Flight Blindness
Why F-35 pilots suddenly have the jitters.

BY R. JEFFREY SMITH AND THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY | JUNE 18, 2012

A host of problems plague the military's newest jet fighter, the F-35, but one of the simplest yet most troublesome is identified in a new government audit as unreadable "symbology."

The problem exists inside a small item at the heart of what makes the F-35 the world's most sophisticated aircraft –– if only it could be made to work. Namely, the pilot's helmet visor. On the world's most advanced, fifth-generation military aircraft, the visor is meant to be much more than a sun shield. It is supposed to do wondrous things.

Acting like a small, see-through movie screen, it is designed to display data showing how the plane is performing, where enemy targets are, and which weapons the pilot can use to handle them. As the pilot swivels his head, the display is meant to adapt, creating a direct link –– as in a science-fiction movie –– between the pilot and the aircraft's unprecedented computing power.

The visor is, according to the Government Accountability Office's latest annual report on the F-35's development, "integral to the mission systems architecture." In other words, the plane was more or less designed around the unique capabilities of that fancy helmet appendage.

Just one problem: It doesn't work. In flight tests, the visor's "symbology" has evidently been unreadable, because the plane itself has been bouncing up and down in the air more than expected. The effect is probably like trying to read an e-book while riding a bicycle along a boulder-strewn path.

"Display jitter," the GAO report says in a footnote, "is the undesired shaking of display, making symbology unreadable ... [due to] worse than expected vibrations, known as aircraft buffet."

Unfortunately for the plane's designers, jitter and buffeting are only part of the problems undermining the visor's use. The others are a persistent delay in displaying key sensor data –– making the visor symbols outdated as the aircraft streaks through the air at speeds up to 1,200 mph –– and an inability to show night vision readings properly.

So what's the big deal? It's just a visor. Well, the GAO report says "these shortfalls may lead to a helmet unable to fully meet warfighter requirements –– unsuitable for flight tasks and weapons delivery, as well as creating an unmanageable pilot workload, and may place limitations on the [F-35's] operational environment."

In short, if the visor doesn't work, the plane may not be able to do all the impressive things that the Pentagon is spending more than $1.5 trillion –– over the next 30 or so years –– to make it do. The GAO said this alarm was sounded by the program officials interviewed by its investigators.

A new visor is under development, at an estimated cost of just $80 million, so the Air Force may have a backup if the original visor's kinks cannot be worked out. But according to the GAO, the alternate visor won't be as capable. An Air Force spokesman did not respond to a request for comment, but DODBuzz.com quoted the F-35 program director in March as promising that the helmet troubles are "being addressed."

The director, Vice Adm. David Venlet, told a defense conference that the plane was just having "normal teething problems."

A few things went well for the F-35 program last year. A version being made for the Marines, capable of short takeoffs and landings, "performed better than expected" in flight tests. And the Air Force was able to double the number of test flights it performed the previous year. The volume of changes made to engineering drawings of the plane's components every month –– even while the plane is in early production –– has started to decline.

But there wasn't a lot of other good news in the report. Although the program was extensively restructured by senior Pentagon officials last year, by adding many millions of dollars and stretching out key deadlines, it still managed to meet only six of its eleven objectives for the period. Many of these goals were administrative. Among the uncompleted tasks: an interim upgrade of the plane's software and a redesign of its tailhook.

The plane has had no difficulty being launched by catapults, a key prerequisite for its use by the Navy aboard aircraft carriers. But so far, it has not been able to use its tailhook to catch a cable and stop suddenly –– which is also, well, crucial for operations on an aircraft carrier. Generally speaking, Navy pilots need a place to land when their missions are complete.

Venlet has called the tailhook troubles "a damping-bouncing issue" that could not have been foreseen. It is being redesigned, but the GAO warns that "other aircraft structural modifications may also be required." The discovery of cracks in the plane's bulkhead, an upright wall in its fuselage, will require costly repairs, and other parts are showing unexpectedly early signs of wear. Flight tests so far have shown "different structural loads than predicted," the GAO disclosed, a sure sign that unplanned work lies ahead. "Aircraft reliability and parts shortages" contributed to testing shortfalls last year.


continued at link

Quoted:
Nothing works well right out of the gate.

Nice thing about software problems and helmet problems is they don't have to rebuild the damned planes to fix them.

And what I've seen about that visor suggests that it really is a game changer.  It makes a holographic HUD look like a blindfold.

(I'd rather have more F-22's, but that's a different argument.)

Quoted:
So what's wrong with a HUD?

Quoted:
Ever look at an LCD alarm clock while brushing your teeth with an electric toothbrush?  Same principle applies.  The engineers were (are) morons.

Quoted:

That's my thought as well.  What, did they offshore this stuff to India or something?  How did the project leads not think this one through?  I'm certain that some of the juniors raised their hands and said "uhh, guys, planes shake..." and the seniors said "hush, little boys, your betters are talking."

But the issue should be surmountable.

Quoted:
(I'd rather have more F-22's, but that's a different argument.)

Quoted:
So what's wrong with a HUD?

Quoted:
$100 camcorders have anti-jitter tech, I have a feeling this can be fixed.

Quoted:

Camcorders don't travel at well above the speed of sound and through turbulence. The fact that the Air Force is spending $80 million developing a less capable back up visor doesn't exactly instill confidence that they are making progress on the problem.

Quoted:

Not after talking to my AF buddy that was very close to the program.

Quoted:

This is a problem that wants to be fixed so badly that it will be, no matter what.

Imagine having the same capability while sitting inside a tank, or in a submarine, or in an air traffic control tower.

Quoted:


Camcorders don't travel at well above the speed of sound and through turbulence. The fact that the Air Force is spending $80 million developing a less capable back up visor doesn't exactly instill confidence that they are making progress on the problem.

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Here's what all that actually looks like.  You can skip to 4:00 for the helmet-specific stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY

Quoted:


http://thisdistractedglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/boondock-saints-1999-willem-dafoe-pic-3.jpg

Quoted:

Another Pentagon Blunder / Money PIT !!! ????



Osprey , C5A Galaxy , Even the Apache to some degree .



We have to wait and see on this one I guess .



As my uncle would say about typical Big govt programs .... " A Money Burner "

Quoted:

So what's wrong with a HUD?

Quoted:
MK262 quotes a left-wing "think tank" to criticize the F35 program.  

I'm so shocked.

Quoted:
What I have always found fascinating, is that if they're willing to disclose this information on technology and finances, what top secret shit is going on that we won't hear about for another 10 years, and how much is that costing us?

Now excuse me while I go put on my tin-foil hat!

Quoted:

Not after talking to my AF buddy that was very close to the program.

Quoted:


"Left wing think tank"???

Again you prove you have no idea what you are talking about.

Quoted:

With the F-35's sensor/visor suite the pilot can "see" through the entire aircraft and cue the weapons systems.  It can fire missiles backwards!  I think this is also a night vision system as well.  It really is a game changer...if they can get it to work consistently...

Quoted:
$100 camcorders have anti-jitter tech, I have a feeling this can be fixed.

Quoted:


First, the F-22 is Lockheed Martin's baby.  However, Boeing was a prime contractor for the life support system, wings, and aft fuselage.

Second, the airplanes belong to the USAF.  The USAF works out its own operational problems, sometimes civilian contractors may be hired to aid.

The reason people bitch about these latest fighter airplane programs is the egregious cost and extraordinarily late schedules (which causes cost increases).  Not only are the airplanes years late, they are decades late to full operational capability with the ability to fly over hostile beaches.

We should all be amazed that our country has so much wealth that we can sponsor all these projects across DoD.  That doesn't mean we have to agree with the waste, and there's more than you can imagine if you aren't working in the industry.




Completely different concept.  The image in the helmet is integrated from sensors under windows scattered over the outside of the airplane, plus the instrument panel information that's needed.

The pilot sees the world around him as if he's flying in a transparent airplane.

Quoted:







Not 3 years. Lockheed had layouts and analysis of the airplane in 1958; they had a head start. But still, the point you're making is valid.

Quoted:


Additionally, you don't wear camorders on your head.  The head has much less vertical shock absorption than the arms.  The vibration transfer is immediate with a helmet.

Quoted:


The aircraft itself is top notch, the O2 supply is what is causing problems.