Pentagon Gets a Fix for F-35 Bug in $400,000 Pilot Helmets (bloomberg.com) 80
The U.S. military may have finally found a way to fix a glitch with the world's most high-tech helmet used by pilots flying the most expensive fighter jet in history. From a report: A bug in the $400,000 helmet display screen used by F-35 aviators caused a green glow when flying in very low-light conditions and is now expected to be overcome by using a different type of semiconductor illumination. The distracting green glow was deemed so critical that restrictions were imposed on some night landings on aircraft carriers, and the fault was classified as a "Priority One" fix by the Pentagon's test office. Jittery lines were also visible to some pilots. Defense giant Lockheed Martin has been contracted by the F-35 Joint Program Office for the redesign, modifying headpieces by installing new organic light-emitting diodes to replace traditional liquid crystal displays. "In partnership with the F-35 Joint Program Office and our U.S. Navy customer, we've been working to transition the helmet technology from a traditional LCD to an Organic LED system," Program Manager Jim Gigliotti said by email. Lockheed Martin did not provide a figure for the number of helmets requiring modification or the upgrade cost.
I should have listened to mom (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Just make sure you don't put OLED displays, all the static content is going to cause pixel burn in.
Re: I should have listened to mom (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Won't make much difference. OLEDs have a very finite lifespan anyway. Changing a $25 OLED every six months is no biggie.
(...assuming they design it so the screen is easily replaceable, but this is the military so they'll probably change the entire helmet, LOL!)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
but this is the military so they'll probably change the entire helmet, LOL!)
I was in the military, and almost everything was replaceable in a very satisfying way that isn't true with modern consumer products. On the other hand, the parts weren't cheap.
Re: (Score:1)
Won't make much difference. OLEDs have a very finite lifespan anyway. Changing a $25 OLED every six months is no biggie.
(...assuming they design it so the screen is easily replaceable, but this is the military so they'll probably change the entire helmet, LOL!)
if it is anything like other systems such as JHMCS in the Hornet it will be completely seperate and replaceable. Different vendors tend to make the hmd depending on the platform that I know of at least, as for helmets you'd generally find most fixed and rotory wing crew using Gentex of some kind.
Lowest bidder? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bottom line: They used cheap-ass LCDs with too much light leakage where the screen is supposed to be be black.
Re:Lowest bidder? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, when it comes to military contracts it's not "the lowest bidder" -- it's "the least high bidder".
You don't really think they pay $20,000 for a toilets seat do you?" :-)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the alternative is a complete technology change it's unlikely that "cheap-ass" is a problem in their $400000 helmet.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it a complete change? The display serial port can use the same interface as an LCD, any hardware differences will be internal to the module and so long as it fits power requirements there shouldn't be a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
so long as it fits power requirements there shouldn't be a problem.
If they want blacker black, then they should replace LCD with OLED, which uses less power. OLED uses 40-60% the power of an LCD.
Most likely they didn't go with OLED because the tech wasn't mature 20 years ago when the helmet was spec'ed. Military tech often lags COTS tech by decades.
Re:Lowest bidder? (Score:4, Funny)
>If they want blacker black
Dear diary.
Mood apathetic. I found a black that is blacker than my soul. It speaks to my darkness. My parents said I have enough black and won't get it for me. They don't know how tormented my black heart is living with them. If they won't let me have the blackest black that is blacker than any black I am going to sit in my room writing poetry. Black dark poetry. Like my soul.
Sincerely,
Angsty Airforce
Re:Lowest bidder? (Score:5, Informative)
You do understand that "Mill Spec" has a whole pile of requirements that come with it. Operating temperature range and storage temperature range come to mind as two biggies for OLED. Also the rate of temperature change can be VERY difficult for that kind of technology to meet. In this case, operating pressure altitude would also be a significant problem. Remember that these specs are cumulative, meaning they all apply, so you need to operate at high ambient temperatures at altitude. It gets pretty brutal for equipment.
And it's not just the military being picky here. There are some very good reasons you'd want these things to be tested to the extremes like this. The reason it takes years for technology to reach Mill Spec is that the manufacturing technology has to improve enough to get high enough yield of parts that meet the spec. Usually that means you build better parts, then de-rate their performance (like running a CPU's clock rate lower) until they meet the specs you need. OLED may not be good enough yet to do any of this.
Re: (Score:2)
OLEDs generally have a mich wider operating temperature than LCDs.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that "Mill Spec" has a whole pile of requirements that come with it. Operating temperature range and storage temperature range come to mind as two biggies for OLED.
Yeah, but a human being is wearing this on their head so I doubt the temperature range will be the -40 to +80 degrees Centigrade that tank engines have to work in.
Re: (Score:2)
You *do* understand how cold it is at 40,000 feet right? The standard laps rate says that if it's 70 on the ground, it's -50 at 40,000 feet. If it's zero on the ground in the winter, you get a balmy -120 at altitude. (Yea, I know the standard laps rate may not apply, but it's darn cold up there). Then you land at Death Valley, you go to +120 easy.
Yea, this thing may be on somebody's head but you want it to work with a hole in the windscreen at 40,000 feet with a 200 MPH cold breeze, all the way down to a
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they should. Are we not reading the same summary here?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it a complete change?
Yeah because there's no difference between LCD and OLED if the port at the bottom is the same right? Did you honestly write that post seriously or were you trying to be funny?
Re: (Score:3)
Retail cost is not necessarily an indicator of manufacturing component level quality.
and $400,000 each is simply inexcusable. I'm not expecting these to be in the sub $1000 consumer space, but even so, we should be talking at least an order of magnitude lower than we're seeing here (and probably 2 orders). Unfortunately, defence spending isn't really an open competition, there are a couple of select companies allowed to bid, and the decision is always more political than practical.
Re:Lowest bidder? (Score:5, Insightful)
congressman2: We'll put the manufacturing plant in your district
congressman1: These helmets are necessary to protect apple pie and baseball! If you don't approve the spending, you hate freedom!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> and $400,000 each is simple inexcusable
Not defending the price tag but each helmet is basically custom fit to a pilot [militarymachine.com]. Custom fit anything is going to be pricey.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That reminds me of the old space joke between NASA and SSSR.
"NASA spent billions designing a pen that would work in zero g while the Soviets used a pencil."
Setting aside the fact that the pen was developed independently by a private organization [wikipedia.org]. It glosses over the needs for that type of tool for the environment it will be used. A pencil is prone to flaking and breaking which is really bad to have floating around in zero g in a confined space like a probe or station.
As much as a padding insert sounds like
Re: Lowest bidder? (Score:2)
A pencil is prone to flaking and breaking which is really bad to have floating around in zero g in a confined space like a probe or station.
Apparently neither the vacuum tubes nor the borscht suffered ill effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently neither the vacuum tubes nor the borscht suffered ill effects.
Very early on, the Russians also switched to the Fischer Space Pen. They bought them on the open market, just like NASA did (presumably with a volume discount).
Re: (Score:1)
Whilst a padded insert might actually be the answer it's probably not that simple. A helmet that sits too far to one side will break the pilot's neck on ejection. Helmets in fast jets, especially complex ones like this one are very tricky to get right for the full anthropomorphic range.
Re: (Score:2)
The helmet isn't wider than the pilot's shoulders, and these are clearing the opening during ejection. Now, if these are inspired by Dark Helmet's size ratio, there might be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Wax pencils were used, not graphite pencils.
Re: Lowest bidder? (Score:2)
Mechanical pencils were already pretty common at the time and NASA started using them in the 1960. There was a controversy at the time when NASA got custom made mechanical pencils at over $100 per unit. The Russians used grease pens (like crayons but better).
The Fisher space pen was developed independently by a private company and they sold them to both NASA and the Russian space program for about $6 per unit. This was in range with good pens at the time.
Sources:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
https://hist [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Add a padding insert.
I actually know the answer to this one, not making anything up:
They have a special 3D scanner to scan your head to make that piece of foam. I'm guessing it's the scanner that costs millions, not the foam inserts.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of my clothing is custom fit as I don't seem to be the same shape stores are expecting, and none of it cost over $600. Now I'm not saying that's the same as a helmet, and I'm fully expecting costs in the thousands of dollars, but not hundreds of thousands.
Re: Lowest bidder? (Score:2)
I don't seem to be the same shape stores are expecting
Perhaps you need a sneed [justtegan.com].
Re: (Score:2)
> and $400,000 each is simple inexcusable
Not defending the price tag but each helmet is basically custom fit to a pilot [militarymachine.com]. Custom fit anything is going to be pricey.
Luis Vuitton is a complete ripoff business that only exists for rich people to show other rich people how much money they've got.
Even so I can get custom-tailored, hand-made Luis Vuitton shoes for only about $25,000. How much can a foam insert for a helmet really cost?
Re: (Score:2)
Custom fit anything is going to be pricey.
Yeah. But custom fit NFL helmets go for around $1500 each. I just don't see the custom fitting driving the price up to $400K each.
Re: (Score:2)
I can wrap my head around $100k at defense contractor pricing- it has many purposes beyond an arduino glued to a bike helmet with a display. ...but Wow!
Re: (Score:2)
In Navy, $400k wraps it's head around you!
Re: (Score:2)
This is not cost-plus pricing, it's "what the market will bear" pricing. There's a HUGE difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Retail cost is not necessarily an indicator of manufacturing component level quality. ... and $400,000 each is simply inexcusable.
The components are MIL Spec, which substantially reduces the choices and increases the costs. The latest LCD display at Best Buy might have darker darks, but you can't put it in a fighter plane. As for the $400,000 each, that includes all the R&D and software. The Best Buy LCD is made by the millions. There will only be 500 F35's built in total by the end of 2019. That makes the unit cost sky high.
Re: (Score:2)
Also factor in the number of units sold to the Navy. This isn't like Cisco manufacturing a router where they can spread the R&D costs across millions of units. The number of helmets made is probably on the order of the number planes built, which is around 500. Further, since these helmets need to be customized to the pilot, it's unlikely that they built them to stock, but rather, as they're needed. Throw on the specs the helmets must meet, the amount of testing that goes on, along with the technology us
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. When the thing costs 400K a piece already you'd think an extra maybe $100 for an LED display would have just been done without question given that absolute black is rather important when working in low light conditions frankly anywhere, nevermind where a pilots life could be on the line.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. Chinese night vision and OLEDs don't seem to have these problems. They are increasingly the 'go to' choice for civilian NV applications, the US products being too expensive and restricted by ITAR [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:1)
"Restricted by ITAR"
You know, because trrst, "THINK OF THE CHEEEEIIIILLLLLDREEEN!", and bad things behind every bush and under your bed,
Meanwhile China is eating our lunch. We keep lying to ourselves that we are the sole superpower in the world, by China has us by the balls and can easily kick our asses (both through the economy as well as weapons) it it wants to,
Re: Lowest bidder? (Score:2)
China has us by the balls and can easily kick our asses (both through the economy as well as weapons) it it wants to,
Not yet but definitely within a generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you're American, and only Americans are allowed to have things up their sleeves.
Re: (Score:3)
Upgrade (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know the old saying, if you buy cheap, you buy twice. They should've gone for quality instead of trying to cut corners and spend more than just 400 bucks on a hel...
Yeah, I said 400, why? That clearly MUST be a Euro style decimal point, nobody is stupid enough to pay 400 grand for a friggin' helmet, LOL!
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently there are a few people who are stupid enough put their pilots into their $100M plane with $400 helmets and expect them to complete their missions and return safely.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I said 400, why? That clearly MUST be a Euro style decimal point, nobody is stupid enough to pay 400 grand for a friggin' helmet, LOL!
Yeah they are. Supposedly with the F35 the helmet allows the pilot to essentially see through the aircraft itself. If you look down you see the ground/clouds instead of your lap and the cockpit floor, etc. It has a built in HUD and camera as well. That's going to run up costs. This isn't the helmet from Top Gun, it's closer to the helmets from the book Starship Troopers
Oh and remember, the F35 also had the issues with the oxygen supply as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should try to fix the fundamentals before going sci-fi.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should try to fix the fundamentals before going sci-fi.
What they should have done is just modernized, updated, and upgraded the A10 and F15/F16 airframes, or made more F-22s. Would have been much cheaper and given us much more combat ready aircraft. Of course, that wouldn't have driven massive pork projects for Congress critters or guaranteed nice post-military contracting careers for the officers in charge of the F35 acquisitions program.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that they didn't want to export the F-22 and they needed a new generation fighter that could be exported.
instead of trying to make one plane try and do everything as they have with the F-35 I think that they would have been better to try to make as many common components for a series of planes and then build custom components where needed. The components would all link together in the same manner, pass the same diagnostic information, and respond to the same commands. For example, there would be one
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like they are soon going to get an upgrade...to a $600,000 helmet.
Chump change in the grand scheme of things involved in F-35 procurement costs.
GREEN? (Score:2)
The fucking air force has for YEARS insisted on red or red-orange SPECIFICALLY due to night flying conditions.
Which fucking moron thought green was a good idea? Engaging photopic vision under scotopic conditions is fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
The fucking air force has for YEARS insisted on red or red-orange SPECIFICALLY due to night flying conditions.
Which fucking moron thought green was a good idea? Engaging photopic vision under scotopic conditions is fucking stupid.
Apparently the helmet has a built-in camera for night vision capability that is fed directly onto the helmet visor. I wonder if that's what was causing the green glow.
Re: (Score:1)
The funny thing is that the Army Human Engineering Lab (HEL) determined years ago that a lower level of white light illumination worked better than red light for protecting night vision.
I see (Score:2)
It was all just a typo, there was an 'O' missing in front of 'LED'
Corruption at its very best. (Score:2)
And of course this is all being done for free by Lockheed Martin out of the sweetness of their heart.
Re: (Score:2)
why would it be free, the standard old tech has better replacement. do you think Lockheed is running a charity for superpowers with budget deficits?
hardly a thing to do with corruption
Consider economy of scale.. (Score:2)
How Much Are These? (Score:2)
No surprise this is the cluster**** that it is.
Re: (Score:1)
But but but.....
The F-35 was supposed to replace: F-16, A-10 (Airforce), AV-8B (Marine Corps) and the F-18 (Navy).
One airframe to rule them all. Except that the AV-8B and A-10 useful lives have been extended. Reminds me of the F-111 fiasco, too many desktop (now computer gamers) people in control.
Re: (Score:2)
They mentioned how AF planes were female, while Navy planes were male for aerial refueling. Also, the Navy planes had massive landing gear for carrier landings, while AF planes didn't need to be built to that spec
If they weren't a military contracter (Score:3)
You sell me something defective for $400,000 and you're either giving me my money back or fixing it for free. Sell the government something defective for $400,000, and I'm sure they'll pay an extra $50,000 to have it fixed. What do they care? It's not their money.