New RAF helmet allows pilots to shoot down enemy jets by looking at them

RobitTV

It looks no more high-tech than any other fighter pilot helmet.
But this £250,000 headset allows RAF pilots to shoot down planes simply by looking at them.
The ‘Striker’ Integrated Display Helmet marks one of the biggest leaps forward in attack capabilities in military history.

All a pilot has to do is glance at an enemy aircraft and then steer a missile towards it with his, or her, mind.

Targets pop-up in the pilot's visor, at which point he can select by voice command and fire.

As long as the enemy's aircraft is in sight - whether that be below, above or to either side - a missile can be directed towards it.
Read More...

BostonB

Maybe I'm wrong, but I though theres been Helmet-Mounted Target Designation Systems around for like ages (10+ yrs ago). I thought it was pretty common for Helicopters and any recent fighters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet_mounted_display

Is this new one very different?

AlmightyCushion

BostonB wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong, but I though theres been Helmet-Mounted Target Designation Systems around for like ages (10+ yrs ago). I thought it was pretty common for Helicopters and any recent fighters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet_mounted_display

Is this new one very different?

Yes. Very different.

RobitTV wrote: »

All a pilot has to do is glance at an enemy aircraft and then steer a missile towards it with his, or her, mind.

As you can see instead of a traditional guidance system it uses telekinesis.

BostonB

Firefox eh....

To me, it just a much fancier version of whats gone before. This seems to be a better description free of the hysteria of the tabloids...

http://soldiersystems.net/2009/05/11/joint-strike-fighter-helmet-mounted-display-system/

Highlights for me......

..Integrated day/night capability with sensor fusion...

The helmet provides augmented reality, to the point that if the pilot looks down toward his feet he will see ground. Wherever the pilot looks he sees battlespace with value added data superimposed over threats, items of interest, and friendlies....

Pyr0

How on earth could you possible track a fighter jet with your eyes as it zooms by you at possibly twice the speed of sound?

It sounds pretty cool on paper but would it really work as expected in real life?

Donny5

Pyr0 wrote: »

How on earth could you possible track a fighter jet with your eyes as it zooms by you at possibly twice the speed of sound?

It sounds pretty cool on paper but would it really work as expected in real life?

The enemy fighter would be, hopefully, many dozens to hundreds of Km away at the time of engagement, where the current range of AA missiles is ideal.

maglite

SO when he is behind you, do you blow up the rear view mirror?

BostonB

Donny5 wrote: »

The enemy fighter would be, hopefully, many dozens to hundreds of Km away at the time of engagement, where the current range of AA missiles is ideal.

Usually you don't get permission in modern conflicts to fire at BVR (beyond visual range) otherwise you might take out a airliner by accident, or one of your own planes or something.

Pyr0 wrote: »

How on earth could you possible track a fighter jet with your eyes as it zooms by you at possibly twice the speed of sound?

It sounds pretty cool on paper but would it really work as expected in real life?

So if you accept the first point about BVR, then you have to get close enough to see the other aircraft. Also flying around at 2 twice the speed of sound is very wasteful of fuel, and you can't turn very fast also you're a big heat target. Also you can only achieve those speeds at height. So in general modern combats are usually fought at much slower speeds and usually at low attitude, as they use the ground to disguise their approach.

Then it becomes who can lock on to the other aircraft the quickest. With modern missiles you don't always have to be pointed at the aircraft to fire at it.

BostonB

maglite wrote: »

SO when he is behind you, do you blow up the rear view mirror?

If hes behind you, I don't think it matters...

Donny5

BostonB wrote: »

Usually you don't get permission in modern conflicts to fire at BVR (beyond visual range) otherwise you might take out a airliner by accident, or one of your own planes or something.

Well, I don't accept your point about BVR. Maybe the current SOP for peacetime interceptions won't allow BVR weapons releases, which is fine, but war with another fighter-equipped nation will not have any such restrictions.

Modern conflicts don't have any air-to-air battles, either, but they don't design those capabilities out of the systems.

Also, you don't fire solid rocket motor AA missiles in any direction but that of the target. Any other direction requires the rocket motor to fight it's current momentum. Any state of the art ramjets in Meteors would have trouble decelerating from Mach speeds before accelerating to it's attack velocity.

BostonB

Donny5 wrote: »

....
Also, you don't fire solid rocket motor AA missiles in any direction but that of the target. Any other direction requires the rocket motor to fight it's current momentum. Any state of the art ramjets in Meteors would have trouble decelerating from Mach speeds before accelerating to it's attack velocity.

“off-boresight” launch.

However, the latest missiles such as the ASRAAM use an “imaging” infra-red seeker which “sees” the target (much like a digital video camera), and can distinguish between an aircraft and a point heat source such as a flare. They also feature a very wide detection angle, so the attacking aircraft does not have to be pointing straight at the target for the missile to lock on. The pilot can use a helmet mounted sight (HMS) and target another aircraft by looking at it, and then firing. This is called “off-boresight” launch. For example, the Russian Su-27 is equipped with an infra-red search and track (IRST) system with laser rangefinder for its HMS-aimed missiles.
In order to maneuver sufficiently from a poor launch angle at short ranges to hit its target, missiles are now employing gas-dynamic flight control methods such as vectored thrust, which allow the missile to start turning “off the rail”, before its motor has accelerated it up to high enough speeds for its small aerodynamic surfaces to be useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-air_missile#Infrared_guidance

The AIM-9X Sidewinder, developed by Raytheon engineers, entered service in November 2003 with the USAF (lead platform is the F-15C; the USN lead platform is the F/A-18C) and is a substantial upgrade to the Sidewinder family featuring an imaging infrared focal plane array (FPA) seeker with claimed 90° off-boresight capability, compatibility with helmet-mounted displays such as the new U.S. Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, and a totally new three-dimensional thrust-vectoring control (TVC) system providing increased turn capability over traditional control surfaces. Utilizing the JHMCS, a pilot can point the AIM-9X missile's seeker and "lock on" by simply looking at a target, thereby increasing air combat effectiveness[7].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#AIM-9X

Avgas

South Africans also experimented in 1980s with helmet mounted point and shoot IR guided missile-their version of the Magic/Sidewinder..Darter.....they may have the claim to have been first in service...they also have had close links with Israeli's on various marks of Shafir/Python....this doesn't sound that new to me....and the bit about telepathics whatsyathingee..very dubious...hmmmmmm.......

Donny5

Everything stated there is solely about the limitations of the lenses used in IR guided weapons, like the short range sidewinder you mentioned. None of those restrictions apply to radar guided weapons, but you still don't launch them unless you are pointed in the right direction or you are burning propellant just to turn around.

If you think you have somehow rebuked me, you don't understand the argument.

BostonB

Donny5 wrote: »

Well, I don't accept your point about BVR. Maybe the current SOP for peacetime interceptions won't allow BVR weapons releases, which is fine, but war with another fighter-equipped nation will not have any such restrictions.

Modern conflicts don't have any air-to-air battles, either, but they don't design those capabilities out of the systems.....

BVR is a hard one to call. Because older wars the BVR wasn't reliable or wasn't available for various reasons. Recent conflicts like the Gulf war aren't a good guide because it very much a turkey shoot with severely disadvantaged opponents. Even then there were some dogfights...

19 January 1991
[edit]USAF F-15Cs vs. IRAF MiG-25s
In a brief dogfight, two F-15Cs shoot down two Iraqi MiG-15s attempting to engage them, both using AIM-7 missiles.[2]
[edit]RAF GR.1 Tornado vs. IRAF MiG-29
It has been claimed by some sources that a Tornado (ZA467) crewed by Gary Lennox and Adrian Weeks was shot down on 19 January by an Iraqi MiG-29 piloted by Jameel Sayhood[4] with a R-60MK missile, however this aircraft is officially recorded as having crashed on 22 January on a mission to Ar Rutbah.[5][6]
[edit]USAF F-15Cs vs. IRAF MiG-29s
Sayhood then continued his mission defending Iraqi airspace and came across two F-15Cs piloted by Captains Craig Underhill and Cesar Rodriguez. Underhill and Rodriguez were just pursuing another pair of MiG-29s when they spotted Sayhood and his wingman. Sayhood and his wingman promptly engaged the two American aircraft and one of the most dramatic dogfights of the Gulf War ensued. The two MiGs and F-15s flew straight at each other, each attempting to visually identify their aggressors. Underhill was facing Sayhood's wingman, while Sayhood himself was facing Rodriguez. Underhill fired an AIM-7 at Sayhood's wingman promptly hitting him head on killing him, at the same time this was happening, Rodriguez was locked up by Sayhood, throwing him onto the defensive. Rodriguez proceeded to dive down to the deck in order to clutter Sayhood's radar with ground clutter, hoping to shake the radar lock on his aircraft. However after seeing his wingman killed, Sayhood bugged out briefly. Rodriguez and Underhill started heading south for a tanker, when Sayhood began approaching them from the north. Rodriguez and Underhill turned around to face Sayhood. Underhill locked Sayhood up with an AIM-7, but didn't fire due to uncertainty of the contact's identity. Sayhood sliced into their formation causing a "classic merge". Underhill climbed, while keeping Sayhood locked up, while Rodriguez stayed committed to the merge in order to visually identify the aircraft as hostile. As they passed each other, rodriguez identified it as Iraqi, each pilot turned left to engage each other. Sayhood was relying on the MiGs better turning radius to get onto Rodriguez's tail. They slowly spiraled towards the ground until Sayhood attempted to pull out using a split-s. However Rodriguez didn't follow, and just before Sayhood managed to pull out, he crashed into the ground. He managed to eject from his MiG, however it is unknown if he survived.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engagements_of_the_Gulf_War

BostonB

Donny5 wrote: »

Everything stated there is solely about the limitations of the lenses used in IR guided weapons, like the short range sidewinder you mentioned. None of those restrictions apply to radar guided weapons, but you still don't launch them unless you are pointed in the right direction or you are burning propellant just to turn around.

If you think you have somehow rebuked me, you don't understand the argument.

I thought your point was you have to be pointed at the target aircraft and modern conflicts don't have air-to-air battles. Boresight angles of 90 degrees and dogfights and kills with AIM-9 Missiles seem to suggest otherwise.

If you don't agree then you'll have to be a little less cryptic if you are interested in a discussion on it. Saying I'm wrong doesn't really cut it.

BostonB

Avgas wrote: »

....and the bit about telepathics whatsyathingee..very dubious...hmmmmmm.......

I think that was artistic license.

Donny5

BostonB wrote: »

I thought your point was you have to be pointed at the target aircraft and modern conflicts don't have air-to-air battles. Boresight angles of 90 degrees and dogfights and kills with AIM-9 Missiles seem to suggest otherwise.

If you don't agree then you'll have to be a little less cryptic if you are interested in a discussion on it. Saying I'm wrong doesn't really cut it.

Well, the AIM-9 is a massive family of weapons, only one model of which, available since 2003, has the 90 degree off-boresight capability you mentioned. Still, it cannot be fired at targets behind the aircraft, and the biggest advantage offered by a wide sensory angle in an IR guided weapons is that it allows the missile to be fired at a greater angle in front of the aircraft.

All of which is beside the point, because none of these missiles can adjust their trajectory fast enough in short ranges to engage a target behind the aircraft efffectively and, with long range weapons, only in desperation would you not fire the weapon directly at the target, as the penalty of firing while facing away from the target is a massive loss of range.

Finally, the exerpt you posted is about the war in 1991, two decades ago, using technology no longer is service and one that did not involve any missile launches at all.

BostonB

It was simply to demonstrate the off-boresight use of Helmet-Mounted Target Designation, for those that asked. Its does exactly that. I didn't intend to get into a in depth discussion of practical use of the technology here and now with current technology, and weapons. I never said it could aim directly behind the aircraft.

As for the excerpt, if you have an example current air battle using all the current weapons please share it. Otherwise its just theory, in which case its useful to look at older conflicts. The excerpt demonstrates even where BVR is possible its not alway achievable and the fight degenerates to close in, dogfight. Theres other examples in the link.

The lessons of history, (especially of air warfare) would suggest, the theory often goes out the window as soon as the first shot is fired.

Victor

RobitTV wrote: »

New RAF helmet allows pilots to shoot down enemy jets by looking at them

Sorry, they'll still need a weapon.

This doesn't sound much better than what he Soviets had more than 20 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29

The Federation of American Scientists claims the MiG-29 is equal or better than the F-15C in some areas such as short aerial engagements because of the Helmet Mounted Weapons Sight (HMS) and better maneuverability at slow speeds.[47] This was demonstrated when MiG-29s of the Luftwaffe participated in joint DACT exercises with U.S. fighters.[48][49] The HMS was a great help, allowing the Germans to achieve a lock on any target the pilot could see within the missile field of view, including those almost 45 degrees off boresight.[50] In contrast, the U.S. aircraft were only able to lock onto targets in a narrow window directly in front of the aircraft’s nose. It was not until late 2003 that the USAF and US Navy achieved Initial Operational Capability of the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System.

Mahatma coat

Pedantic Semantics aside, one would presume that when these boffiny types say "hey, We'll give ya the capacity to fire Backwards" it means that they've developed/are developig some new Missile technology to do just that, the telekenisis thing tho, thats interestin, it does represent a Big leap forward with that 'Firefox' technology.

concussion

Forget the Daily Mail's blabbing about fire direction from the helmet, that technology has been in service for a while now. The big improvement with this system is the 'augmented reality' which allows information to be displayed to the pilot, in essence a 360 degree HUD in both elevation and traverse.

goldie fish

It's just "look down-shoot down" isn't it?

concussion

Looks like it, with the added benefit of being able to track the position of an aerial targets even when the pilots own aircraft is in the way. Whether short range AA missiles like ASRAAM are effective 'off-boresight' I don't know but this could be a big aid for manoeuvring into a traditional firing position behind aircraft or for evading AA missiles and SAM's.