"Helmet system replaces heads-up display on F-35s"

[Mike[_1_]]

Geostrategy-Direct
Week of May 2, 2007
MILITARY TECHNOLOGY

Helmet system replaces heads-up display on F-35s

WASHINGTON - A helmet system has become mandatory on flights of the
new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The Helmet Mounted Display System was used in a recent F-35 flight by
a pilot from Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor of JSF.

HMDS is manufactured by Vision Systems International, formed in 1996
as a joint venture of Elbit Systems and Rockwell Collins. Variants of
the system, capable of extreme off-axis targeting and cueing, have
been employed on a range of U.S. fighter-jets.

"The HMDS provides critical flight information to the pilot throughout
the entire mission," Elbit Systems said on April 12.

The F-35 was the first tactical fighter-jet to fly without a heads-up
display system since 1957. The HMDS, which took five years to develop
and undergo safety tests, is designed to provide F-35 pilots with
constant imagery and situational awareness.

"Since the F-35 has no HUD, providing virtual HUD capability has
become a mandatory requirement, entailing precise head tracking and
display operation near zero latency," VSI President Drew Brugal said.

Elbit Systems is the prime supplier of HMDS, particularly the display
management computer. Rockwell Collins contributed the helmet-mounted
display and Britain's Helmet Integrated Systems the helmet shell and
pilot personal fitting system.

HMDS enables in-flight seat ejections of up to 450 knots equivalent
air speed, or KEAS. Executives said the system was preparing for full
flight certification.

[Typhoon502]

On Apr 30, 9:24 am, Mike > wrote:
> Geostrategy-Direct
> Week of May 2, 2007
> MILITARY TECHNOLOGY
>
> Helmet system replaces heads-up display on F-35s
>
> WASHINGTON - A helmet system has become mandatory on flights of the
> new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
>
> The Helmet Mounted Display System was used in a recent F-35 flight by
> a pilot from Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor of JSF.
>
> HMDS is manufactured by Vision Systems International, formed in 1996
> as a joint venture of Elbit Systems and Rockwell Collins. Variants of
> the system, capable of extreme off-axis targeting and cueing, have
> been employed on a range of U.S. fighter-jets.
>
> "The HMDS provides critical flight information to the pilot throughout
> the entire mission," Elbit Systems said on April 12.
>
> The F-35 was the first tactical fighter-jet to fly without a heads-up
> display system since 1957. The HMDS, which took five years to develop
> and undergo safety tests, is designed to provide F-35 pilots with
> constant imagery and situational awareness.
>
> "Since the F-35 has no HUD, providing virtual HUD capability has
> become a mandatory requirement, entailing precise head tracking and
> display operation near zero latency," VSI President Drew Brugal said.
>
> Elbit Systems is the prime supplier of HMDS, particularly the display
> management computer. Rockwell Collins contributed the helmet-mounted
> display and Britain's Helmet Integrated Systems the helmet shell and
> pilot personal fitting system.
>
> HMDS enables in-flight seat ejections of up to 450 knots equivalent
> air speed, or KEAS. Executives said the system was preparing for full
> flight certification.

No HUD at all? Not even a backup system? Huh...wonder how that's going
to work out.

[[email protected]]

> No HUD at all? Not even a backup system? Huh...wonder how that's going
> to work out.

Just like in a jet with a regular HUD - if it fails, you just use your
backup (heads-down) instruments. No big deal (except for weapons
delivery, of course - then you have to use that piece of gum you keep
in your flightsuit for just this reason).

Better view out the window, too, without all that writing cluttering
up the view!

Of course, all those HUD babies out there will probably declare an
emergency and have to be led home...

Kirk

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On 30 Apr 2007 08:24:15 -0700, wrote:

>> No HUD at all? Not even a backup system? Huh...wonder how that's going
>> to work out.
>
>Just like in a jet with a regular HUD - if it fails, you just use your
>backup (heads-down) instruments. No big deal (except for weapons
>delivery, of course - then you have to use that piece of gum you keep
>in your flightsuit for just this reason).
>
>Better view out the window, too, without all that writing cluttering
>up the view!
>
>Of course, all those HUD babies out there will probably declare an
>emergency and have to be led home...
>
>Kirk
>

An old buddy who has been working out of Ft. Worth with the design
team was telling me at one of the Rat reunions about the integrated
video cameras mounted in the skin that project into the helmet based
on where you are looking. If you turn to a place where the airframe is
in the way you get video from the camera on the other side of the
structure so your view is unimpeded. If you look at the wing you see
video from the bottom side so you essentially look right through it.
Look at the floor and you get the bottom fuselage video so you see
what is beneath your feet.

Might be a bit vertigo inducing, sort of like hurtling through open
space at several hundred knots with nothing around you!


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Typhoon502]

On Apr 30, 11:34 am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> An old buddy who has been working out of Ft. Worth with the design
> team was telling me at one of the Rat reunions about the integrated
> video cameras mounted in the skin that project into the helmet based
> on where you are looking. If you turn to a place where the airframe is
> in the way you get video from the camera on the other side of the
> structure so your view is unimpeded. If you look at the wing you see
> video from the bottom side so you essentially look right through it.
> Look at the floor and you get the bottom fuselage video so you see
> what is beneath your feet.
>
> Might be a bit vertigo inducing, sort of like hurtling through open
> space at several hundred knots with nothing around you!

My old neighbor at AW&ST was talking about the same thing. And after
the last close look I got at a Raptor (static display at Andrews AFB a
couple of years back), I have a suspicion that the same tech is being
integrated into the big bird, at least in the forward fuselage.

[Pat Flannery]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> If you look at the wing you see
> video from the bottom side so you essentially look right through it.
> Look at the floor and you get the bottom fuselage video so you see
> what is beneath your feet.
>
> Might be a bit vertigo inducing, sort of like hurtling through open
> space at several hundred knots with nothing around you!
>

My God! We've reverse-engineered Wonder Woman's jet! ;-)

Pat

[Flashnews]

Not only that Ed, it sets up the way one could work against lasers - in
a rough sense just think about an aluminum canopy. If you can look
through the floor or through the wing you see all that you need to and
then think about actually remoting the pilot to someplace else or to
some other guy's back seat a few miles away. This is why it makes sense
to push the JSF into more development to produce both a manned and an
unmanned platform that is not made to hinge its reputation on whether or
not it can carry external stores or bomb "x" or "y", with this kind of
real ability to use stealth and enable a hands-on pilot, not some van
operator, the dynamics are opened to many new and better approaches.
The JSF could be wasted by rushing it into production as it offers
nothing better now - but think what it could down the road.



"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 30 Apr 2007 08:24:15 -0700, wrote:
>
>>> No HUD at all? Not even a backup system? Huh...wonder how that's
>>> going
>>> to work out.
>>
>>Just like in a jet with a regular HUD - if it fails, you just use your
>>backup (heads-down) instruments. No big deal (except for weapons
>>delivery, of course - then you have to use that piece of gum you keep
>>in your flightsuit for just this reason).
>>
>>Better view out the window, too, without all that writing cluttering
>>up the view!
>>
>>Of course, all those HUD babies out there will probably declare an
>>emergency and have to be led home...
>>
>>Kirk
>>
>
> An old buddy who has been working out of Ft. Worth with the design
> team was telling me at one of the Rat reunions about the integrated
> video cameras mounted in the skin that project into the helmet based
> on where you are looking. If you turn to a place where the airframe is
> in the way you get video from the camera on the other side of the
> structure so your view is unimpeded. If you look at the wing you see
> video from the bottom side so you essentially look right through it.
> Look at the floor and you get the bottom fuselage video so you see
> what is beneath your feet.
>
> Might be a bit vertigo inducing, sort of like hurtling through open
> space at several hundred knots with nothing around you!
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Pat Flannery]

Flashnews wrote:
> Not only that Ed, it sets up the way one could work against lasers - in
> a rough sense just think about an aluminum canopy.
>

So you put the metal canopy of it, and instead of blinding you, the
laser blinds the plane's cameras...and then, as you are descending under
your parachute, the laser gets around to blinding you also. Then it sets
the chute on fire.

Pat

[Mike[_16_]]

Sounds like a great time to be an FORMER Parachute rigger!


"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Flashnews wrote:
> > Not only that Ed, it sets up the way one could work against lasers - in
> > a rough sense just think about an aluminum canopy.
> >
>
> So you put the metal canopy of it, and instead of blinding you, the
> laser blinds the plane's cameras...and then, as you are descending under
> your parachute, the laser gets around to blinding you also. Then it sets
> the chute on fire.
>
> Pat

[Shanghai McCoy]

Sorry about stealing your handle, Mike. Noted and changed..


"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> Sounds like a great time to be an FORMER Parachute rigger!
>
>
> "Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Flashnews wrote:
> > > Not only that Ed, it sets up the way one could work against lasers -
in
> > > a rough sense just think about an aluminum canopy.
> > >
> >
> > So you put the metal canopy of it, and instead of blinding you, the
> > laser blinds the plane's cameras...and then, as you are descending under
> > your parachute, the laser gets around to blinding you also. Then it sets
> > the chute on fire.
> >
> > Pat
>
>

[Flashnews]

You are dead right - but then the assumption is you surprised nobody and
you are engaged by the killing defenses which is one reason why a clear
decision needs to be made if you are focused on stealth as a strong case
leading to some degree of invisibility that net's some degree of
surprise against a spectrum of threats or a point design that works only
on one thing. In short use cruise missiles in this case.

If you are flying with stealth you may want to close off the canopy if
you can, if you are being searched out by lasers then your eyes could be
hurt before the systems and sensors would be hurt, in such a
progression. Think back on the problems with laser designators and the
various intentional and accidental bindings of personnel - this resulted
in laser glasses that were to protect the eyes in certain known utility
frequencies - but now the power is up and the spectrum expanded. The
aluminum canopy could actually be a glass/plastic one that when a strong
laser touches it turns immediately opaque and the helmet system becomes
the primary flight reference instrument set.




"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Flashnews wrote:
>> Not only that Ed, it sets up the way one could work against lasers -
>> in a rough sense just think about an aluminum canopy.
>>
>
> So you put the metal canopy of it, and instead of blinding you, the
> laser blinds the plane's cameras...and then, as you are descending
> under your parachute, the laser gets around to blinding you also. Then
> it sets the chute on fire.
>
> Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Flashnews wrote:
>
> If you are flying with stealth you may want to close off the canopy if
> you can, if you are being searched out by lasers then your eyes could be
> hurt before the systems and sensors would be hurt, in such a
> progression. Think back on the problems with laser designators and the
> various intentional and accidental bindings of personnel - this resulted
> in laser glasses that were to protect the eyes in certain known utility
> frequencies - but now the power is up and the spectrum expanded. The
> aluminum canopy could actually be a glass/plastic one that when a strong
> laser touches it turns immediately opaque and the helmet system becomes
> the primary flight reference instrument set.

This is practical now; B-1B's use electro-optical material in the
windscreen to turn it opaque in a split second if a nuclear flash is
detected (I assume the B-2 has the same feature) to prevent the crew
from being blinded. The same technique could be used for laser attack
protection. More than lasers, microwave weapons might be the major
threat in the future.

Pat

[Flashnews]

you bet and it could be also used in glasses or visors for troopers



"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Flashnews wrote:
>>
>> If you are flying with stealth you may want to close off the canopy
>> if you can, if you are being searched out by lasers then your eyes
>> could be hurt before the systems and sensors would be hurt, in such a
>> progression. Think back on the problems with laser designators and
>> the various intentional and accidental bindings of personnel - this
>> resulted in laser glasses that were to protect the eyes in certain
>> known utility frequencies - but now the power is up and the spectrum
>> expanded. The aluminum canopy could actually be a glass/plastic one
>> that when a strong laser touches it turns immediately opaque and the
>> helmet system becomes the primary flight reference instrument set.
>
> This is practical now; B-1B's use electro-optical material in the
> windscreen to turn it opaque in a split second if a nuclear flash is
> detected (I assume the B-2 has the same feature) to prevent the crew
> from being blinded. The same technique could be used for laser attack
> protection. More than lasers, microwave weapons might be the major
> threat in the future.
>
> Pat

[tomcervo]

On Apr 30, 8:24 am, Mike > wrote:
> Geostrategy-Direct
> Week of May 2, 2007
> MILITARY TECHNOLOGY
>
> Helmet system replaces heads-up display on F-35s
>

Like this one?
http://www.eurofighter.com/et_as_co_hm.asp

[Henry J Cobb]

Pat Flannery wrote:
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> If you look at the wing you see
>> video from the bottom side so you essentially look right through it.
>> Look at the floor and you get the bottom fuselage video so you see
>> what is beneath your feet.
>> Might be a bit vertigo inducing, sort of like hurtling through open
>> space at several hundred knots with nothing around you!
>
> My God! We've reverse-engineered Wonder Woman's jet! ;-)

No, this is the reverse.

The pilot thinks he has an invisible jet.

-HJC

[Benjamin Gawert]

* tomcervo:
>> Helmet system replaces heads-up display on F-35s
>
> Like this one?
> http://www.eurofighter.com/et_as_co_hm.asp

Or the HMS the MiG-29 already got in 1986..

Helmet mounted displays are nothing new. The only novelty is that the
JSF uses it as a replacement of a conventional HUD.

Benjamin

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Mon, 07 May 2007 08:07:54 +0200, Benjamin Gawert >
wrote:

>* tomcervo:
>>> Helmet system replaces heads-up display on F-35s
>>
>> Like this one?
>> http://www.eurofighter.com/et_as_co_hm.asp
>
>Or the HMS the MiG-29 already got in 1986..
>
>Helmet mounted displays are nothing new. The only novelty is that the
>JSF uses it as a replacement of a conventional HUD.
>
>Benjamin

We're talking several generations of difference here in terms of what
the HMDS is offering.

It's like saying the ME-262 already had jet engines in 1945, so what's
new about the F-22.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[[email protected]]

On 30 Kwi, 17:34, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> An old buddy who has been working out of Ft. Worth with the design
> team was telling me at one of the Rat reunions about the integrated
> video cameras mounted in the skin that project into the helmet based
> on where you are looking. If you turn to a place where the airframe is
> in the way you get video from the camera on the other side of the
> structure so your view is unimpeded. If you look at the wing you see
> video from the bottom side so you essentially look right through it.
> Look at the floor and you get the bottom fuselage video so you see
> what is beneath your feet.
>
> Might be a bit vertigo inducing, sort of like hurtling through open
> space at several hundred knots with nothing around you!
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Just like in one of the modes in Combat Flight Simulator 3;-) Strange
feeling like lying on the belly along the fuselage and looking thorugh
a prop hubcap, even for somebody who never flew the real thing.

Wouldn't a helmet-mounted sight coupled with a good EO/FLIR/laser pod
turret be good enough?

Best regards,
Jacek

[Benjamin Gawert]

* Ed Rasimus:

>> Helmet mounted displays are nothing new. The only novelty is that the
>> JSF uses it as a replacement of a conventional HUD.
>
> We're talking several generations of difference here in terms of what
> the HMDS is offering.

Well, the difference is not *that* huge. The only thing that is done in
the F-35 is to move the complete display part from the HUD to the HMDS
(which IMHO does make sense, I wonder why this hasn't been done before
already).

Benjamin

[Pat Flannery]

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>
> Well, the difference is not *that* huge. The only thing that is done
> in the F-35 is to move the complete display part from the HUD to the
> HMDS (which IMHO does make sense, I wonder why this hasn't been done
> before already).

It all got started in South Africa of all places; they hooked the
tracking systems of their Kukri IR AAMs into the helmet so that the
pilot only had to look at the target to slew the optics of the missiles
around and let them lock onto it.
From that point forward, it was simply a matter of getting the mass of
the helmet down to the point where it wouldn't snap the pilot's neck if
he had to eject, while adding more and more to its capabilities.
I'm sure our Huey gunner's helmets with their automated gun-slewing
mechanisms also played a big part in the overall history; but you don't
pull high Gs in a Huey unless you crash.

Pat