OT: F-15 and HMDs?

I was looking around on Patrick's Aviation and I found this:

http://www.patricksaviation.com/uploads/av_images/17096.jpg

Does that pilot have a HMD? I thought only F-35 guys had those, at least until the Golden Eagle stuff started. Or did that happen already?

I was looking around on Patrick's Aviation and I found this:

 

Does that pilot have a HMD? I thought only F-35 guys had those, at least until the Golden Eagle stuff started. Or did that happen already?

It's entirely possible. The Alaskan Eagles have all kinds of upgrades fitted . . . AESA and helmet cueing for AIM-9X are just two I can remember.

Didn't know the eagles did but the F/A-18 do as well. You need them to make the most of a Aim-9X or ASRAAM.

There's a particular squadron or two (the AK squadron in particular) that gets all the really fancy stuff on their F-15's first ... AESA radars, JTIDS, AIM-9X, new AIM-120's, the works.

I was looking around on Patrick's Aviation and I found this:

http://www.patricksaviation.com/uploads/av_images/17096.jpg

 

Does that pilot have a HMD? I thought only F-35 guys had those, at least until the Golden Eagle stuff started. Or did that happen already?

Don't know about F-15s, but I know that our(RDAF) F-16AMs have been fitted with HMD.

This photo:

...was posted here recently in this thread: Kleine Brogel AFB Spotters Day

So at least it is not just an F-35 feature :)

- JJ.

The F-15 and F/A-18 are the lead fighters for the JHMCS program, even before the F-22. The F-35 are supposed to enter service with it. Rationale is that non-Raptor pilots are more likely to find themselves in a dogfight, so they (non-Raptors) get their HMDs first.

JHMCS have been reaching F-15 units a long time ago. For example, the F-15C in the following image is from the 390th FS and his pilot clearly has JHMCS (http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/061019-F-6911G-870.jpg). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if ANG F-15 units are getting their HMDs by now.

Huh, I've seen pics of Super Hornet pilots with HMDs, but I had no idea any AF guys had them yet. Where the hell have I been? Thanks for the info :smartass:

I was looking around on Patrick's Aviation and I found this:

http://www.patricksaviation.com/uploads/av_images/17096.jpg

 

Does that pilot have a HMD? I thought only F-35 guys had those, at least until the Golden Eagle stuff started. Or did that happen already?

HMD are arround for a while now mate. We have them, pretty much every other major airforce in europe has them, I cant see why its own makers wouldnt. This equipment no longer is exclusive of the russians.

The Russians had HMS' ... the Israeli's had HMD's.

The US Navy Super Hornets have HMD capabilities. I think the HMD addition ruins the aesthetic of the helmet...

Our helmets are berely any different than conventional ones in apearance. They are a little beefier but tother than that they conserved the overall shape.

Heres a TV report. You can see the pilot wearing HMD when interviwed sitting on the pit at 5:15 min. (no translations avaiable :D )

I met "speedy" Joao Goncalves 201SQN Commander personaly back in November at the base depicted in this report.

Cheers.

OK, just to clarify . . . .

In which cases are we talking about helmet mounted SIGHTs here, and which cases are we talking about helmet mounted DISPLAYs?

Helmet aiming is becoming rather more widespread, but it was my understanding that the helmet-mounted display with flight information (as on the F-35) wasn't yet in general service.

OK, just to clarify . . . .

 

 

In which cases are we talking about helmet mounted SIGHTs here, and which cases are we talking about helmet mounted DISPLAYs?

 

 

Helmet aiming is becoming rather more widespread, but it was my understanding that the helmet-mounted display with flight information (as on the F-35) wasn't yet in general service.

I thought only the Russians used helmet mounted sights? The Israelis and other western militaries have always used HMDs....

Ours are HMD's

The early Israeli and South African systems were sights as well. Displays were introduced only after the Soviet/Russian system was in widespread service. It is worth mentioning that the USN dabbled with a HMS (VTAS) a short time before even the USSR introduced one, but it only saw service very briefly (fratricide concerns and weight issues are commonly cited, but I think the main reason was that the narrow aquisition angle of the contemporary Sidewinder seekers rendered it pretty pointless).

The early Israeli and South African systems were sights as well. Displays were introduced only after the Soviet/Russian system was in widespread service. It is worth mentioning that the USN dabbled with a HMS (VTAS) a short time before even the USSR introduced one, but it only saw service very briefly (fratricide concerns and weight issues are commonly cited, but I think the main reason was that the narrow aquisition angle of the contemporary Sidewinder seekers rendered it pretty pointless).

The AIM-92 being developed for the FX program (i.e. F-15) was supposed to be integrated with HMS as well. However, IIRC, when the system was tested on F-4s, they found the risk of fractricide to be way too high, so the program was scrapped.

The AIM-92 being developed for the FX program (i.e. F-15) was supposed to be integrated with HMS as well. However, IIRC, when the system was tested on F-4s, they found the risk of fractricide to be way too high, so the program was scrapped.

There were plenty of advanced SRAAM projects in the West as a whole at that time, none of which came to fruitition. I'm not sure if was complacency, technical difficulties or reluctance to invest a lot of money but these decisions would have had some unpleasant consequences in a NATO vs. WP airwar.

I know concerns about fratricide are commonly provided as a reason for this, but I don't really buy it. A furball with IR guided weapons is always going to be an inherently fratricide-prone situation no matter what you do. Does this really outweigh the tremendous benefits in terms of lethality?

IMHO it should be feasible to devise tactics which minimise the risk - hell, NATO pilots frequently claim that training against German MiG-29s allowed them to create tactical counters against the R-73/HMS combination! If that's really possible for the enemy there should most certainly be ways for friendlies to mitigate the hazard somewhat reliably too.

As for VTAS, the lack of SRAAMs with a decent seeker FOV provides a plausible alternate explanation for its failure to prevail in service (admittedly just my personal opinion). However, as mentioned above, I'm not sure regarding all those missile projects (which, ironically, would have given VTAS proper teeth).

I'm not following. Why would a HMS/HMD increase the risk of fratricide?

No way to IFF interrogate, except visually.

No but if I am not mistaken it would not be uncommon practise to "uncage" your IR seeker - allowing it to "snap" on to any target passing through its FOV - in a furball situation.

Letting your IR weapon lock on to anything it sees would seem to carry a far bigger risk of fratricide, than letting the pilot select the target visually via HMS :) .

No way to IFF interrogate, except visually.

Oh, I didn't realize IR missiles had IFF period.

No but if I am not mistaken it would not be uncommon practise to "uncage" your IR seeker - allowing it to "snap" on to any target passing through its FOV - in a furball situation.

 

Letting your IR weapon lock on to anything it sees would seem to carry a far bigger risk of fratricide, than letting the pilot select the target visually via HMS :) .

I think the proposed HMS systems in the West at the time had no seeker indicator - the pilot basically looks at the target and from the missile "growl" (which indicates a target has been locked, not which target) fires the missile. Thus in a furball, the only thing the pilot can be sure of was that a missile has locked a target in the pilot's FOV, which could be a friendly or enemy.

That was my understanding anyway. Another explanation could be that the AIM-92 missile itself would tend to just go mad-dog off the rail even if there was some sort of seeker indicator on the HMS.

In any case, uncaging the seeker in the HUD should be no more prone to fractricide attacks than using an HMS. When you uncage the seeker in the HUD, you see exactly where the seeker is pointing - it's not a big problem of visually picking out which target you wanna attack.

Ahh link 16 IFF is for poor men.

No way to IFF interrogate, except visually.