4 ms·
F-35 Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System
- cf100clunk 2y agoDirect advertising on HN?
- martinky24 2y agoThis is purely a marketing page with no actually interesting technical content really... Not sure it's a great fit for Hackernews.
- belter 2y agoThe rest is classified, so this is all you ever gonna get.
- sebzim4500 2y agoThat was the least useful video I've ever seen.
- m3kw9 2y agoSo a Apple Vision Pro with night vision
- belter 2y agoSo expensive, they offer you a F-35 if you buy one...
- tonetegeatinst 2y agoThe more you buy, the more you save.
- constantcrying 2y agoAnd integration into the weapons and avionics systems of a modern fighter jet.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoIt's transparent thought isn't it? It doesn't do the camera + overlay. More like the Microsoft headset.
- cdtwigg 2y agoYeah AVP/passthrough would make you very sick if you tried to wear it in a jet pulling high G maneuvers.
- yuppiepuppie 2y agoI’ve been watching the F 35 at the Baltimore Flyover this weekend. What an incredible machine. The agility and speed range that it can travel in the air is astounding. Lucky pilots that get to fly this tech and dawn that helmet.
- hoofhearted 2y agoSame lol. Seeing this thing show off its tech in the flesh was incredible. The ability for it too scrub off speed from full tilt at 2000 mph is just beyond imaginable. If something is chasing you at full speed, and you can just hit the brakes mid air; suddenly the hunter becomes the prey lol
- nradov 2y agoThe F-35 can't reach anywhere near 2000mph. It isn't optimized for speed.
- piva00 2y agoNo US fighter jet in history can reach 2000 mph, the F-22 can get to a bit over mach 2, the F-35 can reach mach 1.6, neither is anywhere close to 2000 mph (mach ~3). The F-15 is probably the only American jet fighter to ever get close to 2000 mph by reaching mach 2.5.
- MarkMarine 2y agoI’d rather an A/C-130 or a A-10 flying over me every day of the week. I’m sure this is cool for the pilot in the seat, but who cares about that except them.
- nradov 2y agoUnfortunately the AC-130 and A-10 aren't survivable against any sort of serious aid defense system. They won't be flying over you if they get shot down by a SAM on the way there. This is the main reason the JSF program was started in 1993 and the problem has only become more severe since then.
- SubiculumCode 2y agoSure, but do we really need pilots anymore?
- banku_brougham 2y agoAnd, do we really need to expend so much of our selves on miltary purposes? No other country does this and what have we got? Fiasco and human rights catastrophe one after the other.
- tigerBL00D 2y agoAnything truly valuable is of course classified. This is to reveal no new information while showing something to the taxpayer about what billions are spent on. It's a delicate and awkward dance.
- belter 2y ago"Helmet-Mounted Displays:Sensation, Perception and Cognition Issues" - https://usaarl.health.mil/assets/docs/hmds/HMD_Book09.pdf https://usaarl.health.mil/assets/docs/hmds/HMD_Book09.pdf
- tomohelix 2y agoA true feat of manufacturing and engineering unmatched by any other military. Also unmatched in cost and rarity. It has been proven many time that quantity is a quality difficult to beat. The US military has been gearing and shifting toward expensive and hard to mass produce war machines. We will see how well a million dollar tank fare against 100k dollars worth of drones. Or what happen when a 10K rocket need a CWIS to take down that cost 50K to shoot.
- GauntletWizard 2y ago5:1 and 10:1 is probably a ratio that the US can keep up with, militarily, in part because of how much the pork barrel nature of our spending means that sloshes around, and we're not hard-hit for those dollars. In wartime, we can both bring those costs down, and hopefully retool and rebuild the economy as we did in WW2 to flat out outproduce any enemy, but it's unlikely it can come to that. What we're bad at is asymmetric warfare of the 100:1 and 1000:1, as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> been proven many time that quantity is a quality difficult to beat Sorry, what? These factors balance against each other. If there is a single domain where quality dominates, it’s in the air. American reliance on air superiority is what’s driven this doctrine into places it less applies, like on the ground. > what happen when a 10K rocket need a CWIS to take down that cost 50K to shoot Neither is taking down an F-35.
- tomohelix 2y agoYes, they balance to a certain degree. But one is much easier to increase than the other, especially when you consider which country the F-35 would most likely be deployed against. By "proven", I meant this: a while ago, the doctrine was tanks and armored infantry were the deciding factors in wars, until it was no longer so. Yet Germany was still obsessed with overengineering their tanks to the point theirs were the terror of the battlefield and almost unbeatable 1:1 by any other rivals in WW2. It won them many battles, thanked to the superior engineering and untouchable thick armor. But you know how it ended. Same with Japan. Their battleships were the pride of their nation. Those were impressive and leviathans of the Pacific. Until the US built ships faster than these beast could destroy and you know how it ended. In a war against peers or near peers, overbuilt tech seemed to weigh down a military more than it helps. They become strategic weapons only used occasionally unless one has the manufacturing capability to mass produce them. But the US doesn't have the steel mills and engine factories it once did. China has them now. And in my opinion, if it comes down to it, China can do to the US what the US and Allies did to Japan and Germany. The F-35 can win battles, easily, no argument from me there. But a war is different. >Neither is taking down an F-35. Maybe someone said that once upon a time about the B52 Stratofortresses until the Vietnamese shot down more than a dozen of them. Powerful war machines have been constantly brought low by hordes of weak and low tech enemies throughout history. I contend that is still the same now.
- ein0p 2y agoWaste of money. Within 5 years the most effective battle aviation will be unmanned and partially AI powered (for when EW takes out the signal). It is plainly obvious that from here on out our investment should go mostly into unmanned systems
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Within 5 years the most effective battle aviation will be unmanned and partially AI powered You’re parroting old tropes, which confuse the roles of CAS and SEAD.
- CamperBob2 2y agoWhatever those are, they don't need priceless humans in an expensive airplane. Not anymore. Explain why, don't just downvote. At this point, the burden of proof is on you to explain why the human pilots are still needed... considering that if you didn't have to keep a human pilot alive, you could afford to build 10-100 times as many of whatever aircraft we're talking about.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> they don't need priceless humans in an expensive airplane. Not anymore What are you basing this on? > you could afford to build 10-100 times as many of whatever aircraft we're talking about What are you basing this on? Planes are capability limited by human life support. The most expensive bits inside them are still technology. Yields on some of these novel materials processes are below 1%. And that’s with expensive feedstocks like titanium. ChatGPT can’t direct a squadron through enemy radiation and successfully conclude SEAD. Not yet. (And we have been doing that for decades. They’re called anti-radiation missiles because they’re disposable.)
- CamperBob2 2y agoWhat are you basing this on? The same thing you're basing your assertions on: what I see as common sense. ChatGPT isn't designed to win dogfights, but other models are, and gee, guess what, that's exactly what's happening: https://news.sky.com/story/first-known-test-dogfight-between-ai-and-human-pilot-carried-out-us-military-says-13118545 https://news.sky.com/story/first-known-test-dogfight-between... It is no longer enough to assert blindly that "ML models can't do X." You must explain exactly why ML models can't do X, and admit that you were wrong the last 10 times you asserted that ML models can't do X. (Radiation? Really?)