JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[khanasifm]

Raad 1 and 2 displayed in 2018 parade per commentator Ra’ad can be installed on all paf fighters so jf And F-16 , mirages are already know to carry it but first time specially mentioned in a parade that t his cruise missile can be installed /carried by all paf fighters

 

[khanasifm]

Clearance is there only thing is underbelly low clearance so take off AoA would have restrictions say x degrees

 

[krash]

A request from Araz is always most obliging. The issue with HMD projection, is that it adds weight and bulk to the helmet. The solution I've presented using DLP / Laser technology (DLP stands for Digital Light Processing) does not need to be mounted on the helmet. Meaning it frees up the issue of bulk and weight on the helmet. Projection takes place on the glass of the cockpit. The technology is commercially used and built worldwide, including in China. They are powerful enough today to be visible in daylight.

However, your cuing will still need to be done from the helmet. We are basically separating the HMS element from the HMDS conglomeration.

Limitations of this technology:

1. PAF may feel that the projection is not bright enough in high altitude open skies (this needs to be researched, tested, etc)
2. This would be a divergence from the Western solution, which is superior in that it can look even where the cockpit canopy isn't - for instance, between their legs (this is possible on the F-35 but is very buggy just now and has high latency)

Please tell us what the HMD, apart from cuing and visual target tracking, is meant for (just like the HUD)? Is it situational awareness (again like the HUD)? If so, then please explain where exactly the critical info which is displayed on the HUD and the HMD will be displayed on the canopy? Since, apart from cuing and visual target tracking, one major use of an HMD is that no matter where you look all the critical information for the operation of your aircraft is presented right in front of you,increasing situational awareness by leaps and bounds (Hence why HMDs are still invaluable without HOBS missiles). Let us not forget that there were helmet mounted cuing systems before there were HMDs and they worked fine for their purpose (and would with your hypothetical canopy display as well). So, in case of this critical situational information being displayed on the canopy itself, please explain where exactly would this info be displayed for it to always be in the pilot's view? Would this extensive display system just be a glorified visual target tracking system?

Then there still remain the nitty gritty issues such as the increase in the aircraft's weight which is always far more critical vis a vis the helmet's weight (so much so that manufacturers have been opting for 2-piece canopies instead of a single piece as on the F-16), your cockpit acting like a beacon for the enemy at night, etc.

The solution to the helmet's weight problem, believe it or not, is to build it with lighter materials and further miniaturisation of its components, a field in which mankind has made tremendous progress and, given the pace at which this field of tech is progressing ala google glass, will continue to do so.

 

[Armchair]

Please tell us what the HMD, apart from cuing and visual target tracking, is meant for (just like the HUD)? Is it situational awareness (again like the HUD)? If so, then please explain where exactly the critical info which is displayed on the HUD and the HMD will be displayed on the canopy? Since, apart from cuing and visual target tracking, one major use of an HMD is that no matter where you look all the critical information for the operation of your aircraft is presented right in front of you,increasing situational awareness by leaps and bounds (Hence why HMDs are still invaluable without HOBS missiles). Let us not forget that there were helmet mounted cuing systems before there were HMDs and they worked fine for their purpose (and would with your hypothetical canopy display as well). So, in case of this critical situational information being displayed on the canopy itself, please explain where exactly would this info be displayed for it to always be in the pilot's view? Would this extensive display system just be a glorified visual target tracking system?

Then there still remain the nitty gritty issues such as the increase in the aircraft's weight which is always far more critical vis a vis the helmet's weight (so much so that manufacturers have been opting for 2-piece canopies instead of a single piece as on the F-16), your cockpit acting like a beacon for the enemy at night, etc.

The solution to the helmet's weight problem, believe it or not, is to build it with lighter materials and further miniaturisation of its components, a field in which mankind has made tremendous progress and, given the pace at which this field of tech is progressing ala google glass, will continue to do so.

Branched off have we?

Here is what you wrote:

So you're essentially proposing an exponentially larger 'HMD' and stating that it would solve the problems we are facing with HMDs? With ease and low costs? This is why no one has thought of it.

So now you've got your ego bruised you're jumping up and down. I'm not going to "please tell" you anything. Childish and idiotic.

View attachment 479400

Clearance is there only thing is underbelly low clearance so take off AoA would have restrictions say x degrees

I wonder if a later block could increase the clearance a bit. Perhaps a strike version. Or flatten the Raad. Or both.

 

[krash]

Branched off have we?

Presenting further arguments (the previous ones not having been answered except for a "mein nahi khelta", if I might add) to substantiate the before presented objection to your ludicrous proposal is branching off? Ok.

So now you've got your ego bruised you're jumping up and down. I'm not going to "please tell" you anything. Childish and idiotic.

So you have no answer? Good.

And you'll answer an argument with empty rhetoric and name calling having just previously displayed obvious displeasure at just my "sniggering tone"? Not a problem.

 

[araz]

Presenting further arguments (the previous ones not having been answered except for a "mein nahi khelta", if I might add) to substantiate the before presented objection to your ludicrous proposal is branching off? Ok.




So you have no answer? Good.

And you'll answer an argument with empty rhetoric and name calling having just previously displayed obvious displeasure at just my "sniggering tone"? Not a problem.

There was no need for the tone adopted. A critical post could have been phrased in a much more constructive manner. You have not helped your case either. It is a sorry state of affairs that people cannot present a contrasting opinion or even a correction in a manner which would make the debate move forward. Care to try again?
Regards.
A

 

[krash]

There was no need for the tone adopted. A critical post could have been phrased in a much more constructive manner.

Nor for having one's feelings hurt by them and then resorting to name calling. Am I to understand that you are blaming my 'tone' for his temper tantrums? Is this an online forum for critical discussions accompanied by critical tones or a feel good 'mutual patting on the back' circle of 5 year olds where 'feelings' are accorded a higher place than argument? Feelings being hurt by tones. If so, then online fora surely aren't a place for our friend.

ps: tones accompany all arguments to present opinion. Which in my posts' case is that our friend's proposal is:

Childish and idiotic.

Would you rather I have stated that out loud? By what I am witnessing, niether of you would have liked it any better.

You have not helped your case either.

My case does not pertain to his feelings or his reactionary name calling. I couldn't care less for either, as is evident in my responses; some of us aren't infants anymore. It does, however, to the idiocy of his argument, primarily, and the blatant hypocrisy in his posts, secondarily.

It is a sorry state of affairs that people cannot present a contrasting opinion or even a correction in a manner which would make the debate move forward.

And whining about someone's tone in a written post on an online forum and then resorting to name calling while not presenting, or so as not to present a sliver of any counter argument is hilarious. Defending it, surely isn't hypocritical, at all.

Care to try again?
Regards.
A

Not the very least.


ps: I would appreciate if you could explain where exactly, in the post below, did my tone force our friend to throw a fit and you to defend it?

Please tell us what the HMD, apart from cuing and visual target tracking, is meant for (just like the HUD)? Is it situational awareness (again like the HUD)? If so, then please explain where exactly the critical info which is displayed on the HUD and the HMD will be displayed on the canopy? Since, apart from cuing and visual target tracking, one major use of an HMD is that no matter where you look all the critical information for the operation of your aircraft is presented right in front of you,increasing situational awareness by leaps and bounds (Hence why HMDs are still invaluable without HOBS missiles). Let us not forget that there were helmet mounted cuing systems before there were HMDs and they worked fine for their purpose (and would with your hypothetical canopy display as well). So, in case of this critical situational information being displayed on the canopy itself, please explain where exactly would this info be displayed for it to always be in the pilot's view? Would this extensive display system just be a glorified visual target tracking system?

Then there still remain the nitty gritty issues such as the increase in the aircraft's weight which is always far more critical vis a vis the helmet's weight (so much so that manufacturers have been opting for 2-piece canopies instead of a single piece as on the F-16), your cockpit acting like a beacon for the enemy at night, etc.

The solution to the helmet's weight problem, believe it or not, is to build it with lighter materials and further miniaturisation of its components, a field in which mankind has made tremendous progress and, given the pace at which this field of tech is progressing ala google glass, will continue to do so.

 

[araz]

Nor for having one's feelings hurt by them and then resorting to name calling. Am I to understand that you are blaming my 'tone' for his temper tantrums? Is this an online forum for critical discussions accompanied by critical tones or a feel good 'mutual patting on the back' circle of 5 year olds where 'feelings' are accorded a higher place than argument? Feelings being hurt by tones. If so, then online fora surely aren't a place for our friend.

ps: tones accompany all arguments to present opinion. Which in my posts' case is that our friend's proposal is:



Would you rather I have stated that out loud? By what I am witnessing, niether of you would have liked it any better.




My case does not pertain to his feelings or his reactionary name calling. I couldn't care less for either, as is evident in my responses; some of us aren't infants anymore. It does, however, to the idiocy of his argument, primarily, and the blatant hypocrisy in his posts, secondarily.



And whining about someone's tone in a written post on an online forum and then resorting to name calling while not presenting, or so as not to present a sliver of any counter argument is hilarious. Defending it, surely isn't hypocritical, at all.




Not the very least.


ps: I would appreciate if you could explain where exactly, in the post below, did my tone force our friend to throw a fit and you to defend it?

It is not so much the post but the mannerism in which itis written which exhibits a certain caustic approach. I have earlier nudged my other friend into a response which was more engaging. The discussion could have gone forward. Even if the idea was not right it could have been explained better in a more positive manner rahter than the " would you care to explain" which carries hints of aggression underneath the fabric of civility. It is merely an observation rather than a critique. This may not be a feel good forum for 5 yr olds but it doesnt have to be a caustic pit of constant arguments and strife.
Again my remarks are very general and observational. I generally tend to try and stay above the "us and them" debate and my aim is to come and learn and where relevant teach as well. So apologies if my remarks have hurt your feelings.
Regards
A

 

[CriticalThought]

Today I woke up and an idea came to my head. PAF is looking for an HMD but technology has reached a point where HMDs may become redundant.

DLP and laser projection now can easily and cheaply allow you to have a display similar to an HMD on the very canopy of the aircraft. The only issue remaining will be cuing and this can be done from the helmet. This way the problem is solved quite easily and cheaply, and the weight and complexity of the helmet stays minimal.

I'm just surprised why no one has thought of that.

Here is the technical limitation. Eye tracking involves following the iris and its contractions to ascertain where the pilot is looking at. In an HMD/S, because the display is so close to the eye, the eye has to contract, and it is easy to ascertain the direction in which the eye is looking at. In case of projection onto the canopy, the vision is similar to vision at infinity, and it becomes impossible to determine exactly which object the pilot is looking at. So, no, I don't see the idea flying.

 

[ziaulislam]

View attachment 479400

Clearance is there only thing is underbelly low clearance so take off AoA would have restrictions say x degrees

this analysis was done on pixelated images it could be off 10-20% which pretty much means we dont know

 

[Armchair]

As far as I know, HMS works by head-tracking not eye tracking. This is why you have those lumps on the helmet of your typical HMD / HMS. The lumps help track what direction the helmet moves.

Here is evidence that HMD works by head tracking not eye tracking:

 

[The Accountant]

As far as I know, HMS works by head-tracking not eye tracking. This is why you have those lumps on the helmet of your typical HMD / HMS. The lumps help track what direction the helmet moves.

Here is evidence that HMD works by head tracking not eye tracking:

It works on tracking both but mainly eye tracking

 

[air marshal]

JF-17B

http://falcons.pk/photo/JF-17A-Thunder,-JF-17B-Thunder/1088

 

[Armchair]

It works on tracking both but mainly eye tracking

As far as I know, that is not true. But you are welcome to share your evidences or provide us credibility of your technical background.

I've already provided my evidence, and there is similar literature out there. You're welcome to prove your point.

 

[CriticalThought]

As far as I know, HMS works by head-tracking not eye tracking. This is why you have those lumps on the helmet of your typical HMD / HMS. The lumps help track what direction the helmet moves.

Here is evidence that HMD works by head tracking not eye tracking:

The video clearly states that this is a 'Helmet Mounted Display System', whereas, we are talking about HMD/S - 'Helmet Mounted Display/Sight'.