LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quotewhy not both?
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...mcs/flash.html
To my surprise I didn't find any threads on JHMCS. This is important technology. It puts the HUD onto the visor of a fighter pilot's helmet. This allows the HUD to always stay in view and the pilot to lock onto an enemy simply by looking at him. Combined with the AIM-9X high off-boresight missile this will be a devastating weapon.
The US Navy had to make a choice between this and thrust vectoring for the F/A-18E Super Hornet and they chose this. The Airforce also wants to use them on the F/A-22 Raptor. I just want to know what you guys think about it. If a non-vectored thrust aircraft with the JHMCS and AIM-9X (example: F/A-18E) went against an enemy vectored thrust aircraft without it, (example: Su-37) which one do you think would get the kill in a close range dogfight.
Last edited by Insomniac; 08 Oct 05, at 03:29.
why not both?
Weapons drive tactics, and weapons win wars.
Edit: Ah, crap, another necrothread. WTF is wrong with you bugs?
Last edited by Jimmy; 20 Jul 07, at 23:05.
Apples and oranges.
Python 5
If the USA's ego about AA missiles was smaller their army was stronger..
Yeah, why not both?
Weird. As Asim said, its like comparing Oranges & Apples.
Self-control is the chief element in self-respect, and self-respect is the chief element in courage.
Ya2, please go and introduce yourself before starting posting. The WAB staff likes to know who they're dealing with.
isn,t this type of sight used on apache?
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin
Yes, helicopters incorporated helmet mounted sights first, but you have to remember that helicopters don't have to undergo multi-g turns. It took considerably more time to miniaturize the helmet mounted sight and display to apply it under a fighter.Originally Posted by omon
The Russians actually fielded the first PRACTICAL helmet mounted sight/missile combination, for a fighter application, back in the 1980s. The US had tried to do something similar in the 1970s (VTAS I believe it was called), but the technology just wasn't quite ready (stupid thing only worked with radar-guided Sparrow missiles).
Throughout the 1980s the USAF underestimated the impact of this technology. This only changed after the Cold War ended, and they could engage freely in air combat exercises with former East German MiG-29s. To put it simply, it was a shock to the US participants.
The Israelis, however, caught on to the helmet mounted sight and high off-boresight missile combination early, fielding their first generation DASH helmets and Python 4 missiles by the mid-1980s - shortly after the Russians. When the US later decided to adapt the technology, a major US contractor (Kaiser) would partner with their Israeli counterparts (Elbit) to develop the JHMCS that is today part of the F-18E/F and F-35 programs.
So yes, helicopters had the technology first, but it's not quite the same thing to apply it to a high-g fighter.
It's a lot cheaper to incorporate a new electronic subsystem - and missile - than it is to incorporate thrust vectoring. Cost and weight have driven most Western developers to eschew the thrust vectoring option.
IIRC, it worked just fine with the sidewinders it was intended to be used with ... the problem is, the sidewinders weren't up to par (nor was any other missile, really) their offbore capability was limited, and the system was bulky on the helmet, so it was scrapped.
I believe the USAF intended to defeat Russian threats BVR, and the AIM-9M with its 35 deg off-bore capability and radar slewing using the vertical modes wasn't all that far behind the R-73 in your basic two-circle ... it was still a matter of 'whoever gets the nose around faster'.Throughout the 1980s the USAF underestimated the impact of this technology. This only changed after the Cold War ended, and they could engage freely in air combat exercises with former East German MiG-29s. To put it simply, it was a shock to the US participants.
The R-73 -can- be employed more quickly in some cases, and certainly more quietly, and it -was- dangerous, but it seems to also be a little over-hyped. IIRC, and from what I've been told, Russian missile Pk always lagged behind that of the USAF's but ... heck, I have no idea how they measured Pk so, who knows.
Also ... maybe I recall incorrectly, but the USAF did field some MiG-29's secretly before the cold war ended. This was the main threat for the most part, and due to having these around, IIRC the entire fight was centered around jamming the daylights out of their crummy little radars and slaughtering them BVR.
Of course .... warpac had the numbers.
I was under the impression the USAF had a big lead in Radar and Avionics. What do you mean by...
"Throughout the 1980s the USAF underestimated the impact of this technology. This only changed after the Cold War ended, and they could engage freely in air combat exercises with former East German MiG-29s. To put it simply, it was a shock to the US participants. "
...?
What were they shocked by? Did the USSR already have helmet mounted displays in front line service?
Last edited by VarSity; 26 Jul 07, at 11:24.
Yes.
And the US had a big lead in the quality of its weapons; Soviet technology was not behind American, infact, in some cases, the Russians were fielding more sophisticated stuff back in the 70s and 80s(autoloaders, testing TVC protos, etc), only downside was its poor quality.
The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new lands but seeing with new eyes.
Actually, the AH-64 was the first aircraft to use the HMDS in 1983. The USAF worked with the Israeli AF on the project. The USAF felt the technology was not mature enough and withdrew from the project. The Israelis continued and the US Army decided to join the program. The AH-64 had it operational first, Israeli fighters next followed by the Soviet Union.
The US Navy F/A-18C/D's found out in Operation Red October (October 1996) against the Luftwaffe's MiG-29's, there are tactics to evade HMDS/Archer Missile type system, just as there are tactics to avoid being a victim in BVR. The program on Red October did not state how this was done, damn!
Remember, the first MiG-29's were not delievered to the V-VS until late 1985. The PVO had gotten their MiG-29's a few months earlier that year.
As for the original question about the TVC versus the HMDS, the USAF has chosen the TVC. The HMDS for the F-22 has been pushed down in priorities due to the performance of the F-22 is way beyond any other fighter.
Adrian
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: