RAF tests X-Ray Helmets

[TarJak]

Interesting piece of kit this:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolog...766908490.html

[SUBMAN1]

Those damn Americans always like to bring trick technology to the table! What ever happened to the honorable dogfight - man-o-man? I think Boba Fett is jealous!

-S

[P_Funk]

Yea... really... I gotta say these new helmets are the only piece of jet-age gear that seem to get uglier. Even the JSF still looks like a true American fighter. That helmet... the cat eyes? Wow.

[Jimbuna]

All you need now TJ are some descent planes to test them out

I don't particularly like the look of the JSF. Its an a/c designed for every mission. I think it will become an a/c of little use for any mission. I hope the helmet is light in weight or we'll have to have pilots with necks like NFL offensive guards.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I don't particularly like the look of the JSF. Its an a/c designed for every mission. I think it will become an a/c of little use for any mission. I hope the helmet is light in weight or we'll have to have pilots with necks like NFL offensive guards.

Reading it, it sais ''1.5 Kilogram''

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I don't particularly like the look of the JSF. Its an a/c designed for every mission. I think it will become an a/c of little use for any mission. I hope the helmet is light in weight or we'll have to have pilots with necks like NFL offensive guards.

It is not any more than any other helmet at 3 lbs.

THe F-35 is an extremely capable aircraft. Only one aircraft that that is more capable and that is F-22, but this is not the issue. The issue is - IT IS NOT AN F-22!!! It is cheaper than an F-22 however, but I still think we should build more F-22's.

F-35 is however a needed platform in that we need VTOL to replace Harrier, we need stealth capability for the Navy, all sorts of needs, and it fits the bill for all with some modifications (Think the M-16 of aircraft - you can mount any upper you want onto the reciever - this makes the M-16 extremely versatile for any situtaion. You can even mount a 50 Cal upper on an M-16 receiver - or AR receiver for that matter!). The USAF version is even being equipped with laser weaponry, so this aircraft does hold much promise.

All these 4th generation fighters being built by other countries are almost a waste for power projection - a requirement in an ever increasing hostile world. Simply getting past a SAM site in the future will become an impossibility without an aircraft like F-35 or F-22. Russia's SA-18 is most impressive, as is Americas ever evolving Patriot. So you have either two choices in the future for airspace penetration - F-35 or F-22. No other fighters need apply since they won't make it past either Russia's or America's made SAM systems. The only other aircraft that has some, though slim chance is EF2000, but even that has way too large a cross section - and sling a missile under its wings (A requirement to fight!), and you have a worthless pile of junk for airspace penetration since the RCS just went through the roof for hiding from any decent current generation SAM. As a defense fighter over friendly airspace, it is still useful, but only in a real limited fasion.

Getting the idea why countries like the UK, who already have 4th generation fighters like EF2000, still want the F-35? Without it, they have no hope anymore of acting in a manner of force projection. Threatening a badely behaving country like Iran becomes a joke, because they couldn't hope to even penetrate its airspace without it. They become purely defensive reactionary countries.

THis is why they signed onto the F-35 program - they can't afford to be without it. Any general already has known this for 10 to 15 years.

-S

[Steel_Tomb]

I can just see it now...some guy in say a Mig is like "LOL I'm going to own this guy...I'll sneek up on him from 6 o'clock low" but the pilot in the F-35 is like *sigh* "piece of cake"...I hope things like this aren't going to be implimented in sims any time soon lol...otherwise my days of sneeking up on unsuspecting aircraft in Falcon 4.0 are over!

[jumpy]

"Think Russian, think Russian...."
boooooooooooo, beep beep beep beep missile away!

[Chock]

I can just see it now...some guy in say a Mig is like "LOL I'm going to own this guy...I'll sneek up on him from 6 o'clock low" but the pilot in the F-35 is like *sigh* "piece of cake"...I hope things like this aren't going to be implimented in sims any time soon lol...otherwise my days of sneeking up on unsuspecting aircraft in Falcon 4.0 are over!

Actually, the MiG-29 and Su-27 have both had helmet-mounted off-boresight targeting capability for years, long before comparable Western aircraft had it, although their helmet system was pretty heavy. Again this points up the fact that most Westerners simply assume Russian stuff is poor quality without actually knowing anything about it. Similarly, Russian aircraft also feature vastly superior IR detection systems too, not to mention better ejection seats (I have in fact got most of the parts from the MiG-29 ejector seat that was used at a UK airshow some years ago right next to me as I'm typing this!) and numerous other features that analysts often dismiss or just don't even bother to find out about.

Helmet-mounted targeting was in fact fitted onto East German MiG-29s before the re-unification of Germany took place, which gives you some idea of how widespread the technology was in Soviet states and how long they've had it in large-scale use. It proved a definite advantage when they indulged in dissimilar combat training versus Dutch F-16s, but it's not the be all and end all, as you need a missile that can make the turn too, and despite all that Hollywood bollocks you see in rubbish like Top Gun and Behind Enemy Lines etc, most short range missiles actually burn all their fuel up in less than ten seconds (often as little as four seconds), which means they can't make huge amounts of turns without bleeding energy and speed, so you can't just look over your shoulder and make a shot. Probably the biggest advantage Western aircraft have is better IR suppression and less smoky exhausts, making them tougher to pick up visually.

Chock

[bookworm_020]

The Mig 29's ejector seat is more capable than most western seats, but is heavier (almost twice the weight).

When Germany reunited, they looked over the Migs they inherited, and found that the technololgy was better than expected. It was one of the reasons they got out of the ASRAAM program, the R-11 proved to be more flexible in it's targeting and lock on and more manouverable than the ASRAAM, as well as easier to maintain. It's one of the reasons why they created their own missile.

The Israelies have had helmet mounted sights for their fighters for many years now, with missles that could be used with them. The rest are catching them up.

[SUBMAN1]

The problem with ASRAAM and the Russian counterpart is - range for a high off-boresight shot - near nothing.

This is why the US also pulled out of the ASRAAM program, and instead devloped the pinnicle of 'get myself out of a jam' missile (That jam being a dogfight since no one wants in a dogfight) - the AIM-9X. The AIM-9X not only has the thrust vectoring for a 120 degree off boresight shot, but it also has range to back it up - over 10 nm. Rumor has it that if fired at near 0 OBS, it can actually hit something more than 20 nmi out.

This may seem impressive and all, but it is mearly the next step in the game. Next, the Russians will design something that goes 25 nmi. Then the Americans will do 28 nmi, etc,etc,etc.

So for the meantime, the Americans have the upper hand for a short period of time in the close in dogfight.

For medium range, the Russians may have the edge in range for the AMRAMSKI, but the Americans can break lock and leave sooner. Which is more valuable? Guess in a numbers game, I'd give the edge to the Americans. In a one on one? I'd give the edge to the Russians, though even if the Russian version goes terminal, the AMerican is also going terminal at the same time, so maybe the American gets the edge? Only a real fight will tell.

The short answer - all you are seeing is evolution.

-S


PS. And to answer Chock - Everyone does assume the US has the edge on technology, simply because that comes down to a factor of $$$. The next nearest budget to the US is China. China spends currently $96 Bill a year on its military. This money goes a long way, especially for a country trying to catch up to the West. The US for comparison purposes spends about $400 Billion a year on its military. For the most part, this massive amount of cash should give the US the edge in any sort of technology, but when you have countries like China or Russia vying for the technological edge, they will spend in areas that the US has less funding in, looking for that edge in any given tech field. This is what you have happening in certain situations. This is all it is though - a money game. The US has the money, and leads in a huge field. Having to maintain that field means that in certain small sectors, you may fall behind - this is simply one of those cases is all.

[Chock]

This of course doesn't take into account missile offerings from other nations, which negates the military budget spending argument being indicative of quality, since the cost is spread throughout many countries and many companies. The success of this approach to development can be seen in aircraft such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and the huge Airbus range, to name but two such ventures.

Many of the joint-developed missiles will see more sales simply because they do not come with 'strings attached' as most US, and to a large extent, Russian ones do. Which is also why Chinese ones are selling like hot cakes, because they don't give a toss who they sell to, sort of like the French in that respect. And this is an important factor; the British came very close to pulling out of the Joint Strike Fighter project because of these political strings when the Bush administration were refusing to allow sharing of some of the JSF technology in what was some extremely one-way traffic isolationism, this caused an impasse because the RAF insisted on being able to service their own aircraft domestically if need be. So much for the 'special relationship' eh?

There are many more missiles than the Russian and US offerings: You have the German-led IRIS-T thrust vectoring short range missile, the long range European MDBA Meteor, which has better radar jamming capabilities than either the Russian or US offerings, the DRDO Astra (still an unknown quantity but looks similar to a stretched Matra 530 to me, probably with Russian internals). DRDO are apparently considering reviving the Novator KS-172 ultra long range mach 4 anti-satellite missile too. Brazil has the Mectron MAA-1 Piranha. China has the short range PL-9, Britain the AIM-132 LOAL ASRAAM (itself developed to try and catch up with the Vympel R-73's (AA-11 Archer) capabilities, as indeed was the AIM-9X, which is ironic, since the R-73 is ancient by current Russian armament performance standards). And that's just a small selection that I can think of offhand.

It's not a two-horse race by any means.

Chock