night, I elected to troubleshoot. Fortunately, I wound up in a 25-degree, nose-up attitude, rather than the other direction. The result could have been a lot different.

The other lesson learned focused on crew coordination. My experienced lead did a super job flying me to good starts and being in position to pick me up after two trips down the groove. The formation flying proved to be disorienting for me. I had flown parade to the start and made a disoriented scan transition without the benefit of my primary flight instrument, as I discovered on my third pass. However, it was far easier to practice my degraded instrument scan all the way around the pattern to the start. From there, it was much easier to transition my scan of meatball, lineup, and angle of attack.

Lt. Cochran flies with VFA-195”

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2012, 01:04
by velocityvector
spazsinbad wrote:I got off to a great start with needles centered on the velocity vector.

Happy to assist and as it should be. Not a fan of needles though. Needle squeamishness is one reason why I went digital GA.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2012, 02:04
by Gums
Salute!

Good war stories.

Can tellya that I never had one HUD failure in my 1,600 hours of "HUD time".

I had a few inertial systems go tango uniform, but the basic HUD showed me speed, AoA, and altitude. So all I was missing was that flight path marker. BFD. Because the SLUF attitude was a function of the inertial, it depended on how bad the inertial was. If only the velocities were bad, but attitude was good, then even that showed up on the HUD. Besides, we had the doppler to help with the velocities, and then the "air mass" mode which used attitude and TAS for the flight path marker. Kinda amazing all we had back in 1970, huh?

I also did not trouble shoot when I lost my inertial data. I flew pitch on the steam gauge, cross checked with the HUD, and used basic power for the profile.

As much as I used the HUD, I always did steam gauge approaches every week to stay "sharp". Being very far-sighted, the HUD was easier to use when breaking out at low ceilings, as I didn't have to re-adjust my eyeballs.

I would really like someone who has actually flown with a HUD on a carrier landing to chime in here. I haven't seen anyone here yet, but hope there's somebody.

I repeat!!! I am not a dinosaur. I want the latest and greatest as much as anyone. OTOH, I want at least one back-up system I can trust with my life and that zillion dollar jet.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2012, 03:13
by spazsinbad
Gums, I have read that Hornet pilots will put the VelocityVector? on the 'crotch' (see diagram) during approach but in the middle or close (in close) they will transition to the IFLOLS because it is more accurate in that precise environment. Using ICLS needles is a NoNo also for same reason except to get in close or where the IFLOLS can be clearly seen for the precision approach aspect of 'meatball, lineup and airspeed'. There is a recent post about a nugget using ICLS at night instead of tradition to have a rampstrike. Did you see that post?

Last entry on this page: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... one#233738

In the same way inebriated carrier landing pilots will claim to be able to land onboard with no help from anything or anyone - there are some claiming to be able to do HUD only landings (no IFLOLS etc.). Yeah right. However apparently it is legitimate to use this method for lineup keeping until of course going IFLOLS etc.

“One of real world pilots tricks is using the "crotch" area as a cheat. They put the v/vector [HUD] in the crotch as they are working on landing. Its a visual trick that keeps them on a good lineup.” I would just look at the lineup and use that - no HUD required. :roll:

CROTCH Graphic from: http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/ ... _CV_03.pdf

2nd graphic is a mashup of how a real world Hornet pilot using FSX would put the VV on the crotch as described with comparo of real world view. I don't use the HUD in FSX so it is all a mystery to me. :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2012, 03:46
by Gums
Salute!

You and I are on the same page, Spaz.

The HUD flight path vector and steering cues makes the intitial part of the apprach easier than the "old days". At least it shows that you are gonna hit the boat someplace or other. But then for the fine points at the end, those lights are what counts.

I only did a few traps in the Hornet sim at the McAir factory, but that's what I found worked best. Didn't like the auto-throttle doofer, as I preferred the old system of using power for descent rate/angle and stick for AoA/indexer. So may be my dinosaur habits from the A-7 prevailed. LOL. It was also nice to notice that the HUD flight path marker agreed with those lights for the impact point. This would be more helpful at night, best I can tell.

My feeling is that the F-35 pilots will be able to do just fine on the boats without the helmet doofer working up to speed. I just pray that the training will force them to be able to land time after time without the cosmic helmet.

We don't have any Cee pilots here to talk with, but maybe one will show up and I can get some intell. The A and B folks are happy as clams, and the sortie rate is ramping up every week.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2012, 04:15
by sketch22
Gums, as I'm sure you probably know, the F/A-18E/F can autoland on the boat, yet pilots rarely ever use it. I'm sure for the Super Hornet B-course the pilot has to land the aircraft in the sim with just the basics and no HUD/MFDs/JHMCS/etc.. I imagine the F-35 syllabus will be similar.

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2012, 03:53
by spazsinbad
On previous page 'Rules to Live by' are referenced for carrier approaches. Here are the rules and other LSO funnies... :D

“When I asked Paddles how to improve my grades:
LSO Answer: ‘Just fly a centred ball all the way to touchdown.’” LSOs are smartarses. :D
__________________

Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS). My info is fairly old and may have changed but in a "Mode 1" approach the plane is completely coupled to the ships ACLS data link system. If you ever hear someone call the ball and add "coupled" to the end they are flying Mode 1 (the "auto" call is for when auto-throttles are being used). Mode 1 doesn't get used all that much for a few reasons. First of all, if the ship is even slightly moving around it is uncomfortable. Picture a laser beam being projected out from the 3 wire that represents the aircraft's proper glidepath. Now imagine what that beam does as the boat pitches and rolls in the water. ACLS will keep the jet on that beam, and it can make for a wild ride. Also, the pass won't count toward the pilots grade average. You will generally see guys using Mode 1 after long combat missions where they don't want to mess around and just want to get back aboard.”
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index. ... 1.msg0#new
_______________________

Rules to live by: (gleaned from a Neptunus Lex (also former LSO) story 'RYTHMS Part 13 to 15' [http://www.neptunuslex.com/2005/10/13/rhythms-part-xxxiii/ ] There would be variations perhaps in more 'uptodate' rules but the gist is there.

1) Never lead a low or a slow.

2) If you’re low and slow, add power and maintain attitude until the ball is in the center, then accel to on-speed.

3) Always lead a high or a fast.

4) If you’re high and fast, decel to on-speed and then work the ball down to the center.

5) Fly the ball to touchdown [t/d should be a surprise]. Don’t give up. [Just do it.]

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2012, 04:20
by spazsinbad
Another way to look at de rools...

‘Paddles Monthly’ June 2012 “TYCOM Corner”

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... ne2012.pdf (1.5Mb)

"Flying the pass: As we’ve always been told, and what I’ve just reinforced, is that the pass starts long before the air-plane is in the break. That said, when in the pattern, your utmost concentration is required to constantly correct for any deviation before it puts you out of parameters. My personal advice on correcting deviations is to put LINEUP first in your scan…. This is the hardest to correct…. Secondly, make sure your AOA is squared away. If your lineup & AOA aren’t on, then the information from the BALL will be inaccurate.

A two unit fast or slow aircraft can change the hook position by several feet and often accounts for either bolters or 1 wires though there was a “centered ball”. Once you are receiving the good info by being on centerline and on-speed, you will be able to fly the ball corrections that you’ve been doing since the TRACOM. For high deviations, I submit that correcting for half the deviation works the best….Then, once the correction is complete and under your pro-active ball-flying control, start the process over again. Never correct a high ball to put it in the center. The lowest you should see it is cresting. If you continually work the half deviation corrections, you should never see it back to center. When on the low side, correct for half that deviation to the high side.... Remember, never lead a low! If you don’t lead a low, you will wind up high after correcting from the low. Once there, correct back by half.

This is a gameplan that will get you aboard every time if it is played the whole pass & nothing less than whole pass (translation: FLY the BALL ALL the WAY to TOUCHDOWN).
CDR George “Chum” Walborn, Former CVW-14 Paddles-"

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2012, 15:10
by madrat
Do the parking spots on the elevator 4 side have a nickname?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 02:40
by spazsinbad
I guess not....

Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation Report 2012 PDF

http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com ... report.pdf (0.5Mb)

"...-- The test team continued to work through technical problems with the helmet-mounted display system, which is deficient. The program was addressing five problems at the time of this report. Jitter, caused by aircraft vibrations and exacerbated by aircraft buffet, makes the displayed information projected to the pilot hard to read and unusable under certain flight conditions. Night vision acuity is not meeting specification requirements. Latency of the projected imagery from the DAS is currently down to 133 milliseconds, below the human factors derived maximum of 150 milliseconds, but still requires additional testing to verify adequacy. Boresight alignment between the helmet and the aircraft is not consistent between aircraft and requires calibration for each pilot. Finally, a recently discovered technical problem referred to as “green glow” has been experienced when light from the cockpit avionics displays leaks into the helmet-mounted display and degrades visual acuity through the helmet visor under low ambient light conditions. The test team is planning additional, dedicated ground and flight testing to address these technical problems...."

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 03:40
by deadseal
spazsinbad wrote:Gums, I have read that Hornet pilots will put the VelocityVector? on the 'crotch' (see diagram) during approach but in the middle or close (in close) they will transition to the IFLOLS because it is more accurate in that precise environment. Using ICLS needles is a NoNo also for same reason except to get in close or where the IFLOLS can be clearly seen for the precision approach aspect of 'meatball, lineup and airspeed'. There is a recent post about a nugget using ICLS at night instead of tradition to have a rampstrike. Did you see that post?

Last entry on this page: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... one#233738

In the same way inebriated carrier landing pilots will claim to be able to land onboard with no help from anything or anyone - there are some claiming to be able to do HUD only landings (no IFLOLS etc.). Yeah right. However apparently it is legitimate to use this method for lineup keeping until of course going IFLOLS etc.

“One of real world pilots tricks is using the "crotch" area as a cheat. They put the v/vector [HUD] in the crotch as they are working on landing. Its a visual trick that keeps them on a good lineup.” I would just look at the lineup and use that - no HUD required. :roll:

CROTCH Graphic from: http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/ ... _CV_03.pdf

2nd graphic is a mashup of how a real world Hornet pilot using FSX would put the VV on the crotch as described with comparo of real world view. I don't use the HUD in FSX so it is all a mystery to me. :twisted:


hope the cable can handle a crab!

picture didnt quote, but it looks like that dude is headed straight for the tower thingi(im not navy, so ill just call it the tower sticking out of the bo at

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 03:59
by spazsinbad
The USN LSO will not tolerate an 'out of bounds' approach. However as I understand the 'crotch/HUD' method it is used only at the start or from a long way out approach to help keep lineup then it is back to basics/conventional method for 'at the ramp' (or earlier) and beyond. It is an aid to the method. As indicated earlier a nugget thought it was possible to use the ACLS needles as a substitute for the IFLOLS conventional method. ACLS needles are an aid to the method. Transition to the method is required otherwise 'waveoff, waveoff, waveoff'.

Inevitably there is always going to be a small amount of crab during the arrest. The angle deck at 9 degrees with the ship axial centreline moving in a different way to the angle deck ensures this. The task for the carrier pilot is to minimise the crab effect by being aligned fore and aft with the angle deck centreline - at the last second - without being dangerous doing that. Last minute lineup corrections are usually a no no (they introduce other penalties). So being on centreline as well as being within the other carrier landing limits ALL THE TIME (as much as is humanly possible) is the goal of the deck lander. Nothing else will do.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 04:16
by count_to_10
spazsinbad wrote:
Inevitably there is always going to be a small amount of crab during the arrest. The angle deck at 9 degrees with the ship axial centreline moving in a different way to the angle deck ensures this. The task for the carrier pilot is to minimise the crab effect by being aligned fore and aft with the angle deck centreline - at the last second - without being dangerous doing that. Last minute lineup corrections are usually a no no (they introduce other penalties). So being on centreline as well as being within the other carrier landing limits ALL THE TIME (as much as is humanly possible) is the goal of the deck lander. Nothing else will do.

I've wondered for a while why the choice was made to go with an angled landing strip instead of just offsetting the landing strip to the left edge of the deck for deconfliction. Seems like that would be simpler, unless it is necessary for whatever reason for the impact point on the strip to be close to the center line of the ship.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 05:10
by spazsinbad
It amazes me how USN LSOs over the years have been attempting to get their pilots to do the perfect carrier landing - despite the pilots resistance. :D Sometimes there is such a 'perfect approach'. Often such a 'perfect OK underlined' is given only when conditions are difficult - such as during a real emergency approach which is successful. In the process of making life easy for the carrier pilot (probably doing it for themselves [LSOs] in fact) there are many gizmos for the use of.

Consider this. If angle decks are perceived as a problem (and apparently they are not) then why do not the USN go to 'STOP - then LAND' method - ala STOVL? Really - that is the easiest way to land on a moving deck. You are correct that having the landing spot near the least ship movement is a consideration in both VLs and conventional carrier landings. My PDFs about these matters make that clear.

As for having a separate axial deck on the port side - I would say this.... It will have been considered but due to sea keeping considerations - rejected because either the deck overhang was too great (USS Midway was famous for the extensive overhang [13.5 degree angle deck] after being converted from an axial deck carrier to an angle deck - it apparently holds the record for ship roll because of it) OR if the carrier hull was widened also to accommodate the extra deck space as described, then the ship becomes quite different in every aspect. Having a relatively conventional hull with minimal angle deck overhang was seen to be the solution. And of course GOING BIG! Go Big or Go Home. :D

BTW carrier aircraft these days are designed to handle (within limits) the stresses of being slightly crabbed for landing and slightly off centre arrests (the arrestor gear also designed to deal with this aspect). Go over the limits though and there be trouble. Hence the 'waveoff waveoff waveoff'.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 06:02
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:I guess not....

Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation Report 2012 PDF

This sounds all sounds worse than it is. With the jitter its mainly a software fix. There are concerns over CPU load in the ICP, but they can upgrade the ICP boards if they really need to, assuming software alone isn't enough to solve the HMD problems/Display problems. The jitter is something that is being fixed, but slowly due to how the buffeting/vibrations are experienced in actual flight conditions. They can't duplicate the dynamic vibration on the ground, to perfectly match flight conditions.

I've previously commented, that the ICP boards don't have significant GPU acceleration, and that may be a factor in all this. There is also concern that the acuity issues are not be the camera itself, but the way the image streams are processed.

The fact is that the F-35 has more flight testing than any jet before it. All these issues are part of flight development. A YF-22 crashed due to a FCS bug and a F-22 crashed due to electrical glitch that hadn't been found in prior testing. Another F-22 crashed in follow-on flight testing.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 15:09
by quicksilver
The TIME writer was clearly steered toward the "25% increase in vulnerability" story by the serial leakers in DOT&E since it is not new (decided in 2008) and one of their long-standing pet-peeves. However, there's not really much going on here (in this report). Pretty straight forward recounting of a year of Developmental Test.

The real 'tell' of the report is on the recommendations. Notably they don't have much to carp about except issues they've been harping about for some years now -- removal of the PAO shutoff valves, the fuel-draulic fuses, and dry-bay extinguishing system. Some of the other language is DOT&E code for "we want more money spent in our empire...", in particular, for EW testing.

Follow-on jitter testing occurred after November and, aiui, largely complete. 'Green glow' is inaccurately described in the report and, similarly, testing complete.

Conspicuously they left out any mention of high AoA testing, which has gone exceptionally well.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 20:33
by neurotech
quicksilver wrote:The TIME writer was clearly steered toward the "25% increase in vulnerability" story by the serial leakers in DOT&E since it is not new (decided in 2008) and one of their long-standing pet-peeves. However, there's not really much going on here (in this report). Pretty straight forward recounting of a year of Developmental Test.

The real 'tell' of the report is on the recommendations. Notably they don't have much to carp about except issues they've been harping about for some years now -- removal of the PAO shutoff valves, the fuel-draulic fuses, and dry-bay extinguishing system. Some of the other language is DOT&E code for "we want more money spent in our empire...", in particular, for EW testing.

Follow-on jitter testing occurred after November and, aiui, largely complete. 'Green glow' is inaccurately described in the report and, similarly, testing complete.

Conspicuously they left out any mention of high AoA testing, which has gone exceptionally well.

EW is a big issue for the air force. The EA-6Bs will be retired soon, and the EA-18s are still Navy jets.

It's debatable if the F-35B would have been better with a modest thrust increase, instead of trying to reduce weight in areas that effect service life or survivability

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 20:39
by spazsinbad
Perhaps reducing the weight of the HMDS may help - surely the topic of this thread - but weight related the F-35B engine thrust was increased by a small amount some years ago now. Perhaps if HMDS related topics could be discussed on this thread - that would be nice? Whilst the F-35B engine thrust could be elsewhere? Perhaps on a thread dedicated to that point?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 21:50
by neurotech
Yeah, I must confess I do get off topic sometimes :D

Ill see if I can find recent updates on the overall weight reduction, and then post a new topic.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 19:47
by marksengineer
Neurotech:

A bit off topic but in response to your post doesn't the Navy have 3 Expeditionary EA-18G squadrons? Thought the AF funded enough EA-18G's for 4 units?

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2013, 04:57
by spazsinbad
Back on topic:

F-35B grounded, Lockheed responds to DOT&E report By Dave Majumdar on January 18, 2013

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... espon.html

"...One thing not in the story is the F-35's vital helmet mounted display. O'Bryan said that he couldn't directly address the current issues with the helmet. But he did say that we can expect an announcement from the F-35 JPO within the next two months about where the program is on fixing the helmet. The only thing he is able to say is that a new ISIE-11 night vision camera will be cut into production in LRIP 7--which VSI had told me earlier is hoped will remedy night vision acuity problems. The ISIE-11 will be replacing the older ISIE-10 camera that is on the current jets."

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2013, 09:17
by munny
A spot of reading on Intevac night vision cameras using their ISIE-10 and ISIE-11 sensors.

Basically 50% higher pixel count, double the frame rate and better processing.

http://www.intevac.com/intevacphotonics ... ightvista/

Video of the old ISIE-10 sensor in action...

http://www.intevac.com/intevacphotonics ... n-setting/

Extremely low light ISIE-10 demo

http://www.intevac.com/intevacphotonics ... l-setting/


Datasheet for ISIE-11 based camera

http://www.intevac.com/wp-content/uploa ... sheet1.pdf

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2013, 10:08
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'munny' here is a compare graphic: http://www.intevac.com/intevacphotonics ... ightvista/

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 21:05
by spazsinbad
F-35 JSF Testers Report Progress, Problems By Guy Norris, Graham Warwick — With Amy Butler and Bill Sweetman in Washington. Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology 21 Jan 2013

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 03.xml&p=3

"...“We have done a lot of night flying to understand the helmet and DAS [distributed aperture system], and done night hovering as well.” McFarlan says testing of the troubled helmet is making progress and now focusing on latency of the DAS imagery projected on the visor during night flying."

Lotsa bits and pieces excerpted elsewhere....

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 23:15
by neurotech
marksengineer wrote:Neurotech:

A bit off topic but in response to your post doesn't the Navy have 3 Expeditionary EA-18G squadrons? Thought the AF funded enough EA-18G's for 4 units?

6 Squadrons but only deploy on detachment, not complete squadrons usually. I think the AF funds their WSO/EWO crews, and maybe some of the detachment costs. It's entirely possible that the AF pays for 4 detachments of EA-18 operations. The AF didn't pay for the actual jets purchased.

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2013, 05:10
by f-22lm
Hello fellow members, I just want to give you guys the updated look on the helmet.



Image

http://www.edwards.af.mil/shared/media/ ... 99-001.jpg :D

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2013, 05:46
by spazsinbad
Thanks. Must be the 'Son of Gums'? :D Salute.

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2013, 04:18
by spazsinbad
from the 'bumtish' post here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-23179.html

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fd/tem ... ?id=715294 21 Feb 2013 Partner Presentation

One para 'translated': ..."- We see that progress with the helmet is now so good that [they/we] are likely to go back to one solution at the next major milestone in April, and [they/we] will then scrap the backup solution which began its work last year. A Lightning Protection solution has now been agreed on and restrictions on flights in thunder storms will be lifted in 2015, concurrently with software version "2B" being installed in the aircraft. This is the software the U.S. Marine Corps will be operational with in 2015, and where shortly after the use of F-35 in hot military operations if necessary. The development of software in general, where we previously saw a backlog has now been dealt with [caught up on], and the development of Block 2B software is now on track to be installed in 2015. This shows that the measures taken just months back, are now showing results, says Klever...."

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2013, 05:48
by battleshipagincourt
neurotech wrote:It's debatable if the F-35B would have been better with a modest thrust increase, instead of trying to reduce weight in areas that effect service life or survivability


That wasn't really an option. The F-35's STOVL capabilities weren't limited by their thrust to weight ratio, but by the lift fan's output. So even if the F-135 could deliver double its original thrust requirements, the fan was pretty much fixed.

So the only option beyond cutting off the excess fat was to either reduce its bring back or always stressing the STOVL system to its maximum capacity just to maintain a hover... which would reduce lifespan considerably.

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 06:14
by spazsinbad
Tailored to Trap 01 Dec 2012 Frank Colucci

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/militar ... 77964.html

"F-35C control laws give Navy pilots Integrated Direct Lift Control for easier carrier landings, and they open the door for future landing aids."...

"...Even with its innovative flight controls, the F-35C, from the pilot’s perspective, is relatively conventional coming aboard the carrier. “Determining where you are with respect to lineup and glideslope is all visual,” acknowledged Canin. “For lineup, you look at the ship and line up on centerline… easy enough if the ship’s heading is steady, but tricky if the ship is wallowing,” noted Canin. “As for glideslope, you have to watch the meatball and see small deviations. Then you have to put the ball back in the middle, with the right rate of descent so it stays there. None of that’s changed with this airplane, but what we’re giving the pilot is more responsiveness and bandwidth to do that.”

The F-35 uses a BAE Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) instead of a conventional Head-Up Display (HUD). Like a classic HUD, the HMD shows the pilot a flight path marker (or velocity vector), with a bracket to indicate if the aircraft is “on speed” or flying fast or slow. Meanwhile, a caret moves up or down in reference to the flight path marker to give an acceleration-deceleration cue.

Ashore, when the aircraft is on glideslope, the pilot simply puts the flight path marker by the meatball and the aircraft stays on that glideslope. “At the ship, since the landing area is moving through the water, the pilot needs to put the flight path marker out in front of it. He needs to put it where the landing area will be when he gets there, which again requires judgment. A better system would be put the velocity vector into the moving reference frame of the boat,” Canin said.

Though not currently part of the F-35 plan, implementing a “ship-referenced velocity vector” (SRVV) would allow the pilot to put the SRVV on the intended touchdown point to hold glideslope. “All we would need to know from the ship is its current velocity, so we can put the airplane symbology in that reference frame,” Canin said.

Readily rewritten control laws have other possibilities. “With the current flight control law, the pilot commands pitch rate with the stick, and uses that pitch rate to establish a glideslope,” noted Canin. “There’s no reason, though, why the flight control system couldn’t establish a baseline glideslope, and allow the pilot to apply control stick pressure to command tweaks around that glideslope in response to ball deviations.” A “glideslope command” mechanization of this sort is not in the baseline airplane now, but is an example of the type of changes that could relatively easily be incorporated in the F-35 control system....

...The JSF test program currently has no autolanding requirement, but plans call for an F-35C autolanding capability based on the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System. “The F-35 will take more of a self-contained approach — an internally generated glideslope from GPS.”

IDLC is just one part of the F-35 test program which will now include tests of a refined tailhook for arrested landings. “We look at approach handling qualities every chance we get,” said Canin. “Where the rubber meets the road, though, is at touchdown. Until recently we haven’t had a loads clearance that allowed us to do carrier-type landings, but now we do, so now we’ll be able to look at our control precision to touchdown.”

Canin concluded, “Carrier landings, particularly at night, are still considered to be the hardest thing to do in aviation. But I think we now have an airplane, and the people in our control laws group, that can kill that notion forever. The carrier approach is a very well-defined problem, and there’s no reason why this airplane can’t completely change the game.”"

As mentioned on two other recent threads on this forum, this article is long and complex with many different aspects suitable for the different threads.

Go to these forum URLs for these different relevant excerpts from same article:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-105.html
&
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-315.html

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2013, 02:26
by spazsinbad
F-35 Program Status March 14, 2013

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17262.html (120Kb)

"...Helmet/Software
- Pilots have flown more than 4,000 flights and 5,000 hours with the helmet and our feedback from pilots at Edwards, PAX River, Eglin and Ft. Worth, is they love this helmet. During the fall, dedicated tests were performed testing the improvements we’ve made and the results are positive.

- Block 1 and 2A software is supporting pilot training at Eglin.The same software will also be used to support flight operations at Yuma. Successful test results in flight test are seen at both Edwards and PAX.

- Only 10 percent of the software is still in development...."

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2013, 05:29
by spazsinbad
Repeated from a "MADL" thread earlier: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-23840.html

Lt General Christopher C. Bogdan Program Executive Officer F-35 SASC Written Testimony 24 Apr 2013
"...In addition to software challenges, the three F-35 variants are encountering the types of development problems typically experienced on advanced state-of-the-art, high performance aircraft development programs at this stage of maturity. While we still have technical risks on the program, I have confidence that the known technical issues we have will be solved and properly integrated into the F-35. The Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) for the F-35 is a major technological advance and a design challenge. Issues faced by the program office over the past year relative to the HMDS were “green glow” or insufficient helmet display contrast, latency of the displayed information, “jitter” or lack of stability of the displayed symbology, night vision acuity and alignment. We executed a short flight test program from November 2012 to March 2013 dedicated solely to exploring and understanding the helmet problems using developmental and operational test pilots flying a number of operationally representative missions. As a result of this testing, the program now understands and has mitigated the effects of ”green glow”, latency, jitter and alignment. Additional work still needs to be done to ensure that the program has a night vision camera that is effective for operations as our testing indicated that the current night vision camera is unsuitable for operational use. As risk reduction, the program continues to fund development of a night vision goggle-based alternative helmet solution. The goggle-based helmet development will continue until we see demonstrated improvement in all of the risk areas of the original helmet and until the government has secured a price agreement with the prime contractor showing significant cost reduction in the original helmet...."

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/st ... -24-13.pdf (180Kb)

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2013, 14:43
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:Repeated from a "MADL" thread earlier: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-23840.html

Lt General Christopher C. Bogdan Program Executive Officer F-35 SASC Written Testimony 24 Apr 2013
[quote.... ..The goggle-based helmet development will continue until we see demonstrated improvement in all of the risk areas of the original helmet and until the government has secured a price agreement with the prime contractor showing significant cost reduction in the original helmet...."

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/st ... -24-13.pdf (180Kb)[/quote]

Point of clarification; a recent post indicated that the alternative helment was being discontinued and that the issue with the night vision was resolved. These appear to conflict and this statement from yesteday 24 Apr 2013 is very similar to status from 1 year ago.

Question; what is the current status on 25 Apr 2013 of the HMDS for the F-35 program? :?:

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2013, 19:19
by spazsinbad
I think it is clear that Gen. Bogdan has made a decision to continue with the alternate helmet development which is not ideal by any measure as a night helmet either. IF the HMDS II night vision camera is able to be improved then along with the other improvements and a reduction in price overall for HMDS II it will be good to go? The earlier reports did not include the recent decision (rather than speculation about the decision?). Bogdan says what is at the time - now. However he speculates positively into the future (given these caveats).
"...Additional work still needs to be done to ensure that the program has a night vision camera that is effective for operations as our testing indicated that the current night vision camera is unsuitable for operational use. As risk reduction, the program continues to fund development of a night vision goggle-based alternative helmet solution. The goggle-based helmet development will continue until we see demonstrated improvement in all of the risk areas of the original helmet...."

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2013, 19:59
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:I think it is clear that Gen. Bogdan has made a decision to continue with the alternate helmet development which is not ideal by any measure as a night helmet either. IF the HMDS II night vision camera is able to be improved then along with the other improvements and a reduction in price overall for HMDS II it will be good to go? The earlier reports did not include the recent decision (rather than speculation about the decision?). Bogdan says what is at the time - now. However he speculates positively into the future (given these caveats).
"...Additional work still needs to be done to ensure that the program has a night vision camera that is effective for operations as our testing indicated that the current night vision camera is unsuitable for operational use. As risk reduction, the program continues to fund development of a night vision goggle-based alternative helmet solution. The goggle-based helmet development will continue until we see demonstrated improvement in all of the risk areas of the original helmet...."

Is developing two helmets the ideal scenario... probably not. Is it a smart choice given the conditions, without a doubt, Yes! I trust Gen. Bogdan to make smart choices, not necessarily the cheapest choice.

The F136 debate was another example. Sec. Gates was fully confident the F135 wasn't going to be a failure, (eg. A repeat of the TF30 F-14 experience) and had to conserve flight test time. Skip over the political irritation, the decision wasn't really about money, but was about flight test time and resources. The helmet choice is 1 jet and maybe 200 extra flight hours, so its justified from a risk reduction point of view.

I'm familiar enough with the technology involved to know that there is compromises and choices. To dispel a common myth; It isn't the helmet display itself thats the problem. Its the integration with other systems. The accelerometer is very sensitive, and the firmware doesn't always filter out vibration to give accurate positioning. As hinted above, the camera sensors are also a big part of it, and quite honestly, they under spec'd them originally and are playing catch up, these are the smallest, most sensitive cameras ever fielded in an aircraft. They have upgraded them at least twice, and there is another option available but at significant R&D cost.

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2013, 20:46
by lamoey
My undestanding of what Gen. Bogdan said is that all issues except the night vision have been solved. There were some posts here a while back about an improved night vision camera that would be tested on the helmet. Anybody heard any news about the progress of this?

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2013, 21:11
by spazsinbad
Here is the thing...

Federal Register /Vol. 78, No. 75 /Thursday, April 18, 2013 /Notices 23227
"...(3) The F–35 Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) is Secret and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is Secret. Software (object code) is Secret. Sensitive elements include: HMDS consists of the Display Management Computer-Helmet, a helmet shell/display module, a quick disconnect integrated as part of the ejection seat, helmet trackers and tracker processing, day- and nightvision camera functions, and dedicated system/graphics processing. The HMDS provides a fully sunlight readable, biocular display presentation of aircraft information projected onto the pilot’s helmet visor. The use of a night vision camera integrated into the helmet eliminates the need for separate Night Vision Goggles (NVG). The camera video is integrated with EO and IR imaging inputs and displayed on the pilot’s visor to provide a comprehensive night operational capability...."

http://regulations.justia.com/regulatio ... 09094.html

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2013, 21:50
by spazsinbad
Cleveland Aviation Society February 2012 Newsletter, Pages 4-6
"Sit Back Red Leader. Article supplied by Chris Graham.
From the cockpit of the F-35 Joint strike Fighter, a featureless seascape stretches to the horizon, broken only by the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier steaming dead ahead. Just above my knees are several iPad-like touch screens, each one displaying flight data, weapon selections and a blur of other information. That barrage of data extends to the canopy, too. Flickering symbols are projected over the vessel in the water and other planes in the air. The aircraft is even talking to me: a well-spoken lady [Nagging Nadia] interrupts my concentration with advice such as "pull up" and, more worryingly, "wing tank empty".

Sensibly, as I've never flown a plane before, the RAF has not entrusted me with control of one of the precious few F-35s yet built (each costing at least £42m - before extras). Instead I'm sitting in BAE Systems' new simulator, a full-scale, multi-million-pound replica of the F-35 cockpit that will be used to train RAF and Royal Navy pilots. It sits in a spherical room at BAE's Warton site in Lancashire, where Britain's cutting-edge military technology is developed behind closed doors and the protection of the Official Secrets Act. I am here to get a bird's-eye view of what 21st-century warfare will look like. And, from where I am sitting, it looks like nothing so much as a computer game. The F-35 will be the most advanced aircraft in the RAF fleet when it comes into service later this decade (flight testing by British pilots is under way in America). But it is not just the performance of the aircraft that is cutting-edge.

The technology that the pilots will be wearing is also more advanced than anything the aerospace industry has produced before. The pilot's helmet, known as the Gen II will make today's systems look positively obsolete. It will give 36o-degree vision, helping to target weapons systems at a glance and identify friend or foe by using animated icons that would not look out of place in a video game. And all of this information will be projected onto the visor of the helmet. It is a development foreseen in Firefox, the novel that was filmed with Clint Eastwood in 1982. In it, Eastwood steals a Russian fighter equipped with weapons that can be fired by thought control. The F-35 does not go quite that far - yet - but it can do the next best thing and respond to voice commands. The hope is that the helmet will make the fighter easier to control and allow the pilot both to concentrate more on flying and react more quickly. The helmet I am wearing works on the same principle, but for the moment the data are instead being projected onto the screen of the simulator (to work accurately, the actual F-35 helmets must be specially built and fitted to each pilot - an expense that the RAF understandably balked at for my fleeting test). Even so, the results are startling.

The system works by stitching together the view from several cameras dotted around the plane to form a complete picture of the outside world. Inside the cockpit are sensors that monitor the position of the helmet. As the pilot moves his or her head, this hardware, called the helmet-mounted display system (HMDS), calculates where he is looking and feeds in the appropriate radar, visual and other imagery. If he sees an enemy target, he can lock on to it using voice commands. A similar system called the helmet mounted symbology system (HMSS) is already used in the RAF's Typhoon, aka the Eurofighter, but there the data are projected onto the cockpit window in head-up-display style. With the F-35, electronics in the helmet display the data directly onto the inside of the visor, so the pilot can scan the land and sky in any direction, not just through the canopy. If, for example, he looks down, he doesn't see his legs but instead is fed images from the camera on the underside of the aircraft, allowing him to see the ground below. But that is not all.

Conventional weapons systems mean that pilots have to point the aircraft in roughly the direction that they want to fire - because they need to get the enemy in their field of view in order to engage the weapons systems. The new helmet and 360-degree sensors allow the pilot to identify an enemy aircraft and engage it, even if it is directly on his tail, without having to violently turn the aircraft. My flight instructor, Steve Long, a former RAF squadron leader and now a BAE Systems test pilot, says: "This simulator is the most realistic I’ve ever been in. The visuals are higher fidelity than any I've seen before; the way it 'flies' is identical to the real airplane, and the way the throttle and stick feel as they move is indistinguishable from the real thing. The only differences are the lack of engine noise, the sounds· and feel of the air conditioning system, and the vibrations of the real thing." I ask if my years of Xbox gaming might finally prove handy. "Definitely.

The 'hands on throttle and stick' controls of a modern cockpit aren't far removed from the control pad of a game console. If you're good at one, it certainly can't hurt at the other." This isn't strictly true. I attempt to land on the carrier, hit the deck and bounce right back into the sky. The tail hook has missed all four of the arrester cables that are supposed to catch the F-35 and pull it to a stop. The screen goes blank - all that is missing is a Game Over message flashing in front of me. Long looks a little crestfallen. I say that I blame the helmet: surely it can help land a plane?

CUSTOM FIT. Each Gen II helmet for the F-35 is custom-made to fit an individual pilot, because the helmet and visor need to remain firmly in place as the flyer moves his head.

SENSORS. Dotted over the helmet's surface is a grid of LEDs. These are tracked by sensors in the cockpit, so the aircraft's computers know exactly where the pilot is looking at all times.

SMART VISOR. The Gen II is the first to use a helmet-mounted display system (HMDS). This moves the head-up display from the cockpit canopy onto the inner surface of the visor. It means that wherever the pilot's head turns, the display remains in his line of sight. What the pilot sees in his visor is a combination of camera feeds and night vision, infrared and radar imagery, together with the identity of any aircraft sharing the skies: It also allows him to "look" through the body of the aircraft at ground targets.

THE FIREFOX FACTOR. Using the HMDS, the pilot can designate an unknown aircraft as hostile by looking at it and issuing a voice command. The F-35 can then suggest a manoeuvre that will result in a "shoot point". Weapons, too, can be fired by voice command alone."

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/phillip.ch ... y-2012.pdf (192Kb)

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2013, 01:12
by count_to_10
Why is he using a RAF simulator to try and land a 'C on the QE?
Wouldn't a 'B be easier and more appropriate?

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2013, 01:57
by spazsinbad
Perhaps the date of the article needs to be highlighted. dunnit. At that time the RN/RAF were going F-35C 'Cats'n'Flaps' mode (I kid thee not). But swift turnaround when that turnaround from B to C proved too expensive and back to the B. Problem solved.

The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter Standard Note: SN06278 Last updated: 12 April 2013
"..."The [UK] Government announced in May 2012 that after reviewing the costs, risks and technical feasibility of adapting the Carriers to the F-35C, it was reverting to the F-35B STOVL variant...."

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 5796,d.aGc (PDF 0.26Mb)

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2013, 02:02
by popcorn
count_to_10 wrote:Why is he using a RAF simulator to try and land a 'C on the QE?
Wouldn't a 'B be easier and more appropriate?

Article dated back in the day when CATOBAR was the choice. Now, with the B, he just needs to push a button.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2013, 00:57
by quicksilver
neurotech wrote: ...The helmet choice is 1 jet and maybe 200 extra flight hours, so its justified from a risk reduction point of view...


That is just not true. The cost of the alternate path helmet development is substantial -- as in multiple 10s of millions of dollars and several years of work (in parallel with the efforts to correct the POR helmet).

The justification for the effort was that the only other alternative was the addition of a conventional HUD -- which would have extended SDD even further, cost hundreds of millions of dollars in development, and imposed astronomical retrofit costs.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2013, 05:35
by neurotech
quicksilver wrote:
neurotech wrote: ...The helmet choice is 1 jet and maybe 200 extra flight hours, so its justified from a risk reduction point of view...


That is just not true. The cost of the alternate path helmet development is substantial -- as in multiple 10s of millions of dollars and several years of work (in parallel with the efforts to correct the POR helmet).

The justification for the effort was that the only other alternative was the addition of a conventional HUD -- which would have extended SDD even further, cost hundreds of millions of dollars in development, and imposed astronomical retrofit costs.

Your claim is misleading at best, but basically wrong on the cost and timeframe. I didn't specify hypothetical cost in my previous comment. And I also didn't specify time frame. Can you point to a GAO or JPO or other DoD document to justify your position? You have no justification for your arrogance, and you are mistaken in the cost directly related to the helmet. In future I recommend you loose the attitude.

There is a F-35 dedicated to helmet testing, and flight testing continues, and that is confirmed by JPO. It is also misleading to claim a particular retrofit cost as significant when there is many other concurrency related flixes planned, on various systems, depending on the aircraft batch.

The current issues are not related to the helmet as much as other systems that interface with the helmet. The changes and flight testing have cleared some of the issues, and the night vision acuity limitations is a camera problem, not a helmet problem.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2013, 06:36
by spazsinbad
At end of page 19 of this thread 'quicksilver' [ http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... &start=270 ] has a good explanation about the 'latency' issues. Not having seen this sort of thing (HUDs, HMDS) I have to imagine a lot. One thing that occured to me was that during night flying it will be a good idea to NOT move ones head too rapidly nor abruptly due to the Spatial Disorientation issues (SD) that may not always be overcome by relying on what can be seen via HMDS II - OR - the time lag from starting to become disorientated is measurable, until the view via HMDS II mitigates the disorientation for the pilot at night. As mentioned in another thread moving your head slowly at night was one way to alleviate potential SD issues (whereas usually during the day there is no problem) in the A4G or any aircraft in that era.

Perhaps ensuring that the F-35 pilot with current or future HMDS II moves their heads slowly at night (how slow will be probably individual) will also mitigate any HMDS II night vision issues (along with any current fixes/updated cameras in future) etc. The pilots may well do this 'slow head moving' already.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2013, 08:14
by neurotech
I'm aware of the concerns over latency, especially for night vision modes. I agree with the suggestion that Spatial Disorientation can be exacerbated by latency.This is not the fault of the helmet itself, but the hardware/software that drives the displays, which is separate from the display itself.

One of the differences between the two helmets is the sensors which determine pilot head position, and this was why the HMDS II jitter caused so many problems. Recent reports indicate the jitter situation is resolved, but the acuitiy issues at night, when dependent on the cameras for night vision display remain a problem, but that will be fixed given due time, money and testing.

I know a few fighter pilots in F/A-18s who consider NVG flying the most dangerous and high-risk non-combat operation, even more risky that the night carrier landing because for carrier landings, you have LSOs to guide them in. Colliding with their wingman, or the ground, with NVGs seems to happen every few years. Assuming all goes to plan, the HMDS coupled to EODAS system will improve Situational Awareness, but not remove the risk of spatial disorientation. Quickly moving the head around can create SD even in normal daylight conditions when flying at unusual attitudes.

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 141#234141
I agree with Gums assessment in the post above Quicksilver' mentioned. 150ms latency is too long for Night Vision display.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2013, 14:08
by quicksilver
neurotech wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
neurotech wrote: ...The helmet choice is 1 jet and maybe 200 extra flight hours, so its justified from a risk reduction point of view...


That is just not true. The cost of the alternate path helmet development is substantial -- as in multiple 10s of millions of dollars and several years of work (in parallel with the efforts to correct the POR helmet).

The justification for the effort was that the only other alternative was the addition of a conventional HUD -- which would have extended SDD even further, cost hundreds of millions of dollars in development, and imposed astronomical retrofit costs.

Your claim is misleading at best, but basically wrong on the cost and timeframe. I didn't specify hypothetical cost in my previous comment. And I also didn't specify time frame. Can you point to a GAO or JPO or other DoD document to justify your position? You have no justification for your arrogance, and you are mistaken in the cost directly related to the helmet. In future I recommend you loose the attitude.

There is a F-35 dedicated to helmet testing, and flight testing continues, and that is confirmed by JPO. It is also misleading to claim a particular retrofit cost as significant when there is many other concurrency related flixes planned, on various systems, depending on the aircraft batch.

The current issues are not related to the helmet as much as other systems that interface with the helmet. The changes and flight testing have cleared some of the issues, and the night vision acuity limitations is a camera problem, not a helmet problem.


If you are unfamiliar with 'alternate path helmet', then you are unfamiliar with the history and current status of HMDS in F-35. My post above stands. Do some research.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2013, 14:40
by quicksilver
Try this on for size...

Lockheed Weighs Alternate F-35 Helmet Display
Apr 21, 2011
By Graham Warwick@AviationWeek

Lockheed Martin plans to select the supplier of an alternate helmet-mounted display (HMD) for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by the end of this quarter.

Development issues with the primary Vision Systems International (VSI) visor-projected helmet-mounted display have led to the decision to pursue an alternate HMD to provide a night-vision capability. The F-35 does not have a head-up display (HUD), and an HMD capable of day and night operation is a critical requirement (Aerospace DAILY, March 4).

“To ensure we have a viable combat capability, we will have two paths for the HMD,” says Eric Branyan, F-35 deputy program manager, adding that the alternate helmet will use off-the-shelf Anvis-9 night vision goggles and provide both virtual-HUD and targeting information.

In parallel, work will continue on resolving display resolution issues with VSI’s Gen 2 HMD, which uses less-mature electron-bombarded active pixel sensor (Ebaps) technology. VSI says it is looking at more advanced versions of the Ebaps night-vision camera.

A request for proposals was issued in mid-March. “We will select a supplier late in the second quarter and begin to go down the path to develop the alternate helmet,” Branyan says. “We will continue down that path as far as we have to. It’s smart program management.”

“They are looking for an interim solution,” says Paul Cooke, defense avionics business development manager for BAE Systems, which is proposing a version of its visor-projected HMD in production for the Eurofighter Typhoon. BAE was developing an HMD for the F-35 up to around 2005, when VSI was selected.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2013, 15:03
by quicksilver
HMDS I (discarded several years ago) at this link -- http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=i ... 3781420035

HMDS II (the current POR, with all the fixes on-going) at this link -- http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=i ... 3839757327

"Alternate Path" HMDS at this link -- http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q= ... 3877764099

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2013, 15:13
by quicksilver
So, Neuro, I'm sure you don't believe that BAE is doing the alternate path development, 'gratis.' And, I'm sure you don't think that the costs of developing, testing and retrofitting a conventional HUD (had they chosen to do so) would have been inconsequential. Having seen the ROMs myself, I can assure you they were substantial enough that they would likely have been the proverbial 'straw' for the program.

If you believe otherwise, I can't help you.

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2013, 20:36
by neurotech
quicksilver wrote:So, Neuro, I'm sure you don't believe that BAE is doing the alternate path development, 'gratis.' And, I'm sure you don't think that the costs of developing, testing and retrofitting a conventional HUD (had they chosen to do so) would have been inconsequential. Having seen the ROMs myself, I can assure you they were substantial enough that they would likely have been the proverbial 'straw' for the program.

If you believe otherwise, I can't help you.

Of course BAE isn't doing this 'gratis'. I didn't say they should.. either.

Thats not what I said. What I stated was that I agreed with gums assessment, that removing the HUD represented a significant development risk to the program. To go back now and add the HUD, the costs would be significant, I'm not debating that part. Pilots like gums have a unique perspective as they have been flying long enough to know what the benefits and risks of the various development choices. eg. Earlier jets didn't have a digital HUDs like current jets today do.

I found this which is one of the more technical accurate articles on the point I'm trying to make;
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... 80%99.aspx

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2013, 20:46
by spazsinbad
Page 2 & 3 of this thread entry dated 10 Oct 2011 has alt helmet info BAE http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-15.html

Page 4 of this thread has info on alternate helmet DISPLAYS: BAE selected to supply F-35 joint strike fighter helmet display Nov 1, 2011

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-45.html (BTM of page)

Page 6 of this thread has info on alternate helmet issues - 'dod-quick-look-ahern-report' entry dated 28 Dec 2011
"...To reduce technical risk, the JPO instituted an alternate helmet path where night acuity is achieved with currently fielded military Night Vision Goggles (NVG) rather than a camera. An additional subcontract was awarded in September 2011 for the alternate HMD development. This helmet faces issues of buffet and latency for basic symbology, with no DAS video capability (and thus not ORD­ compliant). PDR is currently scheduled for early 2012...."

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-75.html

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2013, 21:27
by neurotech
So I was mistaken about the DAS video capability of the alternative helmet. I don't believe I'm mistaken in agreeing with the JPO that having an alternative helmet is justified from a risk management point of view. I didn't state the alternate helmet was trouble free, either.

It is my belief that part of the reason why latency is such a problem is the architecture of the ICPs processing the incoming stream. Even replacing several ICP boards with an upgraded model, with an enhanced GPU, still wouldn't be excessively costly.

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2013, 04:40
by popcorn
On the subject of night vision, what are the relative advantages/drawbacks of
using an IR-based system vs. one based on image intensification e.g EF Typhoon?

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2013, 05:50
by spazsinbad
Can you point us to the Typhoid info please? Tah. For Example: Do you refer to this new system?

"Night vision for Typhoon pilots 22 April 2013
Night vision goggles are being tested by Typhoon pilots to enhance and improve their flying performance at night. Developed through the Army Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier Enhanced Night Vision Goggle advanced technology development program, BAE Systems digitally fused enhanced night vision goggle, or ENVG(D), will allow soldiers to view, via a monocular eyepiece, imagery that exploits features from visible, low-light-level, and infrared sensors. The digitized data can then be shared across the battlefield, enabling the Army’s vision for the digital battlefield. The design and delivery of this prototype is a milestone in the Army’s roadmap toward a digitally fused night vision goggle capability. It substantially improves situational awareness for our men and women in combat, which means increased mission effectiveness and, more important, increased survivability. Now the system is being developed for fighter pilots. Mounted Symbology System offers along with the night compatible cockpit, the FENN NG2000Ti goggles will provide pilots with x-ray like vision right through the night. Night Vision Goggle trials are ongoing and demonstrate the continued efforts to integrate the latest technologies into the Typhoon system."

http://www.fly-fighter-jet.com/night-vi ... on-pilots/

Whatever the new Typhoid merits it seems to me that having a wide field of view via HMDS II is much better than any 'night goggles'?

http://www.fly-fighter-jet.com/wp-conte ... oogles.jpg

TYPHOID Capability PDF (12Mb) : http://tmor.rafale.free.fr/Eurofighter_Capability.pdf

Operational Capabilities of The Eurofighter Typhoon Presented by Chris Worning Test Pilot, EADS

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2013, 07:31
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Can you point us to the Typhoid info please? Tah. For Example: Do you refer to this new system?

"Night vision for Typhoon pilots 22 April 2013
Night vision goggles are being tested by Typhoon pilots to enhance and improve their flying performance at night. Developed through the Army Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier Enhanced Night Vision Goggle advanced technology development program, BAE Systems digitally fused enhanced night vision goggle, or ENVG(D), will allow soldiers to view, via a monocular eyepiece, imagery that exploits features from visible, low-light-level, and infrared sensors. The digitized data can then be shared across the battlefield, enabling the Army’s vision for the digital battlefield. The design and delivery of this prototype is a milestone in the Army’s roadmap toward a digitally fused night vision goggle capability. It substantially improves situational awareness for our men and women in combat, which means increased mission effectiveness and, more important, increased survivability. Now the system is being developed for fighter pilots. Mounted Symbology System offers along with the night compatible cockpit, the FENN NG2000Ti goggles will provide pilots with x-ray like vision right through the night. Night Vision Goggle trials are ongoing and demonstrate the continued efforts to integrate the latest technologies into the Typhoon system."

http://www.fly-fighter-jet.com/night-vi ... on-pilots/

Whatever the new Typhoid merits it seems to me that having a wide field of view via HMDS II is much better than any 'night goggles'?

http://www.fly-fighter-jet.com/wp-conte ... oogles.jpg

TYPHOID Capability PDF (12Mb) : http://tmor.rafale.free.fr/Eurofighter_Capability.pdf

Operational Capabilities of The Eurofighter Typhoon Presented by Chris Worning Test Pilot, EADS



This is what I came across on the Tiffy NV system. Those 6 IR cameras comprising the DAS is a definite advantage.
[add edit:] Spaz, the excerpt you posted mentions fusion of IR and visible low- light level sensors whereas the link I posted seems to describe the latter tech only.. maybe an inadvertent omission by the author?

http://www.defencetalk.com/typhoon-test ... als-47655/

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2013, 09:05
by spazsinbad
It is still a 'GOGGLE' which is looking at a small field of view. Not satisfactory compared to working HMDS II. Night Flat Deck Landings are going to be AMAZin'.

What is iimportant (compare similar Night/Day F-35C DAS view below) is that at night the horizon will be visible amongst whatever other things visible at some distance that are not visible (with or without NVGs). The overall spatial awareness with horizon will be terrific. Otherwise Spatial Disorientation, poor depth perception awaits - not that a pilot is looking at the carrier except for 'meatball, line up and Optimum AoA. You would have to see the complete and utter blackness - and NO HORIZON often discernible - with the IFLOLS bright as a button and probably not that distinguishable at a distance (but it all gets better the closer the approach gets but by then perhaps large errors may not be correctable safely). Having that overall perception from a larger distance helps the pilot get set up sooner so as to only have to make small corrections.

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2013, 03:22
by spazsinbad
Intruder Start Dusk at Altitude into night carrier landing shows only the last few seconds with the screenshot showing what the view is like from the unmoving camera at dusk and then one of the first glimpses of the centreline at just after one mile from arrest. Check the screenshot above with HMDS II and tell me what you would like to see.

Don't forget to right click on the video - when it starts to play - to select ZOOM > Full Screen to get the best view! OR put on your HMDS II!

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2013, 00:12
by spazsinbad
2-Star: Air Wing Has To Evolve 13 May 2013
"Defense News, Navy Times’ sister publication, discussed the future of naval aviation with Rear Adm. Bill Moran, the director of air warfare, and his deputy, Rear Adm. Rich Butler. Excerpts, edited for space and clarity:...

...Q. Adm. Jon Greenert, chief of naval operations, was recently asked in the Senate what his biggest concerns are with the F-35. He said, “I need a tailhook, a helmet and a program that will deliver weapons equivalent to a Super Hornet.” Can you address those issues?...

Moran. The helmet had a variety of issues with it, green glows and jittering in maneuvers. Vice Adm. Dave Venlet [former JSF program director] decided to compete the helmets to try to drive competition, and in my view, that strategy has worked well.

We’ve seen vast improvements in all of the problem areas I just described, and it’s undergoing further tests now. We’re pretty confident the helmet’s going to be just fine. The Marine Corps is paying very close attention because they get the Generation II Helmet, which is the current version. We [USN F-35C] get the Gen III Helmet when it comes out, so we’ll have even more improved [infrared] camera capabilities with whatever design improvements come with the current testing. So in many ways we’re the beneficiaries of being the last to the table on this one. I don’t have any deep concerns about helmets.

But the software piece, we do have concerns about. We’re getting into the very complex builds of the software now.

We are watching the software burndown rates with Lockheed Martin and the Joint Program Office to continue to assess whether it is going to make it in terms of its capability and the time to match up with when we need the airplane at the end of this decade. That’s probably my biggest concern, watching the software development.

I have a lot of confidence in the structural and design pieces of the airplane. I think that the production itself is going much better than it has been. The further we get into the software development and with more capability that comes with it, the harder the software, with more code. It’s something we have to watch very closely...."

http://hrana.org/articles/2013/05/2-sta ... to-evolve/

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2013, 20:51
by spazsinbad
From recent Oz Parliament Statement about F-35 (links to follow) here is the news (note HMDS III - referred to in another post - is on way)....

Proof Committee Hansard, PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
Department of Defence annual report 2011-12, (Public) THURSDAY, 16 MAY 2013 CANBERRA

"...Senator FAWCETT: You mentioned in your opening comments that the helmet mounted display was being 'addressed'. Given the history of various 'addressing' that has occurred without resolution, could you give us some more detail on why you now have confidence that that 'addressing' is going to reach an outcome.

Air Vice Marshal Osley[Program Manager, New Air Combat Capability, Defence Materiel Organisation, Department of Defence]: When I was over in the US back in March I went to Edwards Air Force Base and spoke with the officer running the test program over there and to his deputy. One of the issues we discussed was the helmet mounted display. They have been conducting a series of flight tests purely devoted to exploring the issues with the helmet mount display system and also some of the fixes that they have been putting into the helmet mounted display to improve its performance. That testing has just been completed and they are now finalising the analysis of it. I will give you an initial readout on what the analysis is indicating there.

As you are well aware there is a dual path on the helmet. We currently have the VSI Gen II helmet. The VSI Gen III helmet, which will have an improved low-light night vision capability will be coming in about 2015 and that will then take over. We will know longer have the VSI Gen II. We will go to an all VSI Gen III helmet. You are well aware that the other path is a BAE helmet that has a night vision goggle arrangement attached to it as an interim helmet and as an alternate helmet to the VSI helmet. At the moment both paths are being progressed but of course the flight testing was all about the VSI Gen II helmet.

I think you are across the issues but I will briefly cover them. Alignment is a key one. You hop into the aircraft and on occasion the helmet display may not be aligned with the earth. That requires you to get out of the aircraft and have it realigned on the ground. They are working on a proposal to have that, whereby you in fact fine-tune that prior to getting in the aeroplane; the pilot can do it as part of his normal checkout procedures. At the moment you have to return the helmut(sic) [HelMutKohl is back again] and basically go back and have it adjusted in the workshop. They are making it so that it is pilot-adjustable.

The next one is green glow, and that is a factor of the design of the helmut, using LCDs. It implies that there is a whole lot of extraneous light that is coming in at night around the display. Even though it is noted by a few of the test pilots it is not considered an operationally significant issue for them and they can overcome that one.

The third one is jitter. There were in excess of 35 flight tests; I believe there were 38 by the time I had been to Edwards, and there were more being planned. The initial results were that they were seeing positive improvements from the modifications that had been made. So, they had adjustments to the software to counteract the jitter, and in the pre-jitter software the pilot considered that it was acceptable but that it would require some workarounds and some compensation operationally. The post-modification ones for the anti-jitter in the software were showing significant improvement. That is all I could get out of them at the time, from the commander there.

The fourth issue is DAS latency—that is, the display has a lag in it. That lag has proven in the test flights to not be significant, so it is no major concern. It is expected to meet USAF operational requirements. They have tested it and measured it and the USAF is now considering that data, but it is looking good.

The final one is the night vision camera. The Generation II helmut is not compliant in its night vision capability, and that is an issue not so much for the USAF—it can achieve their operational requirements—but for the US Marine Corps, in particular for fine motor skills of landing on the deck of an LHD and the fine motor skills involved in air refuelling off KC-130s at night doing the probe refuelling. It is a problem both with the amount of resolution you have and with the location of the camera, as you are aware. That will be fixed in the Generation III helmut by using a better system, and they are working on that. And in the interim of course the US Marine Corps are assessing whether it is operationally acceptable to go to IOC in 2015 with it, noting that they also have the alternate helmut as the backup at this time.

So, that is a readout of where we are up to at this point in time. It is an ongoing issue, and we do expect more clarity on it later in the year. But the indication from a Royal Australian Air Force point of view is that the only issue that is basically a red at the moment is the night vision camera, and from our perspective we can achieve our IOC missions with the system as it is. It is not necessarily a red for us, from an operational perspective. I will finish by saying that the helmut mounted display will not meet the specification that was planned. That is a given; it cannot meet the specification. It is a very tight specification and the Generation II will not do that. But it is looking like being operationally acceptable...."

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17588.html

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2013, 06:49
by spazsinbad
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR)
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft (F-35)
As of December 31, 2012
"Executive Summary
...During Calendar Year (CY) 2012, software block development, Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and the Generation II (Gen II) Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) remained the major focus of program execution. All three are key capabilities that directly impact the F-35 program's ability to reach Initial Operational Capability (IOC). Therefore, these areas will remain the focus in the coming year and through the completion of SDD....

...The Gen II HMDS is a major technological advance and design challenge. HMDS issues faced by the program over the past year were: (1) “green glow” or insufficient helmet display contrast, (2) latency of the displayed information, (3) “jitter” or lack of stability of the displayed symbology, (4) night vision acuity and (5) alignment of displayed symbology.

In CY 2012, significant work, including dedicated HMDS flight testing, was undertaken to address each issue and to better understand what constitutes acceptable HMDS performance. As a result of testing, the program has mitigated the effects of four of the five HDMS issues. Additional work still needs to be accomplished to ensure that the program has a night vision camera that is effective for operations. As risk reduction, the program continues to fund development of a night vision goggle-based alternative helmet solution. The goggle-based helmet development will continue until the HMDS demonstrates improvement in all of the risk areas...."

https://www.box.com/shared/xg5r07yw9ywoecpmgui9 (PDF 0.7Mb) H/T 'ELP'.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2013, 04:16
by spazsinbad
Selling the simulation at Lockheed Martin: A journey into the heart of procurement PR By Colin Horgan | May 16, 2013 [This same story is referenced here also: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-270.html ]
"...Your group is herded back to the administrative building for another look at one of the new helmets F-35 pilots will get to wear. You already saw one the day before, when Billy Flynn wanted to explain to everyone what the difference was between how things used before and after this new helmet’s Electro Optical Distributed Aperture System was invented. Pilots used to have to swivel their heads around and were limited to what they could see out their cockpit bubble. Now, however, you hear about how this new helmet’s DAS gives the pilot a 360-degree picture of the exterior of the plane, thanks to cameras mounted around the fuselage. If the pilot looks around, the corresponding camera will show him what it sees. To the pilot, it’s as if the plane doesn’t exist. It is a marvel of technology and design, they all say.

Major Jay Spohn, an instructor pilot who’s part of the Florida Air National Guard, tells you that within the parameters the Eglin pilots are permitted to fly, they haven’t noticed any serious issues with the helmet display, as others have reported. “Some of the things that they’ve commented on that are negative about the [helmet-mounted display], we honestly don’t see those because we don’t operate in those flight regimes where the test sites have noticed any of those issues. Honestly, I can’t comment on that stuff either pro or con because I have not been in those flight regimes that the test locations have taken the aircraft to.”...

...No one seemed to know the specific figure for what the state-of-the-art helmet costs. It’s a price that’s built in with the plane – part of that apparent $85-million acquisition cost, but nobody would say what it cost to produce or replace. At Eglin, SSgt Lemuel Velazquez, who works on maintaining the helmets, told reporters that at the moment, the supply chain is designed to operate in such a way that if damaged, a new helmet part will arrive within 24 hours of being reordered, should it be necessary. However, at the moment it often takes longer. That’s important, because if the helmet (which is custom-fitted to each pilot’s head) is broken, that pilot is grounded until it’s fixed, according to Velazquez.

A recent Pentagon report from J. Michael Gilmore, the Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation, concluded the helmet-mounted display “present frequent problems” for test pilots. They complained of a “misalignment of the virtual horizon display with the actual horizon, inoperative or flickering displays, and focal problems – where the pilot would have either blurry or ‘double vision’ in the display.” According to the report, “pilots also mentioned problems with stability, jitter, latency, and brightness of the presentation in the helmet display.” Flynn claimed the lag and jitter has been fixed. “The helmet works exactly like we wanted,” he said the first day. When another reporter and I asked Velazquez follow-up questions about the reports of flickering, one defence industry journalist from an aviation magazine actually stepped in to help him out, reminding us that the thing to remember was that the helmet was still in development. Twice. Some, it seemed, are more easily converted than others...."

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/05/16/sell ... rement-pr/

http://ipolitics_assets.s3.amazonaws.co ... 24x679.jpg

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2013, 12:33
by Scorpion82
popcorn wrote:On the subject of night vision, what are the relative advantages/drawbacks of
using an IR-based system vs. one based on image intensification e.g EF Typhoon?


The nicht vision enhancement cameras originally envisaged as a bolt on option for the Typhoon were based on light intensification like the vast majority of night vision devices. They have been dropped from the requirements. An IR based system typically offers crisper images and does not require a light source at all. A NVE system is of course more simple and cheaper and it is bolted onto the helmet. The IR solution does require multiple distributed sensors which is a more comlex and thus expensive, but also more capable solution with significantly greater growth potential and wider applicabilities. Another advantage of the IR solution is that it adds no weight to the helmet. IR imagery can be projected on the HEA visor as well. On the Typhoon the PIRATE features a dedicated FLIR mode dubbed Steerable Infrared Picture on Helmet (SIRPH) which projects the FLIR image on the helmet's visor and slews the FLIR to the pilot's line of sight as determined by the helmet's optical head tracking system.

As such it should be possible to project DAS imagery on that helmet pending on proper integration as the concepts of PIRATE and DAS are different.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2013, 02:57
by popcorn
Scorpion82 wrote:
popcorn wrote:On the subject of night vision, what are the relative advantages/drawbacks of
using an IR-based system vs. one based on image intensification e.g EF Typhoon?


The nicht vision enhancement cameras originally envisaged as a bolt on option for the Typhoon were based on light intensification like the vast majority of night vision devices. They have been dropped from the requirements. An IR based system typically offers crisper images and does not require a light source at all. A NVE system is of course more simple and cheaper and it is bolted onto the helmet. The IR solution does require multiple distributed sensors which is a more comlex and thus expensive, but also more capable solution with significantly greater growth potential and wider applicabilities. Another advantage of the IR solution is that it adds no weight to the helmet. IR imagery can be projected on the HEA visor as well. On the Typhoon the PIRATE features a dedicated FLIR mode dubbed Steerable Infrared Picture on Helmet (SIRPH) which projects the FLIR image on the helmet's visor and slews the FLIR to the pilot's line of sight as determined by the helmet's optical head tracking system.

As such it should be possible to project DAS imagery on that helmet pending on proper integration as the concepts of PIRATE and DAS are different.


Thanks.. per Spaz' previous post above..

"Night vision for Typhoon pilots 22 April 2013
Night vision goggles are being tested by Typhoon pilots to enhance and improve their flying performance at night. Developed through the Army Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier Enhanced Night Vision Goggle advanced technology development program, BAE Systems digitally fused enhanced night vision goggle, or ENVG(D), will allow soldiers to view, via a monocular eyepiece, imagery that exploits features from visible, low-light-level, and infrared sensors.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2013, 23:22
by spazsinbad
On page 15 of this thread is an item for Doc, My Neck Hurts by Lt. Mark Jacoby and Tina Avelar in USN Flying Safety Magazine APPROACH March/April 2007 pages 16-19

http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/D ... pril07.pdf (2Mb)

That PDF is no longer available at the URL above so go here:

SpazSinbad's "Documents & Videos Various" Folder:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6 ... 07E6%21116

"DOC My Neck Hurts G issues.pdf" (1Mb)
__________________

DUH. The PDF can just be uploaded here also....

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2013, 03:17
by spazsinbad
This info already posted here today 11 Jun 2013 but this section of long article reposted here because....

New F-35 IOC Goals Rely On Helmet, Software Work 10 Jun 2013 Amy Butler | Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology
"...Another unknown is the outcome of a risk-mitigation plan put in place two years ago to address mounting concerns about the F-35's revolutionary helmet-display system. If the system falls short of its requirements, key tasks such as nighttime aerial refueling and shipboard vertical landing will be severely hampered.

The Pentagon-led F-35 Joint Program Office prompted Lockheed Martin to select a second helmet contractor in 2011 as a backstop in the event the primary system, designed by Vision Systems International (VSI), failed to overcome persistent problems with night-vision acuity and jitter in its Gen 2 helmet. The parallel developments are ongoing (see page 18]. But, risk still remains as officials at VSI, a joint venture of Rockwell Collins and Elbit, are planning to install a new night-time camera into the helmet and incrementally introduce equipment to address the near-field, night-vision acuity issue and other problems. The result, a so-called Gen 3 helmet, is expected to fly in the F-35 in January...."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 25.xml&p=1

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2013, 22:54
by spazsinbad
Youse'll have to join up to see the entire article but... never mind... :D

Strike rate 11 Jun 2013 Dave Majumdar
"After an often troubled development phase, Lockheed Martin says the $397 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme is close to delivering operational capability"
...TEST MILESTONES
An important milestone is that initial signature testing - radar and infrared - is complete for all three variants. The current mission systems fleet test includes developmental testing and integration of the F-35's Lockheed-built electro-optical targeting system, Northrop Grumman-developed distributed aperture system of six infrared cameras, and the troublesome Vision Systems International helmet-mounted display system (HMDS). O'Byran says near-field visual acuity problems with HMDS should be solved once the ISIE-10 night-vision cameras are replaced with the new ISIE-11 camera in the seventh production lot of F-35s.

Radar, threat countermeasures, and data-links with other aircraft systems are also being tested, Lockheed says: "We are completing the first phase of testing to allow fleet pilots to train at night and in instrument meteorological conditions." Other mission systems testing include capability upgrades for the fourth lot of production aircraft to be used by the military services for training, and for the delivery of lot-five fighters.

...The F-35B has completed its first night aided vertical landing, night vision camera aided vertical landing, and the first vertical landing using an expeditionary airfield. Also, on 10 May, the STOVL variant flew its first vertical take-off. Later this year, the Marine version will start high AoA testing, and is expected to the return to the USS Wasp to conduct a second set of sea trials....

...Work also continues on future software blocks, with Block 3i, which is a rehosted version of Block 2B on new computer hardware, expected to enter flight testing later in 2013...."

https://www.flightglobal.com/fg-club/in ... gclubpromo

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2013, 23:08
by SpudmanWP
Work also continues on future software blocks, with Block 3i, which is a rehosted version of Block 2B on new computer hardware, expected to enter flight testing later in 2013...."

Looking forward to see what improvements TR-2 brings.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2013, 23:49
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad"]......
...... and the first vertical landing using an expeditionary airfield. ........quote].

What?? Where, When, what type of expeditionary airfield (Yuma??). Was this a grass and dirt landing?? :roll: :lol:

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2013, 23:52
by neptune
SpudmanWP wrote:
Work also continues on future software blocks, with Block 3i, which is a rehosted version of Block 2B on new computer hardware, expected to enter flight testing later in 2013...."

Looking forward to see what improvements TR-2 brings.


Should also be interesting to see what bugs occur when moving from the old to the new hardware for 2B/3I. I hope it goes well, with minimal issues. A good opportunity for the program to get a silver star on the forehead! :)

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2013, 00:05
by spazsinbad
'neptune' asked: "...Was this a grass and dirt landing??..." I would say that the F-35B will land only on AM-2 matting laid on a suitable surface. I do not believe the F-35B has been built to land on grass or dirt. Hard packed dry dirt might be OK in an emergency but not for regular ops. Grass will be too soft to support such a heavy aircraft with thin high pressure tyres while both dirt/grass will generate lots of potential FOD for a hungry engine.

Perhaps it is best to start a 'non-Avionics' thread for this question? Which I reckon has been discussed a few times on this forum over the years. Did the Harrier operate from such field conditions?

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2013, 00:22
by spazsinbad
DR. J. MICHAEL GILMORE, DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; BEFORE THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 19 Jun 2013
"...The program has also dedicated 42 flights to investigating deficiencies in the helmet mounted display system. Seven aircraft from all three variants flew test missions from October 2012 through May 2013 to investigate jitter in the helmet mounted display system, night vision camera acuity, latency in the Distributed Aperture System projection, and light leakage onto the helmet display under low-light conditions. Although some progress has been achieved, results of these tests have been mixed according to comments from the test pilots. Testing could not be completed within the full operational flight envelope evaluating mission-related tasks, as the full combat flight envelope has not been released. Filters for reducing the effects of jitter have been helpful, but have introduced instability, or “swimming,” of the projected symbology. Night vision acuity was assessed as not acceptable with the current night vision camera, but may be improved with the ISIE-11 camera under consideration by the program. Latency with the Distributed Aperture System projection has improved from earlier versions of software, but has not yet been tested in operationally representative scenarios. Light leakage onto the helmet display may be addressed with fine-tuning adjustments of the symbology brightness - a process pilots will have to accomplish as ambient and background levels of light change. Although not an objective of the dedicated testing, alignment and “double vision” problems have also been identified by pilots and were noted in my report earlier this year on the F-35A Ready for Training Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE). Whether the progress achieved in resolving the problems discussed immediately above has been adequate will likely not be known with confidence until the Block 2B operational evaluation is conducted in 2015...."

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... needs.html PDF download 107Kb

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2013, 09:38
by spazsinbad
WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE U.S. SENATE
SUBJECT: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter | COMBINED STATEMENT OF: Mr. Frank Kendall Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics & Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan Program Executive Officer F-35

June 19, 2013
"...Development Status
While software development and integration is the highest risk the program faces as we complete development, there are other risks we are tracking that warrant management attention. Among these are the Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS), the Arresting Hook System (AHS) for the F-35C (carrier variant), and the Autonomic Logistic Information System (ALIS). The HMDS is a major technological advance for pilot situational awareness but it has presented design challenges. HMDS issues faced by the program over the past year were “green glow,” or insufficient helmet display contrast; latency of the displayed information;, “jitter,” or lack of stability of the displayed symbology as the aircraft maneuvers; night vision acuity; and alignment of the displayed symbology. Last year the program made significant progress against these challenges using dedicated HMDS flight testing to identify and analyze acceptable HMDS performance. As a result of testing, the program has successfully mitigated the effects of four of these HDMS issues. More work is planned this summer to ensure that the night vision camera is effective for Marine Corps operations. All of these systems still pose moderate risk, but the program has well-planned and resourced mitigation plans in place for each. I would categorize these as typical of challenges associated with a complex weapon system development program, but design and production concurrency have rendered them more acute in the F-35’s case...."

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... needs.html (PDF 0.2Mb)

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2013, 05:12
by spazsinbad
Small F-35 equipment group receives big award from Air Force By LAUREN SAGE REINLIE / Daily News 24 June 2013
" EGLIN AFB — A small group of airmen has won a national award from the Air Force for its work maintaining the brand new state-of-the-art equipment for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter pilots.

Earlier this month, the 10-person 33rd Operations Support Squadron’s Aircrew Flight Equipment group received the Air Force’s Outstanding Aircrew Flight Small Equipment Program award for their work in 2012.

“I really couldn’t be any more proud,” said Capt. Ryan Seymour, commander of the flight equipment group. “The group of guys and gals we have are really what’s made it happen.

“Everybody goes above and beyond and because of the cohesion of the group, it’s awesome that the entire shop is getting the benefit of being recognized and not just one or two people.”

The crew maintains the helmet, flight jacket and g-suit for instructor pilots and students learning to fly the Air Force’s variant of the F-35 at the training school at Eglin, the first of its kind for all branches of the military.

In 2012, an F-35 took its first flight at Eglin and students began going through the program.

The flight equipment crew had to make sure all the equipment was ready for use and that the pilots knew how to operate it properly for regular flights and in case of emergencies, even as the software for the equipment was continually evolving.

“It was all brand new,” said Staff Sgt. Lemuel Velazquez. “The helmet had never been worn before by the Air Force, nobody had worked on it. The jackets and the g-suits were brand new, and nothing was like what we used to work on.”

All of the equipment is capable of communicating with the aircraft, which makes it state-of-the-art. For example, the helmet has a display system that is designed to show the pilot a 360-degree view of what is going on around the aircraft as well as display instrumentation and other information.

With other flight programs, guidelines for operating and maintaining the equipment would be handed down from a higher level, but this team was tasked with developing their own.

They were so successful that many of their guidelines will now be implemented at other bases across the country as the F-35 program continues to grow, Seymour said.

Before the first F-35s took off and until the base received more of the jets, the group was also responsible for maintaining equipment for F-16s that were used to keep pilots current and as chaser planes during training missions in the single-seat F-35.

At the same time, they were also deploying to support troops in the Middle East.

The airmen on the team come from varied backgrounds, which provided a knowledge base that helped them establish the new program.

“It’s a very unique shop to say the least,” said Staff Sgt. Edwin Portan. “We all have different experiences from different bases, different aircraft, so we all bring something different to the table.”

Seymour said everyone in the group was especially dedicated to keeping the F-35 program moving forward, even as the equipment was still in development and changing.

He said they were able to be innovative and overcome struggles that could have resulted in delays in the training program but did not.

“It was not just you do your job and go home,” he said. “You do as much as required, thinking outside the lines to try to improve the process and eliminate any possible delays. That is the kind of mindset of everyone in the shop, and it’s contagious. Whenever one person is working hard, everyone else is going to go along with that.”"

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/military/to ... e-1.163304

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2013, 20:30
by spazsinbad
Farnborough HMDS II Display photo by David Cenciotti: http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/up ... g_0085.jpg

Farnborough 2012: This is the most advanced flight helmet, ever. The F-35's Helmet Mounted Display System 10 July 2012
"...single [composite carbon fiber] helmet that weights less than 5 lb. including all compontents...."

http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/10/fia12-hmds-genii/

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 22:27
by spazsinbad
Feast of Fixes
Pentagon to weigh readiness of tailhook, helmet improvements in advance of F-35 production review
Amy Butler Washington and Huntsville, Ala., and Graham Warwick Los Angeles
AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY/AUGUST 19, 2013 | p 28 & p 33
"...The F-35 Joint Program Office is planning at the end of this month to brief Kendall on the status of work to overcome technical issues with the F-35 helmet-mounted display system. A downselect between the original advanced helmet design, built by Vision Systems International (VSI, a joint venture between Rockwell Collins and Elbit), and a more rudimentary backup made by BAE Systems was slated for 2014. "If we can get the baseline to where we need to be, then we can downselect," he said. "If not, then we are going to delay downselect for a while."

The VSI helmet now in use - the Gen 2 helmet - incorporates an ICIE-10 night-vision camera, which was creating problems with the acuity of imagery projected onto the helmet at night. Flight-testing of the solution, the so-called ICIE-11 camera, and improved image-processing software in the helmet, took place in a Cessna last month. "The testing proved successful, with pilots reporting a substantial improvement in camera capability over the existing ISIE-10 night camera in the Gen 2 helmet," said Kyra Hawn, a spokeswoman for the F-35 Joint Program Office.

The ISIE-11 camera is not being used for the DT trials on the Wasp; the "Gen 3" helmet (which will include the ISIE-11 and other improvements) is not slated to be ready until the second quarter of next year, Hawn says. All three F-35 variants will be used for the Gen 3 helmet-testing for two months. For the Wasp trials, pilots will use the ISIE-10 camera in the Gen 2 helmet and the digital night-vision capability provided by the Distributed Aperture System, a series of six sensors outside the aircraft designed to give the pilot a 360-deg. view of the surrounding airspace.

Finally, a fix for jitter that occurred for symbology displayed on the helmet visor during stressing scenarios, such as high-buffet flight, is being flown on an F-35A at Edwards AFB, Calif. The fix is the use of a software "filter" for the inertial measurement unit embedded in the helmet. Flight-testing is underway this month to validate this fix and determine whether additional work is needed.

This fix will have to be tracked as the flight envelope continues to open for the F-35 and as more taxing tasks, such as gun tracking, are undertaken in flight-testing...."

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 12:42
by popcorn
Sounds similar to F-35 DAS. Anyone know how many external cameras adorn the Typhoon and is this a reference to PIRATE? If so, my understanding is that PIRATE is limited to scanning the forward hemisphere only. Some clarification will be welcome.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19372299

BAE's Striker helmet gives fighter pilots 'X-ray vision'

When a pilot in a Eurofighter Typhoon jet glances down, he doesn't see a steel-grey floor. Instead he sees clouds, and maybe sheep and cows in green fields below.

If he were to spot an enemy down there, or anywhere near the aircraft, he would not need to point the plane towards the target.

He would simply look at it - through the solid hull of the plane -make sure that a tiny symbol displayed on his helmet's visor was aligned with the object, press a button and fire.

The pilot is wearing BAE Systems' Striker HMSS helmet, the UK defence company's latest development. Putting augmented reality technology - as used in video games - to military use is the latest goal for helmet makers around the world.

Cameras all around the aircraft are wirelessly linked to BAE's helmet; the system checks in which direction the pilot is looking, and then displays the exact view on the visor, in real time.

MORE AT THE LINK..

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 13:01
by popcorn
Deleted

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 13:17
by castlebravo
PIRATE is forward only. No reason they couldn't add six small cameras to feed the helmet imagery, but that is only one small part of what DAS does. No way does this system provide automatic real-time 360° detection,identification, and targeting for all objects, in the air or on the ground, surrounding the jet.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 03:08
by neurotech
castlebravo wrote:PIRATE is forward only. No reason they couldn't add six small cameras to feed the helmet imagery, but that is only one small part of what DAS does. No way does this system provide automatic real-time 360° detection,identification, and targeting for all objects, in the air or on the ground, surrounding the jet.

Exactly. The EODAS is more than just 6 cameras connected to the helmet. It's the processing and detection/identification system, that makes the F-35 a unique aircraft for the foreseeable future. EADS would love to have a competitive system with that capability, but that is not going to happen anytime soon.

I'm not sure the camera count of the PIRATE system.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 04:29
by spazsinbad
I guess I should put the highlighted NVC pic here for HMDS II. Youse all know what NVC is? Night Vision Camera. ZOOM crop from: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/m ... 7_7842.jpg

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 12:43
by popcorn
neurotech wrote:
castlebravo wrote:PIRATE is forward only. No reason they couldn't add six small cameras to feed the helmet imagery, but that is only one small part of what DAS does. No way does this system provide automatic real-time 360° detection,identification, and targeting for all objects, in the air or on the ground, surrounding the jet.

Exactly. The EODAS is more than just 6 cameras connected to the helmet. It's the processing and detection/identification system, that makes the F-35 a unique aircraft for the foreseeable future. EADS would love to have a competitive system with that capability, but that is not going to happen anytime soon.

I'm not sure the camera count of the PIRATE system.


IIRC the PIRATE sensor is located on the port side f the nose.
I came across the following article which seems to imply no cameras, either IR or optical, covering the rear hemisphere.,Conceivably, the RF-based MAWs alerts the pilot of an aircraft to the rear but he still has to try and identify it visually whereas F-35 DAS does this automatically.

http://gizmodo.com/this-helmet-gives-eu ... -924817689

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 14:08
by sprstdlyscottsmn
there is no beating spherical autonomous detection and tracking at BVR ranges, air/surface/or space.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 15:11
by popcorn
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:there is no beating spherical autonomous detection and tracking at BVR ranges, air/surface/or space.


FWIW, it should be noted that Typhoon also claims 360-deg spherical SA. though they achieve it via a different sensors mix (RWR, Laser Warners, MAWS, Captor, Pirate, ESM pod, offboard data link) feeding into their fusion engine. Different strokes for different folks..

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 11:55
by hornetfinn
popcorn wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:there is no beating spherical autonomous detection and tracking at BVR ranges, air/surface/or space.


FWIW, it should be noted that Typhoon also claims 360-deg spherical SA. though they achieve it via a different sensors mix (RWR, Laser Warners, MAWS, Captor, Pirate, ESM pod, offboard data link) feeding into their fusion engine. Different strokes for different folks..


Well, F-35 has pretty much all those capabilities (although mostly with much improved capabilities) with some totally new capabilities with DAS and MADL that do not exist in any other fighter and probably won't for some time. Some sort of 360-deg spherical SA is not that difficult to achieve, but there are definitely great differences in how accurate and real-time the SA really is and how far it extends from the aircraft and what kinds of things it can detect and track.

I think that Typhoon pilots have a very good SA compared to pilots in almost all other fighter aircraft. It has limitations though as the sensor systems that are not pointing forward can't produce very accurate or real-time data and require enemy either emitting (RWR, ESM) or that some other sensor is tracking the enemy. This is definitely not guaranteed and either way takes quite a lot of time before the information reaches the Typhoon pilot and tracking data through regular data links is rather slowly updated. F-35 has the ability to create much higher quality data with systems (DAS all-around, EOTS too) that do not require that enemy is emitting RF signals. With MADL a group of F-35s can exchange data between each other with less delays than with Link 16 type systems.

Other thing is that the computing and networking systems of F-35 can handle a lot more data than in any other fighter aircraft excluding F-22. This gives much more options for data fusion and how to present the data to the pilot. Of course there are limitations as DAS is not a very long ranged system and like all IR-based systems doesn't work well if there are enough visibility affecting elements in the air (clouds, rain, snow).

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 14:07
by spazsinbad
Another zoomed look at HMDS II NVC / DVC? situation.... (WHITE Helmet)

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 59-003.jpg
“PATUXENT RIVER, Md. (Feb. 21, 2012) Royal Air Force test pilot Squadron Leader Jim Schofield sits in the cockpit of an F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft after his first flight in the carrier variant. Schofield is the first pilot from the United Kingdom to fly the F-35C. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin by Andy Wolfe/Released)”

http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=116057

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 04:17
by popcorn
hornetfinn wrote:...This is definitely not guaranteed and either way takes quite a lot of time before the information reaches the Typhoon pilot and tracking data through regular data links is rather slowly updated. F-35 has the ability to create much higher quality data


I think that's the crux of the matter, which system shortens the OODA loop for it's pilot.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 11:08
by popcorn
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ay-389953/

F-35 team makes headway with helmet-mounted display

Lockheed Martin, Vision Systems International and the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) are making progress with solving night vision acuity problems on the F-35's helmet-mounted display, says a senior test pilot assigned to the programme.

Test pilots recently tested a modified second-generation helmet fitted with a new 1600x1200 resolution ISIE-11 night vision camera coupled with a new display management computer/helmet, says Lt Col Matt Kelly, an F-35 test pilot assigned to the JPO.

Kelly says the ISIE-11 immensely improves the helmet's night vision capabilities.

"The ISIE-11 has great potential for tactical operations," Kelly says of the new system. However, there is still a lot of work to do before the helmet is ready for fleet release - the system will have to be demonstrated in the air before test pilots give it a green light.

Meanwhile, the F-35 JPO is still funding parallel development work on a BAE Systems-developed helmet into the third quarter of 2014.

F-35B test pilots on the USS Wasp are using the existing helmet with the current ISIE-10 camera, which has been judged to have deficient night-vision performance.

The ISIE-10 has inferior night vision capability compared with the ANVIS-9 night vision goggles (NVGs) used in the Boeing AV-8B and F/A-18. However, pilots say it is easier to land the F-35B unaided by the night vision camera on a ship than a AV-8B with NVGs.

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2013, 23:45
by spazsinbad
Other report bits here: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 762#259762

F-35 costs drop as technical challenges lessen, officials say 18 Sep 2013
"...One long-term concern has been the capability of the F-35 pilot’s helmet, required for interfacing with the fighter’s high-tech electronics. Lockheed’s helmet is suitable for initial operating capability (IOC), Martin said, but the company is installing an enhanced night-vision camera that would be put in place by the time LRIP-7 models enter production...."

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20 ... /309180026

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 03:29
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Other report bits here: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 762#259762

F-35 costs drop as technical challenges lessen, officials say 18 Sep 2013
"...One long-term concern has been the capability of the F-35 pilot’s helmet, required for interfacing with the fighter’s high-tech electronics. Lockheed’s helmet is suitable for initial operating capability (IOC), Martin said, but the company is installing an enhanced night-vision camera that would be put in place by the time LRIP-7 models enter production...."

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20 ... /309180026


Ahh, but if one were to listen to the recently disclosed mumblings and gnashing of teeth emanating from Charlie's shadowy world, pilots have to shut off the data and video feeds because they impair the pilot's ability to fly the aircraft. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 03:29
by popcorn
Deleted

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 06:22
by spazsinbad
VIDEO: AFA: A Close Look at the F-35 Helmet
"Six infrared displays, a 360-degree spherical view, composite materials, night as clear as day - meet the F-35 helmet system."

http://www.military.com/video/forces/ai ... 037917001/

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2013, 20:34
by spazsinbad
F-35: New fighter creates new culture for 21st Century and beyond 26 Sep 2013 (by Rich Lamance) Courtesy of Air Force News Service [dated 24 Sep 2013]
"..."Most pilots come from the F-16, F-15 and A-10 legacy aircraft. Sensors on the front of the F-35 allow us to have that 360-degree awareness. That was the big leap forward. Computer technology that is 30 years or more advanced than the legacy aircraft is what makes the F-35 so advanced."

Lt. Col. Anthony Pelkington is the 33rd FW chief of safety and was one of the first of the legacy pilots selected for the F-35 program. He said that for pilots transitioning from those legacy systems, the F-35 is a huge deal.

"For 10 years in the F-16, I dealt with essentially monochrome cathode ray displays - approximately 6 inch square - and I've got two of them. Now I move up to a contiguous 8 x 20- inch color display that is a huge step forward for the pilot's situational awareness. Plus, there's a lot more capability in the display itself.

"In the F-16, I had a radar display with a selectable, like turning pages in a book, something that would show my ordnances like I had a stick figure map with monochrome lines on a black background. It would try to give us a semblance of where we were to maybe a weapons system. But I had to choose. Every one of those displays was limited to the confines of that small 6-inch to 8-inch screen.

"In the F-35, we now have this massive amount of screen real estate. I can now see multiple sensors at once, which is great because I don't have to pick and choose. I don't have to take away my situational awareness with what the radar is telling me in terms of traffic to bring up situational awareness and what the target pod looks like. It's all there available for me."

Pelkington added that one of the best aspects of the fifth generation fighter is its ability to communicate with all aspects of the aircraft, as well as customize information to fit each pilot's needs. "The displays talk to each other, the sensors talk to each other, and a lot of information is displayed in sensible formats with other sensors in one combined picture. Now I can bring up large formats on displays so I can see things easier - I can even bring up many formats if I want with a different orientation on how the displays will look. Whatever I want to do to aid my situational awareness I can do and the reality, as a pilot, is that I can customize that setup quite easily to a format that best suits how a pilot understands."...

..."One of the biggest differences the F-35 helmet has over the others is that the new helmet encompasses multiple gadgets such as night vision goggles, and for that function you would have to modify the pilot's flying helmet and add the components on there," said Baskin. "With the F-35, it's all encompassed in the helmet. The cameras on the jet work in sync with the helmet and whatever the jet picks up visually will be displayed on the visor in the helmet."

From a pilot's point of view, Renbarger agrees that the nicest part of the new helmet is that everything is self-contained. "The best thing about the F-35 helmet is that it has a big visor with a big display, and we can display a night vision camera visual on the visor and then a distributor aperture system that is basically a set of cameras that are all over the airplane and work in the infrared spectrum. That can be displayed on our visor as well.

"When we get our helmet fit, there is actually a complicated scan process that takes an image of our heads and provides a laser cut-out foam insert for the helmet that is molded to our heads. Then there's ear cups that close the helmet around our head and a custom nape strap in the back that basically locks the helmet down on our heads. There's very little, if any, motion in the helmet when we move our head around. Very well balanced, a very well fit and it feels great wearing the helmet. It's very specific to each individual pilot."...

...He said that for pilots, training in the F-35 simulator is by far, the best there is. "I've flown in F-16 simulators and F-22 simulators and the F-35 simulator is truly state-of-the-art. They've got the best visuals, full dome coverage, 360-degree views, target set build-up, they have runways and very much replicates flying the airplane. I haven't heard one pilot say it wasn't the best simulator they've ever been in short of flying the airplane."

Renbarger added that because the F-35 is a single-seat plane, the first time a pilot flies the F-35, he's by himself, making the simulator even more critical. "The operational flight software that runs the airplane - that same software is in the simulator," said Renbarger. "In other aircraft I have flown, there have been differences between the simulator and the airplane. This is as close as I've ever seen between the simulator and airplane. Exact same cockpit. The cockpit sits on a rail and you sit in the cockpit and it drives forward and raises up inside the dome and the screens you see are the exact same screens you see on the jet."..."

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4789.html
OR
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... eyond.aspx

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2013, 00:17
by count_to_10
They've got the best visuals, full dome coverage, 360-degree views, target set build-up, they have runways and very much replicates flying the airplane.

That's pretty interesting. All of the images I have seen of simulators (usually with some member of the press in the seat) have only a limited, forward quadrant only view.

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2013, 00:19
by spazsinbad
Hence the secret passageway via rail into the dome which few people get to see. This aspect described in another post earlier on this thread. I'll look for it....

'maus92' (the anti-librarian) posted this article earlier:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20642.html

Eglin’s F-35 flight simulators integral part of pilot training LAUREN SAGE REINLIE
"EGLIN AFB — To use the military’s new multi-million dollar, state-of-the-art F-35 flight simulators, pilots must first be in the dark.

When a pilot steps into the expansive room that houses a simulator — about 40 feet by 50 feet with a towering 40-foot ceiling — it’s pitch black.

The entire room is painted matte black. The only light comes from reflectors along a walkway that leads the pilot up to a full-size replica of the fighter jet’s cockpit.

Once the pilot is inside, the cockpit slides along a conveyor belt through a small opening and into the actual simulator, a 30-foot globe resembling a giant golf ball.

Then there is light.

The globe is aglow with a 360-degree visual display made up of about 30 high definition projector screens.

No other light can be let in because the world inside the golf ball is now the pilot’s reality."...

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/military/to ... ng-1.96767

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2013, 00:32
by spazsinbad
Better link to the sim story without the irrelevant photo BUT with all the text (rather than half a doz small pages):

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/military/to ... nt=nophoto

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/2013_ne ... 13_609.jpg

Image

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2013, 04:12
by popcorn
count_to_10 wrote:
They've got the best visuals, full dome coverage, 360-degree views, target set build-up, they have runways and very much replicates flying the airplane.

That's pretty interesting. All of the images I have seen of simulators (usually with some member of the press in the seat) have only a limited, forward quadrant only view.
Makes sense.. a jet with a 360-deg SA requires a simulator with matching capabilities.

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2013, 11:28
by count_to_10
Wouldn't the helmet alone get you most of it?

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2013, 12:51
by spazsinbad
What are we referring to here. A flight simulator that aims to be the best. The best requires the best. This is it.

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2013, 20:12
by quicksilver
popcorn wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
They've got the best visuals, full dome coverage, 360-degree views, target set build-up, they have runways and very much replicates flying the airplane.

That's pretty interesting. All of the images I have seen of simulators (usually with some member of the press in the seat) have only a limited, forward quadrant only view.[/quote
Makes sense.. a jet with a 360-deg SA requires a simulator with matching capabilities.


Those the media typically see are the cockpit demonstration system -- technically a 'simulator' but really intended exclusively for public consumption, not pilot training.

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2013, 04:08
by spazsinbad
OK here is a recent public consumer via TV News Report about the travelling stimulator of WOW!

F35 Published on Sep 29, 2013


At 1:15 misquote $50,000 HMDS cost; but interesting for the flight clips, as well as the travelling simulator views. At one eighth speed a short clip showing the vHUD view of a carrier approach.

The view we see is NOT the pilot view AFAIK. What we see is the camera filming from a different viewpoint. However the aircraft is on speed at Optimum Angle of Attack with the meatball being slightly high (which may be 'on glideslope' from pilot viewpoint). Do not forget to 'right mouse click' on the PLAYing video to select ZOOM 'full screen'. Screenshot from video.

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2013, 00:54
by luke_sandoz
Pick one, or go home with none.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... met-Design

One less issue for Sweetman and Wheeler to cry about. They will whine anyway, but now can only whine about one helmet.

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2013, 06:25
by spazsinbad
F-35 Program Halts Development Of Alternate Helmet 10 Oct 2013
"...said Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and general manager of the F-35 Lightning II Program. “To date, more than 100 F-35 pilots have flown more than 6,000 flights and 10,000 hours with the helmet, and their feedback has been very positive....

...Beginning with aircraft in Low Rate Initial Production lot 7, the program will introduce a Gen 3 helmet that features an improved night vision camera, new liquid crystal displays, automated alignment and software enhancements...."

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/p ... elmet.html

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2013, 09:59
by neptune
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... wn-391827/


BAE responds to F-35 helmet letdown
By: Craig Hoyle London

BAE Systems has responded to a cost-cutting decision by the US Joint Program Office (JPO) to halt the development of an alternative helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) for the Lockheed Martin F-35 by reaffirming its commitment to the fifth-generation combat aircraft.

“We are disappointed at the decision by Lockheed Martin and the Joint Strike Fighter Joint Program Office to discontinue the pursuit of a second helmet for the F-35,” the company says.

BAE had been funded to develop an alternative advanced helmet for the type, by drawing on its experience in providing a panoramic HMDS for the Eurofighter Typhoon, after intended primary supplier Vision Systems International (VSI) encountered difficulties with its design.

Describing its solution as having offered Lockheed and the JPO a “reliable, dependable and affordable design”, BAE notes: “Our programme team has achieved every milestone to date, providing a critical viable alternative for the customer.”

While it has accepted the stop-work decision and reaffirmed its wider industrial commitment to the JSF programme, BAE says: “We’ll be ready at any time should they change their mind on the helmet.”

The JPO announcement came as a surprise, with programme executive officer Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan having said only last month that work on both helmets would be completed before taking part in a competitive fly-off. Halting the development of the BAE design at this stage will save $45 million, the JPO says.

A joint venture between Rockwell Collins and Elbit Systems, VSI will complete the development of its own HMDS for the F-35, with a fully ready third-generation system to be available for fleet introduction during the fiscal year 2016.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2013, 17:01
by spazsinbad
F-35 Program Stops Alternate Helmet Display Development 18 Oct 2013 Bill Carey
"The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) halted the development of an alternate helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) for the Joint Strike Fighter, signaling the resolution of a potentially serious technical complication the program faced. In September 2011, F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin awarded a contract to BAE Systems to develop an alternate HMDS after the Pentagon identified deficiencies with the original helmet system developed by Rockwell Collins and Elbit Systems of America. The HMDS is critical to flying the F-35, which was designed without a pilot’s head-up display.

The JPO announced on October 10 that it has decided to stop the alternate HMDS development to focus on bringing the second-generation, or “Gen 2,” helmet system that F-35 pilots are using for training and testing to a “fully compliant” Gen 3 standard. The Gen 3 HMDS will be introduced during F-35 low rate initial production lot 7 in 2016 and complete test and development the following year. The U.S. Marine Corps, which plans to declare initial operational capability of its F-35Bs in 2015, will start operations with an improved version of the Gen 2 helmet.

In a review of the F-35’s flight-test progress in 2011, the Department of Defense identified the HMDS as one of several program risks. It found that the helmet system was deficient in the areas of night-vision acuity, display jitter during aircraft buffeting and image latency from the F-35’s electro-optical distributed aperture system, which combined detracted from mission tasks and the use of the display as a primary flight reference. The Gen 3 helmet “will include an improved night vision camera, new liquid crystal displays, automated alignment and software improvements,” according to the JPO. It said that a “cost guarantee” made by Lockheed Martin, Rockwell Collins and Elbit resulted in a 12-percent reduction from the previous cost of the HMDS. The program will recoup $45 million in funds it had originally allocated for the development of the BAE Systems alternate helmet.

“During the past two years, the JPO and Lockheed Martin used a disciplined systems engineering approach and conducted dedicated helmet flight-tests to develop solutions to address the helmet’s technical challenges,” the program office said. “Improvements to the Gen 2 helmet are planned and being phased into production to support F-35 mission requirements.”

Lockheed Martin said more than 100 F-35 pilots have flown more than 6,000 sorties with the current helmet system. “The government’s decision to proceed exclusively with the principle helmet is indicative of their confidence in the helmet’s performance and the successful resolution of previously identified technical challenges,” stated Lorraine Martin, the company’s F-35 program executive vice president and general manager.

The Rockwell Collins HMDS joint venture with Elbit, formerly called Vision Systems International, has been replaced by a new organization, Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems. “We’re looking forward to the continued development and production of the third-generation F-35 HMDS, which will offer even greater capabilities while reducing overall cost for this critical program,” said Rockwell Collins CEO Kelly Ortberg."

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... evelopment

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2013, 21:40
by spazsinbad
New personal NVC for F-35 pilotes (this is a joke joyce)....

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 2f9e499197

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2013, 01:13
by spazsinbad
Special Operators to Test Digital Night Vision Goggles December 2013 Valerie Insinna
"Troops currently rely on analog night vision goggles that use image intensifier tubes to amplify existing light, but new digital goggles and cameras are finally making their way into the hands of special operators and pilots.

Intevac, a Santa Clara, Calif.-based photonics company, is undergoing a limited user evaluation in which Special Operations Command will compare its legacy analog devices with digital night vision goggles.

The switch from analog to digital promises a host of new capabilities, including the ability to send images and video over a network and to better fuse thermal and image intensified sensors.

While legacy image intensifier devices become oversaturated when used in bright light, Intevac’s goggles can work in daylight conditions.

“You can imagine the advantage for a guy busting down the door wearing goggles and the light comes on. Historically, he’ll be blinded … and all he sees is a green screen. With this, you will actually see what’s there,” said Drew Brugal, the company’s executive vice president and general manager.

Intevac’s digital night vision cameras and goggles use an electron bombarded active pixel sensor, or EBAPS, which contains a “photocathode” that takes available light and magnifies it two to three hundred times, said Bill Maffucci, vice president and general manager for mission systems.

Other digital night vision sensors cannot amplify light, he said. “In other words, when you’re in low-level light conditions, they work with the light that’s available, but they’re not able to increase the sensitivity at all.”

The goggles weigh about 1.5 pounds and attach to a soldier’s helmet, Brugal said. Although the digital goggles are more expensive, a large contract — such as one for the Army — would bring prices in line with analog devices, he added.

Wi-fi capability could be added to future goggles, allowing soldiers to share video, he said. “You could have a picture in a picture, and the smaller picture could be what your colleague is seeing, or it could be sent from an unmanned aerial vehicle operating overhead. Basically, your imagination is the only thing that limits it.”

Company officials hope SOCOM will greenlight purchases of digital goggles. They have already netted military contracts for night vision cameras that will be built into an aircraft and send imagery to a pilot’s display or helmet-mounted monocle.

The Army in June awarded the company a $27 million contract for more than 500 cameras for Apache helicopters.

Intevac has delivered three prototypes so far, Brugal said. The cameras have a “standalone mode” whereby a pilot can see night vision images in his monocle, and a “blended mode” that fuses thermal and night vision imagery and shows it on the cockpit’s multifunction display.

Next year, Intevac will begin delivering upgraded night vision cameras for use in the F-35. Pilots have been using “placeholder” cameras with an older sensor that does not provide high enough resolution or image quality, Brugal said."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... ggles.aspx

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2013, 23:26
by spazsinbad
Long magazine article with only a few quotes - whilst the HMDS II entry interested me the most - there are only a few of the quotable quotes below:

Climb Time for the F-35 John Tirpak, AIR FORCE Magazine 26 / December 2013
"...Tires on the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing model, for example, are being changed out too often. As it turns out, he said, the qualities that make a tire work well for a vertical landing on the F-35B are “on the opposite end of the spectrum” from the qualities that make a tire last a long time in conventional use. Lockheed Martin and tire manufacturer Dunlop have gone back to the drawing board, but the tire redesign “isn’t costing
me one penny,” Bogdan said.

This is just one sign the program now demands accountability from contractors and customers alike to live up to their promises. When the tire is redesigned, Bogdan said he will expect the companies to “stand behind” their product with a warranty....

...The F-35 helmet—on which pilots depend for 360-degree situational awareness, night vision, targeting, and aircraft status data—had a number of problems with nighttime acuity, latency of the image as pilots moved their heads, and a jittery presentation. Martin said the helmet concerns have been generally corrected after “a good six months” of testing fixes. Some were with software, and the night vision problem is being remedied by substituting a new, more advanced camera than the existing 2005-vintage model. It will be cut into production starting with Lot 7.

“But we can go to war with the helmet we have,” she said, and in fact, the existing helmet “has been deemed suitable for Marine Corps IOC.” The helmet has “9,000 flying hours on it,” and pilots “love it,” she said. Bogdan agreed that the helmet matter seems to be resolved. He canceled an alternative helmet development; its existence had offered contractors a stiff incentive to fix the original equipment. Progress in resolving the helmet issues made the alternative unnecessary, he announced in October.

The original F-35C arrestor hook has been redesigned and tested, and the new hook will soon be integrated into production.... [Hmmmm not quite 'completely tested'.]

...To give it more dogfighting capability, Bogdan said the F-35 program has a science and technology funding line that looks at future capabilities and growth potential for the fighter. “We are specifically targeting sensors and weapons that enhance our ability in the air-to-air realm,” he reported. “We … will make this airplane even better than it is today in an air-to-air role.”

There are block upgrade plans “already in place for the aircraft,” Martin said. There are “significant roadmaps” for electronic warfare, communications, weapons, and sensors, “not only to support the US but our partners as well.” The summit-level steering committee is “now in the process of looking at Block 4A and 4B for added capabilities,” she said.

The power plant is a likely improvement area. Bogdan said there could be modular enhancements to the F135 engine, or “a whole new engine 20 years from now.” The entire S&T community, he said, “continues to advance engine technology, and … the F-35 is going to use some of that someday. We have to.”

Moreover, the F-35’s stealth can be improved, he said. “It’s not just coatings, … shape, [or] … countermeasures kind of stuff. There’s a whole host of things you can do” without affecting the aircraft’s shape or “mold line.” The program “would like to tap into that,” he said.

Bogdan acknowledged that Lockheed Martin offered stealthy external weapons or fuel pods on the stillborn FB-22 proposal, and something similar could extend the F-35’s range, even as the services are putting a premium on longer-range systems to defeat anti-access, area-denial threats.

However, combat commanders “have to decide in some form of trade if they’re willing to pay the penalty of maybe a little less stealth, a little less payload for increased range,” Bogdan said. “I’ve not heard that demand signal yet.”

The recent news of positive developments coming from the program office shouldn’t be construed as advocacy, Bogdan maintained.

“I have to run the program to the best of my ability and let the chips fall where they may,” he insisted. Program advocacy is best left to Lockheed Martin, the services, and the international partners. To be an F-35 advocate would mean “I lose my credibility,” he said.

Even so, Bogdan is confident “it’s going to come out good.”

Having made countless visits to Capitol Hill since taking over the F-35, Bogdan said he believes there is a “sea change” in the way the fighter is perceived there...."

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... lissue.pdf (14Mb)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2013, 04:32
by spazsinbad
An oldie but a goldie:


Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2013, 15:52
by rotosequence
The physiological limits of humans has always posed a daunting challenge to virtual reality headsets. Fortunately, as detailed in this Wired article, the fellows responsible for the Oculus Rift seem to have realized what limit needs to be overcome to realize a practical headset: 20ms from input to eyes.

People familiar with the technical challenges with the F-35 helmet may have already realized that this poses an enormous technical challenge to the F-35 helmet program, which has been striving to achieve latencies below 100ms. I've heard that the helmet's computers are already maxed out, which raises some concerns about the fundamental, physiological viability of the helmet. Unless dramatic improvements in performance can be realized in software, avoiding motion sickness may be unavoidable without developing entirely new silicon for the F-35, or any other program looking to use augmented reality to see through their vehicle.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2013, 21:04
by spazsinbad
'rotosequence' if you have 'heard' the maxed out capabilities is available in 'written' format then pointing to that reference would be nice. Yes latency is an issue which apparently has been overcome in the HMDS, which will soon morph into HMDS III. I'm struggling to find how gamers virtual reality applies to the HMDS? In any event if latency is still an issue I'll wager the company that claims to have overcome it will be contacted by all concerned. No?

As for motion sickness in the case of the F-35 I'll guess that pilots adjust quickly to the effect and also learn to adjust how rapidly they move their heads to minimise any difficulties. Flying an aircraft does make pilots motion sick. However they adjust. If they do not then they often do not become pilots. I think I have told the story earlier of an RAAF class mate in basic flying training in the Winjeel radial engine dual trainer who was always air sick. Eventually he found a solution - a peanut butter sandwich before flight. Perhaps this will be the solution for any motion sick F-35 pilots..... :devil:

....Who all otherwise (with only several highlighted in reports otherwise) report their liking for the HMDS now over some 10,000 hours. Is there a problem? No.

My own first Winjeel flight dual on a simple area recce under cumulus summer clouds on a hot summer day had me violently airsick flying straight and level looking out the window. After that - no problem. However due to other factors at other times I could feel queasy due to spatial disorientation - and again I may have been looking out the window under high positive or negative G or usually on instruments in cloud. Always the worst time was being in a tandem seat aircraft in back - not flying - when pilot in front would do something dramatic, without warning, causing equally dramatic bodily effects; which in the case of the equally dramatic 720 degree per second roll rate of the TA4G and all Skyhawks, meant some head banging on the canopy stuff - no matter what.

How do pilots overcome the occasional problem? Move head less dramatically if possible and concentrate on the real world which our F-35 pilot can do all the time. Is the computer gamer able to do that without taking off their VR helmet contraption?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2013, 22:28
by rotosequence
spazsinbad wrote:I'm struggling to find how gamers virtual reality applies to the HMDS? In any event if latency is still an issue I'll wager the company that claims to have overcome it will be contacted by all concerned. No?


The relevance stems from pinpointing the worst case scenario timing threshold in which the delay between moving your head and seeing reality change accordingly becomes disorienting. The solutions chosen and implemented by the Oculus Rift's developers have minimal, if any, relevance to the F-35 program. Looking at the real world isn't an option for a virtual reality headset user, but in an ideal world, pilots wouldn't have to, either.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2013, 23:27
by spazsinbad
I'm curious why you think this and why no reference to the maxed out business of the helmet computers? Thanks.
"...Looking at the real world isn't an option for a virtual reality headset user, but in an ideal world, pilots wouldn't have to, either."


Then IF:
"...The solutions chosen and implemented by the Oculus Rift's developers have minimal, if any, relevance to the F-35 program...."

Why bring it up?

Already we know the latency issues have been solved to the satisfaction of the program with HMDS III on the way; whilst HMDS II has been satisfactory all along.

And perhaps I have not explained.... Pilots adjust. Yes new pilots have issues with all kinds of new things (it seems the new F-16 jocks more than others). However they learn how to get the best for themselves. I'll guess that some new F-35 pilots feel more 'disorientated' than others, for more reasons that any latency issue. And I repeat from all reports they adjust; while they will have better hardware in HMDS III to better adjust - in a better future - in the F-35. Do you have any flight experience that I can speak towards which may help me explain? Otherwise further explain. Have you read this now very long thread?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2013, 05:04
by spazsinbad
Here is the HELMUT (oz parliament spellin') amongst other things in this VIDEO/text with some of the transcript below:
Nellis Airmen Hone F-35 Fighter Jet Skills 18 Dec 2013 By Brian Brennan, Reporter & Henry Takai, Photojournalist
"LAS VEGAS -- The sequester slashed tens of billions of defense dollars bringing testing of many new military technologies to a screeching halt.

Leaders at Nellis Air Force Base say they've felt the squeeze more than most, but say there are some programs still going strong, including the F-35.

"I remember the first time strapping into that thing and it's almost surreal," said Lt. Col. Derek J. O'Malley, commander, 59th Test and Evaluation Squadron.

Borrowing some of the best features of the F-16, F-18, A-10, and the hovering Marine Corps Harrier, the F-35 is fast, stealthy, and packs a punch.

"Fantastic to fly, very powerful, very maneuverable, easy to handle," Lt. Col O'Malley said.

His team is told what the jet should be able to do and their job is to push it to its limits.

"If you had an NFL football team with all the greatest players, if they didn't have a playbook they wouldn't be effective, so it's our job to take this platform and find out how we're going to use it," Lt. Col. O'Malley said.

Nellis is where they troubleshoot tactics. The squadron of 200 airmen began work on the F-35 earlier this year. They expect more delivered as the jet approaches war readiness.

Lt. Col. O'Malley says the jet is a leap forward in two ways. It's nearly invisible to radar and can almost think on its own. It computes data and suggests what the pilot should do.

"The F-35 would take all the pieces of the puzzle for me and right there in my display, in a very easy to access way, tell me what I'm fighting and how to counter it," he said.

The F-35 also requires a pilot to wear a new kind of helmet. It connects to cameras on the outside making it possible to melt away blind spots. The pilot can essentially to see through the walls of the aircraft.

The F-35 is expected to be fully operation Dec. 2016. Its main function will be air-to-ground attacks."

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/24245766/f-35

http://klas.images.worldnow.com/images/24245766_BG1.jpg
&
http://klas.images.worldnow.com/images/24245766_BG2.jpg

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2013, 04:56
by spazsinbad
An oldie but goldie (possibly this extract not on the forum - I'll check) from a very experienced F-35 and before test pilot (now retired)....

The Making of a Joint Strike Fighter Pilot - Welcome to the fifth generation. Art Tomassetti Air & Space magazine, November 2013
"...They [F-35s] have no head up displays. Instead, the displays have been integrated with our flight helmets; we now wear a helmet-mounted display (HMD) system. Tiny cameras inside the helmet project data on the visor. In addition to basic flight information—speed, altitude, attitude—the display continuously provides the status of targets, weapons, navigation, threat, and critical aircraft information. The helmet has a built-in night-vision camera and can also display infrared views from cameras mounted outside the aircraft, so when, for example, you look down at the floor of the cockpit, you see the ground below in the visor display.

Most legacy helmet-mounted displays are monocular. The F-35 HMD is binocular. With a monocular system, one eye is giving your brain information from outside the HMD. With a binocular system, your brain gets what your eyes are seeing in the HMD. The new technology has run into some problems, such as how fast the computers need to process an image and display it to the pilot. The time lag is measured in milliseconds; just how many is the key issue. If the delay is too long and your brain registers the difference, what you see in the display doesn’t match what you see in the real world. Because this is the first use of an advanced system, we have to learn what the human eye and brain can tolerate...."

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-avi ... 70321.html

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2013, 09:06
by spazsinbad
"...Cockpit Mark Ayton...
...There is no head-up display (HUD) in the F-35; everything that would normally be placed on the glass is displayed on the helmet-mounted display visor focused in on infinity. On the right hand side of the cockpit is the side stick controller, which has a fair bit of movement and in the case of the F-35B STOVL variant so that the pilot can hover the aeroplane.

The throttle is on the left hand side and has a long linear throw rather than a rotary arc. This allows pilots of all physical sizes (from really small 104lb all the way up to 245lb) to fit and reach the controls, and sit comfortably in the aeroplane.

There are hardly any levers or switches in the cockpit, which minimizes the cockpit mass; only essentials are included such as the landing gear handle, emergency release, and engine start controls. All other control is through the touch screen or voice control. In the centre of the console is the standby fl ight display, which has a separate inertial navigation system and runs on battery power alone. The left hand side of the main display is also battery powered. If the engine fails, leaving only battery power, the left side of the display and the standby display both stay alive, providing the pilot with sufficient data to fly the aeroplane safely – but nothing else.

Helmet Mounted Display System Mark Ayton
The F-35 pilot uses the helmet-mounted display system (HMDS), which comprises a number of components. A display management computer that provides the interface from the aircraft and all of the tracker and display generation. The tracker system consists of the magnetic source installed in the cockpit and the sensor located on the helmet mounted display (HMD).

Weighing less than 4.5lb (2kg) including the oxygen mask, the HMD comprises the flight helmet and display unit, and provides the pilot with an ‘out of the canopy display’ to enhance situational awareness, targeting and tracking capability. The HMD also includes a day or night sensor to provide video for displaying and or recording. The HMD can present video source and symbology commanded by the aircraft’s mission computer but fusion of multiple sensor sources is not a requirement or function implemented in the system. Seven high-speed links including fibre optics and MIL-STD-1394 interfaces provide video and controls.

The HMD is capable of supporting three modes of operation: day symbology only, day video and symbology, and night video and symbology. These allow the pilot to continue using the night capability into the dawn and dusk with the HMD day/night camera. Raw data and symbology commands are received by the HMD, most of which are determined by mission system software.

The HMD provides accurate head orientation and position data to the mission computer. Data fusion and the pilot-vehicle interface automatically display air and surface targets on the HMD generated by any of the F-35 sensors. In addition the HMD uses line of sight commands to queue the radar. The fusion system controls and decides by priority which air-to-air and air-to-ground targets are displayed on the HMD.

The APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar sends all contacts to the integrated core processor, which tasks them to the mission system for processing and displays the screen on the HMD."

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 3336,d.aGc (PDF 12.5Mb)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2013, 01:13
by spazsinbad
Nowhere to hide in the F-35 FMS...

F-35 Pilots Train Using RGB Spectrum DGy JPEG2000 Codecs 27 Dec 2013
"...RGB Spectrum’s DGy digital recording and streaming technology is deployed in the F-35’s Full Mission Simulators (FMS). The system uses JPEG2000 compression to achieve visually lossless recording, providing results superior to other compression schemes by encoding every frame and the entire color spectrum.

DGy units are used in the F-35’s multiple pilot pods, recording everything the pilots observe during maneuvers, including avionics, out-the-window imagery, target acquisition, navigation and weapons control. Additional DGy units are in the Instructor’s Operator Station (IOS) and the After Action Review (AAR) facility.

Mission simulations are simultaneously recorded and streamed to DGy decoders throughout the simulator and to a RGB Spectrum Multicast Video Server (MVS) for central storage and recording management. Following the mission simulation, DGy codecs are used in the debriefing facility to replay the simulations for assessment of pilots' performance."

http://www.governmentvideo.com/article/ ... ecs/114890

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2014, 05:55
by popcorn
Helmet should be ready for prime time for USMC IOC.


http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... n-3-helmet

F-35 Pilots Will Begin Flying Improved 'Gen 3' Helmet

January 21, 2014, 3:35 PM

F-35 test pilots will begin flying this year with a third-generation helmet mounted display system (HMDS) that incorporates modifications to the earlier-generation display system, which the Pentagon has identified as an F-35 program risk. The fixes the fighter program developed for the “Gen 3” helmet system persuaded the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) to stop funding an alternate helmet-mounted display...

The night-vision acuity of the Gen 2 HMDS, which contains an ISIE (Intevac silicon imaging engine) 10 sensor for low-light-level detection, was the helmet system’s major deficiency, according to Kelly. An ISIE 11 sensor based on Intevac Photonics’ patented electron bombarded activated pixel sensor (EBAPS) technology brings the system’s night-vision acuity closer to the 20/20 vision NVGs can provide...

The Gen 2 helmet system’s latency, or response time at importing DAS imagery—measured in milliseconds—was not the problem testers thought it would be, Kelly said. Pilots just hadn’t had the opportunity to use the DAS sensor array during flight testing. Test pilots experienced display jitter in areas of the F-35 flight envelope that hadn’t been approved for training, he said. The program addressed the problem by integrating micro inertial measurement units and filtering algorithms in the HMDS to cancel out jitter effects. Pilots flew the fixes using a modified Gen 2 helmet.

“It’s still not perfect, but it’s the 95-percent solution and the major issue there is resolved,” Kelly said.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 19:31
by spazsinbad
GAO JSF/F-35 Report to Congress March 2014 page 10-11

"...Helmet mounted display - provides flight data, targeting, and other sensor data to the pilot, and is integral to reducing pilot workload and achieving the F-35’s concept of operations. The original helmet mounted display encountered significant technical deficiencies, including display jitter, the undesired shaking of the visor display, and latency, the perceivable lag that occurs in transmitting sensor data, and did not meet warfighter requirements. The program made adjustments to the helmet design, including adding sensors to lessen the display jitter, and redesigning elements to minimize latency. The program tested these design changes in 2013 and found that most of the technical deficiencies had been adequately addressed, and that the helmet’s performance was sufficiently suitable to support Marine Corps initial operational capability in 2015. DOT&E and program test pilots noted that the current night vision camera continues to have problems. The program has identified a new camera that it believes will address those problems, but that camera has not been fully tested to verify its capabilities...."

SOURCE: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661842.pdf (1.6Mb)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 23:15
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:[... The program tested these design changes in 2013 and found that most of the technical deficiencies had been adequately addressed, and that the helmet’s performance was sufficiently suitable to support Marine Corps initial operational capability in 2015. DOT&E and program test pilots noted that the current night vision camera continues to have problems. The program has identified a new camera that it believes will address those problems, but that camera has not been fully tested to verify its capabilities......]



...uh, now that Eglin has begun (last week) night flight training, might some assumptions be made, hmmm.................

Gums, .......are things noticeably noiser at nght (night ops) in the pan-handle?

Inquiring minds want to know? :D

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2014, 03:15
by spazsinbad
Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs
GAO-14-340SP: Published: Mar 31, 2014. Publicly Released: Mar 31, 2014.

"...F-35 Program | Technology Maturity
...The program recently chose to end development of an alternate helmet due to progress made on the original helmet design and work on development of a newer generation helmet....
...Program Office Comments
The program ended development of the alternate F-35 helmet as further testing indicated it is acceptable for USMC initial operating capability. Continued improvements will be made in the Gen III helmet. This decision includes a guarantee from industry to reduce the unit cost by 12 percent from previous estimates...."

SOURCE: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/662184.pdf (11Mb)


2 Page F-35 SAR 31 Mar 2014 PDF reprinted (PRN) as a single page attached now.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2014, 16:54
by spazsinbad
I guess this is the REAL SAR (up to Dec 2013) so the other one was something or other. More out of date reports than I can poke a stick at so here it is: [one day I'll get all this new fangled QUOTE stuff rite - aM I riTE? :devil: :bang: ]

Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) Dec 2013
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft (F-35) As of FY 2015 President's Budget
Executive Summary...
“...One critical challenge the program made head way on in 2013 was the HMDS. For more than two years, the program worked with industry teammates to conduct dedicated flight tests and develop solutions to address the helmet's technical challenges. Those issues that hampered helmet function have been resolved, and the unit cost of the helmet system has decreased. As a result of testing and mitigation of the HMDS issues, the parallel development of an alternate helmet has been terminated. The current helmet has been deemed acceptable to support USMC IOC in 2015, and the Generation 3 helmet - to be introduced to the fleet in LRIP Lot 7 in 2016 - will meet program requirements to complete test and development in 2017. The Generation 3 helmet will include an improved night vision camera, new Liquid-Crystal Displays, automated alignment, and software improvements. The downselect to the current HMDS also resulted in a price guarantee that reduced the overall cost of the HMDS by 13 percent for the next five years....”

SOURCE: http://www.scribd.com/document_download ... ension=pdf (0.7Mb) (97 pages)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2014, 02:48
by spazsinbad
[HMDS] Navy Contracts
24 Jun 2014
Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $75,980,553 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-12-C-0004) for the procurement of 252 helmet mounted display systems [300K each?] in support of the F-35 Lightning II aircraft for the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and the governments of Japan and Israel. This modification combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($33,541,274; 44 percent); the U.S. Air Force ($28,938,439; 38 percent); international partners ($10,103,656; 13 percent); and the governments of Japan ($2,264,917; 3 percent) and Israel ($1,132,267; 2 percent). Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be completed in July 2017. Fiscal 2012 and 2014 aircraft procurement (Navy and Air Force), international partner and foreign military sales funding in the amount of $75,980,553 is being obligated on this award, $30,806,571 of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded an $8,942,741 cost-plus-incentive-fee modification to the previously awarded advance acquisition contract (N00019-11-C-0083) for the procurement of 14 repeatable release holdback bars and common sustainment support of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter Low Rate Initial Production 6 aircraft. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (35 percent); El Segundo, California (25 percent); Warton, United Kingdom (20 percent); Orlando, Florida (10 percent); Nashua, New Hampshire (5 percent); and Baltimore, Maryland (5 percent), and is expected to be completed in March 2017. Fiscal 2012 aircraft procurement (Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force) and international partner funds in the amount of $8,942,742 will be obligated at time of award, $7,180,826 of which expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This modification combines purchases for the U.S. Air Force ($3,087,673; 34.5 percent); the U.S. Navy ($2,549,316; 28.5 percent); the U.S. Marine Corps ($1,543,837; 17.3 percent); and the international partners ($1,761,915; 19.7 percent). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity."

Source: http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm ... y_ID/37815

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2014, 08:24
by lookieloo
As someone once put it... "it's like walking around with a Mercedes on your head."

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2014, 15:55
by treebeard
This months issue of the Dutch magazine "Onze Luchtmacht" (Our Air Force) contains an interview with Maj. Laurens-Jan Vijge, the first foreign pilot to fly a F-35A. The overall interview is quite interesting, although I'm limiting myself to his comments on the helmet-mounted display for the purpose of this thread:

...
The first Dutch F-35A, the F-001, was delivered in Block 1B configuration. The second, F-002, in configuration Block 2A. "I started with the Block 1B syllabus and sometimes flew Block 2A during that syllabus. When I was in training, the simulators were updated from Block 1B to Block 2A, which meant I eventually couldn't practice with the Block 1B configuration. But that doesn't really matter when flying is concerned. Block 1 is a training-configuration not suitable for operational testing. We're now starting to learn more about the Block 2 configuration, but will eventually be using Block 2B during the OT&E. With the 2A configuration, you have a bit more options and the software is more stable. Four of my colleagues from the 58th FS have flown during the night and the Dutch pilots will do the same later in the program. Flying by night is part of the training as well as the development-program," according to Maj. Vijge.
...
"When I started my training, I heard about the issues this extraordinary helmet was supposedly suffering from. So I was naturally interested in the vibration and latency problems I had been hearing about. The inner liner of the helmet is based on a 3D-scan of the pilot's head, which meant that my head first needed to be scanned in order for the inner liner to be tailored specifically to my head. This inner liner is then put in the outer shell of the helmet, which is either medium, large or extra large. The electronics unit is attached to this outer shell. So when I put on my helmet and fasten it via the neck straps and a rotary switch, it fits like a glove. When I move my head, the helmet doesn't move an inch. It is genuinely a perfect fit. The ear pad are perfectly in place and when I put down my display, I have an extremely stable image of the world surrounding me. I haven't yet noticed any latency of vibration issues. Those stories came from test-pilots and are based upon the requirements which the helmet will eventually have to meet. Perhaps those issues will be more noticeable during night operations, but as of now I've never had a helmet I liked better! I now have the newest variant, Generation II. I think it's a superb device. According to the test-pilots, the latency and vibration issues will be history when the Generation III helmet is introduced."
...
"I've never had a helmet this nice".

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2014, 18:49
by spazsinbad
Thanks for that translation 'treebeard'.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2014, 20:54
by spazsinbad
Good to see ART is back on the job....
FARNBOROUGH: Lockheed remains confident in F-35 ahead of international debut
26 Jun 2014 Jon Hemmerdinger

"...Art Tomassetti, Lockheed’s F-35B Marine Corps project manager, notes that tests continue to uncover ways Block 2B can be improved. The improvements have included fixes to software problems and updates recommended by pilots, such as changing the colour of cockpit indicator lights, says Tomassetti, a former USMC F-35 instructor who flew the model’s experimental predecessor, the X-35.

“The challenge is trying to get all this new stuff in before we hit the deadline,” he says.

Lockheed expected to reach initial flight clearance for 2BR5, the version of the 2B software that will allow the F-35B to reach IOC status, within the first half of June. By the end of May it had completed seven “weapons delivery accuracy tests” with the software; 15 such tests are required to verify combat capability, the company says. It adds that more information about software development will be available in a Congressionally mandated review that the DoD says will be released by the end of June.

Confidence has also come from USAF Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan, head of the military’s F-35 programme.

On 26 March, Bogdan told the US House Armed Services Committee that he expects the F-35B to reach IOC by summer 2015, saying the software is “within 30 days” of being completed on time. “There is fundamentally very, very little risk in delivering the [software] capability to the US Marine Corps,” he said.

But Bogdan said a more pressing threat is the programme’s ability to quickly upgrade the IOC aircraft, which will have already been delivered, to the 2B standard. He told Congress that modifications of older aircraft “is even more [of] a problem than the software in 2015”...."

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... al-400065/

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2014, 02:20
by popcorn
Excellent feedback re the helmet.. if possible, can you post more of the good Major's insights? Thanks.


treebeard wrote:This months issue of the Dutch magazine "Onze Luchtmacht" (Our Air Force) contains an interview with Maj. Laurens-Jan Vijge, the first foreign pilot to fly a F-35A. The overall interview is quite interesting, although I'm limiting myself to his comments on the helmet-mounted display for the purpose of this thread:.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2014, 17:30
by spazsinbad
Both X aircraft seen in this movie with the last part highlighting the cockpit displays.
Building the Ultimate User-Friendly Cockpit
"This movie is part of the collection: G4 Video Grabs Producer: G4TV.com"

ANIMIATED GIF: https://archive.org/download/g4tv.com-v ... _165_0.gif (120Kb)

Movie Files: tl20010926a_165_0

Flash Video: flv 12.2 MB

h.264 26.9 MB

Ogg Video 19.1 MB

Source: https://archive.org/details/g4tv.com-video3645


tl20010926a_165_0.gif

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2014, 09:35
by spazsinbad
Rockwell Collins horizons The Perfect Fit F-35 Gen III HMDS
Annette Busbee Vol 19 Issue Two 2014

"...“We have to fit a helmet to an asymmetrical human head so the optics package on the display visor is within two millimeters of exact center of each of the pupils,” he explained.

The process takes approximately four hours per helmet and involves two contact days with each pilot . On the first contact day, precise measurements are taken of the pilot’s head, including a 3D head scan and the use of a pupilometer to measure the distance between the pupils.

Once Kalsow and Breuer have the measurements and the helmet components – most of which are produced at our company’s facility in Wilsonville, Oregon – they begin assembling the helmet. This process includes custom-milling each helmet liner so the helmet fits the individual’s head comfortably and maintains its stability under high gravity (G) maneuvers.

“Our helmet liner must stand up to the pressure of high G manuevers so the optics package remains aligned with the pilot’s field of view,” Kalsow noted.

When the helmet is assembled, the pilot comes in for a fitting during the second contact day. It’s at this time that the optics package is aligned to the pilot’s pupils and the display visor is custom contoured – a process that must be done precisely so the pilot has a single focused image at infinity....

...When pilots began reporting a number of issues with the Gen II HMDS, the Department of Defense (DoD) identified it as one of several F-35 program risks in 2011. Problems included inadequate night vision acuity, jitter and latency of the DAS imagery displayed on the visor. The issues resulted in a loss of confidence from our customer and prime contractor on the F-35 program, Lockheed Martin, who subsequently awarded a contract to BAE Systems to develop an alternate helmet.

The question facing the F-35 Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) engineering team at Rockwell Collins and our joint venture partner Elbit Systems of America (ESA) was: How do we demonstrate our latest integrated digital night vision solution for the Gen III F-35 HMDS, when this next generation helmet won’t be ready for months?

It turned out the answer involved an F-35 test pilot and a twin-propeller Cessna airplane.

According to J Lewis, senior engineering manager in the F-35 HMDS program in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the customers – Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) – felt there were weaknesses in our night vision technology on the Gen II HMDS.

The halo effect, acuity, contrast and brightness of images coming through our night cameras were being contrasted with the resolution in analog night vision goggles – a solution being offered by our competition for the F-35 helmet program, BAE Systems.

“We believed our latest solution using the ISIE 11 sensor would match, if not exceed, what the competition’s analog goggles offered,” Lewis said. “We wanted to demonstrate this technology to government test pilots as soon as possible to show that it would provide them with the high resolution capability they require to complete night missions.”

On the F-35 Lightning II jet fighter, an ISIE 11 night sensor would be mounted on the glare shield at the front of the aircraft and another on the pilot’s HMDS...

...“The test pilots wanted to see laser spotting, they wanted to look at runway lights, they wanted to look at water versus tree lines,” Lewis said. “Flight test cards were built to include all the pilots’ specific requests – just like we would have done for an actual test flight.”...

...During subsequent flights, the pilots were able to compare the ISIE 11 sensor with the analog ANVIS 9 goggles in real time.

“We were able to demonstrate that the ISIE 11 digital night vision met or exceeded the capability of the analog goggles,” Lewis said. “And the pilots concluded that our sensor technology met their mission objectives.”

Pilots rely on high resolution night vision capability to fly night missions. And because they can be up in the air for hours, they need that acuity at close range when hooking into the probe of a refueling tanker.

“There’s no room for error in that,” Lewis said.

In October 2013, Lockheed Martin named Rockwell Collins and our joint venture partner, ESA, sole source provider of the F-35 HMDS . Production of the Gen III helmet is scheduled to begin in 2015.

According to Rob McKillip, senior director of F-35 programs in Cedar Rapids, our integrated digital night vision solution is an important technical achievement which differentiates Rockwell Collins and ESA.

“Pilots can automatically switch to night vision mode on their helmets without the need to put on bulky goggles,” McKillip said. “It’s the first helmet system that provides full capability day and night.”

Source: http://issuu.com/rockwellcollinshorizon ... l19issue2# (PDF 3.9Mb)


PDF 7 pages of only this article attached.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2014, 23:45
by treebeard
popcorn wrote:Excellent feedback re the helmet.. if possible, can you post more of the good Major's insights? Thanks.


treebeard wrote:This months issue of the Dutch magazine "Onze Luchtmacht" (Our Air Force) contains an interview with Maj. Laurens-Jan Vijge, the first foreign pilot to fly a F-35A. The overall interview is quite interesting, although I'm limiting myself to his comments on the helmet-mounted display for the purpose of this thread:.

As per request. I must say it's a bitch to translate large pieces of texts of paper-based articles to digital ones. :wink:

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=24908&p=274513#p274513

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2014, 00:03
by popcorn
treebeard wrote:
popcorn wrote:Excellent feedback re the helmet.. if possible, can you post more of the good Major's insights? Thanks.


treebeard wrote:This months issue of the Dutch magazine "Onze Luchtmacht" (Our Air Force) contains an interview with Maj. Laurens-Jan Vijge, the first foreign pilot to fly a F-35A. The overall interview is quite interesting, although I'm limiting myself to his comments on the helmet-mounted display for the purpose of this thread:.

As per request. I must say it's a bitch to translate large pieces of texts of paper-based articles to digital ones. :wink:

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=24908&p=274513#p274513

Much appreciated treebeard...

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2014, 02:13
by spazsinbad
Yes, agree. Thanks again 'treebeard' for translating the bits in the other thread about what it is like for a pilot wearing the HMDS II.
"Holland's first F-35A pilot
Willem Helfferich translated by 'treebeard'

"Dutch magazine "Onze Luchtmacht" (Our Air Force) [June edition] contains an interview with Maj. Laurens-Jan Vijge, the first foreign pilot to fly a F-35A"

"...Fantastic device
"When I started my training, I heard about the issues this extraordinary helmet was supposedly suffering from. So I was naturally interested in the vibration and latency problems I had been hearing about. The inner liner of the helmet is based on a 3D-scan of the pilot's head, which meant that my head first needed to be scanned in order for the inner liner to be tailored specifically to my head. This inner liner is then put in the outer shell of the helmet, which is either medium, large or extra large. The electronics unit is attached to this outer shell. So when I put on my helmet and fasten it via the neck straps and a rotary switch, it fits like a glove. When I move my head, the helmet doesn't move an inch. It is genuinely a perfect fit. The ear pad are perfectly in place and when I put down my display, I have an extremely stable image of the world surrounding me. I haven't yet noticed any latency of vibration issues. Those stories came from test-pilots and are based upon the requirements which the helmet will eventually have to meet. Perhaps those issues will be more noticeable during night operations, but as of now I've never had a helmet I liked better! I now have the newest variant, Generation II. I think it's a superb device. According to the test-pilots, the latency and vibration issues will be history when the Generation III helmet is introduced."..."

Source: viewtopic.php?f=57&p=274520#p274520

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2014, 19:41
by spazsinbad
From recent AIR International July 2014 F-35 Special Edition is a section on HMDS with this graphic of HMDS III. AND....
Helmet-Mounted Display System
July 2014 David C Isby and Mark Ayton

"...Weighing less than 4.5lb (2kg) including the oxygen mask, the HMD consists of a flight helmet with a noise reduction system, a display unit which provides the pilot with an ‘out of the canopy display’ to enhance situational awareness, targeting and tracking capability and a day/night sensor to provide video for displaying and/or recording.

The HMD can present video source and symbology commanded by the aircraft’s mission computer, but fusion of multiple sensor sources is not a requirement or function implemented in the system. Seven high-speed links including fibre optics and MIL-STD-1394 interfaces provide video and controls.

The HMD is capable of supporting three modes of operation: day symbology only, day video and symbology, and night video and symbology. The modes allow the pilot to continue using the night capability into the dawn and dusk with the HMD day/night camera. Raw data and symbology commands are received by the HMD, most of which are determined by mission system software....

...The HMD provides accurate head orientation and position data to the mission computer while the aircraft’s data fusion engine and the pilot-vehicle interface automatically display air and surface targets on the HMD generated by any of the F-35 sensors.

The data fusion engine controls and prioritises which targets are displayed on the HMD.

The APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar sends all contacts to the integrated core processor, which tasks them to the mission system for processing and displays the screen on the HMD. In addition, the HMD uses line of sight commands to cue the radar....

...[the] upgraded Gen III version of HMDS.... incorporates software fixes designed to correct latency issues, a new ISIE-11 night vision camera and liquid crystal displays. Gen III HMDS is expected to be available for LRIP 7 aircraft in 2016."

Source: AIR International July 2014 F-35 Special Edition

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2014, 17:09
by spazsinbad
Flynn lambasts us with his slow talking VIDEO brief in the F-35 travelling simulator demonstrator with some good bits though including this quote: [MID WAVE IR]
F-35 fighter jets include Siri and iPad technology
10 Jul 2014 Hannah Bouckley

"...The aircraft is powered using voice recognition - in fact it’s the same computer that runs Siri in an iPhone.

Billie Flynn, F-35 test pilot for manufacturer Lockheed Martin, refers to the cockpit as his workspace: “My work space is two iPads, Siri voice recognition and a helmet like Tony Stark in the Iron Man movies.”...

...High-tech helmets worn by the F-35 pilots include a built-in screen which displays key information such as altitude and navigation, along with images from six infrared cameras embedded in the skin of the aeroplane that enable the pilot to see through the plane.

“It makes me drastically more lethal and survivable. I see from horizon to horizon anything of contrast from the temperatures out there, I see objects in the air that would never have been visible otherwise” said Flynn.

Despite all the high-end technology in use, Flynn says the cockpit is very simple to use.

"There are less than 20 switches to touch - different than the fight cockpits of old because all I want the pilot to focus on is the information in front of him,” he said.

Ultimately the technology helps the pilot focus more effectively on his job: "The pilot's task is not flying the jet any more. His task is to go up and be lethal, be effective, in combat...."

Source: http://home.bt.com/techgadgets/futurete ... 3918175705

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2014, 17:41
by spazsinbad
Rockwell, Elbit Delivers F-35 Gen 3 Helmet Mounted Display System To Lockheed
16 July 2014 Our Bureau

"Rockwell Collins delivered Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) to Lockheed Martin for software integration into the F-35 Lightning II aircraft.

The Gen III HMDS will be integrated into Low Rate Initial Production 7 for the F-35 program. The F-35 Gen II HMD will be demonstrated at the Farnborough Air Show.

“The HMDS provides F-35 pilots with digital night vision and head tracking capabilities available today,” said Raanan Horowitz, president and chief executive officer, Elbit Systems. “Providing an accurate and readable virtual HUD with high resolution night vision, combined with low latency, is essential to the execution of the F-35 complex missions during day and night operations.”

The state-of-the-art HMD features a binocular 40x30 degrees field-of-view, high brightness and high resolution display, with integrated digital night vision.

When fully integrated with the aircraft sensors and systems, the HMDS provides the F-35 pilot with unparalleled situational awareness.

The system provides a lightweight HMD, with optimized center of gravity and maximum comfort for reduced pilot fatigue. Everything about the F-35 Gen III HMDS is designed to enhance the fighter pilot’s precision, efficiency and safety, while reducing the overall cost of the program. The Gen III design includes improved optics, image device and backlight, along with head tracking capability and the next generation Night Vision Camera."

Source: http://www.defenseworld.net/news/10816/ ... 8aw9JB-8kI

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2014, 18:16
by mk82
Just like Siri eh.....

Pilot: Lower the landing gears

F35: Dumping all fuel and jettison all weapons

Pilot: Oh crap...

F35: Nearest toilet is back at your airbase :devil:

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2014, 21:39
by spazsinbad
HMDS II Video here in several sizes for download:
Rockwell Collins F-35 helmet
16 Jul 2014 Shephard Media PRO

"Rockwell Collins has delivered the Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) to Lockheed Martin ahead of software integration aboard the F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft.

The Gen III helmet will be incorporated into the low rate initial production 7 phase of the F-35 programme. Testing will begin in around two weeks’ time at Edwards Air Force Base in southern California.

The helmet’s display was demonstrated to the press at Farnborough International Air Show on 15 July."

} HD .MP4 file (960x720 / 51MB)
} SD .MP4 file (640x480 / 22MB)
} Original .WMV file (1280x720 / 174MB)

Source: https://vimeo.com/100923136

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
by spazsinbad
Farnborough: F-35 Gen III helmet delivered
16th July 2014 Simon Truscott in Farnborough

"Rockwell Collins has delivered the Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) to Lockheed Martin ahead of software integration aboard the F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft.

The Gen III helmet will be incorporated into the low rate initial production 7 phase of the F-35 programme. Testing will begin in around two weeks’ time at Edwards Air Force Base in southern California.

The helmet’s display was demonstrated to the press at Farnborough International Air Show on 15 July.

The fully integrated HMDS [III] provides improved night vision, and auto-software alignment over Gen II, according to Phil Jasper, CEO of government systems at Rockwell Collins.

Gen III allows spherical, binocular 40x30 degree field of view with MWIR and equivalent night optics to ANVIS-9 NVGs but without the need to add and remove any goggles in-flight which results in a clean helmet surface - important for balance and safety during ejection.

Chief test pilot for the F-35 Alan Norman explained: ‘Our big connection to the airplane is our helmet; the Gen III provides capabilities we’ve never had before and turns night into day.

‘I’ll be survivable, lethal – that is due to this helmet,’ he added.

‘Fighter pilots change their mind all the time on what they want from a helmet, but this is configured according to each pilot under the HMD menu, pre-flight. Then one switch on the stick flicks between three display options because some want more information, some want less at different stages of a mission.’

The helmet incorporates Northrop Grumman’s Distributed Aperture System (DAS) which relays images from cameras around the aircraft to the pilot’s panoramic HUD and allows them to effectively look through the fuselage.

When asked whether wearing the HMDS was disorientating, Norman replied: ‘No reference of up or down is lost when I look through the airplane. I love it and there’s tremendous imagery. You retain stealth as you don’t need to manoeuvre as much to see.’

The HMDS helmet is a joint venture between Rockwell Collins and Elbit Systems Ltd of Israel with camera components being manufactured by Interac and Elbit Systems of America in New Hampshire, USA.

Until now, around 160 HMDS units have been delivered to Lockheed Martin and 100 pilots have logged a combined 15,000 hours flight time with the display system on the F-35.”

Source: http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/digit ... delivered/

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2014, 16:26
by spazsinbad
HMDS III in caption but text says 'Gen II' on display - whatever : http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/ ... wm4964.jpg
F-35 Test Pilots To Fly Improved Head-mounted Display
July 2014 Bill Carey and Matt Thurber

"...Horowitz said the Gen 3 HMDS comes with improved night vision from a new Intevac Photonics sensor based on electron-bombarded activated pixel sensor (EBAPS) technology, an integrated inertial measurement unit to track head movement and automated software alignment. Intevac delivers sensors to Elbit Systems of America, which builds the sensor into the night-vision camera.

Rockwell Collins is exhibiting the F-35 helmet for the first time at the Farnborough Airshow (Hall 4 Stand F9) and providing demonstrations to emphasize its situational-awareness products. The helmet on display is a Gen 2 HMDS.

Alan Norman, F-35 chief test pilot, said other test pilots have flown the current-generation helmet with Gen 3 fixes. Issues such as display jitter from aircraft buffeting have been “smoothed out to the satisfaction of the pilots and from our test-pilot point of view, we’re happy with it,” he said.

The first Gen 3 helmet will be deployed on the AF-3 test jet, an F-35A conventional takeoff and landing jet, which has the same software configuration of LRIP 7 jets. “That will be our first good look at how the Gen 3 helmet is doing,” Norman said."

Caption: "Elbit Systems of America’s Generation 3 helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) will go into service in a few weeks."

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... ed-display

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 07:30
by F16VIPER
Does anyone know why the F-35 HMD has a shell with the pattern shown in this photograph.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 07:51
by lookieloo
F16VIPER wrote:Does anyone know why the F-35 HMD has a shell with the pattern shown in this photograph.
You can't be serious. Every human male in the developed world knows what that pattern is.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 08:02
by F16VIPER
lookieloo, I live in the developed world and I know it is carbonfibre but that does not answer my question.
Why do you bother writing a smart a$$ stupid response. I will get the answer from Gentex.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 08:06
by spazsinbad

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 09:11
by lookieloo
F16VIPER wrote:lookieloo, I live in the developed world and I know it is carbonfibre but that does not answer my question.
Why do you bother writing a smart a$$ stupid response...
Why'd you ask the stupid a$$ question then?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 10:19
by F16VIPER
I am not going to descend to your level and have no interest whatsoever in having a exchange of any kind with you.
You obviously lost contact with people (forget about professionals) long time ago and on top of that cannot read English.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 11:20
by gergf-14
Come on girls and boys, it's a valid question, I would also like to know why that particular pattern, besides why do pilots need something so strong when their heads are already rock hard "bone domes" :mrgreen: :devil:

From the undeveloped third world citizen who happens to come from the land were the first helmet mounted sight was developed and used operationally! 8)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 17:45
by spazsinbad
There are other designs such as white helmets for Navy Pilots for over water use. I'll gather that different styles for different situations will be available for HMDS II and HMDS III in future. There are several pages of examples in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=208912&hilit=colour#p208912

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 19:00
by neurotech
gergf-14 wrote:Come on girls and boys, it's a valid question, I would also like to know why that particular pattern, besides why do pilots need something so strong when their heads are already rock hard "bone domes" :mrgreen: :devil:

From the undeveloped third world citizen who happens to come from the land were the first helmet mounted sight was developed and used operationally! 8)

I wonder if that is the same place from which Elon Musk came from?

The F-35 helmet uses composites to reduce weight compared to earlier versions. The pattern on the helmet is from interwoven carbon fiber threads, to form a hard shell. If they didn't reduce weight of the helmet and display system, the pilot would risk neck injuries during high-G maneuvers.

The big reason fighter pilots wear helmets is that if they eject out, their head can slam against the headrest hard enough to cause fatal injuries. Fatal head injuries have occurred during high speed ejections even with a standard flight helmet and no display system.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 19:25
by spazsinbad
Notwithstanding all the other elements of the elon musk reference (I'll have to look that up) and having used a freekin' CARDBOARD HELMET with an inner loose woven wide canvas strip liner attached to keep the cardboard from off of me head I can see the benefits of a better helmet - although the cardboard helmet was LIGHTWEIGHT it had to be used with a padded cotton inner helmet which had the earpieces for radio/intercom in it. No noise cancelling there brutha. For fsake wot a schmozzle but them twere days.

Moving on to the HEAVY A4G helmet with hard shell fibreglass and ONLY some few plastic foam pieces to 'FIT' the helmet - often unsuccessfully the first few times which meant said unfittable helmet was just AGONY to wear after a few minutes in the air WITH NO CHANCE to take it off before getting back on the ground. I WOULD really appreciate wearing a proper good helmet eh. :devil: AND i'll stop the ALL CAPS!

The Macchi helmet was similar to the A4G helmet but was badly designed such that the two piece visor (day/night - green/clear plastic) was overbalancing the front of the helmet and also restricted the view above it. It was a nightmare for ACM because the helmet - no matter how well fitted - would slide forward when sweaty heads got going - further restricting the view. I would just SCREAM in frustration at this STUPID FUKin helmet! :mrgreen:

So youse can see having a good helmet is rather crucial even if some don't think so.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 19:44
by gergf-14
Yeah the same place but different town,

With carbon fibre you get different patterns, why that standard "checker" pattern, "gold plating perhaps" to look stylish...?
Perhaps the layer thickness played a role in the pattern selected...?

@ spazsinbad when you guys going to have a decent team to take on the springboks.....? :devil:

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 19:59
by spazsinbad
Who cares about the checker pattern anyway. For gorsake - think about it - the helmet needs to be visible (or in the case of the gyrenes - invisible) in the right (wrong?) circumstances as mentioned on the link to the 'over the water white' helmet.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 20:59
by gergf-14
No answer is an answer, perhaps there is someone out there who could answer.......?

As I am in the coatings business, color should not be a problem, as long as you have a good Primer(Füller) for the CFK or CFRP.
Weight should not be a problem as the specific gravity and solid content is relatively good with paints these days.
"Water white" seems so boring sounds almost like a ford philosophy......?

An added question to previously mentioned one,
Is it CFK or CFRP....?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 21:31
by spazsinbad
It seems someone does not want to read the link which explains about the white for water scheme. It is a Safety at Sea - helo rescue day/night factor - who cares about boring. Try flying a fast navy jet and see how boring that can be - sometimes. As mentioned in this thread already - try flying in the back of a TA-4 and see how the helmet is ESSENTIAL but youse all knew that.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 21:56
by lookieloo
F16VIPER wrote:I am not going to descend to your level...
Technically, I descended to yours; but whatevz.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2014, 00:14
by F16VIPER
The attached low-res cropped photo shows the two patterns side by side and the flat recessed data cable on the right hand side of the helmet.
Also, the HMDs worn by the F-35B pilots during testing at the Wasp were fully tapped (with white reflective tape) as per USN regulations, not painted, with markings applied on top.

Summarizing, the questions are:
(apologies as I am not a materials engineer/ carbonfibre manufacturing expert).

- What is the reason for the particular patterns adopted for the helmet's shell.
- Is it CFK (Carbon-fibre kevlar?) or CFRP (Carbon-fibre Reinforced Polymer?).
- Is kevlar used separately?

Thank you.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2014, 01:32
by spazsinbad
And as mentioned on this earlier post the RAN FAA had mandatory reflective tape white and red on the overall white plastic A4G helmet: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=208912&hilit=tape#p208912

The red cross or X on top was for the rescue helo pilots to see youse all the better both day and night when in the water or in the raft. They absolutely insisted that we not MESS with our helmets! Wot good lads eh. :mrgreen:

The front back can be seen on left and in the mirrors of a TA4G approaching Runway 26 at NAS Nowra, Oz. The white reflective tape would yellow a bit with age whilst the remainder of the white plastic remained whiter than white.

Then there is the back of an RAN FAA Twacker S-2E/G helmet (photo by Nick Thorne) approaching HMAS Melbourne.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2014, 02:23
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:And as mentioned on this earlier post the RAN FAA had mandatory reflective tape white and red on the overall white plastic A4G helmet: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=208912&hilit=tape#p208912

The red cross or X on top was for the rescue helo pilots to see youse all the better both day and night when in the water or in the raft. They absolutely insisted that we not MESS with our helmets! Wot good lads eh. :mrgreen:

The front back can be seen on left and in the mirrors of a TA4G approaching Runway 26 at NAS Nowra, Oz. The white reflective tape would yellow a bit with age whilst the remainder of the white plastic remained whiter than white.

Then there is the back of an RAN FAA Twacker S-2E/G helmet (photo by Nick Thorne) approaching HMAS Melbourne.

You know that the personalized helmet artwork is largely in the movies, right? It was only after the movie Top Gun came out that such artwork became slightly more common.

Some helmets got decorated with squadron artwork, but its rare that a pilot has a helmet with their callsign and personalized artwork. Mostly it was a quick label-maker job for identification.

I find it kind of funny that the RAN were so concerned over tape on the helmets. No dye pack for finding the pilot in the water?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2014, 03:38
by spazsinbad
Hmmm... that is a funny thing to say: "...I find it kind of funny that the RAN were so concerned over tape on the helmets. No dye pack for finding the pilot in the water?" Of course the RAN FAA were concerned. They and the helo pilots who did the work knew that a helmet as described was the easiest to find day/night. FAA Fleet Air Arm regulations were very strict and they needed to be. We were required to wear full combat survival gear until after my time that regulation was relaxed when new survival equipment was purchased (I'll guess the USN made the same change after Vietnam War finished). Also the helmets for A4G & Macchi became interchangeable (replaced the very sad original Macchi helmet) but that was after my time in. That meant the pilot wore the same helmet with a different oxygen mask in both aircraft.

Forgive me if these days I have forgotten all the details of where stuff was where in not only our survival gear but in our dinghy packs etc. :mrgreen: Sure there was shark bait dye - but who knew - except the sharks. :doh: :devil: We could light our wet ciggies with the mini flares also. Some people are just desperate for a nicotine fix eh. :drool:

Anyone knowing any jet pilots from my era will know a 'maverick' of some sort - always wanting to stand out from the crowd and be different. That could be a problem with safety equipment. Why we had a USN exchange pilot (who at the early 1970s came from the A-7 mob and not so familiar with the A-4 but familiar enough of course - who INSISTED on wearing his cowboy boots - in uniform - everywhere until he was told that (on certain formal occasions) he was NOT. Meanwhile some RAN pilots wore non reg black boots with their winter uniforms which also was against regs but we were usually out of sight out of mind down the far end of the airfield and no one dared bother us much. :devil:

This same pilot USN insisted on some occasions (when 'apparently' flying over our great wide brown land) that he wore only the bones of the survival gear and nothing else - including at that time - the water wings. Bloody hell he fought tooth and nail to be able to do that whilst we still wore the regulation stuff (see above). I think he produced a note from Uncle Sam to be excused the same torture. 8)

Good story about breathing 'LOX' here: http://www.tailhook.org/Gillcrist.htm

The A-4 generally (except Kiwis after a few years) had pure oxygen under pressure via LOX (Liquid Oxygen) in a small tank near/aft the stbd speedbrake as I recall. This oxy system gave us symptoms similar to those apparently experienced by F-22 pilots (with a different system of course) but producing the same “absorption atelectasis” symptoms described by some F-22 pilots. But anyway that is mentioned all elsewhere on this forum - probably search for 'atelectasis' will find it. I mention it now because some pilots were more affected than others under the same circumstances - so people who want to trash F-22 pilots about the matter - just stop. Good outcome here: http://www.ktuu.com/news/ktuu-air-force ... 5744.story & http://www.rdmag.com/News/FeedsAP/2012/ ... f-22-woes/

Just to be funny ? as usual. Another affectation of RN/RAN fighter pilots was to unbutton the top button on our winter uniform. Caused no end of comments from all and sundry - but as I say - what the heck. We had BIG watches also. :devil:

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2014, 05:24
by KamenRiderBlade
On a slightly divergent note, Spazsinbad, do you have any pictures of your youngers days in full flight gear with your helmets?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2014, 06:01
by spazsinbad
NO sadly. Our mob in early days from senior people had some weird idea that photos were not good (you name a reason and that was it). This restriction was lifted from about the time after I left in the mid 1970s generally although some savvy old timers just got the VF-805 pictures made no matter what. As I say I cannot explain - being a junior pilot no one told me shite. Believe me I tried to get my version of VF-805 mid 1971 to mid 1972 to at least get a group photo and not even in flight gear but no sirree no. There was a mandatory mugshot board for HMAS Melbourne and the gangway staff and ship officers so that they knew who these new birdies were (otherwise we would not see them - only onboard). So there is that plus a picture of me in my short summer whites outside a hangar with some USN LtJgs at NAS Barbers Point, Hawaii or on the back of a ute out at the armament range near NAS Nowra for a publicity photo but none sadly in my gear. We were forbidden at that time to take photos of the aircraft up close for example. These restrictions lifted later thank goodness so there are some great photos of the aircraft and pilots after the mid 1970s. Anyway I have a film from the AWM (Aust. War Memorial) which shows the USN pilot with his minimal gear (I think) I certainly have his photo but no names no court martials. He actually came back to Oz years later as CO of a very large USN (non nuke) aircraft carrier - so he knew what he wanted - I wonder if he still wore his brown cowboy boots. :mrgreen:

PAGE for video: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F11259/

DIRECT DOWNLOAD: https://static.awm.gov.au/video/F11259.WMV (8Mb)

Sometime in 1972 - we see the white rudder 87X second batch second hand refurbished A4Gs whilst the original brand new ones have 88X side numbers.

Photo below shows two RAN FAA pilots on the left side as they walk out have the full gear whilst the guy on the right is the USN chap with I think at that time just the water wings underneath armpits and no other bulky, heavy stuff. These chaps are on their way to Perth WA specifically RAAF Pearce just to the north. The first bulky gear chap checking the slats later ejected from 875 when the engine failed just after catapulting in 1980. At that time the survival gear had changed to just a large horse collar around the neck which caused him a lot of troubles as it over inflated in the hot tropical conditions. Otherwise the earlier gear had only a small horse collar with the larger water wings for buoyancy - which was more preferred but more bulky. I will post a photo of the group with the USN pilot having NO gear so I guess he clipped on the water wings.

I think the USN exchange pilot is in 887 with the circular pattern on rear of helmet (non standard as you would guess).

The photo shows 'J' Hangar (the only jet hangar with all the jets of the day) at the far south eastern end of the airfield very close to the threshold of RW 26. The VERY LARGE LOX tank highlighted at the beginning had no protection from vehicles or aircraft whatsoever. That was just crazy. After a bit some bollards were installed and then a fence and happly later that damn bomb was moved away from the hangar. Phew. The gun butts were where the guns were harmonised firing into the building - doors closed at moment.

The second group photo shows the USN exchange pilot on the right - note the lack of gear - I think there was some discussion from the VC-724 CO (with cap under arm) about at least having the water wings attached (they were going to fly over the Great Australian Bight depending on conditions. The first pilot on left is the one who ejects later from 875. The chap next to him making fun of the CO is a peer helo CO going for a 'jolly' whilst the tall chap between CO and USN pilot is CMDR AIR (CAG) of HMAS Albatross - aka NAS Nowra.

AND they are all very bad lads for carrying their helmets by the chin strap. This weakened the strap over time which may cause a problem when strap needed to be strong. AND.... we see a three aircraft takeoff with a trainer in lead. This is verbote at all times AFAIK but it seems with the connivance of the bigwigs in the formation it was OKed on the day. :mrgreen:

At the very last few seconds there is a four aircraft diamond formation with some of the new second hand second group of A4Gs (with white rudders) I guess done for the publicity in it. At the last a MACCHI MB326H large tip tank comes into view.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2014, 20:11
by spazsinbad
Back to the future. Not sure again if the graphic is actually an HMDS III but anyway the symbology is interesting.
F-35 Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System delivered for software integration to Lockheed Martin
21 Jul 2014 John McHale, Editorial Director

"CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa. Lockheed Martin officials received delivery of the Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems, LLC, Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) for software integration into the F-35 Lightning II jet fighter. The helmet will be integrated into Low Rate Initial Production 7 for the F-35 program.

“This helmet is the first to have a fully integrated head-up display, enabling pilots to get all the critical data they need on the helmet’s visor, says Phil Jasper, executive vice president and chief operating officer, Government Systems, for Rockwell Collins. Pilots who have flown with the system reported faster responses and reduced workload, he adds.

The HMD has a biocular 40x30 degrees field-of-view, high brightness, and high resolution display, with integrated digital night vision. The HMDS displays the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) imagery from Northrop Grumman, which provides pilots with the ability to see through the structure of the aircraft for a 360-degree view as well as a direct picture of the ground beneath them.

It is a lightweight HMD, with an optimized center of gravity for maximum comfort to reduce pilot fatigue. The Gen III design has improved optics, image device, and backlight, along with enhanced head tracking capability and a next generation Night Vision Camera, enabling equivalent performance to ANVIS-9 NVGs.

So far, more than 160 HMDS units have been delivered to Lockheed Martin. The HMDS has logged more than 15,000 hours of test flights on the F-35.

The F-35 HMDS is provided by Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems, LLC, a joint venture between Rockwell Collins and Elbit Systems Ltd. of Israel, through its U.S. subsidiary Elbit Systems of America in Fort Worth, Texas. Rockwell Collins is responsible for the overall HMDS performance and the helmet mounted display components while Elbit is responsible for the night vision cameras, helmet tracking, and display processing components."

Graphic: http://i.cloud.opensystemsmedia.com/i__ ... ec401b.png

Source: http://mil-embedded.com/news/f-35-gen-i ... ed-martin/

At another page is this caption to same graphic.
http://mil-embedded.com/news-id/?44178
"The state-of-the-art Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems, LLC, Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) features a biocular 40x30 degrees field-of-view, high brightness and high resolution display, with integrated digital night vision. When fully integrated with the aircraft sensors and systems, the HMDS provides the F-35 pilot with unparalleled situational awareness."

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2014, 20:25
by neurotech
I was making reference to the stripes, and hoping that very few RAN pilots actually end up in the water to find out.

Did they actually use the term "CAG" in the RAN?

The test pilots I knew, made an art form out of side-stepping regs that didn't make sense, such as helmet type (USAF vs USN standards) or what shirt under flight suits, The pilots sometimes wore white turtle-neck long-sleeve cotton shirts under their flight suits. We had waivers for all sorts of things, bordering on ridiculous. The pilots sometimes swapped survival gear to be comfortable when the chance of ending up in water while flying over the desert was slim. Our resident 2-star had some interesting deviations, one of which was the coating on the sun glasses. NAVAIR didn't make a big deal until the time they discovered the standard glasses/visors were rubbish, and a pilot had a mishap because of it. The 2-star test pilot was right...

The Navy top brass preferred regular t-shirts under flight suits of the squadron specified color. Capt. John Young is famous for always wearing the turtle-neck shirt, usually white. When a pilot gets to that level, even the brass stop commenting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Young_(astronaut)#mediaviewer/File:John_Watts_Young.jpg

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2014, 22:18
by spazsinbad
I'm fascinated to know why 'CAG' would be a novelty in the RAN FAA of old? More rightly CAG would be for the Carrier Air Group and I was just using the term to signify the importance of the CMDR in the photo was Commander Air at NAS Nowra. So to be absolutely correct (I think) we called the Commander of the Carrier Air Group 'CAG' or referred to him as such. "'CAG' said this that or the other". More correctly the CMDR Air at Nowra was 'CMDR Air'. I would guess that being more or less at the start in 1969 of the transition from Brit to Yank NavAv that different terms were mixed/ interchangeable at that time. Many S-2 initial aircrew were trained in the US and Canada (onboard Bonaventure for S-2 LSOs for example) with many helo pilots trained in a several groups by USN.

I would suggest the RAN FAA when moving from British RN aircraft to American USN fixed wing aircraft were attempting to change the previous Brit RN culture to a much better - at that time - USN Safety Culture as I think I have mentioned already on this forum somewhere. The RN/RAN used to fly sometimes in their winter uniforms with often just an oversize cotton flight suit with their uniform shoes, so that when they landed onboard, they were in uniform. Perhaps that did not happen a lot but I believe it did enough times to be a worry. Whatever the shortcomings of an ancient RN FAA safety culture the transition to the NATOPS regime was not without hiccups. But it was fun to watch from the sidelines - especially the re-introduction of the LSO (who was not onboard in the Venom / Gannet era in the RAN). Anyway it all worked out for the best in the end, so that aircrew were in a probably safer environment than if the effort had not been made to enforce standards regulations / NATOPS etc.

Our issue sunglasses were rubbish. I don't think I ever wore any most of the time. In the air I had the twin visors (green/clear) down all the time unless only the clear was needed (darkness). Birds were a constant hazard - if you were lower than the gannets then you were probably in trouble.

The constant complaint would have been with the issue socks that were not hardwearing. The boots seen in the photo were highly prized by others. They are black suede with zipper sides and steel cap toes (originally purchased to protect Sea Venom pilot toes from striking the instrument panel on their way out in a hurry). Zippers meant the boots could be removed easily in water if required. Yet they were not hardwearing for damp land use for example. However the steel toe caps meant the sock toes would be worn through after one wearing. I wore many pairs of socks in my boots.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2014, 00:21
by popcorn
Either the RAN has been recruiting Elves from Middle Earth or Vulcans.. which is it Spaz? :D

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2014, 00:31
by spazsinbad
That's BIG EARS - Noddy! :doh:

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2014, 00:41
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:That's BIG EARS - Noddy! :doh:

Looked like Jim Kirk sideburns to me.. LOL

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2014, 18:06
by spazsinbad
The RNZAF A-4K survival gear in the early 1970s was the same as the early A4G gear however at some point they changed the oxygen mask to one similar to the Sea Venom which meant they could breath a mixture of pure oxygen and cabin air rather than the original A4G/A-4K pure oxygen under pressure. Also by the time the KAHU update for the A-4K came along beginning 1990s they had changed their survival gear as shown. All gear is RNZAF with exception of the early USN A-4 survival gear with a 'full body' harness. The top part of the first JPG shows the KAHU gear with the 'horse collar' only flotation and the minimal body harness. Then I'll post the A4G comparison photo with first the full combat survival gear with the 3rd chap on the right wearing the Macchi G pants - original A-4 G suit had no pockets. The USN 'combat survival gear' book cover shows what a load a pilot could carry back in that 1970s era. The last photo shows the A4G changes with the '80s pilot on right showing the helmet which could be worn in both the A4G and Macchi (with oxy mask changed though).

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2014, 23:37
by mixelflick
The most striking difference I see between the F-35 vs. PAK-FA and other "5th Gen" fighters, is the helmet.

The helmet I've seen PAK-FA drivers wearing is, how do I say this? Archaic...

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2014, 04:48
by F16VIPER
Summarizing, the questions are:
(apologies as I am not a materials engineer/ carbonfibre manufacturing expert).

- What is the reason for the particular patterns adopted for the helmet's shell.
- Is it CFK (Carbon-fibre kevlar?) or CFRP (Carbon-fibre Reinforced Polymer?).
- Is kevlar used separately?


Starting to get some responses:

"The easy answer is that the helmet shell is made by HISL in the UK and the DU for the HMD is made by VSI in Oregon. The layup of the carbon fibre is obviously different, typically laying the fibers at a 45 degree angle to the seam, increases the strength of the assembly".
The technical reason for the difference in the pattern is that the DU material is much thinner and more rigid than the shell material is.

Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd acquired by Gentex Corporation

Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd is a leading UK manufacturer of military and commercial helmets, with an American subsidiary.
Brands include Alpha, Pureflo, Cromwell and Argus, with end users including the MoD and USAF.
USA-based Gentex Corporation states immediate access to new markets and enhanced global customer support as key acquisition drivers.
Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd (HISL) has been acquired by USA-based Gentex Corporation, a global leader in integrated helmet systems for defence and security personnel. The transaction was managed for HISL by international M&A advisor BCMS.

HISL is an established provider of protective helmets, communications equipment and respiratory systems for civil, defence, security and industrial personnel. HISL employs approximately 200 people with two UK facilities, in Letchworth Garden City and Stranraer, Scotland. Its subsidiary, Interactive Safety Products, Inc., is located in Huntsville, North Carolina.

HISL manufactures market-leading brands, such as the Alpha helmet range and Pureflo respiratory products, as well as being a key supplier to defence and military organisations both in the UK and USA, including the Ministry of Defence and the US Air Force. The company was engaged as a key supplier on the Joint Strike Fighter F-35 aircraft programme.

HISL will operate as a UK subsidiary of Gentex Corporation, which is headquartered in Carbondale, Pennsylvania. Gentex Corporation and HISL will combine their world-class products, technologies, and manufacturing resources to deliver customers one of the most advanced, comprehensive lines of helmet, respiratory and communication systems in the global defence and security market.

In a release from Gentex Corporation, the company stated immediate access to new markets and the ability to offer improved support to global customers as the key drivers for their acquisition of HISL. Both companies are privately owned, with common histories, each dating back over 90 years.

BCMS Associate Director Hugh Ashburner, who managed the transaction, comments: “It is great to see that BCMS has successfully brought together two long-standing family businesses. Gentex competed strongly, particularly in value and cultural terms, to fight off stiff competitive interest from companies from around the world. The deal has strong merits and benefits for both companies.”

Jan Korny, Group Managing Director of HISL, said: “BCMS provided professional expertise in representing the business profile of HISL, including products, brands, markets, financial results and forecasts in the information memorandum, and circulated it internationally generating significant global interest. BCMS then helped in selecting the preferred bidder, negotiating and managing the acquisition process to a satisfactory conclusion and delivering a fair competitive price for the business.”

The shareholders of HISL were advised by BCMS, an international M&A consultancy with a strong track record of completions in the manufacturing sector, having completed 24 deals in the manufacturing and engineering space since 2012. For reasons of confidentiality, the value of this deal is not disclosed.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2014, 02:38
by spazsinbad
22 buttons to push on HOTAS according to this video:
F-35 helmet display sees everything Have a look at PCD display cropped screengrab for LHA approach
Published on Apr 25, 2014 AOPALive

"Super situational awareness with a helmet mounted display that lets the pilot "see" through the aircraft in all directions."


Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2014, 03:56
by popcorn
Just to make sure I'm understanding correctly, everything external to the jet the pilot sees from the moment he puts on and activates the HMD is processed imagery? If he wanted to look at something inside the cockpit, say his watch, the helmet is smart enough detect his head movement and disable the DAS feed?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2014, 04:07
by spazsinbad
What the pilot sees is the vHUD all the time superimposed on just the view with his own eyes outside/inside (but why would he not look at a 'watch/clock' on the PCD - much easier to read that a wristwatch I'll warrant). Anyway he does not have to select the processed DAS view at all. Probably the vHUD can be switched OFF or light level turned down to smash his wristwatch to his face to read it. :devil:

This is one description (22 Dec 2013) on this thread which may be helpful: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=263842&hilit=Ayton#p263842

My favourite trick was to wear my service watch under my glove most times. COOL. However being me I sometimes would put it outside the glove to make it easy to read for low level navigation purposes (looking at a cut down paper strip map held up to my face for a microsecond). However wearing your watch outside over your glove is a worry if you then get back on deck AND without thinking REMOVE your glove. UH-oh. One smashed wristwatch on the deck. FAAAAARRRRKKKKK!

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2014, 04:25
by popcorn
OK, bear with mee... so vHUD symbology at all times, regardless of which direction his head is facing. But if the system detects his head is facing the floor of the aircraft, DAS kicks in and presents imagery of what's below the jet?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2014, 04:35
by spazsinbad
Nope. The pilot can select that synthetic view on or off at will. vHUD all the time but I guess perhaps it can be switched off and certainly the light levels showing the symbology can be decreased/increased.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2014, 05:13
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Nope. The pilot can select that synthetic view on or off at will. vHUD all the time but I guess perhaps it can be switched off and certainly the light levels showing the symbology can be decreased/increased.

OK, makes sense on/off synthetic view... I guess panoramic display would cue pilot to any sector requiring closer attention...,,also, IIRC HUD symbology is customizable by the pilot.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2014, 06:55
by spazsinbad
And DAY / NIGHT camera can be switched on/OFF so that no Night Vision Goggles needed for that crucial night view for Deck Landings or formation I guess plus all the other stuff they do at night. With one camera on helmet front and one now on windshield somewhere the night camera only sees more or less where pilot is looking + then DAS for that all over view for horizon will be just great.

Doing night ARF Air Refeulling in A4G at night with just the small spotlight (on own A4G) which illuminated the bent probe tip and the lights on the basket and lights on the buddy store and tanker aircraft was delightful. No NVGs for 'im. :mrgreen:

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2014, 05:05
by spazsinbad
In the travel sim Mike SKAFF demos a VL on an LHA and shows the DAS view at the end:


Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2014, 05:31
by popcorn
DAS kewl, man... :D

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2014, 05:04
by spazsinbad
From: http://issuu.com/faircountmedia/docs/hm ... elizabeth#
WHITE HELMET THREAD: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=208912&hilit=white#p208912
Some other white helmet thread links: LINKS to old thread attacments broken - I give up.
This one has some white plastic attachment point - it looks like:
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 59-003.jpg
"RAF Sqdn. Ldr. Jim Schofield becomes the thirty-third pilot to fly the F-35 when he took off from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, for a test mission in F-35B BF-2 on 1 February 2012."

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2014, 02:01
by cola
http://vimeo.com/101107461
Maybe asking these guys how they solved the latency issue at night?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2014, 02:17
by spazsinbad
BAE may well have however the HMDS III with problems solved, is the cats pyjamas for the F-35 - whether that is to anyone's liking - or not.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2014, 02:54
by smsgtmac
cola wrote: Maybe asking these guys how they solved the latency issue at night?

Their first generation helmet had latency issues related to the helmet tracking system. It was based upon an optical sensor system not unlike motion capture used for the movies. The ability to track the helmet was/is crude compared to inertial tracking systems that will be introduced in the second generation of that helmet and is already the approach for the F-35 helmet. From the video at the link provided, the optics-based approach was/is apparently also more problematic at night and in low level light situations: low light = more latency.
The F-35's latency was due to DATA latency vs. position latency, apparently due to the Ginormous amount of 360 spherical video processing and/or more information about the environment being processed and displayed. The F-35 helmet night acuity issue was unrelated to the latency issue. In the F-35 case it was apparently related to the 'night vision' camera, which as it has been noted is already 'solved'.
I predicted a while ago, and repeat here, that I expect the F-35 (and all similar) helmet design to be tweaked for quite some time until they become the 'accepted norm' vs 'something new'. This will be due simply because user "vision" varies wildly. By "vision" I mean both the physical ability of the eyes to 'detect' what is seen and the cognitive ability to process what is seen-- and all the potential users have very strong opinions about certain things: anything that helps or hinders what they think they need to 'see' is one of them.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2014, 08:06
by gtx
Another video (I don't think it has been posted before):
http://youtu.be/Ay6g66FbkmQ

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2014, 08:13
by spazsinbad
Thanks - some good clear vHUD graphics in the video.


Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2014, 22:55
by spazsinbad
Just slightly off topic again but you know how it is.... On page 33 of this thread here viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=276045&hilit=Venom#p276045 there was discussion about old flight gear. The video below shows RNZAF single seat - no ejection seat - pilots in their Mae Wests and cloth inner helmet with cardboard painted silver outer helmet. Last frames [screenshot] show the trainer Vampire which has ejection seats while the pilot (getting into left seat after handing the cameraman the camera in right seat) will have bowyangs (similar to those worn by F-8 Crusader pilots) for leg restraints as per illustration....


Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2014, 01:05
by spazsinbad
PCD Portal 'All Systems (F-35B) Are GO' from a video here: viewtopic.php?f=61&p=278585#p278585

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2014, 01:47
by SpudmanWP
Looks like they are going to display the gun's position on the left, regardless if it's internal or external.

Wonder if it's possible for an A to carry a gun and how would it be displayed?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2014, 02:53
by spazsinbad
SWP I would guess that all displays in all variants will be the same except where absolutely necessary - such as the STOVL engine LiftFan indications and whatnots for the Bee. Interesting question about F-35A gun pod. Meanwhile.... the majority of this text is elsewhere [ viewtopic.php?f=57&p=279273#p279273 ] but thought appropriate to post again the HMDS III bits below.
Testing the F-35 – an Australian perspective
NIGEL PITTAWAY, AEROSPACE TESTING INTERNATIONAL, SEPTEMBER 2014

"...The flight testing of software has recently been focused on certification of Block 2B software, which is required to support US Marine Corps IOC in July 2015. Although 2B and 3I offer the same level of functionality, they are hosted on different processors and the Australian jets, along with the other LRIP 6 aircraft, are awaiting certification of the latter later this year.

Block 3I software is also required to support the latest Generation 3 flight helmet, which will rectify shortcomings discovered with the earlier helmet during flight testing. Because modifications are also required to the cockpit, which will be made from LRIP 7 onward, the first two RAAF aircraft will require retrofitting once flight test of the helmet is completed.

Flight testing has also been affected by the recent fleet grounding, following the destruction of an engine and subsequent aft fuselage fire experienced by an F-35A at Eglin Air Force Base. “We’re just starting with (Block) 3I testing and with the little bit of hiatus we had with the grounding, we’re just getting back into the testing. We’ll really test with 3I probably in the September timeframe,” explains Lockheed Martin’s F-35 chief test pilot Al Norman. “Right now, AF-3 is the test jet loaded with 3I. We’ll have more jets loaded with 3I and when we do, the [Generation 3] helmets will be compatible with those. The Gen 3 break in to the LRIP jet is LRIP 7, which is next [northern] spring time.”..."

Source: AEROSPACE TESTING INTERNATIONAL, SEPTEMBER 2014

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2014, 23:44
by spazsinbad
Another PCD screenshot from a video of the travel sim at Misawa: http://www.dvidshub.net/video/363704/f-35-test-drive

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2014, 00:56
by castlebravo
spazsinbad wrote:Another PCD screenshot from a video of the travel sim at Misawa: http://www.dvidshub.net/video/363704/f-35-test-drive


Anyone have an idea on what the big green shape projecting from the front of the F-35 on the HSD might be? At 0:45 in the video you can see the shape grow somewhat, presumably due to the aircraft gaining altitude.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2014, 01:56
by SpudmanWP
SAR range?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2014, 17:23
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:...Block 3I software is also required to support the latest Generation 3 flight helmet, which will rectify shortcomings discovered with the earlier helmet during flight testing.

Because modifications are also required to the cockpit, which will be made from LRIP 7 onward,

....]



Is there a "best" reference for this "cockpit modificaton/s"??? thanks in advance :)

...are these mods "only" the camera upgrades for the "nvg??" issues, or others?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2014, 18:41
by spazsinbad
I do not know what is meant by 'cockpit modifications' however Shirley what the Gen III helmet mods are is well documented in this thread?

Here is one modification for 'cockpit' that may apply: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=274230&hilit=Tomassetti#p274230
FARNBOROUGH: Lockheed remains confident in F-35 ahead of international debut
26 Jun 2014 Jon Hemmerdinger

"...Art Tomassetti, Lockheed’s F-35B Marine Corps project manager, notes that tests continue to uncover ways Block 2B can be improved. The improvements have included fixes to software problems and updates recommended by pilots, such as changing the colour of cockpit indicator lights, says Tomassetti, a former USMC F-35 instructor who flew the model’s experimental predecessor, the X-35...."

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... al-400065/

Around this page to jump to would be the 'fixes' that the HMDS III system brings. And here is one small quote from that page:
"......[the] upgraded Gen III version of HMDS.... incorporates software fixes designed to correct latency issues, a new ISIE-11 night vision camera and liquid crystal displays."

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2014, 20:15
by cantaz
The cockpit modification might be to support the improved helmet tracking, as part of the jitter fix.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2014, 21:58
by neptune
cantaz wrote:The cockpit modification might be to support the improved helmet tracking, as part of the jitter fix.


...and that too :) ....

it appears that the contrast issues between the MFDs and the "NVG" cams being not completely compatible are part of the fix (now compatible) for this next gen. of the visor...."Bees" were landing on the Wasp with the MK-1 and the DAS-MFD (no visor). With this Block 3i. all of the 95% fixes can evolve to the 3F.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2014, 23:55
by spazsinbad
Getting fit for your jet fighter helmet
30 Sep 2014 John McHale

"...how F-35 fighter pilots are fitted for their Helmet-Mounted Display System (HMDS). A F-35 helmet fitting is so granular it measures the distance between your eyes and how your pupils react to light. Makes figuring out the lie angle on a 9-iron seem quite mundane.

I was given a tutorial on the process during the Air Force Association (AFA) event last month in Washington from Martin Gunther, product marketing manager for Airborne Marketing at Rockwell Collins. Gunther, a former Navy fighter pilot, has been designing fighter helmets more than 30 years.

The HMDS, designed and developed by Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems, places a virtual Head Up Display (HUD) and other critical flight data directly onto the helmet’s visor, he says. It has a bi-ocular, 40 by 30 field of view, and a high-resolution, high-brightness display, with integrated digital night vision. It is also integrated with multiple sensors on the aircraft such as the Distributed Aperture System (DAS), designed by Northrop Grumman, that enables pilots to essentially see through the structure of the aircraft for a 360-degree view and see a direct picture of the ground beneath them, Gunther notes.

The only people authorized to assemble and custom-fit a helmet to an F-35 pilot are Rockwell Collins employees (pictured) – Dan Kalsow, a senior systems engineer, and Rodney Breuer, a senior customer support manager – according to Rob McKillip, senior director of F-35 programs for Rockwell Collins. They have fitted more than 120 pilots from the U.S. Air Force and Navy, as well as three foreign national pilots from the Netherlands since 2011. To fit F-35 pilots for the helmet, [Kalsow and Breuer] start by laser scanning the pilot’s head so the helmet’s optics package on the display visor is within two millimeters of exact center of each of the pupils, Gunther says.

This part of the process takes about four hours per helmet and involves spending two days with each pilot, he continues. On the first day, measurements are taken of the pilot’s head, including a 3D head scan and the use of a pupilometer to measure the distance between the pupils, Gunther adds.

Once the measurements are made they begin assembling the helmet. This process includes custom-milling each helmet liner so the helmet sits comfortably on the pilot’s head while maintaining stability under high gravity (G) maneuvers so the optics continue to match up to the individual’s field of view, explains McKillip. “They custom fit the pads in the helmet based on head size,” Gunther says.

Once the helmet is assembled, the pilot comes in for a final fitting on the second day. During this time the optics are aligned to the pilot’s pupils and the display visor is custom contoured – a process that must be done precisely so the pilot has a single focused image at infinity, says McKillip. Many would assume that people’s eyes are aligned, but that is not the case, Gunther says.

Rockwell Collins engineers have developed the third generation of the HMDS (Gen III), which is scheduled for flight-testing at Edwards Air Force Base in California this fall, Gunther says. For the Gen III version the team made improvements to night vision acuity, the latency of the DAS imagery displayed on the visor, and solved a jitter challenge. The jitter – a symptom of the aircraft shake generated during a high G turn – has been totally eliminated in Gen III, Gunther says. “The big difference between the Gen II and the Gen III helmets is the improved optical design performance across the exit pupil,” Gunther notes. “Gen III also has blacker blacks and no green glow that was associated with previous models.”

Gunther says if he had this type of helmet back in the 1970s it would have made landing on aircraft carriers at night a lot less complicated...."

PHOTO: http://i.cloud.opensystemsmedia.com/i__ ... 73c47.jpeg

CAPTION: "Rockwell Collins employees Dan Kalsow (back) and Rodney Breuer (front) test to ensure a pilot’s pupils are within two millimeters of exact center to be properly aligned with the optics package on the F-35 HMDS. (Photo courtesy of Rockwell Collins.)"

Source: http://mil-embedded.com/articles/gettin ... er-helmet/

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2014, 00:02
by cantaz
Well, the idiots will always have "baaaaah why wasn't it fixed sooner", I guess. And soon enough that'll be all they have.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2014, 00:33
by quicksilver
neptune wrote:
cantaz wrote:The cockpit modification might be to support the improved helmet tracking, as part of the jitter fix.


...and that too :) ....

it appears that the contrast issues between the MFDs and the "NVG" cams being not completely compatible are part of the fix (now compatible) for this next gen. of the visor...."Bees" were landing on the Wasp with the MK-1 and the DAS-MFD (no visor). With this Block 3i. all of the 95% fixes can evolve to the 3F.


Not sure what you mean by 'no visor' but DT-2 on WASP was unaided. Working 'visor' (i.e. vHUD) is a requirement to go fly.

Some SW tweaks made to the display computer for the helmet that minimize the apparent jitter that occurs when buffet is present.

Night vision camera (like all image intensifiers) can be affected by ambient light levels in the cockpit. Adjustment to light levels in certain portions of the visible spectrum within the cockpit have been made (similar to adjustments made to EVERY aircraft in the US inventory when they started flying with NVGs).

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2014, 10:23
by spazsinbad
:devil: INFO on THE MASK (SOMEBODY STOP ME!) EBOLA.... (that redshite?): :devil:
Gentex Military Fighter Pilot Oxygen Mask, MBU-20/P
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=13667&p=278100&hilit=Cucamonga#p278100
Seymour Johnson AFB hosts latest round of joint aircrew flight equipment testing
19 Oct 2014 Staff Sgt. Michael Charles, 4th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

"SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCE BASE, N.C. (AFNS) -- Over the past few years, the Air Force has seen the introduction of several weapons systems that have pushed its aviation capability to new heights.

As capabilities increase, the Air Force has had to refine safety equipment in order to protect the only irreplaceable component in each airframe -- the human weapon system.

To ensure the safety of Air Force pilots and prepare for the future of aviation, Air Combat Command held a joint aircrew flight equipment evaluation testing Oct. 7 to the 14 here.

Representatives from Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia; Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota; Beale AFB, California; Tinker AFB, Oklahoma; Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona; Nellis AFB, Nevada; and Hill AFB, Utah, were on hand to test current and future flight equipment for every aircraft in the Air Force’s inventory, including the F-35 Lightning II.

Seymour Johnson AFB was chosen for the location of the test due to its proximity to ACC headquarters and its ability to provide additional Aircrew Flight Equipment Airmen to assist in the testing without affecting the operational mission of the wing. Organizers wanted to get real-time assessments of the equipment from those actually using it in the operational Air Force.

"We could have chosen a specialized test facility somewhere but it made more sense to do testing at a place where we could get direct feedback from the technicians who are accomplishing the mission every day," said Randy Loving, the AFE requirements chief for ACC. "For us, Seymour Johnson (AFB) was a logical choice."

The Joint Service Aircrew Masks was among the AFE items tested during the weeklong study. The masks, which were evaluated for use aboard tactical aircraft, were tested on their ability to keep aircrew protected from airborne contamination. Tactical aircraft equipment from the F-15E Strike Eagle and F-22 Raptor were also tested to determine potential safety improvements for future integration.

During the test, each of the aircrew's chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense flight suits were sprayed with fluorescing particles, simulating an aircrew member's exposure to biological or chemical weaponry. After being sprayed, the test participant walked through an aircrew contamination control area to manage contaminated equipment. Each piece of equipment was thoroughly disinfected in an attempt to eliminate and neutralize any simulated hazardous materials.

Following the contamination mitigation process, the testers removed their equipment and they were examined under a black light for any possible safety vulnerabilities. The process was repeated several times to ensure the integrity and reliability of the results.

"It's important for the gear we issue our aircrew members to be safe," said Master Sgt. James Kent, the 4th Operations Support Squadron aircrew flight equipment flight chief. "By thoroughly testing each piece of equipment and ensuring the integrity of our tests, we provide accurate results to Air Force leaders. It also helps us collect data points for future upgrades."

The chemicals used in the test were specially designed to change color when exposed to water and fluoresce under a black light to make it easy to determine whether there were leaks in the equipment or transfer of particles during the process...."

ORIGINAL Large Photo: http://media.dma.mil/2014/Oct/17/200094 ... 07-106.JPG (4.5Mb)

CROPPED photo smaller attached; CAPTION: "Airman 1st Class Kyle Rogers goes through decontamination procedures during an Air Combat Command Joint Aircrew Flight Equipment evaluation testing Oct. 14, 2014, at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C. Representatives from several bases were on hand to test current and future flight equipment for every aircraft in the Air Force inventory. Rogers is an aircrew flight equipment specialist assigned to the 355th Operations Support Squadron at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. (U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Brittain Crolley)"

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2014, 16:23
by spazsinbad
Whaddaya Mean - Ya Lost Ya HELMET!

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2014, 00:12
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Whaddaya Mean - Ya Lost Ya HELMET!

What's going on in that pic?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2014, 00:42
by spazsinbad
Earlier a picture of the ladder rescue crew was posted - I could have posted the pic on that thread but hey - where is the fun in that? So anyway the pilot or pilot surrogate wearing a NOT HMDS helmet (looks like a boxing helmet of sorts - for the protection in it) is being manhandled by rescuer. Cannot find that pic here again so I'll post it again or for the first time and does anybody care? :mrgreen: NAILED IT! viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25667&p=277672&hilit=gawker#p277672

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/ima ... f4dkue.jpg

Image

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2014, 00:59
by quicksilver
popcorn wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Whaddaya Mean - Ya Lost Ya HELMET!

What's going on in that pic?


CFR (Crash, Fire, Rescue) team training.

Helmet in the upper pics looks like a standard issue HGU-55.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2014, 01:32
by popcorn
Thanks. . Some grab handles would come in handy :)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2014, 01:34
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: That's why the helmets have wings or viking horns. No? :doh:

Dear Phearless Phlyers & Aviation Aficianados....
The rain was pouring and there was a big puddle in front of the pub just outside the Air Force Base.

A ragged old Naval Aviator, wearing his Winged ball cap, was standing near the edge with a fishing rod, his line in the puddle.

A curious young Air Force fighter pilot stopped and asked what he was doing.

'Fishing,' the old guy simply said.

'Poor old fool,' the Air Force officer thought and he invited the ragged old Naval Aviator aviator into the pub for a drink.

As he felt he should start some conversation while they were sipping their whiskey, the haughty fighter pilot asked, "And how many have you caught?'

'You're the eighth,' the old Naval Aviator answered.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2014, 19:19
by sprstdlyscottsmn
HAHAHAHA! :lmao:

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2014, 19:36
by neptune
:thumb: :lol:

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2014, 16:34
by count_to_10
Interesting SBIR technology call from the Air Force:

Develop cockpit helmet tracker based on passive sensors together with optical feature recognition and image processing algorithms usable for all helmets/aircraft. Approach should not use magnetic sensors, cockpit mapping, or active helmet emitters.

... Magnetic trackers currently fielded in e.g. the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) require each cockpit to be mapped separately in a time-intensive procedure with special equipment, and then re-mapped frequently whenever any change is made to that particular cockpit. Active optical trackers as used in the Eurofighter Typhon HMD system require a flashing infrared light-emitting diode array (IRLEDA) to be integrated into the outside layer of the helmet together with multiple cockpit-mounted sensors to detect their emissions for processing. ...


http://www.afsbirsttr.com/TopicPreRelea ... es&pn=SBIR

Looks like the Air Force wants to improve the helmet design.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2014, 20:59
by mixelflick
What I find incredible is the disparity between helmets used in the F-35 vs. say, PAK FA. Really speaks volumes insofar as who's ahead in that area.

I was half expecting the leather scarf, after I say the PAK FA helmet pic!

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2014, 04:22
by mk82
mixelflick wrote:What I find incredible is the disparity between helmets used in the F-35 vs. say, PAK FA. Really speaks volumes insofar as who's ahead in that area.

I was half expecting the leather scarf, after I say the PAK FA helmet pic!


I love the PAK FA helmet....gives the wearer a mushroom head appearance :mrgreen:

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2014, 04:36
by popcorn
Ah... but what you don't know is the PAK-FA helmet uses thought-control technology derived from the Firefox prototype :D

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2014, 21:33
by spazsinbad
Is there a word for this Original HMDS I Louie Da Fly getup? http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/i ... ing_lg.jpg

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2014, 02:47
by spazsinbad
Because I am a JANES unbeliever (oops I mean nonsubscriber) my access is only to the PDF described below - which from the few excerpts available is not worth downloading by other nonJaneBelievers. However... there is always this... An F-35 GEN III HMDS in the wild.... ohboy. :roll:
Learning to fly: UK F-35 training ramps up
[Content preview – Subscribe to IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly for full article]
http://www.janes360.com/images/assets/0 ... mps_up.pdf (0.6Mb)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2014, 04:26
by SpudmanWP
Nice Union Jack paint job :D

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2014, 17:30
by KamenRiderBlade
SpudmanWP wrote:Nice Union Jack paint job :D


It's too suddle IMO.

It should be in the normal flag colors while proudly displayed on the helmet.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2015, 07:23
by spazsinbad
I'm not suggesting that the JHMCS and the HMDS III are the same but wondering if in some circumstances a newbie F-35 pilot may have an issue similar to this newbie qualified on JHMCS pilot had in the lost Super Hornet. I'll guess that everyone in the F-35 world has paid attention to this report etc.
Navy report: 2014 Super Hornet crash was preventable
15 Jan 2015 Mike Hixenbaugh | The Virginian-Pilot

"...In one of the jets, a young pilot was flying his first training mission since becoming qualified to use a special helmet that projects key flight data - such as air speed, altitude, target range - onto his visor [JHMCS].

The pilot, investigators learned later, hadn't gone through a recommended computer-based course before being cleared to fly with the visor-mounted display. In fact, the investigator discovered, out of 17 squadrons based at Oceana, none reported requiring pilots to complete the course; only one squadron was even aware it existed....

...The crash was a reminder of how a small mistake in the cockpit of a fighter jet can snowball quickly. After entering the maneuver too fast, the pilot had seconds to take corrective action. But because he failed to execute standard cross checks - and because of his inexperience using the helmet-mounted display - he lost "situational awareness," the report said.

Oversights in training and mission prep were contributing factors, the investigator wrote. Every fighter pilot in the Navy was briefed on the findings. And moving forward, anyone flying with a helmet-mounted display must complete all available training courses...."

Source: http://hamptonroads.com/2015/01/navy-re ... reventable

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2015, 09:57
by F16VIPER
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Nice Union Jack paint job :D


It's too suddle IMO.

It should be in the normal flag colors while proudly displayed on the helmet.


My assumption is that because the helmets must be taped white, life support created the stylised union jack scheme using 3M tape strips.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2015, 02:25
by spazsinbad
Thanks to 'SWP' today [ viewtopic.php?f=22&t=26785&p=284175&hilit=Easterling#p284175 ] : some more 'LadderLafter' see previous page of this thread [ viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=281158&hilit=NAILED#p281158 ]: http://www.eglin.af.mil/shared/media/ph ... 07-001.jpg
"5/13/2013 - Brian Easterling, a 96th Test Wing firefighter, climbs a ladder to extract an injured F-35 Lightning II pilot during a major accident response exercise May 9. This was the first MARE involving the Air Force’s newest fighter aircraft at Eglin. First responders had to put out fires on debris from the aircraft after a hard landing. They also had to extract the injured pilot and get him to medical personnel. (U.S. Air Force photo/Samuel King Jr.)"

Source: http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123348239

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2015, 09:50
by spazsinbad
Elsewhere today this particular item is repeated along with a bunch of other stuff but worth repeating here:
F-35 Continues on Path Toward Full Weapons Certification
16 Jan 2015 F-35 News

"... · Successful first (Sept. 9) and night flight (Sept. 18) with the Generation III helmet-mounted display with 3iR4 software..."

Source: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-co ... tification

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2015, 23:38
by spazsinbad
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) FY 14 DOD PROGRAMS
Jan 2015 DOT&E

"...Mission Systems
Flight Test Activity with AF-3, AF-6, AF-7, BF-4, BF-5, BF-17, BF-18, CF-3, and CF-8 Flight Test Aircraft and Software Development Progress

... • Mission systems testing focused on:
- Completing flight testing of Block 2B capabilities
- Start of flight testing of Block 3i software, which began in May
- Start of Generation III helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) testing...

Mission Systems Assessment...
... ▪ The second iteration of Block 3i software, 3iR4, included capability to test the new Generation III HMDS. The Edwards test center flew four test missions with 3iR4 on AF-3 in September, accomplishing regression test points and some initial test points from the Generation III HMDS test plan. This was the first testing of the new HMDS on F-35 test aircraft. The test team discovered deficiencies, particularly in the stability of the new display management computer for the helmet, and suspended further testing until software that fixes the deficiencies in the helmet system can be provided to the major contractor and included in an updated load of mission systems software.

▪ The third increment of Block 3i software, version 3iR5, will be used to provide production software for Lot 7 aircraft, the first lot to be delivered with the Generation III HMDS....

...Additional time will be needed to address corrections if additional deficiencies are identified in the Generation III HMDS and will add risk to the schedule...."

Source: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/ar ... n_F-35.pdf (0.3Mb)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2015, 10:13
by spazsinbad
The rest is behind the usual AvWeak whatsitsname - so - whatever...
F-35’s Gen-3 Helmet Display In Final Test Stages
26 Jan 2015 Graham Warwick | Aviation Week & Space Technology

"Improved helmet-mounted display for F-35 features multiple upgrades.

Eliminating the head-up display and relying instead on a helmet-mounted display (HMD) was only one of the bolder design decisions for the Lockheed Martin F-35. It has also proved one of the more challenging, but a system meeting the requirements is in the final stages of testing. Aircraft hardware for the third generation of the F-35 HMD is being delivered to Lockheed for production Joint Strike Fighters, with the “Gen-3” helmets expected to arrive at pilot training locations..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/technology/f-35 ... est-stages

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2015, 12:39
by bring_it_on
Eliminating the head-up display and relying instead on a helmet-mounted display (HMD) was only one of the bolder design decisions for the Lockheed Martin F-35. It has also proved one of the more challenging, but a system meeting the requirements is in the final stages of testing.
Aircraft hardware for the third generation of the F-35 HMD is being delivered to Lockheed for production Joint Strike Fighters, with the “Gen-3” helmets expected to arrive at pilot training locations beginning in late spring.

The new HMD incorporates fixes to several shortcomings identified in the Gen-2 helmet during F-35 flight testing and pilot training. These included night-vision acuity, symbology jitter, imagery latency, alignment and green glow.

Gen-3 helmets will be fielded beginning with low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 7 F-35s now in assembly at Lockheed. Improvements to the Gen-2 helmet, meanwhile, have been made to support U.S. Marine Corps’ efforts to declare F-35B initial operational capability (IOC) by year-end.

“Latency, jitter, etc. are well behind us with hardware and software improvements incorporated into Gen-2 with LRIP 5. We are now finishing up development of Gen-3 and are in qualification testing,” says Robert McKillip, senior director for HMD programs at Rockwell Collins.

“Gen-3 involves a lot of little things that improve performance and producibility,” he says. A major change is to use two new Intevac ISIE-11 night-vision cameras: one on the helmet and one on the aircraft glareshield looking forward. The ISIE-11 has a larger aperture and higher resolution, sensitivity and speed than the ISIE-10 on the Gen-2 helmet.

Originally just a simple forward-looking day sensor, the aircraft-mounted camera now performs several key functions in the Gen-3 system: helping to track the pilot’s head, aligning the helmet display and improving visibility while flying at night.

Replacing the conventional head-up display, the F-35 HMD projects stabilized flight symbology and sensor imagery onto the pilot’s visor. With Gen-3, imagery from both the forward and helmet ISIE-11 cameras is used to minimize obstruction of the pilot’s night vision by the canopy bow.

“We fuse the imagery and eliminate most of the bow frame,” says McKillip. This is critical during hose-and-drogue refueling at night in the F-35B and Navy F-35C variants, as it enables the pilot “to see the probe go into the basket,” he says.Gen-3 adds a light-emitting diode (LED) and camera to the front of the helmet and back of the forward camera. The sensors optically track the LEDs to augment head-tracking and automate the calibration of display alignment.

Three methods of tracking head motion are used. The main one is magnetic, using a sensor mounted on top of the ejection seat, but alignment can shift over time so long-term optical- tracking has been added to keep the helmet aligned.

An inertial measurement unit (IMU) also is installed in the helmet to mitigate symbology jitter caused by aircraft buffet. “It is a trade between twitchiness and damping. When the IMU senses higher buffet, symbology is more heavily damped. We now use a different trade that errs on the side or readability.”

A third function of the forward camera is to enable the pilot to quickly perform an end-to end check of the Gen-3 helmet using the boresight reticle unit. “This gives the pilot visual feedback on alignment. It’s a go/no-go test that the helmet is aligned,” McKillip explains.

Because of the design changes, the Gen-3 helmet requires ground-testing to clear the helmet for pilot ejection at speeds up to 550 kt. A component failed on one ejection-seat test and is being redesigned and retested.

First flight of the Gen-3 helmet on an F-35 was on aircraft AF-3 in September at Edwards AFB, California. Testing was halted after four flights due to stability problems with the new display-management computer, says the latest report by the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation.

“There were integration issues between Elbit’s software and Lockheed’s software. These were fixed in an Oct. 30 software release. We have not seen this issue in our lab, in Lockheed’s lab or on the jet since,” says McKillip.

Rockwell Collins leads development of the F-35 HMD under the Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems joint venture with Elbit Systems of America. It replaces the original Vision Systems International consortium and has a simplified structure.

Deliveries of aircraft equipment for LRIP 7, including the forward camera, began late last year. Helmet deliveries will begin in late spring to the F-35 integrated training center at Eglin AFB in Florida.


Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2015, 12:51
by spazsinbad
8) :devil: Thanks for that - so you paid?... And Paid... AND PAID.... :mrgreen: :doh: :drool: 'brungitonyourself' :roll: :shock:

I can see now how a 'deadspot' was the canopy bow obstructing refuelling view at night (I guess). I'll dig that out now....

This stuff fell off a truck via e-mail and I do not ask... AND BEWARE the DATE is Aug 2013...
F-35B Pilots Conduct Night Shipboard Landing Without Night-Vision
Posted on InsideDefense.com: August 30, 2013

"...In May, Col. Kevin Killea, then-branch head for aviation weapon systems requirements, told Inside the Navy that the night-vision camera in the F-35 helmet was an "abject failure."

"This camera that is on the current Gen II helmet, it went through testing just like everything else did and the test pilots said, 'It's not good, we recommend that you don't use it in any phase of [night?] flight,'" he said.

The problem with the camera is the night-vision acuity. The Marines would like to be as close to 20/20 as possible, but it's at best 20/35, Killea stated.

"This was off-the-charts poor," he added.

However, the Marines will be able to fly at night because of the distributed aperture system (DAS), Killea added.

The service will have to adjust its tactics, techniques and procedures while it waits for the new camera to be retrofitted into the helmets. The new camera is supposed to be delivered in 2015 but it will take about a year to retrofit the helmets, he said.

The information the Marines gather during the fall test period will inform how the pilots will operate on amphibious ships between initial operational capability and when all the new cameras are put into the helmets.

The DAS system cannot be used for tanking and shipboard operations because the system has a blind spot, he said.

Moreover, the helmet is still not where the Marine Corps would like it to be, Brig. Gen. Jerry Glavy, assistant deputy commandant for aviation at HQMC, told reporters on the Wasp.

Glavy said the service has confidence in the F-35 joint program office getting it right...."

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2015, 13:31
by bring_it_on
Thanks for that - so you paid?... And Paid... AND PAID....


Don't pay myself...Have company access..

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2015, 13:52
by spazsinbad
Good to know. The subscription to InSideTheFence is incredible - who would pay that I wonder - certainly not me.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2015, 15:38
by maus92
The DAS system has blind spots close in, but as you get farther away from the aircraft, the sensors' FOV begin to overlap to fill in coverage. High false alarm rate - still has that.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2015, 21:52
by cantaz
EOTS should look straight down just fine.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2015, 09:12
by hornetfinn
maus92 wrote:The DAS system has blind spots close in, but as you get farther away from the aircraft, the sensors' FOV begin to overlap to fill in coverage. High false alarm rate - still has that.


True, it should be some tens of meters after which the FOV of each sensor will overlap. False alarm rate is most likely a combination of very sensitive sensors, complex capabilities and still immature software. It's a balance between having high sensitivity and reliability in detection and tracking of different kinds of threats and objects. These things are fairly easily fixed with software fixes and upgrades. Of course it takes some time in designing, implementing and testing all that additional and fixed software out of and in aircraft.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2015, 16:00
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:The DAS system has blind spots close in, but as you get farther away from the aircraft, the sensors' FOV begin to overlap to fill in coverage. High false alarm rate - still has that.


You should have seen what happened when helicopters with automatic systems flew over woodfires overseas. :doh:

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2015, 17:41
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:I'm not suggesting that the JHMCS and the HMDS III are the same but wondering if in some circumstances a newbie F-35 pilot may have an issue similar to this newbie qualified on JHMCS pilot had in the lost Super Hornet. I'll guess that everyone in the F-35 world has paid attention to this report etc.
Navy report: 2014 Super Hornet crash was preventable
15 Jan 2015 Mike Hixenbaugh | The Virginian-Pilot

"...In one of the jets, a young pilot was flying his first training mission since becoming qualified to use a special helmet that projects key flight data - such as air speed, altitude, target range - onto his visor [JHMCS].

The pilot, investigators learned later, hadn't gone through a recommended computer-based course before being cleared to fly with the visor-mounted display. In fact, the investigator discovered, out of 17 squadrons based at Oceana, none reported requiring pilots to complete the course; only one squadron was even aware it existed....

...The crash was a reminder of how a small mistake in the cockpit of a fighter jet can snowball quickly. After entering the maneuver too fast, the pilot had seconds to take corrective action. But because he failed to execute standard cross checks - and because of his inexperience using the helmet-mounted display - he lost "situational awareness," the report said.

Oversights in training and mission prep were contributing factors, the investigator wrote. Every fighter pilot in the Navy was briefed on the findings. And moving forward, anyone flying with a helmet-mounted display must complete all available training courses...."

Source: http://hamptonroads.com/2015/01/navy-re ... reventable

I've wondered the same thing actually. Simulator flying isn't the same as sitting in the front seat and flying a real fighter aircraft, and pulling Gs.

This crash is also a textbook example of what happens when pilots with limited hours and experience barely fly the required hours. In certain USAF programs (U-2, SR-71, F-117) the pilots would fly T-38 trainers to keep their skills current. One reason why I like the KAI T-50 is its practically a scaled down F-16, whereas the other jets on offer don't have the same skill transference into the F-16 and F-35.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2015, 19:57
by SpudmanWP
It sounds like Sim time was the solution, not the problem.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2015, 20:22
by sirsapo
SpudmanWP wrote:It sounds like Sim time was the solution, not the problem.


It certainly wouldn't hurt. Most of the Viper B-course students at Luke and everyone at Holloman (still one Block 25 squadron at Luke) fly with JHMCS from their first sortie onwards. I'm curious at to why the Navy hasn't gone that direction in the Hornet RTUs. I know all the USAF Vipers have the HMCS setup, and I was under the impression that all the Hornets and Super Hornets were in the same boat (zing).

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2015, 05:21
by spazsinbad
F-35 Display Improvement Air Force SBIR 2015.1 - Topic AF151-020
Opens: January 15, 2015 - Closes: February 25, 2015

"TECHNOLOGY AREAS: Air Platform AF151-020 F-35 Display Improvement

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with section 5.4.c.(8) of the solicitation and within the AF Component-specific instructions. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws. Please direct questions to the AF SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer, Ms. Gail Nyikon, gail.nyikon@us.af.mil.

OBJECTIVE: Develop displays for F-35 that have higher refresh rate, resolution, and brightness, with improved touch screens, optimized power/thermal management, and lower weight.

DESCRIPTION: Cockpit displays for fighters have performance requirements far beyond the commercial-state-of-the-art. Full sunlight readability and night vision compatibility are mandatory but not found in commercial offerings. Drive electronics to achieve a minimum 40:000:1 dimming range and ultra-high reliability under extreme environmental conditions are needed but unavailable in mass production products. The technical challenges include leveraging on-going revolutions in high-efficiency lighting and additive manufacturing to meet this combat cockpit need.

The goal of this F-35 Display Technology Improvement program is identify, develop, and integrate technologies to achieve a threshold (objective) 84 Hz (108 Hz) update rate, 8 Mpx (32 Mpx) image resolution, 600 fL (1200 fL) sustained day luminance, 0.01 fL (0.001 fL) night luminance with electro-optical emissions compatible with digital and analog helmet/cockpit-mounted cameras, advanced touch screens compatible with flight-gloved hands, 2X (4X) less net power via higher efficiency materials and energy re-cycling, advanced heat transfer and storage materials, lower weight substrates and structural housings. The main focus is on improvements for the 20x8-in. primary multifunction display that can demonstrate life-cycle cost (LCC) or warfighter effectiveness improvements that would justify switching the from the current circa 2004 AMLCD designs to incorporate manufacturing technology improvements available in circa 2016 components.

Teaming with prime contractors for transition analysis and support is encouraged. Affordability and availability should continue to be addressed by using commercial fabrication facilities to fabricate military-unique designs.

Flat panel technologies revolutionized cockpits during the 1990s and were the basis for an epochal shift from electromechanical and cathode-ray tube flight instruments to the avionics-grade sunlight-readable, reliable, active matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCDs) that now dominate crew station design. Large-area AMLCDs have enabled the realization, in the F-35 cockpit, of the combat advantage demonstrated in the 1988-1992 AFRL ATD entitled Panoramic Cockpit Controls and Displays (PCCADS). PCCADS demonstrated that a large area, integrated main instrument panel display and a digital day/night vision/cueing system would increase combat effectiveness by 45 percent.

Current displays have limitations that have been accepted to affordably achieve threshold levels of pilot-vehicle interfaces. Technology obsolescence problems and improved performance opportunities require new innovations.

Improvements in power-hungry AMLCD technologies are possible for both the main panel (currently dominated by a 20x8-in. AMLCD driven as two 1280x1024 pixel windows) and the helmet system. The see-through helmet-mounted display (HMD) design uses miniature AMLCDs reflected off the visor using classical optics. Significant advances have been made, since the time of F-35 cockpit design freeze, for both the large-area direct-view 20x8-in. display and the miniature flat panels in the HMD. The 20x8-in display and the HMD are now both over 4X less resolution compared to the current state of the art. Higher pixel densities with the same or less power are possible to provide more detailed situational awareness displays. Substrates are lighter yet stronger. And new flat panel technologies, such as active matrix organic emitting diode (AMOLED) and electrophoretic, are on the verge of becoming competitive with AMLCD for avionics cockpit applications. Other HMD component technology improvements are emerging from DoD programs like the AFRL Alternative Night/Day Imaging Technologies (ANIT) program.

PHASE I: Design displays in form-factors for F-35 that weigh less, incorporate improved touch/gesture control interface, optimize power/thermal management, and have higher refresh rate, resolution, luminance. Perform LCC and pilot-effectiveness analyses to determine value of improvements. Develop roadmap for feature introduction and initial technology transition plan.

PHASE II: Fabricate and test prototype displays in the form-factor required by F-35 that weighs less, incorporates a improved touch/gesture control interface, optimizes power/thermal management, and has higher refresh rate, resolution, and luminance. Assess production and reliable sourcing issues throughout the vendor chain involved (AMLCD fabs, system integration facilities, labs for testing to combat avionics performance requirements). Update transition plan and life cycle cost analysis.

PHASE III: Assess DoD market for F-35 new/replacement displays and for other aircraft. Develop a detailed Air Force Human System Integration Plan. Refine design from Phase II prototype into a production design. Establish reliable supply chain and supply chain management system. Fabricate production displays.

REFERENCES:
1. Darrel G. Hopper, "Display science and technology for defense and security," SPIE 5214, 1-10 (2004) 10p.

2. Darrel G. Hopper, "The 1000X difference between current displays and the capability of the human visual system," SPIE 4022, 378-389 (2000) 12p.

3. Daniel D. Desjardins and Darrel G. Hopper, "Military display market segment: avionics," SPIE Vol. 5801, 161-172 (2005).

4. L-3 Wins F-35 JSF Panoramic Cockpit Display Contract Worth up to 200M, Defense Industry Daily, Nov. 22, 2005."

Source: http://www.zyn.com/sbir/sbres/sbir/dod/af/af151-020.htm

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 02:08
by popcorn
No spare helmets issued and the jet is hobbled without them. What were the designers thinking with such a vulnerable concept? LOL :D



http://www.smh.com.au/technology/techno ... 3ko9d.html

Revolutionary F-35 Joint Strike Fighter pilot's smart helmet will cost a bomb

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 02:22
by spazsinbad
55 mill for (I'll guess) 100 helmetos? Is that the equation? Reporteurs huh. Earlier in this thread there was a clear indication of the cost of ONE helmet. NOW what is included in that I forget - likely any 'out of helmet' extras will be fitted in each aircraft anyway, so they will NOT be relevant. So the cost should reflect the HMDS III (wot Oz will get) along with any bits taken away from the aircraft with the helmet (and pilot PuHLeez). I'll go refind that info now....

[Meanwhile I see the print reporter (I was listening to the video) makes this statement just below video window:
"...It's arguably the most expensive and technically complex piece of headgear ever produced and before any Royal Australian Air Force pilot steps into the cockpit of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) jet, they will need to be fitted with a custom-made $770,000 flight helmet.

With the Australian government committed to purchasing 72 of the controversial fighters at a cost of $12.4 billion, the bill for these smart helmets alone could exceed $55 million.

And that's if there is only one pilot per aircraft, although typically an air force will train more pilots than there are jets in a fleet...."


HERE IS THE ONE HELMET (to rool them all) quote from above URL:
"...And there are no spares. Each pilot is only issued with the one...."

I would like to see said reporteur to justify that claim "And there are no spares" with a credible source. Sure each pilot is issued with an 'individually tailored HMDS III' HOWEVER it makes no sense that spare helmets - not so tailored - will be purchased for 'tailoring as required' in the same way spare engines are purchased - just in case.... NO?

According to my 'back o'postagestamp' calculations here the price of one helmet is 0.3 mill [ viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=274141&hilit=thebaynet#p274141 ] - now divide 55 by .3 and we have HEAPS o'HELMUTS (peculiar to OzParliaMUNT Spellun [ viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=252539&hilit=helmut#p252539 ]). :devil: Oz Pilots can DROP A HELMET AND GET ONE FREE (kick in the backside more likely). :doh:

AND... Look at this sad and very lonely sentence at the very end of the crapola about the Expensive Helmet (which does a great deal to help UNFRY pilot brains otherwise - all the time).... FankGudNess our two main political players in Federal Parliament are not using the F-35 Buy as a political foosball (unlike say... Canada).
"...Government backbencher Dennis Jensen last year branded his government's commitment to the JSF as a "great national scandal" and "worse than a disgrace"."

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 17:23
by maus92
The report is getting their helmet unit cost info from the arstechnica site:

http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... -delivery/

If you convert the US$ 600K unit cost per helmet to AUS$, you get AUS$ 770K, then multiply that by 72 units, you get AUS$ 55M.

US$ 600K cost per Gen III helmet is about US$ 100K more than the last price I heard, which was ~ 500K... Possibly the difference between Gen II & III? Who knows, but they need to be making a very good helmet bag...

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 17:28
by arrow-nautics
Good news, the HMD works perfectly. Bad news, at mach speeds it gets vertigo. It'll be such an achievement when it's 100%

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 17:55
by spazsinbad
"Frankly, I don't give a damn" where the erroneous numbers came from - ARSEtechnical or otherwise. This is what is important & referenced above (but who cares - certainly not the naysayers eh):
[HMDS] Navy Contracts
24 Jun 2014

"Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $75,980,553 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-12-C-0004) for the procurement of 252 helmet mounted display systems [301.5K each?] in support of the F-35 Lightning II aircraft for the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and the governments of Japan and Israel...."

Source: http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm ... y_ID/37815

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 18:54
by spazsinbad
A liberty to reformat the endless one line sentences has been taken to make multi-sentence paragraphs for this comparatively SHORT extract from a very long post of compilations (already published) so the text below is new. SKAFF along with a few other F-35 notables (Art Tomassetti is another) is HIGH on my list of 'people to meet' preferably in an up to date F-35 sim so he can explain it. :mrgreen:
“The Plane is a Broker of Information”: A Conversation with Mike Skaff
25 Feb 2015 Robbin Laird

"[Laird]...For Skaff, it is very rewarding to be getting this kind of feedback from the F-35 pilot community and also the formation of an initial users group shaping demand for changes in the way the cockpit and its integrated systems operate. In other words, he is learning what the pilots like and what they don’t; what works the way it was designed and what needs to be improved or changed.
[Skaff] When we approached the design of the F-35 cockpit, we actually thought of dividing the two screens into an air-to-air screen and an air-to-ground screen. But the pilots did not want us to do that, for they wanted much greater flexibility to reshape to their operational demands and needs of the moment.

Now, the pilot can program what he wants to see on the tactical situation display. He has the air picture, the ground picture, or both pictures; a navigation picture or whatever he believes is most crucial to his mission success at that time. And so what you described was what we had anticipated that each pilot would have a different technique, a different way to employ the jet. And so I’m glad to hear you say that.

I think though the technology is moving so fast and so now we see the commercial world it’s outpacing us. And we say, oh, I wish we had that in the cockpit. Now we’re not yet ready for a technology refresh because there’s enough hardware robustness that we can just change the software. And we’ve talked before about a software-defined jet. And so that’s good news. We can do a lot of upgrades and alterations using the software.


Question: Clearly, one change is in display area where change will come over time. What is your thinking about this challenge?

Skaff:
It is. With regard to the sensors, there is a lot of trade space. But in the displays where I work it is tighter. We are getting closer to the limits in graphics processing technology. What you see on commercial displays may appear in the future on the airplane, but not right away.

When we talk to the manufactures of new gaming display technologies they make it clear that the virtual reality machines are using something called texture as opposed to vectors. And so when sensors report battle space we typically portray that to the pilot in vector form, circles, squares, triangles, radar dishes, etc. And so these chip makers told us their chips don’t do that. We’re not quite there yet, but we’re almost there.

But we’re going to have to rethink how we portray information for the pilot. And that’s always the trick. Because we know that we’re deep in the information age and information dominance is what makes us lethal. The person that can garner and use information the quickest and the best is going to be victorious. And so the more I know and the better I can act on that.

And so in this information age we realize that that airplane is just a broker for information. So the smart person can use gray matter to decide how to act upon that information and then dominate in battle space. That really is the key. And we’ve talked about how do you dominate?

Do you interconnect the vehicles? Do you dominate that way? And so if somebody knows something that I don’t know I may want to know it, but I don’t know until you show me what you have. And so we’re to the point where you do a search on Google you get back too much information. You’ve got 10,000 hits on this search word, well, which one is the one you want? Haven’t you done that before? And you keep going next page, next page, next page, and five pages in was what you were really thinking about and going for. And you wonder how come the machine couldn’t have put that on the first page? What caused it to do that? And so that’s what we’re wrestling with now.

Trying to figure out what the war fighter needs and when she needs it and determining the best way to present that information on those big displays is crucial for information dominance.

Question: Clearly, with a growing number of pilots flying the airplane, they will be key factors in shaping your thinking about the way ahead in engineering terms. How do you see that process?

Skaff:
When I worked on the F-16, many of the changes came from input from the pilots. How are you using our product? Where are the problems? Where does it let you down? What didn’t we think of that you want on the airplane? We will do the same with the F-35.

And there is a new technological aspect which will shape the way ahead as well, namely the new helmet technology. With pilots using both the screen and helmet technologies over time, they will determine how they use these integrated but different systems. The helmet is working really well. Remember we talked about that as being risky, and we’ve mitigated all the risk and we’re very pleased, have high expectations that it’s working better than anticipated.

And so there are things in there that we have not even dreamt of using that for. And looking through the airplane with DAS, that’s neat. But it’s way more than that. That sensor has tremendous potential. The hardware is installed, there’s plenty of trade space to change the software. What else can those cameras detect?

And we are now reaching the point where we will shape military standards for the new helmet, and as we do so, provide baselines for moving ahead and future modernization. Much of this will be determined by pilot use and re-engineering to deal with design shortfalls or simply desires by the operators to do it differently from how we initially designed the system to work...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/the-plane-is-a-b ... ike-skaff/

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 23:16
by bring_it_on
Image

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2015, 03:05
by popcorn
More idiotic commentary on the helmet. Only the removable helmet liner is bespoke to individual pilots, not the helmet. LOL..

http://www.geek.com/chips/f-35-helmet-u ... w-1616488/
Of course, a visual apparatus this advanced can’t just be snapped on like a common Oculus Rift– each of the helmets has to be custom moulded to the particular pilot (huh?) thanks to a detailed 3D head scan, and thus cannot be worn by anyone else. Engineers take very precise pupillary measurements so the helmet can be built to keep the display in view no matter how the pilot looks about. This means that if a pilot retires, they can’t just pass their helmet on to the next recruit; Australians will be on the hook to pay for a replacement. If it were me, that’s where I would start arguing that I should be able to take the helmet home with me when I retire, but knowing the military they’d probably get all uptight about it.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2015, 03:18
by spazsinbad
:notworthy: Good point 'popcorn'. :applause: YEP that blogOpoop has this sentence sliding straight off the paper:
"...In Australia, for instance, a $12 billion purchase of 72 super-advanced F-35 fighter jets has sparked a major political scandal...."

So where does the author hail from? GEEKvile eh. Must be weird there because there is NOTHING in OzLand that disrupts our usual 'how ya goin' mate' reverie - including any NON-controversy 'bout dem Lightenings (yep deliberately misspult - for the Kiwis). :mrgreen: And just so's youse know - I ain't a KIWI! :devil:

Text below repeated from earlier in this thread:
The Perfect Fit Rockwell Collins’ unique expertise differentiates us for the F-35 Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System.
HORIZONS 2014 VOLUME 19 ISSUE 2

"...According to Kalsow, each fitting presents its own unique challenges.

“We have to fit a helmet to an asymmetrical human head so the optics package on the display visor is within two millimeters of exact center of each of the pupils,” he explained. The process takes approximately four hours per helmet and involves two contact days with each pilot. On the first contact day, precise measurements are taken of the pilot’s head, including a 3D head scan and the use of a pupilometer to measure the distance between the pupils.

Once Kalsow and Breuer have the measurements and the helmet components – most of which are produced at our company’s facility in Wilsonville, Oregon – they begin assembling the helmet. This process includes custom-milling each helmet liner so the helmet fits the individual’s head comfortably and maintains its stability under high gravity (G) maneuvers.

“Our helmet liner must stand up to the pressure of high G manuevers so the optics package remains aligned with the pilot’s field of view,” Kalsow noted.

When the helmet is assembled, the pilot comes in for a fitting during the second contact day. It’s at this time that the
optics package is aligned to the pilot’s pupils and the display visor is custom contoured – a process that must be done
precisely so the pilot has a single focused image at infinity...."

Source: http://issuu.com/rockwellcollinshorizon ... 19issue2/1 (PDF 4Mb)

Go here and especially to the second URL below to download a seven page extract of the article from the larger PDF:

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=279865&hilit=Kalsow#p279865
&
viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=274480&hilit=Kalsow#p274480

HALF a MegaByte PDF of same here: download/file.php?id=19138

SOME ADDED DETAIL about fitting (vaguely I recall the helmet shells came in three sizes? I'm looking for that info)
Getting fit for your jet fighter helmet
30 Sep 2014 John McHale

"..Once the measurements are made they begin assembling the helmet. This process includes custom-milling each helmet liner so the helmet sits comfortably on the pilot’s head while maintaining stability under high gravity (G) maneuvers so the optics continue to match up to the individual’s field of view, explains McKillip. “They custom fit the pads in the helmet based on head size,” Gunther says...."

FROM: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=279865&hilit=size#p279865

Source: http://mil-embedded.com/articles/gettin ... er-helmet/

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2015, 13:02
by linkomart
.....In case you're interested in buying one helmet for yourself..... But it comes at a price (not sure if it's Aussie dollars or US.... but for me it's beside the point.) Some nice grephics at the link.

The sophistications of the technology behind the helmet is elaborate and not much has made it out to the public domain. If you’re wondering how much these babies costs then a whopping $600K, a piece, should quench your desire to try one out for kicks.

http://newlaunches.com/archives/f-35-jo ... helmet.php
Regards

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2015, 13:32
by hornetfinn
Yes, it's a very expensive for a helmet but actually not that expensive compared to a modern HUD. Especially when taking into account the cost of regular helmet mounted sight and NVGs.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2015, 17:00
by popcorn
hornetfinn wrote:Yes, it's a very expensive for a helmet but actually not that expensive compared to a modern HUD. Especially when taking into account the cost of regular helmet mounted sight and NVGs.

Good point.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2015, 17:02
by KamenRiderBlade
Considering the fact that the liner is the only custom part, it should end up being cheaper in the long run.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2015, 19:33
by spazsinbad
The recent story about the helmet & cost with good graphics has been repeated here now three times at three different URLs. No more please. Thanks. And yes good points all about relative cost of HMDS compared to legacy (almost but not the full cigar) equivalent and of course the helmet liner/pad combination is the only custom built aspect. BZ! :mrgreen:

http://newlaunches.com/wp-content/uploa ... 2x1067.jpg

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2015, 01:04
by bring_it_on

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2015, 01:28
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: YATO = You Are The One = AMF = Adios Mtrucker.... :mrgreen: DAS is so helpful eh. :devil:

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2015, 02:36
by popcorn
bring_it_on wrote:

Need some clarification re "How do you see backwards..." comment.
I get the god's-eye view afforded by the panoramic display but he mentions flat displays that you ".., can put on the back..." to show what's behind.. ie. display screens mounted on bulkhead behind pilot's head? If so,this is news to me.
I always assumed rear view is projected on HMDS.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2015, 02:45
by spazsinbad
Yes it is difficult to describe/imagine without having had an experience in the actual cockpit in flight (or the sim at a pinch) and I have had neither. So bear with: the vHUD shows a backwards view that the pilot can see at the flick of a switch somewhere - cowpie or stick or voice? However to see the DAS backwards view he needs to look down at the PCD at whatever zoom. I guess the question is can the pilot head swivel virtually to see the same PCD backwards DAS view in HMDS? I'm not clear on that score. Search this forum thread for 'vHUD' for that backwards view.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2015, 02:55
by popcorn
I'm lazy so would just as soon open a window on the PCD showing a rear view.. save on neck pain. :D

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2015, 02:57
by KamenRiderBlade
1 button rear view sounds very convenient.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2015, 03:21
by spazsinbad
'popcorn' said: "...just as soon open a window on the PCD showing a rear view...". Yep you would probably have your head down there anyway - from the 9Gs effect. :devil: BREAK! Left... No... Break Right... oops. AMF :mrgreen:

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2015, 03:58
by thomonkey
From what I understand, with a flip of a switch you can see DAS imagery on the HMD wherever you look, so you could swivel your head and look backwards and see through the plane. However, you also have the option of putting a rear view on the panoramic display if you dont want to have to swivel your head.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2015, 04:30
by popcorn
OK, after watching the video several times what he really meant was displaying a rear view on the PCD when he said "there are flat panel displays you can put on the back looking backwards".. so clear to me now.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2015, 04:42
by Meteor
hornetfinn wrote:Yes, it's a very expensive for a helmet but actually not that expensive compared to a modern HUD. Especially when taking into account the cost of regular helmet mounted sight and NVGs.


I'm not sure that a (1 helmet) vs (1 HUD) cost comparison is accurate. Let's say that the taxpayer purchases 1000 F-35s, each with one HUD. The aircraft is flown for 30 years. The cost for the 1000 HUDs is a one-time expenditure for 30 years.

Normal USAF fighter manning is 1.5 pilots per jet, which equals 1500 helmets for 1000 jets. However, an average pilot will not fly an F-35 for 30 years. There will be staff tours, ALO assignments, UPT assignments, PME schools, etc. Many pilots will leave the service after their initial commitment ends. Let's say that the average F-35 pilot flies the aircraft for 5 years. During the 30 year life of the jet, there will be 6 rotations of 5-year pilots. Thus we have 1500 pilots rotating through the jet 6 times, for a total of 9000 pilots, each with their individual custom helmet.

A more correct cost comparison would be (1000 HUDS) vs (9000 helmets).

(I realize that there are different capabilities and limitations of HUDs and helmets. I'm merely arguing the cost analysis.)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2015, 04:49
by spazsinbad
'Meteor' I do not think you have read/understood previous recent posts here about the HMDS. Only the inner shell/pads are tailored to the individual. The HELMET is exchangeable without these inner bits, being replaced by more inner bits tailored to the next pilot. So within reason a squadron of pilots will have their individual helmets tailored by the inner parts. There will be spare outer helmets and spare inner bits that need to be tailored as required. Pilots come and go whilst helmets stay.

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=286205#p286205

There was a remark in an earlier recent article that pilots should be allowed to take their helmets with them when they leave (the service?). What a joke. Everything has to be returned and if not paid for. Perhaps broken gear might be allowed to go out with a pilot but not serviceable gear - especially gear that itself is secret and likely will remain so for some time. Search for 'secret' in this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=251390#p251390

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2015, 05:08
by popcorn
@meteor... 9000 liners, 1500 helmets would be needed in your scenario.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2015, 21:06
by bring_it_on
What is the cost of the JHMCS II plus Night vision goggles? The best I could find was a price of around 200K for the less capable JHMCS from 2006 -

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/97m ... ets-01908/

It claims "more than 400" units, so i used 500 units to be safe. JHMCS II is more capable so should be more expensive even in then year dollars.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2015, 13:27
by Dragon029
I've been told pricings for the JHMCS without NVGs; $200k with them would then roughly correlate with what I've been told. I don't know how recent that cost was, but it wouldn't have been any older than 2007.

Taking a ballpark guess, I'd say $200k to $250k with NVGs in today dollars would be a reasonable guess.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2015, 15:21
by bring_it_on
Dragon029 wrote:I've been told pricings for the JHMCS without NVGs; $200k with them would then roughly correlate with what I've been told. I don't know how recent that cost was, but it wouldn't have been any older than 2007.

Taking a ballpark guess, I'd say $200k to $250k with NVGs in today dollars would be a reasonable guess.


I had the JHMCS II + NVG combo pegged at around 250-300K as well in today's dollars.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 03:30
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:"Frankly, I don't give a damn" where the erroneous numbers came from - ARSEtechnical or otherwise. This is what is important & referenced above (but who cares - certainly not the naysayers eh):
[HMDS] Navy Contracts
24 Jun 2014

"Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $75,980,553 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-12-C-0004) for the procurement of 252 helmet mounted display systems [301.5K each?] in support of the F-35 Lightning II aircraft for the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and the governments of Japan and Israel...."

Source: http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm ... y_ID/37815


Yea, that's a contract modification, meaning one or more other contracts have to be examined to figure out the actual unit cost.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 03:40
by spazsinbad
Hmmm... whatever I found did not mention HMDS so I'll assume that the one modification was the only one to indicate the price of HMDS. The contractor has made an official promise to get the price down to $250K as I recall. That would be in this thread somewhere relatively recently.
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) Dec 2013
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft (F-35) As of FY 2015 President's Budget

Executive Summary...
“...One critical challenge the program made head way on in 2013 was the HMDS. For more than two years, the program worked with industry teammates to conduct dedicated flight tests and develop solutions to address the helmet's technical challenges. Those issues that hampered helmet function have been resolved, and the unit cost of the helmet system has decreased. As a result of testing and mitigation of the HMDS issues, the parallel development of an alternate helmet has been terminated. The current helmet has been deemed acceptable to support USMC IOC in 2015, and the Generation 3 helmet - to be introduced to the fleet in LRIP Lot 7 in 2016 - will meet program requirements to complete test and development in 2017. The Generation 3 helmet will include an improved night vision camera, new Liquid-Crystal Displays, automated alignment, and software improvements. The downselect to the current HMDS also resulted in a price guarantee that reduced the overall cost of the HMDS by 13 percent for the next five years ....”

Source: http://www.scribd.com/document_download ... ension=pdf (0.7Mb) (97 pages)

Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs
31 Mar 31 2014. Publicly Released: Mar 31, 2014 GAO-14-340SP

"...F-35 Program | Technology Maturity ...The program recently chose to end development of an alternate helmet due to progress made on the original helmet design and work on development of a newer generation helmet....

...Program Office Comments...
...The program ended development of the alternate F-35 helmet as further testing indicated it is acceptable for USMC initial operating capability. Continued improvements will be made in the Gen III helmet. This decision includes a guarantee from industry to reduce the unit cost by 12% from previous estimates....”

Source: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/662184.pdf

F-35 JPO drops development of BAE alternative helmet
10 Oct 2013 Dave Majumdar

...“The cost guarantee made by the Lockheed Martin/Rockwell Collins/Elbit team resulted in a reduction of 12% from the previous cost for the helmet system,”
the JPO says...."

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... et-391623/

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2015, 03:23
by spazsinbad
Interestin' tidbit 'bout centrifuge:
F-35 Program HOTAS Controls

"...F-35 is the most complex HOTAS grip system with the highest switch count of the US fast jet fleet.

We were commissioned to create metal grips, and replace the base mechanisms with force accurate hardware for a high fidelity simulation.

The F-35 HOTAS set soon followed for similar reasons. We were asked to custom build a set that would withstand centrifuge usage, with special fail-safe electronics..."

http://www.aerotronicsllc.com/images/F35throt.jpg & http://www.aerotronicsllc.com/images/f35thr1.jpg

Source: http://www.aerotronicsllc.com/f22.htm

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 20:12
by spazsinbad
Today 'sergei' [ viewtopic.php?f=55&t=16457&p=288467&hilit=probable#p288467 ] pointed to this very long video which very well shows the PCD in the simulator shown - well worth watching:

For another reason the 'vHUD' bit at the end has been excerpted below the first LONG video:

F-35 Simulator - AA and AG Modes / Avionics
DailyAirForce Uploaded on Nov 12, 2010

"10 Minutes long video shows F-35s' AA and AG modes"




Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 21:38
by bring_it_on
Helmet-mounted display symbology for enhanced trend and attitude awareness -
Joseph C. Jenkins, Capt, USAF
F-35 Integrated Test Force, U.S. Air Force Flight Test Center Edwards Air Force Base, CA 93524


Nice information on the work on the VISTA program -

https://www.scribd.com/doc/260631001/He ... uiAe66BFGL

Measurement and Reduction of System Latency in See-Through Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) Systems

https://www.scribd.com/doc/260631331/Me ... s68QBFOxjP

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 22:15
by spazsinbad
Just curious why these 'PDFs' cannot be downloaded as PDFs? It would be so much less of a hassle if downloading the documents as 'original PDFs' was possible OR an option. AM I Missing Something? & I did go here to see what could be seen but there are only so many hours in any of my days....

http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.o ... dings.aspx

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 22:58
by bring_it_on
spazsinbad wrote:Just curious why these 'PDFs' cannot be downloaded as PDFs? It would be so much less of a hassle if downloading the documents as 'original PDFs' was possible OR an option. AM I Missing Something? & I did go here to see what could be seen but there are only so many hours in any of my days....

http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.o ... dings.aspx


I just sent you a PM..

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 23:07
by spazsinbad
OK thanks. I get the issue you describe. PDFs can be made from the ScribD site - with some difficulty - I was attempting to avoid that. Once information is online - in whatever form - it is online for all to see. Thanks for finding this stuff and pointing us to it. In the past I have searched for public PDFs about this and other topics - such as NavAv - that interest me, so the info is always in PDF form for public download. IF not - then - I don't find it.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2015, 15:57
by spazsinbad
F-35 Lightning II fighter jet pilots will wear $400K helmets + BILLIE FLYNN VIDEO Explanation
02 Apr 2015 Christian Davenport The Washington Post

"...Like the plane, the helmet is enormously expensive. The cost of each custom-made helmet is more than $400,000. And like the plane, which is years behind schedule and millions over its original budget, the helmet has encountered problems....

...The program’s executive officer, Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, recently told reporters that the helmet, once a concern, was no longer “on my top 10 worry list.”

Pilots have recently started flying tests with the third iteration of the helmet, which has a new night vision camera and software improvements....

...Recent flights have shown that progress on the helmet is continuing as well, Norman said. Many of the previous issues have been resolved, but there are still issues with the green glow, and the way the pilots see the images projected on the visor.

“There’s still a little bit of tweaking we might want to do with how we stitch together the imagery,” he said. “Testing is an ongoing process. And if you find problems we try to fix them and look ahead.”

Source: http://hamptonroads.com/2015/04/f35-lig ... 0k-helmets

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2015, 05:44
by bring_it_on
Enhancing HMD-Based F-35 Training through Integration of Eye Tracking and Electroencephalography Technology

https://www.scribd.com/word/removal/260904529

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2015, 05:52
by spazsinbad
IF the PDF is under 11Mb then you can attach it to a message on this forum.
Removal Notice

"The document Enhancing HMD-Based F-35 Training through Integration of Eye Tracking and Electroencephalography Technology has been automatically removed by BookID, Scribd’s copyright protection system.

Like all automated systems, BookID sometimes makes mistakes. If you believe this document is not infringing and was removed in error, please contact copyright@scribd.com.

Please see Scribd's Copyright Resource Center to learn more."

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2015, 06:02
by bring_it_on
Enhancing HMD-Based F-35 Training through Integration of Eye Tracking and Electroencephalography Technology

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2015, 06:34
by spazsinbad
Great Stuff! Thanks - I am going to read it Intently. Excerpt below from above PDF....
Enhancing HMD-Based F-35 Training through Integration of Eye Tracking and Electroencephalography Technology
05 Apr 2015 Meredith Carroll, Glenn Surpris, Shayna Strally, Matthew Archer, Frank Hannigan, Kelly Hale, and Wink Bennett | Design Interactive, Oviedo, Florida

"Abstract. The ever increasing complexity of knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) demanded of Department of Defense (DoD) personnel has created the need to develop tools to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of training. This is especially true for the F-35, the first 5th-generation aircraft to use an HMD as the primary instrument display. Additionally, the F-35 can perform operations previously performed by multiple operators, which potentially places incredible strain on the pilot’s cognitive resources by exposing him to large amounts of data from disparate sources. It is critical to ensure training results in pilots learning optimal strategies for operating in this information rich environment. This paper discusses current efforts to develop and evaluate a performance monitoring and assessment system which integrates eye tracking and Electroencephalography (EEG) technology into an HMD enabled F-35 training environment to extend traditional behavioral metrics and better understand how a pilot interacts with data presented in the HMD....

...The current training program for F-35 transition pilots is 8 weeks long. The transition pilots are comprised of legacy aircraft experts such as experienced F-16 or F-22 pilots. These pilots will become F-35 instructors upon the completion of the program. Training begins with a week of military lectures, followed by 3 weeks of lectures and academic courses specific to the F-35. A pilot training aid (PTA) laptop simulator is flown by transition pilots during these early phases of the course. The last phase of the training program is a mixture of 8-10 F-35 Full Mission Simulator (FMS) sessions and 4-5 actual flights in the F-35. The PTA and the FMS are the two main simulators used in the transition curriculum. The PTA has a large touchscreen monitor that displays both the out-the-window view of the aircraft as well as the touchscreen instrumentation (i.e. Main Forward Display). In addition to the touchscreen monitor, the PTA also has a full replication of the F-35 Hands-On Throttle and Stick (HOTAS). The PTA is mainly used during academic lectures to familiarize the pilot with the controls and procedures for the F-35. An HMD is not used in conjunction with the PTA.

The FMS is a high fidelity flight simulator which contains a full 1-to-1 replication of the F-35 cockpit surrounded by a dome with almost 360 degrees of visual coverage. The pilot trainee is outfitted with an HMD visor that reveals a HUD fixed on the center windscreen. Additionally, a de-cluttered, un-fixed version of the main HUD with a reduced selection of essential symbols (e.g., airspeed, altitude) appears on the HMD when the pilot turns his/her head off bore-sight (i.e., left, right, up, or down). The simulator sessions in the FMS are 1.5 hours in duration and are preceded by a 1 hour pre-brief and followed by a 1 hour debrief. Each trainee in the FMS has the individualized, one-on-one attention of an instructor. The instructor has an operator station where he can launch scenarios and insert abnormal aircraft conditions. During the training session, the instructor can also view the pilot’s performance unfolding from a series of view, including the field of view (FOV) in the cockpit due to a head-tracker associated with the HMD.

The debrief then provides the opportunity for the instructor to playback any flight segment during the simulator session and review notes, exceptional performance, and trainee performance errors. Control inputs, the pilot’s FOV, and other simulator information can be accessed by the instructor to facilitate this debrief. Instructors depend on overt behavioral actions and communications to identify performance errors. One limitation of this approach is the inability of the instructor to determine the specific instruments the pilot is monitoring, both within the HMD and on the MFD. Heads up/heads down status can typically be inferred based on the FOV presented by the HMD, however, the specific information that the pilot is visually integrating is not accessible. Given that a large portion of the task is monitoring information presented by a range of instruments; this limits the instructors understanding of how pilot performance is unfolding....

...4 HMD ASSESS Use Case (pp.28-29) HMD-ASSESS is designed to be utilized during the actual training session and debrief. A use-case was developed to demonstrate the HMD ASSESS concept of operations for F-35 FMS training sessions and is presented in summary in this section.

A typical training session in the FMS may include several abnormal malfunctions from which a pilot must attempt to recover. During this particular training session, the instructor has inserted an Integrated Power Package (IPP) failure into the scenario. As the pilot trainee attempts to recover from the IPP failure, he performs three key errors: 1) the pilot misses a critical checklist item (i.e., arming the backup oxygen system); 2) the pilot spends too much heads down time looking at his checklist and fails to scan his primary flight instruments (altitude, attitude, airspeed) at the necessary intervals; 3) the pilot develops tunnel vision on an area of the cockpit irrelevant to the appropriate task, e.g., determining the best place to land, resulting in a delay in conducting a critical checklist item (i.e., open RAM door).

After the training session in the simulator has ended, the instructor uses the HMD ASSESS after action review displays to facilitate his debrief to the pilot trainee as follows. The instructor is interested in assessing the students handling of the IPP failure, so the instructor clicks on this segment of the timeline and the timeline automatically zooms into the IPP failure event. The instructor points out overall timing summary for that segment to the pilot, including total time heads up vs. heads down and total time in high priority areas. The instructor can illustrate to the pilot trainee that he spent a large amount of time heads down while handling the IPP Failure.

The instructor then clicks on the first system identified error, which automatically zooms the timeline down to a system default of 30 seconds on either side of the error. The instructor plays back the error and points out that, based on the eye tracking data, the pilot was distracted from reading the checklist by focusing on blinking lights on the IPP Panel.

The instructor then moves on to the next error (i.e., breakdown in a periodic eye scan of flight instruments), by selecting the error from the error summary list. The instructor wants to show the pilot how he failed to scan his primary flight instruments frequently enough. By using the Overview mode containing a summary of all eye tracking data for 30 seconds on either side of the error, the instructor illustrates to the trainee that a scan of these three primary flight instruments did not occur during this time period. The instructor confirms this by pointing out the timing summary which shows that the pilot spent very few seconds looking at the altitude, attitude, and airspeed instruments for the specified window of time.

The instructor then points to the section of the timing summary that shows the total time spent on each MFD page for the segment of flight in focus. He uses this data to illustrate that the pilot spent only 30 seconds looking at the navigation page and flight instruments because he started to look for the nearest airport to land too early, instead of following the checklist steps. This caused the pilot to delay in opening the RAM (i.e., air intake) door, which resulted in systems overheating more quickly.

As illustrated in the se case, HMD ASSESS will allow an instructor to more accurately and efficiently diagnose a performance issue. Instructors will be better able to direct a pilot’s attention during overwhelming flight scenarios and prevent pilots from making common mistakes with regard to visual attention allocation...."

Source: download/file.php?id=20448 (PDF 200Kb)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 22:35
by bring_it_on

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 04:37
by charlielima223
I know there is still some minor issues concerning the F-35 HMD. If they can't get all the bugs worked out wouldn't a modified JHMCS be an interim solution?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 04:43
by bring_it_on
charlielima223 wrote:I know there is still some minor issues concerning the F-35 HMD. If they can't get all the bugs worked out wouldn't a modified JHMCS be an interim solution?


NO. They had a back up helmet in development, that was scrapped because the collective wisdom was that the minor glitches remaining were not problematic enough (or insurmountable) to maintain 2 development programs. Bae is developing the HMD on its own for the export (non F-35) market at the moment.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 06:51
by spazsinbad
This is a long thread however starting from here on page 35 one can be up to speed on how HMDS III is travelling (from Jan 2015 - from AvWeak no less) and NOT earlier reports which have been SUPERceded: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=284552&hilit=stages#p284552
"Improved helmet-mounted display for F-35 features multiple upgrades.

Eliminating the head-up display and relying instead on a helmet-mounted display (HMD) was only one of the bolder design decisions for the Lockheed Martin F-35. It has also proved one of the more challenging, but a system meeting the requirements is in the final stages of testing. Aircraft hardware for the third generation of the F-35 HMD is being delivered to Lockheed for production Joint Strike Fighters, with the “Gen-3” helmets expected to arrive at pilot training locations..."

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 21:11
by spazsinbad
In this thread there is mention of 'colour' (color) for the HMDS displays including vHUD AFAIK (I'll find it). Here is mention of 'colour' for a new helmet for USN Seahawk MH-60S Helos - perhaps this is a path for eventual 'color' and movement for HMDS? Here: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=221812&hilit=color#p221812
&
viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=206021&hilit=color#p206021

Perhaps I have misremembered from this article: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=274230&hilit=colour#p274230 Anyhoo I have seen only the green symbology in pics of vHUD.
Elbit Systems Integrates Color Helmet Display & Tracking Systems on US Navy MH-60S Seahawk
02 Apr 2015 NavyRecognition

"Elbit Systems announced today that its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary, Elbit Systems of America, LLC, was awarded a contract from Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to install, integrate and support flight evaluations of the Elbit Color Helmet Display and Tracking System (CHDTS) on MH-60S Seahawk test aircraft for the U.S. Navy....

...The program is part of the U.S. Navy's MH-60 Sierra's Improved Targeting System for the Seahawks' Armed Helicopter Weapon Kits. The CHDTS will provide the pilots with both night and day capability to see color flight instrument symbols on their helmet mounted display (HMD) modules. Additionally, the line of sight tracking system enables the pilots to interact with the flight navigation system, improves pilot and copilot situational awareness and can also be used to control pilot or copilot slewable sensor systems. The system also presents a continuously calculated weapon impact symbol for the pilot display, thus increasing system accuracy in the employment of installed weapon systems....

..."The CHDTS will provide the pilots with improved situational awareness through enhanced optics and symbology displayed directly on their HMDs, allowing the pilots to keep their eyes up and out."

Pic: http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/s ... _CHDTS.jpg
"Elbit Color Helmet Display and Tracking System (CHDTS). The program is part of the US Navy’s MH-60 Sierra’s improved targeting system for the Seahawks’ armed helicopter weapon kits. Picture: Elbit"


Source: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ahawk.html

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 21:23
by spazsinbad
In this thread on page 26 also is more confirmation how the HMDS is tailored to individuals with 'inserts' that allow the HMDS to be standard - but unique temporarily - and can be changed again for another individual: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=260571&hilit=color#p260571
F-35: New fighter creates new culture for 21st Century and beyond
24 Sep 2013 Rich Lamance, Air Force News Service

“...When we get our helmet fit, there is actually a complicated scan process that takes an image of our heads and provides a laser cut-out foam insert for the helmet that is molded to our heads. Then there’s ear cups that close the helmet around our head and a custom nape strap in the back that basically locks the helmet down on our heads. There’s very little, if any, motion in the helmet when we move our head around. Very well balanced, a very well fit and it feels great wearing the helmet. It’s very specific to each individual pilot.”

Source: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... eyond.aspx

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 03:57
by spazsinbad
One part of the main HMDS MAY NOT be interchangeable (along with the custom inner pads etc) is the DISPLAY VISOR. See earlier post of this article for more: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=279865&hilit=Mchale+contoured#p279865 & viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=286207&hilit=Mchale+contoured#p286207
Getting fit for your jet fighter helmet
30 Sep 2014 John McHale

"...Once the measurements are made they begin assembling the helmet. This process includes custom-milling each helmet liner so the helmet sits comfortably on the pilot’s head while maintaining stability under high gravity (G) maneuvers so the optics continue to match up to the individual’s field of view, explains McKillip. “They custom fit the pads in the helmet based on head size,” Gunther says.

Once the helmet is assembled, the pilot comes in for a final fitting on the second day. During this time the optics are aligned to the pilot’s pupils and the display visor is custom contoured – a process that must be done precisely so the pilot has a single focused image at infinity, says McKillip. Many would assume that people’s eyes are aligned, but that is not the case, Gunther says...." [Mine are cross-eyed & painless]

Source: http://mil-embedded.com/articles/gettin ... er-helmet/

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 04:12
by Dragon029
That's to be expected; most helmet visors are cut to properly fit the pilot's nose ridge and relative position of the oxygen mask. I can't remember what a visor for a JHMCS costs, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the helmet.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2015, 04:19
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: "...most helmet visors are cut to properly fit the pilot's nose ridge..." aaahh the wonduhs of mod tech eh. :devil: Yes I do think the Display Visor would be relatively INexpensive - anyone know? Buehler? Anyone? :roll:

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2015, 17:28
by spazsinbad
Another HELLMUTT story.
Check Out The $400,000 Helmet That Sees Through Walls
27 May 2015 Rob Szczerba

"...what should you expect when your helmet costs $400,000? Well, if you expected it to be magically able to see through walls, you’d be right. It won’t actually give you Superman’s X-Ray vision, but it’s pretty close.

This “super-helmet” is actually the F-35 Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) and it was created to work in synch with one of the most complex weapons systems ever created: the F-35 Lightning II....

...When you build the most impressive (and most expensive) fighter jet in history you need an equally advanced helmet for the pilot, and that technology doesn’t come cheap. The cost of each individual helmet is estimated to be more than $400,000.

Rockwell Collins was subcontracted to build the helmet, which in addition to projecting on the visor critical data, such as altitude, airspeed, targeting, heading, and warnings, also allows the pilot to see what lies beyond the exterior shell of the plane....

...Some of the interesting features of the helmet include:
Biocular, 30×40 degree-wide field of view with 100 percent overlap

Virtual heads-up display

Look through aircraft capability via DAS imagery

High accuracy tracking with auto-bore sighting

Active noise reduction (ANR)

Digital night vision sensor

Ejection capability to 550 KEAS (knots equivalent airspeed, roughly 633 mph)

Lightweight and well balanced

Custom helmet liner for precise fit and comfort

Multiple interpupillary distance (IPD) settings

Video recording

Picture in picture (compatible with eyeglasses and laser eye protection (LEP) devices)..."

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertszcze ... ugh-walls/

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 22:26
by spazsinbad
‘We Can Be That Bridge’ Rockwell Collins CEO on the company's reach into the high-tech sector
06-19 Jul 2015 AvWeak

"...QUESTION: There have been a few years of challenges in getting the F-35 helmet set up. It seems things are turning around. Can you give us an update of where you are, and what was the lesson from all of this?

ANSWER: This is the first time we'd ever put an integrated head-up display in the helmet. The dynamics of that, and how the mind reacted to vibrations, surprised us and created some unplanned jittering of the display. We ended up putting a micro-[inertial measurement unit] on the pilot's head. We measure the vibration, and we filter it out with software so the mind doesn't see the different shaking of the display. We've worked through that. We also marked improvement in the brightness and the green-glow effects. So I feel pretty good about the latest generation, and we're making good progress on the cost reduction...."

Source: AVIATION WEEK & SPACETECHNOLOGY/JULY 6-19, 2015

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2015, 20:02
by spazsinbad
Over on another thread today 'lamoey' viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27549&p=295420&hilit=Cenciotti#p295420 posted pointers to the Cenciotti HMDS II article below. The video is well worth watching to hear pilot talk about the helmet in context. NavAv pilots will welcome the forward night view for flat deck landings at night which has been pointed out a zillion times on this thread. USAF? Dunno. Pilot does not mention vHUD for looking behind but as he says 'should not be necessary' or words to that effect. Also I have read that F-35 missions are more likely to be conducted at night because of all the cool doodads seemingly ignored by this USAF dood. :mrgreen:
F-35 pilot talking about the 400K USD flight helmet: “It’s cool but I don’t really use it that often”
13 Jul 2015 David Cenciotti - The Aviationist

VIMEO VIDEO: https://vimeo.com/124614167

Source: http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/13/f- ... ht-helmet/

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 00:42
by spazsinbad
Nothing really of note in this article except price and comfort of HMDS & a Billie Flynn quote & NIGHT VIZ accolade.
F-35 helmet will give pilot tactical information faster
01 Aug 2015 Phillip Swarts

"...The helmets pilots wear include an advanced heads-up-display and the ability to see “through” the floor of the fighter. The helmet, built by Rockwell Collins, costs about $400,000, and every F-35 pilot gets his own personalized model.

“Kind of like with the airplane, the helmet is a pretty big leap in technology,” said Lt. Col. Michael Gette, commander of the 61st Fighter Squadron, which is training operational pilots for the F-35.

“We’re trying to do things with the helmet that’s never been done before,” he told Air Force Times.

That includes putting the fighter’s heads-up-display on the helmet itself, projected onto the visor in front of the pilot’s eyes.

Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the F-35, claims having the HUD on the visor allows the pilot to immediately see information like speed, altitude, distance to target, and a host of other factors.

“It allows him to see everything that’s of concern to him — his allies and his threats — above the horizon in the air-to-air arena,” said Billie Flynn.

But in order to have the visual clarity so each pilot can read the information, the cameras in the helmet that project the display have to be fine-tuned specifically for each pilot....

...Gette noted the technology has been most effective when paired with night-vision capabilities.

“We have been using it on our night sorties here and it’s been effective,” he said. “You can maintain awareness of ground features, what the weather is on the ground.”

There’s an added bonus for the helmet, too, Gette said.

“It’s the most comfortable helmet I’ve ever worn,” he said. “You wear it the whole sortie long; you don’t even know you have it on.”

Source: http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/mili ... /30842897/

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2015, 05:44
by spazsinbad
As a nit picking device (no not my index finger) I would settle on under 400K dollars [between 300 & 400K?] for the HMDS instead of the more robust 700K - 800K dollars that is bandied around earlier. So anyway...
VMFA-121 out on flight line and ready to fly off
03 Aug 2015 Kevin G. Andrade Yuma Sun Staff

"...Another feature of note is the helmet that pilots wear while conducting in-flight operations. It costs about $320,000, which is down from the $790,000 price tag they began with according to VMFA-121...."

Source: http://www.yumasun.com/news/vmfa--out-o ... 88a4d.html

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 12:58
by popcorn
Finally.
http://www.kcrg.com/subject/news/govern ... t-20150811

Rockwell Collins marks F-35 milestone
Company beginning delivery of third-generation helmet
CEDAR RAPIDS — Rockwell Collins on Tuesday marked delivery of the first third-generation helmet-mounted display system for pilots flying the F-35, the nation's most advanced fighter jet.

The high tech helmet, specially fitted to each pilot, provides them with 360-degree situational awareness and allows them to “look through” the aircraft. The jet's Distributed Aperture System, made by Northrop Grumman, streams real-time images from six infrared cameras mounted around the aircraft to the helmet.

More at the jump.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 14:48
by cantaz
What's the plan for replacing Gen I and II already in service?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 15:06
by spazsinbad
Phil Jasper is a naughty boy for saying this [do I have to explain?] and LRIP aircraft will have to be updated to take the Gen III HMDS - I forget which LRIP can take it (the latest?). This info will be in the thread meanwhile I post this quote:
"...Phil Jasper, executive vice president and COO of Rockwell Collins Government Systems, said the company expects to provide thousands of the high tech helmets for the F-35. “Every pilot gets their own helmet and generations of pilots will be trained for the F-35 program,” Jasper said....”

The helmets can be recycled for new users with new moulded inserts for a new individual (after taking out the olden).

Here is the old news: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=286455&hilit=LRIP#p286455
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR)
Dec 2013 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft (F-35) As of FY 2015 President's Budget

Executive Summary...
“...One critical challenge the program made head way on in 2013 was the HMDS. For more than two years, the program worked with industry teammates to conduct dedicated flight tests and develop solutions to address the helmet's technical challenges. Those issues that hampered helmet function have been resolved, and the unit cost of the helmet system has decreased. As a result of testing and mitigation of the HMDS issues, the parallel development of an alternate helmet has been terminated. The current helmet has been deemed acceptable to support USMC IOC in 2015, and the Generation 3 helmet - to be introduced to the fleet in LRIP Lot 7 in 2016 - will meet program requirements to complete test and development in 2017. The Generation 3 helmet will include an improved night vision camera, new Liquid-Crystal Displays, automated alignment, and software improvements. The downselect to the current HMDS also resulted in a price guarantee that reduced the overall cost of the HMDS by 13 percent for the next five years ....”

PHOTO: http://www.kcrg.com/storyimage/KC/20150 ... 819959.jpg

Source: http://www.scribd.com/document_download ... ension=pdf (0.7Mb) (97 pages)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 15:12
by gabriele
The Gen III helmet should roll out with the LRIP 7 and onwards. Maybe the LRIP 6, which has the Block 3F hardware, is also more or less ready for adopting it.

I'm puzzled by that "first gen III delivered". Do they mean delivered as part of production for operational units? Because testing of the Gen III was already ongoing, was it not? That means it must have been already delivered to some of the test aircraft, no...?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 15:16
by lamoey
Is it known how generation II and III compares size wise, and also to the JHMD used on other USAF fighters?

I'm obviously thinking about the reported issue with space for the pilot and helmet to rotate inside the cockpit.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 15:24
by popcorn
I'd like to own the patent to the Law of Gravity myself. :D

http://www.law360.com/articles/681280/d ... elmet-tech

DOD Defeats IP Suit Over F-35 Fighter Pilot Helmet Tech
ew York (July 20, 2015, 11:17 PM ET) -- The U.S. Department of Defense on Monday shot down a patent infringement suit over the helmet-mounted motion tracking system used by F-35 fighter pilots, when a U.S. federal claims judge ruled that an aerospace helmet maker can’t patent the mathematical equations used by the device...
Judge Wheeler said Monday that Thales' mathematical equations incorporating Isaac Newton's principles of motion did not transform sensor data into so-called "motion tracking information" as the company claimed.

“Contrary to plaintiff’s characterizations, the data is not fed into one side of a machine and pushed out the other as something new,” the court said. “Instead the tracking information is derived from mathematical calculations based on a combination of the sensor data and natural laws of motion.”

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 15:25
by spazsinbad
I do not recall reading any helmet size change between iterations and I'll guess this is the 'cleared for production' HMDS III and not a test HMDS III.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 15:34
by spazsinbad
This explains the senators helmet hair: http://www.kcrg.com/storyimage/KC/20150 ... 819959.jpg "Sen. Joni Ernst moves her head from side to side as she observes the virtual head-up display seen in the an F-35 Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System during a demonstration at Rockwell Collins in northeast Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Tuesday, August 11, 2015. (Jim Slosiarek/The Gazette)"

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 16:52
by SpudmanWP
(EDITOR’S NOTE: As its name implies, this is the third iteration of the F-35’s helmet, developed because the previous two versions failed to meet specified performance.
This was a particularly critical failing because the helmet is designed to provide all the data the pilot needs, and on the assumption it would work the aircraft was designed without a head-up display.)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... splay.html


I'm SHOCKED.

Who would have thought that problems could be found during a weapon system development phase and that finding a "final" solution is somehow a failure in and of itself. :)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 16:58
by spazsinbad
Some foot stamping going on there I guess. This is a tidbit from the PR release from Rockwell re-iterated by DefAirO above:
"...Overall, Rockwell Collins has built and fit more than 200 helmets for F-35 pilots who are being trained for the program...." (Source: Rockwell Collins; issued August 11, 2015) https://www.rockwellcollins.com/Data/Ne ... 7-F35.aspx

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 23:12
by spazsinbad
Four views of a helmet here (given the date on photo - ‎April‎ ‎3‎, ‎2015 - we can guess it is HMDS III?): https://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedm ... 1647189016 & INFO here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedm ... 1647189016 (Go here for front and side view)

OTHER side view: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8741/170 ... 2f_o_d.jpg
&
REAR view: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8739/170 ... c2_o_d.jpg


Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2015, 14:59
by spazsinbad
Rockwell Collins Delivers F-35 Generation III Helmet; Aircraft's Gatling Gun Tested
21 Aug 2015 Yasmin Tadjdeh

"...The new version [HMDS III] resolves a number of issues that were present in past iterations of the helmet, McKillip said.

Previously, pilots had complained about a “green glow” that obstructed their view. McKillip said that issue has largely been fixed in the Generation III system.

The problem arises from the contrast ratio in the helmet’s display system, he said.

“Contrast ratio is the ratio between the part of the display you want and then the background luminous,” he said. “There’s always some amount of background light that comes through the display, so you can never quite eliminate that.”

Although the green glow can never go away completely, “we made it significantly better,” he said.

For now, the company doesn’t know of any major issues with the system, McKillip said. “The testing looks good. We may learn more as it is fielded, and not only just initial fielding but as it goes out across different services and flies at different places around the world,” he said.

The Generation III system is a touch heavier than its predecessor, weighing approximately 5 pounds. Rockwell Collins is researching ways to reduce the helmet’s weight by about 10 percent, McKillip said.

Going forward, Rockwell Collins will make small tweaks to the system. “We’ve already resolved many of the big issues so now we’re working on smaller things,” he said.

It has been reported by some news organizations that the helmet system alone costs more than $400,000 on the already immensely expensive Lockheed Martin-built aircraft, but McKillip disputed that number. He would not disclose the cost of the helmet, but said it was “dramatically” less expensive than previous versions." [I'm going for $300K Buehler]

Source: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... a2&ID=1926

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 04:53
by spazsinbad
An attractive headline with some outrageous HMDS cost estimates (I guess nothing new there) with a nice quote from the nonWelshman at the end. What's not to like? :mrgreen: NOTE THE COST QUOTE FOR THE TYPHOID HELMUT BELOW!
Air Force: F-35 Helmet is a ‘Workspace,’ Not a Helmet
25 Aug 2015 Brendan McGarry

"The U.S. Air Force wants to use another word to describe the expensive, high-tech helmet that can “see through” windowless parts of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

When asked about the price tag for the pilot gear — which has ranged from $400,000 to $800,000 apiece — Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said he didn’t know its unit cost and that it won’t be finalized until the hardware enters production.

But he did have this to say about the technology:

“The helmet is much more than a helmet, the helmet is a work space,” he said. “It’s an interpretation of the battle space, it’s situational awareness. This is a — calling this thing a helmet is really — we’ve got to come up with a new word.”...

...The Helmet Mounted Display System made by Rockwell Collins Inc. was previously estimated to cost about $500,000 apiece....

...But the helmet has still had bugs. When a news team from the CBS News program, “60 Minutes,” visited the Marine Corps station last year in Yuma, Arizona, a helmet malfunction caused a scheduled flight to be scrubbed. [Oh the HORROR]

Welsh said he hasn’t heard concerns from pilots that the helmet is distracting or too complicated.

“All the people flying the airplane, from the time I came into this job three years ago and started asking about the problems I kept hearing about with the helmet, not a single one of them has said yeah, I don’t want to use it,” he said. “It’s pretty — it’s a pretty incredibly capability, and they adapt very quickly to it.”"

Source: http://defensetech.org/2015/08/25/air-f ... -a-helmet/

A commenter to this article has pointed out the 'cost' of a TYPHOID Helmut (yes I know) a bonus from earlier efforts for various aircraft also but anyway.... http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/06/2 ... 3K20110624 "...Costing about 250,000 pounds apiece..." [392,835.00 US Dollar]

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2015, 01:11
by spazsinbad
Here comes another 'eye tracking' quote for HMDS III just to confuse the WIREd glitterati. Otherwise just another rehash of things said a zillion times - oh & a funni-hah-hah.
THIS HELMET WILL MAKE F-35 PILOTS MISSILE-SLINGING CYBORGS
14 Sep 2015 Jordan Golson

"...He can even aim weapons with no more than a glance, thanks to the helmet’s eye tracking capability...."
&
"...The helmet [liners]s are custom built for each pilot, so if yours at home, you’re stuck on the ground...."

Source: http://www.wired.com/2015/09/helmet-wil ... g-cyborgs/

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2015, 20:35
by spazsinbad
Am I missing something? More on [moron?] 'eye-tracking' capability for HMDS III.
No blind spots here: This immersive new helmet creates a complete VR environment for F-35 fighter pilots
14 Sep 2015 Kelly Hodgkins

"...Integrated eye tracking also allows the pilots to make selections and even aim missiles using only their eyes...."

Source: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/f-35-helmet-hud/

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2015, 17:20
by spazsinbad
2015 STRIKE TEST NEWS
2015 VX-23 Maj John “Ike” Dirk

"...Mission Systems
The F-35 ITF tests four SDD aircraft fully equipped with production-representative mission systems. Aircraft modifications are ongoing to continue testing on Block 3i and 3F capabilities including the GEN III HMD.

The GEN III HMD features improved stability, more accurate bore sighting, and improved night performance. In place of traditional Night Vision Goggles, the helmet-mounted night vision camera aids night operations for the F-35. The GEN III HMD also features a higher resolution camera than previous HMDs. This new system enables the electronic removal of the aircraft canopy bow from the scene by using a new fixed camera installed within the aircraft. Aided aerial refueling, simulated expeditionary airfield operations, and shipboard operations with the GEN III HMD are ongoing and are demonstrating promising results for acuity, clarity, and stability...."

Source: http://issuu.com/nawcad_pao/docs/striketest2015_single (PDF 3.6Mb)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2015, 05:00
by spazsinbad
VX-23 F-35C Test Pilots CMDR Wilson & LEUT Karapostoles aboard USS Eisenhower - DT-II - talk on HMDS vHUD 05 Oct 2015.


Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2015, 18:11
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:VX-23 F-35C Test Pilots CMDR Wilson & LEUT Karapostoles aboard USS Eisenhower - DT-II - talk on HMDS vHUD 05 Oct 2015.



??? attachment??? :)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 13:38
by spazsinbad
I do not know what that means.... meanwhile the HMDS III as modelled by LEUT Chris Karapostoles aboard IKE Oct 2015:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-56183d4f/turb ... 0/1000x563
F-35C fighter jets successfully complete training with USS Eisenhower
09 Oct 2015 Ali Rockett

"...On Thursday night, he said three of the four pilots tested the Generation III Helmet Mounted Display, which shows the pilot not only what's around him — including enemy aircraft — but all of his sensors, as well. This was their first time using the helmet in a true "operation environment," Wilson said [Test pilot Cmdr. Tony Wilson, who has logged about 200 hours flying the F-35].

"When you're flying at sea, the ship is the only source of light," he said. Whereas flying onshore, there is ambient lighting from cities...."

Source: http://www.dailypress.com/news/military ... story.html

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 16:13
by spazsinbad
An oldie but a goodie - posted back in the day by 'brung_it_back' but not ignored just on the BACKburner...
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=13143&p=301748&hilit=Operational#p301748
USAF Set For Operational Tests Of F-35 Service Software
11 Sep 2015 Guy Norris

"...The unit also says recently completed “jitter” and infrared (IR) tests of the Gen-3 helmet-mounted display system have shown a “tremendous improvement” over the earlier Gen-2, which had problems ranging from latency and alignment to symbology jitter, night-vision acuity and insufficient display contrast, or “green glow.” “We conducted extensive testing in day and night conditions, identified some fixes and moved on with those,” says Buckwalter.

The testing focused primarily on nighttime evaluations of the Gen-3’s improved ISIE-11 night vision camera system, and associated improvements to acuity, as well as interaction with the Distributed Aperture System, which streams real-time imagery to the helmet from six aircraft-mounted IR cameras. “We did not do a lot of high-g or high-alpha work; the bulk of what we flew in the most recent round was at night,” he says.

The helmet adds a light-emitting diode (LED) and camera to the front of the helmet (and back of the forward cockpit camera), to augment head-tracking and automate the calibration of display alignment. It also includes an inertial measurement unit to dampen symbology and mitigate jitter caused by aircraft buffet. “It is not perfect, but it is readable throughout the flight envelope,” says Nelson, who adds that jitter was not specifically tested on Gen-3, “because it was overcome already. What Gen-3 brings to the table is a much bigger night camera, and that makes a huge difference. The other is [overcoming] green glow.”..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-se ... e-software

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2015, 00:03
by spazsinbad
USAF? Video has pilot comments about HMDS...
Air Force Tech Report: F-35A
Published on Oct 6, 2015 Air Force TV

"The F-35's next generation stealth will make it virtually undetectable allowing the 9G capable multirole fighter to dominate the sky. The F-35A is the Air Force's latest 5th generation fighter; it's lethal, survivable, and adaptive."


Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 11:05
by Dragon029
Not a new video, but here's some footage from this video, cropped and warped to fit the whole screen:


Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 11:45
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Thanks I'll check it out. YATO IN - YATO OUT :devil: Sense of Confusion (not sensor fusion).


Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 18:01
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Heavy Hangs the Head of the Hanche :devil: - one day it will be cut down to size by some 6oz or so.... :mrgreen: :doh: And... here is this 'eye tracking thingo' I guess it is shorthand for something or tuther.... Head Hanche in photo zoom below.
Luke issues first Generation III helmet
20 Oct 2015 Staff Sgt. Staci Miller; 56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

"...Luke Air Force Base issued its first Generation III F-35 Helmet Mounted Display System to Norwegian Air Force Maj. Morten Hanche, 62nd Fighter Squadron training pilot Oct. 16, 2015.

The new system, built and issued by Rockwell Collins at the Pilot Fit Facility, includes a number of upgrades, including improved night vision, optics and liquid-crystal displays.

"It's Luke's first," said Donald Guess, Rockwell Collins customer support specialist. "It's something that's been coming for a while and something that all the pilots are going to want."...

...Thanks to the helmet's eye tracking capability, pilots using the system can look at a target to aim their weapons while maintaining spatial orientation of their surroundings and continually monitoring flight information.

"If your rifle scope is off, you'll never hit your target," Hanche said. "With this helmet, it's going to be a lot more accurate than it used to be."

Integrating the night vision capability right into the helmet is a major advantage for F-35 pilots. Built-in night-vision lets pilots see in the dark, without needing to flip down a set of goggles.

"I'll now have access to two night vision options," Hanche said. "An infrared image and a night vision image. Having those two available at any time is going to be really great."

All of that technology is built into a carbon fiber helmet that weighs just about five pounds. It's customized to each pilot, both to fit around the head, as well as to ensure that the visuals work properly...."

PHOTO: http://www.luke.af.mil/shared/media/pho ... 20-059.jpg (4Mb)
"Christopher Culley, Rockwell Collins customer support specialst, fits and issues an F-35 Lightning II Generation III Helmet Mounted Display System at the Pilot Fit Facility at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, Oct. 16, 2015. The new system includes a number of upgrades, including improved night vision, optics and liquid-crystal displays. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Ridge Shan)"


Source: http://www.luke.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123461403

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2015, 03:46
by Dragon029
Video of getting the HMDS fitted:


Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2015, 07:02
by hornetfinn
I think F-35 HMDS can have huge potential in making training more realistic. You could for example simulate weapons on it. For example two groups of F-35s engage each other. When they simulate firing AMRAAMs or AIM-9Xs towards each other, the HMDS could show the missile launch, flight and detonation just like it would look in real life. Of course the same can be done on ground simulators, but this would add whole new level of realism to air combat training in actual aircraft. Of course the system could also simulate the visual effects of flares for example in WVR combat. Naturally the system could do that only using DAS, EOTS or night vision channels. Opposing aircraft could be visually altered to look like PAK FAs or J-20s or Sopwith Camels...

Same could be done for ground based threats and targets. Those could be simulated so that they seem to actually be there for the pilot. Let's say enemy armored brigade is simulated and in simulation protected with advanced radar and SAM systems. F-35s actually flying could detect their activity using their sensors. Looking closer their targets using for example EOTS could show simulated enemy systems to pilot even if they are not there IRL. SAM launches could be simulated similarly and shown to pilot. Similarly enemy airfields could be simulated and attacks against them practiced in very real looking environment.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2015, 07:14
by spazsinbad
One thread title about such matters:

Live Virtual Constructive technology to revolutionize ACM
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=19021&p=293005&hilit=Cubic#p293005

Another hit: Embedded training F35
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15611&p=203670&hilit=Cubic#p203670

Anotherie: Using the aircraft as a simulator
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14122&p=176610&hilit=Cubic#p176610

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2015, 07:51
by hornetfinn
Oh, thank you spazsinbad! Didn't remember those threads at all...

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2015, 21:15
by raffaauk48
UK F-35B helmets cost £ 260,000 each and it worth every penny paid for it !
The Telegraph :
The helmets for Britain's new Lightning II F-35 stealth jet fighter cost £260,000 each.
The high-tech helmets are linked to six cameras embedded in the jet which combine images to provide a 360 degree view allowing the pilot to "see through" the airframe.
Flight and targetting information is beamed directly onto the visor, into the line of vision of the pilot.
Britain has said it will order 48 of the £70 million jets, which will fly from RAF Marham and the UK's new aircraft carriers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -each.html

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2015, 05:24
by smsgtmac
Guys,
I'm trying to source the so-called '$400K Helmet' claim. I've been through the threads front and back and do not see where the 'news' broke. I'm interested in finding out where that figure first came from, and more important what the number includes. is '$400K' really for the 'helmet' or the 'HMDS'?, for instance. There was a fairly recent 'price breakthrough' on basic bizjet HUDs ($150K installed), so it is not beyond the realm of possibility the military HUD++ capability of the helmet makes it cost that much...at least for now. I suspect that is the LRIP cost at the very least, and possibly includes the software and engineering development costs. This lack of context in a cost claim is POGO's (et al) bread-and-butter disinformation style and I'd like to recreate the timeline of the 'cost' story'.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2015, 05:47
by spazsinbad
I agree - however there is a contract that is approximately 300K dollars a few pages back. All the info I have will be on this thread. This post looks clear cut to me but then again I'm not a US citizen nor particularly interested in this contract minutiae. PAGE 36 here: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=286163&hilit=contract#p286163

Perhaps there is a case to include all the bits and pieces - new and old - that make up the HMDS III which eventually goes into the aircraft to add up to the $400K. However all that is beyond my ken at moment. I'll look for more info....

My guess would be the HELMET is as per contract $300K whilst the entire system (bits & bobs) is $400K (see Cenciotti).
F-35 Lightning II fighter jet pilots will wear $400K helmets + LM Test Pilot BILLIE FLYNN VIDEO Explanation
02 Apr 2015 Christian Davenport

“...Like the plane, the helmet is enormously expensive. The cost of each custom-made helmet is more than $400,000. And like the plane, which is years behind schedule and millions over its original budget, the helmet has encountered problems...."

Source: http://hamptonroads.com/2015/04/f35-lig ... 0k-helmets

____________________________

Check Out The $400,000 Helmet That Sees Through Walls 27 May 2015 Robert J. Szczerba

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertszcze ... ugh-walls/
_________________

Later: 29 May 2015 http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/m ... /28070165/
_________________
F-35 pilot talking about the 400K USD flight helmet: “It’s cool but I don’t really use it that often”
“but I’m an old school pilot…”
13 Jul 2015 David Cenciotti

"...Recently, Sundsdal has published the second part of the interview, that focused on the 400k USD Helmet Mounted Display System, that combines FLIR (Forward Looking Infra Red) and DAS (Distributed Aperture System) imaging, night vision and a virtual HUD (Head Up Display)...."

Source: http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/13/f- ... ht-helmet/

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2015, 06:13
by Dragon029
I think $400,000 is a pretty reasonable figure; JHMCS II is $200-250k; advanced helicopter HMDs cost a pretty penny as well; at least one I know of is priced at $400,000 as well.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2015, 07:23
by raffaauk48
Dragon029 wrote:I think $400,000 is a pretty reasonable figure; JHMCS II is $200-250k; advanced helicopter HMDs cost a pretty penny as well; at least one I know of is priced at $400,000 as well.

Howmuch the Scorpion HMCS costs ?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2015, 13:38
by Dragon029
Beats me, it's not easy to find these costs; the JHMCS figure is available on a few sites because it's a widely used HMD, but the only reason I can reference a certain helicopter HMD's cost is because I had the opportunity to ask one of the engineers who's been with the system almost since the (relative) start.

If I had to guess though; $150-$250,000? The fact that it doesn't have any IR / night vision sensors would save a fair bit, as well as the method of displaying symbology (cheaper but at the expense of a small FOV).

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2015, 13:48
by charlielima223
So something just came to my attention and I would like some clarification...

I know with an HMD, all essential information is displayed upon the visor for the pilot. Relevant targeting information is slaved to the helmet and goes to where ever the pilot points his/her head. Not exactly what the pilot is looking at but very close to . I keep thinking of something much like the IHADSS on the AH-64. The pilot looks in the general direction but still has to manually slave the targeting information onto the intended threat/target.

So my question is the F-35's Gen III HMD "eye tracking capability". Are there actual sensors and nods that scan the pilot's eyes so that what ever the pilot is ACTUALLY looking at, the sensors and targeting systems are slaved to that instead of looking then having to guide a cursor onto the target?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2015, 14:23
by popcorn
raffaauk48 wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:I think $400,000 is a pretty reasonable figure; JHMCS II is $200-250k; advanced helicopter HMDs cost a pretty penny as well; at least one I know of is priced at $400,000 as well.

Howmuch the Scorpion HMCS costs ?


Well under $100K apiece apparently.

http://www.gentexcorp.com/news-events/n ... it-program
GENTEX-Raytheon Awarded HMIT Program

GENTEX Corporation ScorpionTM Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS) has been selected for the Helmet Mounted Integrated Targeting System (HMIT) for the U.S. Air Forces' entire fleet of A-10 Thunderbolt and for the Air National Guard/Air Force Reserves' F-16 Block 30/32 Viper aircraft. The HMIT program will commence immediately with initial phases of aircraft integration. This will be followed by an IOT&E phase. Production phases will follow shortly thereafter with a total of 574 Scorpion systems anticipated to be supplied over the life of the program at a total potential program value of approximately $45-50 million.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2015, 14:42
by raffaauk48
popcorn wrote:
raffaauk48 wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:I think $400,000 is a pretty reasonable figure; JHMCS II is $200-250k; advanced helicopter HMDs cost a pretty penny as well; at least one I know of is priced at $400,000 as well.

Howmuch the Scorpion HMCS costs ?


Well under $100K apiece apparently.

http://www.gentexcorp.com/news-events/n ... it-program
GENTEX-Raytheon Awarded HMIT Program

GENTEX Corporation ScorpionTM Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS) has been selected for the Helmet Mounted Integrated Targeting System (HMIT) for the U.S. Air Forces' entire fleet of A-10 Thunderbolt and for the Air National Guard/Air Force Reserves' F-16 Block 30/32 Viper aircraft. The HMIT program will commence immediately with initial phases of aircraft integration. This will be followed by an IOT&E phase. Production phases will follow shortly thereafter with a total of 574 Scorpion systems anticipated to be supplied over the life of the program at a total potential program value of approximately $45-50 million.

I mean those the F-22 Raptors suppose to have

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2015, 15:01
by popcorn
The hardware is likely the same, any differential would be in systems integration cost. No indication if Integrating it on a F-22 may be significantly higher than on a F-16.
Add edit - integration cost divided over a smaller Raptor fleet would be higner on a per unit basis.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2015, 15:17
by spazsinbad
'charlielima223' said:
"...So my question is the F-35's Gen III HMD "eye tracking capability". Are there actual sensors and nods that scan the pilot's eyes so that what ever the pilot is ACTUALLY looking at, the sensors and targeting systems are slaved to that instead of looking then having to guide a cursor onto the target?"

This is a long thread and perhaps you have not read it all however it will be worth your while to do so. Sure some reporter numnuts have been recently 'reporting' - inaccurately - about the "HMDS for the F-35" 'eye-tracking' capability - which it does not have. Future iterations may have it perhaps because - perhaps - an eye tracking capability is desired for the HMDS special helmet system used in the FMS, so that the instructor at his workstation will be able to know where the pilot in the FMS is looking and for their mutual debrief. So that new function may migrate to the future HMDS system - unknown?

Sensor fusion highlights potential targets and prioritises them as required. Pilot can declutter the view as required. Fusion keeps track of all targets, especially ID tracking in air to air engagements for example - what a marvellous piece of kit that is - no more confusion about who is who and where etc. Then there is YATO [You are the one (target)] for incoming missiles. As I understand fusion will also suggest what to do in some instances - however the fused display on the PCD will make that clear also.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2015, 16:06
by spazsinbad
Perhaps forgotten are the 'shake, rattle and roll' tests on all new aircraft equipment for arrested landings - so it is for HMDS III - and the rest as per: More of this artickle with a 5 page PDF attachment here: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=28046&p=308002&hilit=sylvia#p308002

2.4Mb PDF: download/file.php?id=22014
ALL AT SEA F-35B/F-35C test update
SHOWCASE 2016 SYLVIA PIERSON AEROSPACE TESTING INTERNATIONAL

"...F-35C CARRIER SUITABILITY TESTING
As the team prepared to sail aboard USS Eisenhower (CVN 69) for the second phase of developmental test (DT-II) of the F-35C, it completed prerequisite shore-based catapults and arrested landings, a structural survey with mis-serviced landing gear, and put the GEN III helmet-mounted display (HMD) hardware through ‘shake, rattle and roll’ tests. ‘Shakes’ are unique test events accomplished at the shore-based TC-7 Catapult and Mk-7 Arresting Gear sites, during which new aircraft hardware is tested to the aircraft limits for various shipboard conditions. Typically shakes testing is the last requirement prior to clearance for hardware to operate on the ship.

The team’s primary DT-II goal was to generate at-sea data in support of phase II development of Aircraft Launch and Recovery Bulletins. They also conducted afterburner catapult shots, Delta Flight Path (DFP) approach mode performance testing with a fourdegree glideslope, day and night Gen III helmet testing, max catapult shots with full internal weapons load, maintenance engine runs, Integrated Power Pack (IPP) and engine runs in the hangar bay, catapult minimum energy shots with internal stores, and night approaches and arrested landings...."

Source: SHOWCASE 2016 AEROSPACE TESTING INTERNATIONAL

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2015, 08:53
by spazsinbad
OLD NEWS ALAS however I do not recall seeing this 'improved Gen II Helmet for USMC IOC' item quoted below.
Rockwell Collins Delivers First 'Gen 3' Helmet Display for F-35
12 Aug 2015 Bill Carey

"...The Gen 3 helmet incorporates an improved night vision camera, improved liquid-crystal displays, automated alignment and software improvements, according to the Rockwell Collins delivery announcement. ...."The U.S. Marine Corps, which declared initial operational capability of the F-35B on July 31, did so with an improved version of the second-generation HMDS

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... splay-f-35

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2015, 22:23
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:....The team’s primary DT-II goal was to generate at-sea data in support of phase II development of Aircraft Launch and Recovery Bulletins. They also conducted afterburner catapult shots, Delta Flight Path (DFP) approach mode performance testing with a fourdegree glideslope, day and night Gen III helmet testing, max catapult shots with full internal weapons load, maintenance engine runs, Integrated Power Pack (IPP) and engine runs in the hangar bay, catapult minimum energy shots with internal stores, and night approaches and arrested landings.....


....oh yeah!, has there been any comments on JPALS, phase II at-sea data??....did I miss something again...nothing new on the search... :?:

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2015, 14:54
by spazsinbad
Two photos combined from Dutch F-35 website shows the HMDS with all the bits that dangle and ear pieces inside from:

https://www.defensie.nl/onderwerpen/mat ... svliegtuig

Pilot: https://www.defensie.nl/binaries/conten ... r.jpg-copy (2.3Mb)

HMDS: https://www.defensie.nl/binaries/conten ... 9.jpg-copy (0.5Mb)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2015, 16:59
by freenight4
Hey guys, you are all expert. I'm a collector and very interesting for HMDS, money is here, who have goods?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2015, 17:03
by popcorn
It will cost you $400,000...

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2015, 17:16
by botsing
I guess this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMFfSu29VbY

Together with this:
https://www.oculus.com/en-us/rift/

That will give you things like this:
https://flyinside-fsx.com/

Will probably be as close as you can get for a long time, apart from becoming a real F-35 pilot of course.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2015, 22:44
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'botsing' I did not know about 'flyinginside'.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2015, 03:44
by freenight4
popcorn wrote:It will cost you $400,000...

I guess I have a rich mom :)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2015, 04:29
by popcorn
freenight4 wrote:
popcorn wrote:It will cost you $400,000...

I guess I have a rich mom :)

Needs a $85M jet to work..

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2015, 12:34
by freenight4
popcorn wrote:
freenight4 wrote:
popcorn wrote:It will cost you $400,000...

I guess I have a rich mom :)

Needs a $85M jet to work..


:drool: No, I just hope wear it when I'm flying MD-530F.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2015, 15:29
by botsing
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks 'botsing' I did not know about 'flyinginside'.

It's a recent development that only started at the beginning of the summer of 2015 but it is already looking very promising and it is made by a talented developer.

At the start of 2016 the Oculus Rift should be available for the public (you can now only get the developer version), once it is out I will get one to try out this combination. The only thing I am worried about is that I might not have enough CPU and GPU power but that might be easily solved by throwing money at it (ain't it freenight4 ;)).

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2015, 02:29
by Dragon029
I've already prepared my computer for Oculus; Dino's Prepar3D F-35 however might be another thing; I don't know how much it'd take to make it run at 30fps.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2016, 09:02
by armedupdate
I believe there is an article where the DAS/helmet is rarely used by a pilot since it is not as good quality and he would rather use his MK1 eyeballs? How true is this?

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2016, 09:30
by popcorn
armedupdate wrote:I believe there is an article where the DAS/helmet is rarely used by a pilot since it is not as good quality and he would rather use his MK1 eyeballs? How true is this?


Dunno, first confirm the article and any context.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2016, 09:39
by Dragon029
https://vimeo.com/124614167

It's already been discussed somewhere on this site (probably earlier in this thread), but:

1. Yes it's not as good as the human eye (except at night); no infrared camera (except perhaps in some space telescope) in the world is. It will however give you the ability to do things like see the engine plume from a fighter much father than with the naked eye.
2. He says himself that he doesn't use the EODAS "x-ray vision" function much because he's "old school" and not used to it (note how he states that the younger guys use it more than him).
3. There are times when you're going to very much want / have to use it, like at night (it's a lot better in that respect than old school NVGs) or when you're flying through IADS and you want to maintain a specific aspect angle; where rolling over to look at the ground might make your wings or fuselage reflect energy back to the radar.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2016, 09:56
by spazsinbad
Searching on the vimeo number string found it at this thread here page 39: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=295444&hilit=124614167#p295444

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2016, 16:57
by XanderCrews
armedupdate wrote:I believe there is an article where the DAS/helmet is rarely used by a pilot since it is not as good quality and he would rather use his MK1 eyeballs? How true is this?


It's an individual preference, and he isnt in combat

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2016, 20:12
by blindpilot
armedupdate wrote:I believe there is an article where the DAS/helmet is rarely used by a pilot since it is not as good quality and he would rather use his MK1 eyeballs? How true is this?


Dragon029 wrote:https://vimeo.com/124614167

It's already been discussed somewhere on this site (probably earlier in this thread), but:

... There are times when you're going to very much want / have to use it, like ... when you're flying through IADS and you want to maintain a specific aspect angle; where rolling over to look at the ground might make your wings or fuselage reflect energy back to the radar.


Check the video on the Meet and Greet thread viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28784

Hemo talks about how he was in a test that required holding a specific AoA for a prolonged test. He received traffic notification, and was able to use the DAS/helmet to pick up the traffic, maintain awareness/separation while continuing the test.

Now Dragon notes "when you're flying through IADS and you want to maintain a specific aspect angle," not unlike Hemo's "hold that AoA" test.

Hemo called that his "Ah Ha!" moment. Young pilots will quickly expand this to greater use in ways we don't know yet. The helmet/DAS is not just a cool toy. It will be game changing.

BP

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2016, 00:03
by lamoey
blindpilot wrote:
armedupdate wrote:I believe there is an article where the DAS/helmet is rarely used by a pilot since it is not as good quality and he would rather use his MK1 eyeballs? How true is this?


Dragon029 wrote:https://vimeo.com/124614167

It's already been discussed somewhere on this site (probably earlier in this thread), but:

... There are times when you're going to very much want / have to use it, like ... when you're flying through IADS and you want to maintain a specific aspect angle; where rolling over to look at the ground might make your wings or fuselage reflect energy back to the radar.


Check the video on the Meet and Greet thread viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28784

Hemo talks about how he was in a test that required holding a specific AoA for a prolonged test. He received traffic notification, and was able to use the DAS/helmet to pick up the traffic, maintain awareness/separation while continuing the test.

Now Dragon notes "when you're flying through IADS and you want to maintain a specific aspect angle," not unlike Hemo's "hold that AoA" test.

Hemo called that his "Ah Ha!" moment. Young pilots will quickly expand this to greater use in ways we don't know yet. The helmet/DAS is not just a cool toy. It will be game changing.

BP


I believe the statement armedupdate refer to was given by a pilot that followed up by saying he could just as easily roll the aircraft and look at the ground if that is what he needed to see. That is fine in a none stealthy, low threat environment. If you are behind enemy lines, trying to be as stealthy as possible it is not a good idea to roll around and show off perhaps less stealthy angels of the aircraft.

On the other hand, when trying to visually locate the bandit on your six quarter, having the cue from the helmet display must be useful, assuming he has enough space to turn his head somewhat towards the bandit.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2016, 00:30
by SpudmanWP
The pilot need not turn his head to cue the system as the systems is already tracking the object. He only needs to select the track on his main tactical display and add it to the shoot list.

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2016, 00:50
by spazsinbad
The vHUD gives a six o'clock (off axis) view also with symbols for target(s) shown: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=221823&hilit=vHUD#p221823 same page of this thread for rear view: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=221805&hilit=pptx#p221805

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2016, 07:08
by spazsinbad
A bit of old Gen III HMDS news (via recent 'smsgtmac' pointer elsewhere about 'fuel tank overpressure during diving' fix...
F-35 OPERATIONS UPDATE page 5
21 Oct 2015 Major General Jeffrey Harrigian; Director, F-35 Integration Office Headquarters, USAF

"...8. GEN III helmets fielded. The Generation III (GEN III) helmet improves on the Generation II helmet that is currently fielded. These improvements include an improved night vision camera, reduced helmet jitter, and fixes to the “green glow” associated with the Gen II helmet. As of October 5, 2015, there are 4 pilots flying with the GEN III helmets and 3 more are in the process of being fitted for the new helmet. Hill AFB will execute their first night flights later this month to verify the improved night vision system...."

Source: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/ ... 151021.pdf (90Kb)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2016, 00:34
by spazsinbad
Another tidbit about the new required for ejection seat/pilot weight reduction LIGHTWEIGHT GEN III HMDS:
JPO Accelerates Timeline for F-35 Ejection Seat Fix
15 Jan 2016 Lara Seligman

"...The JPO is also working to design, test and certify a lighter version of the Gen III helmet. Initial deliveries of the new helmet are scheduled to begin in October 2017, DellaVedova said...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /78845102/

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2016, 05:45
by spazsinbad
Not ONLY about HMDS but also about other 'helmet advancements' - not well translated into English always - sadly....
More Than Protection
Recently? Noa Fenigshtein | Translated by: Ofri Aharon

"...Unique F-35 Helmet
IAF combat pilots have been using DASH for many years and throughout their training in Pilot School they learn to utilize it, but "Elbit" asked to take it one step further and installed new virtual HUD on the advanced F-35 JSF.

"The F-35 stealth jet is the first that does not have a HUD system. For a decade, there were many arguments regarding whether or not this was the right decision", Shmueli admits. "When we began flying trial flights it was clear that the idea of flying without the HUD won, because the pilot couldn't feel the difference".

The helmet contains a virtual HUD that is virtually presented, in the front of the cockpit through the helmets lenses. It looks and acts like a traditional HUD but is completely virtual.

"It was a huge challenge to develop this display and to ensure its steadiness and preciseness in the field even with the rapid fluctuations of a fighter jet. Eventually, we were able to remove an expensive and heavy element".

As such, "Elbit" claims that the F-35's futuristic helmet is the most advanced helmet to have been developed to this day. "In comparison to other operational helmets today, the Israeli F-35 helmet will have a double eyepiece and a wider 40 degree vision", tells Shmueli. "The helmet is connected to video cameras that surround the aircraft, which provides the pilot with a picture of the field outside the cockpit at 360 degrees".

The display of the F-35 helmet contains countless data and possibilities, such as integrations of the systems with weapons, communication with other jets in the formation and communication between cockpits, meaning between crew members. The members are responsible for choosing what data they would like to see in accordance to the situation they are facing. "The trick is to choose the right data at the right time", explains Shmueli.

"This is one of the issues discussed in the world of augmented reality", adds Major Avshalom. "What parameters are relevant to display? When do data become overwhelming? After all, it's a matter of balance and examination of essential components to sift unnecessary data to the best of one's ability"....

...The use of display helmets have already been assimilated in the Israeli Air Force. "As a young weapon systems operator, without the DASH, our abilities are effected", said Lieutenant Noa. "However, it has received bad feedback from the veteran pilots. They proclaim that once you start using the DASH, you can't fly without it. Therefore, the current approach is to teach pilots the basics, such as reading the HUD and after gaining more flight experience and only then, teach pilots to use the DASH".

Even with the more traditional HUD systems and the current outlook on how to teach new pilots, the world direction is clear. Cadets of IAF pilot school today will become F-35 pilots and the helmets will become a consistent part of their combat flights. The Pilot school is also anticipating the arrival of helmets that mirror the abilities of the DASH and F-35 jet helmets.

"In the F-35, there is no flight without a helmet, it's the foundation of the flight", said Yoram Shmueli. "We believe that in the future, everyone will have this kind of technology in their homes. The children of today will grow up with this kind of technology in their hands. The air force's last manned fighting jet will have a DASH system rather than HUD. In 20 more years, the young pilots won't know a different reality, but they will be able to comprehend the new reality even faster"."

Source: http://www.iaf.org.il/5642-45591-en/IAF.aspx

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2016, 21:29
by spazsinbad
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) 2015
Jan 2016 DOT&E

"...Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS)
• The program tested the Generation III (Gen III) helmet-mounted display system (HMDS), which is intended to resolve all of the deficiencies discovered in the Gen II system in prior years. The Gen III system is a requirement for Air Force IOC in 2016; it will be the helmet used to complete SDD and IOT&E. After Gen III developmental testing, developmental test pilots reported less jitter, proper alignment, improved ability to set symbology intensity, less latency in imagery projections, and improved performance of the night vision camera. However, operational testing in realistic conditions and mission task levels, including gun employment, is required to determine if further adjustments are needed.....

...Pilot Escape System
• The program conducted two sled tests on the pilot escape system in July and August 2015 that resulted in failures of the system to successfully eject a manikin without exceeding load/stress limits on the manikin. These sled tests were needed in order to qualify the new Gen III HMDS for flight release. In July 2015, a sled test on a 103-pound manikin with a Gen III helmet at 160 knots speed demonstrated the system failed to meet neck injury criteria. The program did not consider this failure to be solely caused by the heavier Gen III helmet, primarily due to similarly poor test results observed with the Gen II helmet on a 103-pound manikin in 2010 tests. The program conducted another sled test in August 2015 using a 136-pound manikin with the Gen III helmet at 160 knots. The system also failed to meet neck injury criteria in this test. Similar sled testing with Gen II helmets in 2010 did not result in exceedance of neck loads for 136-pound pilots.

• After the latter failure, the Program Office and Services decided to restrict pilots weighing less than 136 pounds from flying any F-35 variant, regardless of helmet type (Gen II or Gen III). Pilots weighing between 136 and 165 pounds are considered at less risk than lighter weight pilots, but still at an increased risk (compared to heavier pilots). The level of risk was labeled “serious” by the Program Office based on the probability of death being 23 percent, and the probability of neck extension (which will result in some level of injury) being 100 percent. Currently, the Program Office and the Services have decided to accept this level of risk to pilots in this weight range, although the basis for the decision to accept these risks is unknown....

...Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS)
• The HMDS is pilot flight equipment. It has a display on the visor that provides the primary visual interface between the pilot and the air vehicle and mission systems. The HMDS was envisioned to replace a traditional cockpit-mounted “heads-up display” and night vision goggles. It projects imagery from sensors onto the helmet visor, which is intended to enhance pilot situational awareness and reduce workload. In 2010, the Program Office identified significant deficiencies and technical risk in the HMDS.

• The program created a “dual-path” approach to recover required capability.

- One path was to fix the existing Generation II (Gen II) HMDS through redesign of the night vision system/camera and electro-optical/infrared sensor imagery integration on the visor.

- The second path was to switch to an alternate helmet design incorporating legacy night vision goggles and projecting sensor imagery only on cockpit displays.

- The program terminated the dual path approach in 2013 and decided to move forward with fixes to the existing Gen II HMDS which created the Gen III HMDS

• The Gen II HMDS was fielded with Block 2 and earlier configurations of aircraft. The program developed and tested improvements to address deficiencies in stability of the display (referred to as “jitter”), latency in the projection of Distributed Aperture System (DAS) imagery, and light leakage onto the display under low-light conditions (referred to as “green glow”). However, adequate improvements to the night vision camera acuity were not completed and pilots were prohibited from using the night vision camera. Pilot use of the DAS imagery was also restricted.

• The Gen III HMDS is intended to resolve all of the above deficiencies. It is a requirement for Air Force IOC in 2016, and will be used to complete SDD and IOT&E in 2018. The following provide Gen III HMDS details:

- It includes a new higher-resolution night vision camera, software improvements, faster processing, and changes to the imagery projection systems for the visor.

- It requires aircraft with Block 3i hardware and software.

- Developmental flight testing began in December 2014 and will continue into 2016 with primary flight reference testing.

- Operational testing will occur in tests conducted to support the Air Force IOC in 2016 (Block 3i), & in IOT&E (Block 3F).

- It will be used with all Lot 7 aircraft, which are being delivered now, and later deliveries.

- Later-than-planned escape system qualification delayed Gen III HMDS deliveries to the field; the program plans full flight clearance to occur in 2016.

• Results of the Gen III HMDS performance during developmental testing thus far indicate the following:

- Symbology jitter and alignment. Some corrections were made for jitter and alignment in the latest configuration of the fielded Gen II HMDS via modifications to the display management computer. These are carried into the Gen III design. Developmental test pilots report less jitter and proper alignment. However, jitter still occurs in regimes of high buffet (i.e., during high g or high angle of attack maneuvering). Operational testing in heavy maneuvering environments is needed to determine if further attention will be required.

- Green glow (difficulty setting symbology intensity level without creating a bright green glow around perimeter of display). The Gen III HMDS includes new displays with higher contrast control, which has reduced green glow compared to Gen II; the phenomena still exists, but at a manageable level, according to developmental test pilots. Developmental test pilots were able to air refuel and operate in “no moon” low illumination conditions at night. Simulated carrier approaches were also conducted at San Clemente Island off the coast of California and during carrier trials in October 2015. Operational testing in high mission task loads is also needed to confirm if further adjustments are needed.

- Latency (projected imagery lagging head movement/ placement). The Gen III HMDS includes faster processing to reduce latency in night vision camera imagery and DAS imagery projected onto the visor. The update rate in the Gen III HMDS is twice that of the Gen II. Developmental test pilots reported improvement in this area. Nonetheless, pilots have to “learn” an acceptable head-movement rate; that is, they cannot move their heads too rapidly. However, operational testing in these environments is needed to determine if the problem is resolved and pilot workload is reduced, especially during weapons employment.

- Night vision camera resolution. The Gen II camera included a single 1280 x 1024 pixel night vision sensor. The Gen III camera includes two 1600 x 1200 sensors and additional image processing software changes, which are intended to provide improved resolution and sensitivity. Developmental test pilots reported better acuity allowing pilots to accomplish mission tasks. Operational testing under high mission task loads will determine if further improvement is needed....

...Vulnerability to Unconventional Threats...
...The test plan to assess chemical and biological decontamination of pilot protective equipment is not adequate. Compatibility testing of protective ensembles and masks has shown that the materials survive exposure to chemical agents and decontamination materials and processes, but the program has neither tested nor provided plans for testing the Helmet Mounted Display Systems (HMDS) currently being fielded. Generation II HMDS compatibilities were determined by analysis, comparing HMDS materials with those in an extensive DOD aerospace materials database. A similar analysis is planned for the Generation III HMDS design. However, even if material compatibilities were understood, there are no plans to demonstrate a process that could adequately decontaminate either HMDS from chemical and biological agents.

• The Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense approved initial production of the F-35 variant of the Joint Service Aircrew Mask (JSAM-JSF) during 1QFY16. This office and the F-35 Joint Program Office are integrating the JSAM-JSF with the Helmet-Mounted Display, which is undergoing Safety of Flight testing.

The Navy evaluated an F-35B aircraft to the EMP threat level defined in MIL-STD-2169B. Follow-on tests on other variants of the aircraft, including a test series to evaluate any Block 3F hardware/software changes, are planned for FY16...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... Report.pdf (361Kb)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2016, 11:18
by spazsinbad
Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Inquiry into the Planned Acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter
26 Feb 2016 Department of Defence Written Submission

"...Helmet-Mounted Display System
Overview
1.
A series of enhancements to the currently fielded Generation 2 Helmet Mounted Display System have been implemented to address improvements required regarding ‘green glow’, jitter, night vision quality and optical targeting accuracy.

Solution and progress
2. Green Glow. During night operation testing, the minimum brightness of the Helmet Mounted Display System optic driver in no-light or low-light conditions created a green glow. The Generation 2 Helmet Mounted Display System was determined acceptable in most conditions, but was too bright for some carrier operations. The brightness has been adjusted in the Generation 3 Helmet Mounted Display System. Reports from testing thus far indicate some improvements. Additional adjustments to the brightness have been made and will undergo testing in first quarter of 2016.

3. Jitter. The Helmet Mounted Display System is designed to accommodate the buffet flight envelope of the aircraft. The buffet effect makes the pilot’s head move so that symbology is difficult to read or illegible. The name for this effect is ‘jitter.’ Changes were made in the Generation 3 helmet tracker to improve buffet jitter performance and testing in 2015 showed acceptable results.

4. Aided Night Vision Acuity. The Generation 2 Helmet Mounted Display System had night flight restrictions due to insufficient contrast in low light conditions.

The display processing software and Distributed Aperture System capability were changed. There are now no night flight restrictions with the Generation 2 or Generation 3 Helmet Mounted Display System.

5. Alignment/Optical Targeting Accuracy. The Generation 2 meets the required symbology alignment accuracy for F-35 Block 2 capabilities. The Generation 3 Helmet Mounted Display System improves alignment accuracy with the addition of an Optical Tracker and Adaptive Alignment processes to achieve alignment accuracy requirements for F-35 Block 3 and up, which are driven by gun strafe capability requirements."

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=409757 (PDF 0.3Mb)

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2016, 11:26
by hornetfinn
Another one bites the dust... :D

Re: Helmet-mounted displays

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2016, 15:25
by spazsinbad
Light F-35 Helmet Tests Begin, DOD Aims To Fix Escape System This Year
14 Mar 2016 Lara S