VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
http://www.economist.com/news/scien...-fighter-jet-helmet-really-good-top-gunu2019s
Military technology
Top Gun’s topper
Is the world’s most expensive fighter-jet helmet really that good?
“IN THIS style, $400,000.” That price tag for a hat sounds like something out of a tea party attended by Alice. It is actually, though, the expected cost of the world’s most high-tech helmet—one to be worn by pilots of the Lockheed Martin Lightning II, also known as the F-35, which has been developed by America and its allies to replace most of their existing strike aircraft. In the context of a plane costing between $148m and $337m, depending on exactly which model you order, the price of the helmet is, perhaps, trivial. But for that amount you might expect to get something pilots are universally happy with. And they are not.
The helmet is a wonder. Fighter pilots have long been used to a “heads-up” display—an image of cockpit data and targeting information displayed on the windscreen in front of them. The F-35 helmet goes much further. Not only does it display that detail, and much else besides, on the helmet’s visor but it also takes video images from six external cameras mounted around the aircraft and shows that as well. This allows the pilot to “look through” the aircraft at any angle. Want to see what is happening below? Then look down and instead of your lap you see the ground. The projected view also doubles up as a night-vision system, without the pilot having to put on a special set of goggles.
The visor display can also include information from satellites, friendly aircraft and military units on the ground. The pilot’s eyes are tracked by the helmet to rapidly reposition images and symbols as they look around. If a missile is launched it can be steered towards the target with only the pilot’s gaze. In other warplanes pilots would have to expend “significantly more brainpower” assimilating data from multiple cockpit display screens, some of them not in their line of sight, says Billie Flynn, a test pilot for Lockheed Martin.
Mission impossible
The helmet, known as the Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS), has been developed by a joint venture between Rockwell Collins, an American company, and Elbit Systems, an Israeli one, working with Lockheed Martin. Joe DellaVedova, the Pentagon’s spokesman for the F-35, says the combination of aircraft and HMDS means the new warplane can safely handle combat roles that no other can. Such boosterism is backed by numbers: America and its allies plan to order more than 3,100 F-35s.
But some think that the helmet’s “political engineering” is as much a marvel as its electronics, says Dan Grazier of the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog in Washington, DC. The aircraft’s research was spread around more than 300 congressional districts whose legislators were keen to support contractors’ proposals for fancy and expensive new features, he maintains. The helmet is now so complex, he reckons, that it has become the F-35’s weak link. Intricate kit breaks—and when it does, a pilot cannot simply borrow another’s helmet to fly. This is because each HMDS is calibrated to an individual flyer: for example, the alignment of their pupils for eye-tracking, which is a two-day laboratory job that only Rockwell Collins is authorised to conduct.
In 2011 the Pentagon paid Britain’s BAE Systems to develop a backup helmet, lest the HMDS design prove flawed. Two years later the Pentagon decided to stick with the Rockwell Collins effort. Since then, some problems have been mostly solved. The helmet now adjusts the display to compensate for different vibrations. A green glow on the display, once distracting, has been dialled down. Pilots say that a previously frustrating delay in image projection has also largely gone.
But criticism persists. A report written by a US Air Force F-35 pilot following mock dogfights last year said that the helmet was so large it restricted the ability of pilots to turn their head to see enemy aircraft. Tilting back to look up turns the helmet’s avionics cable “into a spring, further increasing neck tension”. Some flight manoeuvres momentarily resulted in the helmet being pinned against the canopy, obstructing the display and inhibiting weapon-firing. One airman says few of his colleagues like the F-35 helmet.
At 2.4kg, there is also concern about the helmet causing a whiplash injury if a pilot is forced to eject. Test ejections with dummies by the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation unit found this could cause possible fatal neck injuries for some pilots. Designers are working to lower those risks. To reduce loading on the neck, Rockwell Collins will lighten the helmet by a quarter of a kilo, says Karl Shepherd, the firm’s marketing boss. Mr Flynn, Lockheed’s test pilot, says that more than 300 pilots have been trained to use the HMDS and that all “have become believers” in the helmet.
A lesson lies in all this, some say. Developing exquisite technologies is not always the best means to an end. Had the F-35’s cockpit not been positioned lower than those of other fighter jets to reduce its radar signature, pilots would be able to see more with their own eyes. There are old-school ways around that: one F-35 pilot says he sometimes banks the aircraft over when he wants to see what is going on below. In future years, an entirely different solution may emerge. Given the pace of drone technology, the aircraft that replaces the F-35 may not have a pilot at all.
Military technology
Top Gun’s topper
Is the world’s most expensive fighter-jet helmet really that good?
“IN THIS style, $400,000.” That price tag for a hat sounds like something out of a tea party attended by Alice. It is actually, though, the expected cost of the world’s most high-tech helmet—one to be worn by pilots of the Lockheed Martin Lightning II, also known as the F-35, which has been developed by America and its allies to replace most of their existing strike aircraft. In the context of a plane costing between $148m and $337m, depending on exactly which model you order, the price of the helmet is, perhaps, trivial. But for that amount you might expect to get something pilots are universally happy with. And they are not.
The helmet is a wonder. Fighter pilots have long been used to a “heads-up” display—an image of cockpit data and targeting information displayed on the windscreen in front of them. The F-35 helmet goes much further. Not only does it display that detail, and much else besides, on the helmet’s visor but it also takes video images from six external cameras mounted around the aircraft and shows that as well. This allows the pilot to “look through” the aircraft at any angle. Want to see what is happening below? Then look down and instead of your lap you see the ground. The projected view also doubles up as a night-vision system, without the pilot having to put on a special set of goggles.
The visor display can also include information from satellites, friendly aircraft and military units on the ground. The pilot’s eyes are tracked by the helmet to rapidly reposition images and symbols as they look around. If a missile is launched it can be steered towards the target with only the pilot’s gaze. In other warplanes pilots would have to expend “significantly more brainpower” assimilating data from multiple cockpit display screens, some of them not in their line of sight, says Billie Flynn, a test pilot for Lockheed Martin.
Mission impossible
The helmet, known as the Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS), has been developed by a joint venture between Rockwell Collins, an American company, and Elbit Systems, an Israeli one, working with Lockheed Martin. Joe DellaVedova, the Pentagon’s spokesman for the F-35, says the combination of aircraft and HMDS means the new warplane can safely handle combat roles that no other can. Such boosterism is backed by numbers: America and its allies plan to order more than 3,100 F-35s.
But some think that the helmet’s “political engineering” is as much a marvel as its electronics, says Dan Grazier of the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog in Washington, DC. The aircraft’s research was spread around more than 300 congressional districts whose legislators were keen to support contractors’ proposals for fancy and expensive new features, he maintains. The helmet is now so complex, he reckons, that it has become the F-35’s weak link. Intricate kit breaks—and when it does, a pilot cannot simply borrow another’s helmet to fly. This is because each HMDS is calibrated to an individual flyer: for example, the alignment of their pupils for eye-tracking, which is a two-day laboratory job that only Rockwell Collins is authorised to conduct.
In 2011 the Pentagon paid Britain’s BAE Systems to develop a backup helmet, lest the HMDS design prove flawed. Two years later the Pentagon decided to stick with the Rockwell Collins effort. Since then, some problems have been mostly solved. The helmet now adjusts the display to compensate for different vibrations. A green glow on the display, once distracting, has been dialled down. Pilots say that a previously frustrating delay in image projection has also largely gone.
But criticism persists. A report written by a US Air Force F-35 pilot following mock dogfights last year said that the helmet was so large it restricted the ability of pilots to turn their head to see enemy aircraft. Tilting back to look up turns the helmet’s avionics cable “into a spring, further increasing neck tension”. Some flight manoeuvres momentarily resulted in the helmet being pinned against the canopy, obstructing the display and inhibiting weapon-firing. One airman says few of his colleagues like the F-35 helmet.
At 2.4kg, there is also concern about the helmet causing a whiplash injury if a pilot is forced to eject. Test ejections with dummies by the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation unit found this could cause possible fatal neck injuries for some pilots. Designers are working to lower those risks. To reduce loading on the neck, Rockwell Collins will lighten the helmet by a quarter of a kilo, says Karl Shepherd, the firm’s marketing boss. Mr Flynn, Lockheed’s test pilot, says that more than 300 pilots have been trained to use the HMDS and that all “have become believers” in the helmet.
A lesson lies in all this, some say. Developing exquisite technologies is not always the best means to an end. Had the F-35’s cockpit not been positioned lower than those of other fighter jets to reduce its radar signature, pilots would be able to see more with their own eyes. There are old-school ways around that: one F-35 pilot says he sometimes banks the aircraft over when he wants to see what is going on below. In future years, an entirely different solution may emerge. Given the pace of drone technology, the aircraft that replaces the F-35 may not have a pilot at all.
