Home » Air » Lockheed Pitches F-35 Helmet for Future Helos

Lockheed Pitches F-35 Helmet for Future Helos

by Brendan McGarry on May 7, 2014

Welsh_F-35_Helmet_Mounted_Display

NASHVILLE, Tennessee — Lockheed Martin Corp. brought one of its F-35 fighter jet simulators to an Army helicopter conference this week.

And the world’s largest defense contractor was itching to explain why: The aircraft’s so-called smart helmet display — which projects sensor data onto a visor rather than a cockpit display — could be adapted for use on future fleets of rotorcraft, company officials said.

Lockheed is making its pitch as the Army moves forward with the Joint Multi-Role, or JMR program to identify future helicopter designs. The research effort could eventually pave the way for a potential $100 billion Future Vertical Lift acquisition program to replace the service’s existing fleets of AH-64 Apaches and UH-60 Black Hawks.

“We want to use technology that the government and Lockheed Martin have spent billions of dollars developing,” Ed Whalen, who heads up rotary business development at Lockheed, said on Tuesday at the Army Aviation Association of America’s annual conference, known as Quad A.

“We’re not trying to sell the F-35 to the Army — that doesn’t make any sense,” he added. “But the sensor fusion that the F-35 program has developed is tops. There’s nothing better … That can be ported over into JMR.”

During the conference, the company showed off the simulator to such leaders as Lt. Gen. James Barclay, deputy chief of staff for financial management, and Brig. Gen. Robert Marion, who heads up the Army’s aviation acquisition office, Whalen said.

F-35_simulator

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons systems, estimated to cost $400 billion to develop and build 2,457 aircraft for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

The Helmet Mounted Display System costs about $500,000 apiece and is made by Rockwell Collins Inc. It’s designed to provide pilots with 360-degree situational awareness in any kind of weather, day or night. The jet’s distributed aperture system streams real-time imagery from cameras and sensors mounted around the aircraft to the helmet, allowing pilot’s to “see through” windowless parts of the cockpit.

While development of the technology “has posed significant challenges,” the Defense Department has worked with Lockheed over the past two years to identify fixes, Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the program office, said in October after the Pentagon canceled development of an alternative helmet made by BAE Systems Plc.

But it still has bugs. When a news team from the CBS News program, “60 Minutes,” visited the Marine Corps station in Yuma, Ariz., a helmet malfunction caused a scheduled flight to be scrubbed, according to a Feb. 16 segment about the plane.

F-35 pilots currently use the program’s second-generation helmet. A third-generation helmet is designed in part to correct minor technical issues and is expected to be ready in 2016.

Share |

{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }

Lance Brown May 7, 2014 at 5:32 pm

Last two things we need more crap from this billion dollar boondoggle ending up on current weapons. Two we don't need more computerized crap on top of every pilots head while flying. Let the man fly quit strapping PCs on every corner of his/her body.

Reply

Atomic Walrus May 7, 2014 at 6:10 pm

"I don't need no stinkin' artificial horizon to tell me how I'm flying! My eyes are just fine!" – anonymous biplane pilot circa 1920 (probably prior to crashing in poor weather.)

Reply

Wolf May 7, 2014 at 9:48 pm

They already used the money better to use it, humans can only do so much till they become useless. I’m not going to say wether it affects the pilot badly or not but it’s only a matter of time. Otherwise your obsolete when war does come, there’s only so much you can do then.

Reply

tmb2 May 8, 2014 at 4:45 am

The Apache already flies with a monocle over the eye of the pilot which feeds him navigation and targeting data. He flies visually with the other eye. It's a difficult skill to learn but "PCs on every corner of his body" isn't anything new.

Reply

BlackOwl18E May 7, 2014 at 5:59 pm

Right… because the that helmet design has been working so great for the F-35…

Reply

Atomic Walrus May 7, 2014 at 6:14 pm

Betting against engineers fixing issues in electronic devices is a pretty bad bet. All reports indicate that they've made a lot of progress resolving issues with jitter and integration of night vision. Assuming they get that done, why wouldn't you want to introduce the F-35 capability in an aircraft like the F-18E? You've been pretty vocal about what you see as the F-35's kinematic shortcomings. This would take what's touted by F-35 advocates as one of its key advantages and port it to other platforms.

Reply

BlackOwl18E May 8, 2014 at 11:53 am

"Betting against engineers fixing issues in electronic devices is a pretty bad bet."

Unless you're betting against the F-35. Just so you know, I've been betting against engineers fixing the F-35 and the jet meeting its deadlines for three years now and I've been dead accurate so far.

The basis of the Super Hornet is that it only uses technology that has been proven to work and has all of its kinks worked out. The JHMCS on the Super Hornet is good enough and that's all that matters. If they actually fix the advanced helmet, sure let's put it on the Super Hornet. If it never lives up to expectations or simply doesn't meet its requirements, send it back to development, do anything with it, but DO NOT put it into production. That's where the F-35 went wrong. There are some ways of fixing the F-35 that the engineers simply can't use because the jet is already in production and it will cost an obscene amount to change the production line. Concurrency has doomed the F-35 to never being what it was meant to be and a corrupt system of bribes and jobs promises are the only thing keeping this thing alive.

Reply

Greg May 8, 2014 at 1:25 pm

Ever project is late now. I feel we have given up too much already with canceled projects. This is too far along. They should have seen this coming from the F-22.

I’m not saying our legacy fighters aren’t good enough. I’m saying if we want to stay the best then we have to keep pushing the envelope. Since we have a large legacy force we can at a tactical level afford to mature our future technologies so that we maintain a qualities edge in engineers.

This would be a moot point in my opinion if we didn’t waste resources in Iraq for sketchy reasons, and we wouldn’t be talking about the costs.

Ultimately I think not would be nice of they completed this. I also think we may see an f-22b based upon the technology. The computers which are proving so difficult now will make it much more powerful in the future. I think you don’t understand the importance moving the code over to x86 from MIPS and RISK instruction set. Ultimately they will be able to virtualize the applications which will allow for more robust high availability. You will be able move important systems to any node, and have more power to run it then before. Let’s face it my quad core wilith hyper threading core 7i macbook probably has more procession power then any legacy craft. In the end integration into universal platforms and tools become possible.

Reply

Atomic Walrus May 8, 2014 at 2:12 pm

All that proven technology on the F-18E had to be developed, and suffered from bugs as well. To cite 3 examples from the development of the F-18: the multilayer circuit board technology needed to make the avionics work required years of extra effort to become reliable; the flight control software had problems that led to the crash of a development aircraft and required an extra year of work to resolve; and there was a problem with vortex shedding off the LEX that caused cracking of the vertical stabilizers. If you're working with new technology, you're going to have to work out problems. If the F-18 designers had stuck to existing technology, you'd have an analog air data computer coupled to a limited stability augmentation system, plus a cockpit designed around analog gauges. Concurrency is a red herring when you're talking about software problems.

Reply

BlackOwl18E May 8, 2014 at 6:04 pm

Congress just added 5 more EA-18G Growlers to the 2015 budget!!! I'm so happy I don't care about continuing this argument anymore!!! You can go sky dive without a parachute for all I care!!!

Red May 9, 2014 at 8:45 am

Has BlackOwl ever written any comment that wasn't anti-F-35?

Reply

ChuckL May 13, 2014 at 4:54 pm

If he hasn't, I like him.
If the money that was wasted on the F-35 had been used instead on the F-22, we would now have a decent air defense force with great capability.
Air Power Australia has on their website a great replacement for the F-14 by minor changes in the F-22. that involve making it capable of carrier operation.

Reply

William_C1 May 14, 2014 at 5:04 pm

Out of all of APA's wacky ideas the "navalized" F-22 one is by far the most crazy. Navalizing an aircraft for sustained carrier operations is not that easy.

Reply

Brian B. Mulholland May 7, 2014 at 8:12 pm

Something like this helmet, and the sensor fusion and distributed aperture system it supports, is probably going to be a standard part of almost everything bigger than a Raven UAV from this point forward. I can't see a midlife refit of the F-22, or a new strategic bomber, or even a third-generation F-18 (if that happens) that wouldn't benefit. The engineers will make it work. It will take three times longer than was promised and will cost five times as much as promised and the performance requirements will be discreetly reduced to help Lockheed out. That's why K Street spends as much as it does. In the end, this is going to be an asset that the AF and Army will seek to use in every manned airframe they operate in war, from now to forever.

And the next generation tank, the M-2 or M-20 or whatever, will probably use something of the sort too. Gentlemen, any wagers? I'll put up a floating 5 1/4" Bomber that hasn't been fished yet.

Reply

Brian May 8, 2014 at 8:23 am

We should give an Oculus Rift to every high school student in ROTC.

Reply

hibeam May 7, 2014 at 8:39 pm

What's up with the Vulcan mind meld? This helmet needs a tin foil liner.

Reply

joe May 7, 2014 at 8:51 pm

I'm guessing that instead of fixing all the problems they lowered the expectations of the helmet. Classic bate and switch.

Reply

Dylan May 8, 2014 at 10:54 am

Never heard of bate and switch. Bait and switch, however, seems to ring a bell! Maybe if you had some sort of helmet to let you see through your hands to the keyboard, and feed you critical spelling information as you typed poor comments?

Reply

Brian B. Mulholland May 11, 2014 at 2:18 pm

His spelling might be a bit off, but his point is well made. Lowering the performance requirements for the helmet and the entire sensor-fusion system would be easy to do, since no one outside a closed community knows what those requirements are in the first place. The AF has had to admit to reduced requirements for transonic acceleration, etc., already; why not this too?

Reply

Dylan May 12, 2014 at 6:48 am

Reduced requirements would be hidden, as you say…as would requirements creep that has killed off several major acquisitions projects and bloated the cost of others beyond recognition. Whatever the negative attitude towards the F-35, (and however well deserved it may be), the capabilities of that type of helmet are essential for the future of manned aviation, and Lockheed throwing their hat in the ring can only be a good thing.

Reply

Brian B. Mulholland May 12, 2014 at 7:43 pm

Can't disagree with you there. High-order integration of multiple sensors might be almost as dramatic as stealth, as an advantage, if we have a useful window in deploying it.

As for Lockheed, my major concern is that their initial entry into this not become an edge that bars NG from forthcoming competitions for the strategic bomber (by whatever name) and the next-generation strike fighter that Boeing is yearning to build for the Navy, once the Navy is talked out of the F-35 and into an interim build of F-18s. If I were king tomorrow I'd bar L-M from either project, on the theory that they simply don't have the software engineering capacity to take on more than one project capacity. They'll get rich enough on the F-35, and then on the midlife reworking of the F-22.

Big-Dean May 8, 2014 at 1:29 am

and Lockhead PROMISES that this new helmet will come under $1.2 million each and it SHOULD be ready by 2047 and it be ALL things to every pilot and it's going to be gen 4+ and it's going to be…..blah blah blah

Now if they could only get the 6 billion lines of, outsourced to India, code to work properly….

Reply

TPCAT May 8, 2014 at 7:53 am

$500,000 a piece??? It's just plain unreal …

Reply

LB71 May 8, 2014 at 1:33 pm

But does the helmet actually protect the pilot's head?

Reply

John Fourquet May 8, 2014 at 9:35 am

Yes, let Lockheed screw up army aviation too.

Reply

mule May 8, 2014 at 12:27 pm

This system isn't just the helmet. To make that thing work, there are a bunch of sensors that would need to be added to the helicopter and computing power needed to process, or "fuse", all that data. Building and producing a brand-new, clean-sheet helicopter is hard enough. The helmet/sensor suite can be added in a block upgrade if it proves itself on the F-35.

Reply

peters May 8, 2014 at 12:32 pm

Okay, now we know a 10 million dollar LM Stealth Army helicopter proposal is in the works. And when it's approved and half-complete, the price tag will be around 80 million per copy.

And the idiots who have been cheering for the F-35 and F-22 will be there BS'ing about why it's a good deal and why the already insolvent US needed it to fight "terrorists"

Reply

ChuckL May 13, 2014 at 5:00 pm

There is a major fallacy in the pricing system of military procurement. Design, develpment, and production are integrated, and developmnets that are multi-use are not properly accounted for.

Reply

wtpworrier May 8, 2014 at 2:31 pm

I thought our gun ships already have smart helmets.

Reply

Atomic Walrus May 8, 2014 at 5:25 pm

They've got a helmet-mounted sight based on late '70s technology. Apparently it requires a great deal of practice to get used to it (according to a British book called "Apache", anyway) Comparing it with the F-35 helmet is kind of like comparing a Motorola STARTAC to an Apple iPhone 5.

Reply

Dylan May 9, 2014 at 1:33 pm

A more direct comparison might be the old Nintendo VirtualBoy versus the Oculus Rift. Imagine the canyon-sized leap in capability this helmet would represent to chopper pilots flying at low levels and in low light environments. Next-gen helicopter project is one to watch!

Reply

Mitch S. May 8, 2014 at 4:57 pm

It would be great if they get the helmet system working, but I still have a feeling the taxpayers are getting a helmet jammed up their aperture.

Reply

outthere May 8, 2014 at 5:45 pm

A better system has already been developed and costs 1/4 as much. State of the art and on 3 weapons systems.

Reply

check May 9, 2014 at 5:22 pm

$500,000 – what if you drop it getting out the plane?

Reply

JRL May 26, 2014 at 4:59 pm

You use a 25¢* 9mm bullet to shoot yourself.

*Civilian retail cost. $25 when acquired in bulk via DOD procurement practice…

Reply

William_C1 May 10, 2014 at 12:48 am

How mature.

Reply

BlackOwl18E May 10, 2014 at 12:59 am

You can sky dive with him, William!

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: