fake watches

Posted by: fake watches at August 23, 2008 01:53 AM

watches replica

Posted by: watches replica at August 23, 2008 01:51 AM

i for one welcome our fancy helmeted overlords.

Posted by: luke at May 20, 2008 07:59 AM

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 15, 2008 01:27 AM

This helmet made by jews.

Posted by: Dan Pasternak at March 25, 2008 01:47 PM

The F-35 uses 6 wide field of view sensors, infrared, to provide spherical coverage. Cameras are mounted externally and fixed. Helmet provides a small window of information from the sphere, so pilot can look through the rear of the aircraft to see where his wing man is, as an example.

Posted by: Mikie at November 23, 2007 11:11 AM

For those sayings just bandaid the F-15, i ask why? Building these planes provide more jobs which is good for america. The military budget might as well be making new equipment instead of fixing years old junk. Look at the humvee now. Instead of building a armored replacement for them(which they are doing now because they relized the trash they created) they produced these horrible vehicals covered in armor there chasis was never ment to hold. Have any of you driven these horrible uparmored humvees? The damn things have such a high center of gravity they will roll because of anything and i mean anything. Now think about trying to use a 70's designed airframe and throw super enignes in them and all kinds of other junk they were never designed for. It will produce the same results. Another good example would be the stupid french helicopter that they are testing that needs A/C to function. In another year there gonna find more that is wrong and so on. Fix the problem at the begining buy eliminating the issue at the designers level like the did by producing these new aircraft. Ignorance costs lives. So does being cheap.
On the point of flying with pilots in the plane VS a super UAV fighter. As long as there are huge waiting lists for piliots that want to fly these aircraft why would you want to take this from them? They know the risks. They are more than happy to take them. They all love their jobs with a passion a feeling that most wouldn't understand. Don't coddle people that don't want it. Im a soldier in iraq right now going on patrol everyday and interacting with the locals. I like my job and accept the dangers. I don't like being babied. Have a nice day

Posted by: thepittman at November 20, 2007 12:10 PM

Neat looking Gear. Maybe a cross between
a cat and Darth Vader.

To me this whole idea is like trying to ride
a Bicycle while wearing Binoculars your natural
senses go for a ball of......

Posted by: Francis at November 19, 2007 02:18 PM

We need to continue to have the edge over the world in tecnology. we will lead the way as a country represented by 160 nations. in order to secure freedom we have to lead with the most awesome tecnology we can muster. we need to be beyond reproach with our capabilities.
New designs will push the limit and secure peace in the world today and the future. I am a Army and Navy vet. we need to combine the forces we have into one unit for future missions. I am awe struck by the new gadgets that have come along. may these new designs continue to come along for the benifit of all mankind.

Posted by: Greg at November 18, 2007 10:00 PM

Mule. The quote misses one basic aspect of risk. LIFE is risky. You fall down in the shower? All over. You get in a billion dollar warplane with the coolest technogadgets and when you lose pressurization, or eat a duck at 500 knots, or flat forget what you are doing, you die anyhow. NO level of safety will ever be truly all consuming. There will always be risk. Minimizing those risks is critical to warfighting. That is what they do! These are not kamakazis! These men and women will not go a battalion at a time into the jaws of the waiting enemy. Foolish. So every level you can put between you and the enemy and still KILL the enemy is one level safer for my brother, your sister, and our loved ones. Nothing is ever truly safe, just safer.

Posted by: Marc at November 18, 2007 12:08 PM

"lets talk about press, could there be any more democratic a group?!"

Fuck NO! they're as democratic as Goebbels men were, they publish what the bosses on the top floor say to, and the bosses in turn do what the media owners tell them to.

Back on topic... cool toy. and as to ethics... alls fair in love and war as the saying goes. I'd rather shoot or stab an unsuspecting enemy in the back that have him face me with a rifle

Posted by: Rhys at November 17, 2007 01:53 AM

The helmet is great, but people have said its getting close to unethical to have such an edge over theyre enemy. What maddness is this? were taling about war here not some freakish game people die here. and they die hard and wanting to be anywhere but here the more edge on our enemys the better! there is no rules in love and war. I wont be happy with our techknowldgy untill I can push a button and my enemys fall dead. wheather the next step is UAVs or maned aircraft the more edge the better. there is no ethical layer protecting us from anhilation of some kind of warrior spirit, which im all for, until we can replace it! thanks for reading my rant.

Posted by: TheUkearchy at November 16, 2007 03:48 PM

....well,... neato! who cares about the cost its tax payers money, right? who should have the right to say what is defense budget or not... then again, what if that was your brilliant wha-toosy over the enemy/family member? the press.... lets talk about press, could there be any more democratic a group?!
people have comments on the HUD, lets hear them and not other matters like scraping planes or rebuilding them. This is about the new modern age of warfare adaptation and how to minimize friendly death and being able to send our troops home in one piece; forget about how to slam our government for trying to be safe with our military heroes!
I believe that what-ever the cost is negligble for saving human lives... our freedom comes first... long live the concepts to reality prototype. Have we forgotten what being a super power country has done for the world? Do we have problems? sure who doesnt, we are human!

(My two cents over the topics mentioned above that are way to the side of the cover story)

Posted by: johnny electric at November 16, 2007 12:22 PM

yeah, that Faolan USMC SGT has the right idea Quoted below). I used to just run up and bite them on the neck, but the spurting blood gets all over my glasses and I can't see squat after that. Nowadays I stand back and stick them with my bayonet. I guess when you factor in the tails to the teeth, you get the majority of troops over on the coward's side of the line.

Anyhow, it misses the point. The noise is about the toys, not the moral aspects of combat. Anyway you kill the enemy is the point of combat, not whether you meet him at high noon and both draw on three. It's fun focus on the toys, but that's all they are: cool tools.The time to worry about whether it's moral or not at the meeting where they read to you the entire UCMJ.

quote: [Second, the moral side. Reducing risk is one thing (that’s just being smart), but by removing it all together, you have removed a layer of checks and balances. By not having any risk, there is no need for intestinal fortitude. No warrior spirit. If you are not willing to risk your own life for something you believe in, you shouldn’t be doing it. Otherwise that’s cowardice.]

Posted by: mule at November 16, 2007 11:31 AM

Coolhand, I think you are missing the point. Consider the effort to re-wire a whole plane with fiber optics, of course you need more powerful computers, then more electrical and cooling systems, then you have to redesign the cockpit for the pilot....................................

Have we talked about stealth yet? RAM shaping...
Supermaneuverability - that will require a load of materials to strentghen the fuselage.

Are you starting to get the picture. Yes, we do upgrade our legacy aircraft, all the F-15Es are getting Active Electronically Scanned Array radars, but it only goes so far. At some point you need a new plane.

Posted by: wpnexp at November 16, 2007 10:53 AM

This is not a British technology and they are most certainly not the only country to get the F-35 (An American Plane). Are you seriously that foolish? The United States military is the most advanced military on earth, by and afar. I can tell you first hand that there is no other power that compares and because of that you have to realize that while we share technology with the British, we do not give them everything we've got. The more it's shared, the easier it is to fall into the wrong hands. Think of the bigger political, defense, and otherwise situation here.

Posted by: variabl3 at November 16, 2007 10:06 AM

My views and responses on the -
Helmet:
When the HUD was introduced, it was a huge leap forward. It kept the pilot’s eyes off the instrument panel. But the pilot is still slaved to looking through the HUD. Moving the HUD into the visor much like the Apache’s IHADSS eyepiece, gives the pilot that much more freedom and situational awareness. Now give him a digital glass airframe, and the freedom and situational awareness just grew exponentially. Now I’m sure they have given the pilot the option of switching between his raw eyesight and this digital overlay, I would find it hard to believe that it is a full time system as some of you have suggested. Which brings in the next subject.
UAVs:
It has been commented here that if the pilot is going to be looking through a remote display, then make it more remote. Like in a trailer thousands of miles away. I have two points to make.
First the technology side, if the most secure banks and government systems are capable of being broken into or tampered with, a relatively simple UAV encrypted broadband connection is not exempt. And then those uncontrollable UAVs have weapons on board as well. Even if all communications are down, a pilot still has, for the most part, direct control of his AC. And can still make a “college educated” decision on the spot.
Second, the moral side. Reducing risk is one thing (that’s just being smart), but by removing it all together, you have removed a layer of checks and balances. By not having any risk, there is no need for intestinal fortitude. No warrior spirit. If you are not willing to risk your own life for something you believe in, you shouldn’t be doing it. Otherwise that’s cowardice.
Airfame / Avionics / Powerplant upgrades to existing aircraft:
I work for a major American aircraft corporation doing exactly that. Taking a used and abused aircraft, stripping it down to bare bones and then retrofit it with more powerful engines, modern lightweight composite body panels, ditching the old 286 era computers and installing dual digital flight and fire control systems, dual ice cold ECS systems, added ALOT of armor around the pilots, switched from analog to (for the most part) glass cockpits, and added a complete radar system to an aircraft that never had one. And for way less than the now scraped replacement was gonna cost. Which most of the R&D from that project will make its way into the next retrofit of this particular aircraft in the next couple of years. And on top of that, brand new airframes now cost a third of what they used to (although I am not happy of Where the new airframes are being built).
So as far as stripping down, fixing airframe issues and retrofitting F-15s and F-16s with the technology that will be going into the F-22s and F-35, it’s a great idea. But don’t get me wrong the “Super -15s and -16s” wont come close to matching the performance of the -22 and -35, so I agree with whoever said to do the upgrades and use them as back up to the “tip of the spear” -22s and -35s.

Sorry for letting this get long, but sometimes you just gotta say whats on your mind.

Posted by: Faolan-SGT-USMC at November 16, 2007 09:06 AM

Like the design and the idea, however it looks (things don't have to look good to work well!)... and as to the F-15 arguement; have I missed something or aren't they nearly all grounded due to worried about structural problems? Putting vectored thrust on an airframe that has worries over it already, and was never designed for it, sounds like an expensive accident waiting to happen.

Posted by: Justin Key at November 14, 2007 06:11 AM

Can it see through chicks clothes¿?

Posted by: Greg at November 13, 2007 10:25 AM

1964-Navy Intruder had VDI (Visual Display Image)? , but in the helmet. What is the difference?

Posted by: Fain at November 13, 2007 09:38 AM

soooo, still, why not refit at least the avionics? You are right that the design might not lend itself to the "super cruise" design, however, the electronics would be a good retrofit. They did it with the E package, why not just take it a step further? Has the tooling to make new 15s been destroyed? Is it cheaper to make new 15s than new 22s? Just some thoughts. Using the 22s to gain air superiority/dominance, and then use the Strike Eagle to back them up, especially with the updated avionics suggested, would be a good "stop gap" measure as the 22s rosters begin to be filled.

Okay, so they have structural flaws...so did the F-18...wait...thats not such a good example...

Posted by: coolhand77 at November 12, 2007 10:32 PM

Whoa, now that's some serious Phillip K. Dick/Star Trek/X-Files shit right there!!!!

Posted by: Panda Bear at November 12, 2007 07:49 PM

Coolhand: Some will be easier, some harder. You can't just slap in "supercruise engines", because supercruise is part engine, part aerodynamic design. Once you start making major changes like this, might as well go to a whole new aircraft.

Posted by: Brian at November 12, 2007 07:44 PM

Just wondering, how hard is it to pull those old computer modules and retrofit EXISTING aircraft with the new sensors, computers, etc.? Just because the present computer is a "relic" doesn't mean you can't slap in a new one in half the weight and space perameters in the same aircraft.

Just a thought people. F-15 refit with new comps, super cruise engines/vectored thrust nozzles, etc. With the fleet grounded for airframe issues, now would be a good time to look into it...

Posted by: coolhand77 at November 12, 2007 11:07 AM

Re: Weight

Well, its actually in the December 2007 Popular Science Mag Pg 51. As one of the 100 best innovations of the year. And they say it only weighs around four pounds.

The website they link to is: www.vsi-hmcs.com

Posted by: Todd at November 11, 2007 12:46 PM

A-10 drivers & ground huggers would benefit a lot, if you could project a real time topographical overlay in the vid. As well as cues for the FEBA... or maybe even flight plans of other aircraft & FS missions (ie. artillery) could be shown... Dear Santa Clause. :)

Theoretically speaking, you wouldn't have to place the pilot on the nose of the aircraft anymore. He could sit dead center of the plane... but that would probably make him sick... which would be funny... unless you could buffer his rotation... ow, brain hurts.

Posted by: Camp at November 10, 2007 06:38 PM

Yes, yes, you're all correct. Let's not develop any new technology to give us and our allies and edge. You're right let's stick to 1970's technology of the f-15.
I would understand some of the arguments here, if it sounded like they came from anyone with some actual knowlege.
We'll scrap the program, let's not have any of our aircraft have look over and shoot over the shoulder capabilities. In fact, let's take the missiles off the F-35 and we'll just shove some M2 machine guns in the nose instead of a new radar. Maybe then some of you will be happy.

Posted by: steve at November 10, 2007 11:45 AM

RE: cameras on the underside of an airplane...
Even with just 'cameras' you still need a way to get the info to the pilot. As it happens the F-35 will use all of its sensor suite (including DAS and EOTS: 'cameras' if you will) to get info to the pilot in as straigtforward form as possible to allow the pilot to make decisions without having to interpret the display. See: http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/military/1145.html
RE: Helmet Weight
Not only weight but the distribution of the weight (i.e. mass properties) is critical. Which is why the program was very agressive in attacking that little feature: including already testing the helmet in ejection (sled) tests and in flight to +9 & -2 Gs (so far).

If you worry about the technology working at all, worry about roadblocks to progress EXTERNAL to the program. Right now I'm more concerned with Congress' misguided whacking of the CDP (development) phase of the program by (coincidentally-Not!) the same amount of money that Lockheed had unintentionally overbilled the gov't, and then repaid it when they found out what was happening a little while ago. Curious. I guess Lockmart's public humiliation and payment with interest wasn't enough. Congress really is the most excellent collection of petty prima donnas on the planet at times.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at November 10, 2007 10:45 AM

Fuck the f-35 & all the f-22?
do not replace the most fatal fighter in the world ever bulit by humans.

the F-15EAGLE

Posted by: morganberkut at November 10, 2007 09:48 AM

Having worked on the US version for helicopters. Shadow, LHX, Commache and the NASA Space Suit. Over 15 years ago. I can tell you, nothing new here.

Biggest problem with the Air Force helmets , WEIGHT.

Actually top ten problems, is WEIGHT!

Pull a couple of G's and that featherweight helmet weighs pounds. Crash and it'll break your neck.

Glass is heavy, plastic less so, but these guys are really really sensitive to weight.

Posted by: bob at November 10, 2007 09:23 AM

By the way, displaying planes that are visible through the cockpit window is not less difficult than displaying those under the aircraft... the sensor that feeds the screen has no knoledge of the window. AKA, once you display planes on the helmet, you can display them anwhere.

Posted by: MzK at November 10, 2007 03:56 AM

it's not brits only. all F-35s will have this system (all participating nations). it's developed by Vision Systems International, a company in San Jose, CA.

Posted by: G at November 10, 2007 01:41 AM

When pilots realize they can view internet p0rn through their helmets... I'm afraid, accident rates may increase. ;)

Posted by: Camp at November 10, 2007 12:57 AM

mattrmsf --
Yes, certainly I realize that jamming is an issue for a remote controlled system. Another, related objection would be that local optical fiber networks have an immense bandwidth advantage over radio links. Perhaps those are insurmountable problems; I don't know. But if they're not, I don't see how situational displays synthesized in the cockpit are any better than those synthesized in a remote control station.

Posted by: sglover at November 10, 2007 12:27 AM

mattrmsf --
Yes, certainly I realize that jamming is an issue for a remote controlled system. Another, related objection would be that local optical fiber networks have an immense bandwidth advantage over radio links. Perhaps those are insurmountable problems; I don't know. But if they're not, I don't see how situational displays synthesized in the cockpit are any better than those synthesized in a remote control station.

Posted by: sglover at November 10, 2007 12:25 AM

Now, did people put cameras on the underside of an airplane, and then when the pilot looks down, the system allows him to see through? That might be simpler.

Posted by: Benjamin Fan at November 9, 2007 09:59 PM

this is for the brits only i'm afraid. it's about time we got some funky toys of our own :-).
american/allied jsfs will have a glass floor instead ...

looks a bit like the independence day aliens exosuit heads tbh!

Posted by: elizzar at November 9, 2007 09:28 PM

I really doubt this'll work 100%. However if they get whole 'meta materials' (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002747.html) to work.. that'd be a better investment in time.

Posted by: Foreign.Boy at November 9, 2007 09:02 PM

Nicholas,

You could put something like this system into just about any aircraft, but you'd also have to install the avionics and sensors that feed it. The computers in the F-15E, F-16C/D, and F-18C/D are comparable in power to an 80286. They're adequate for driving 1980s-era synthetic aperture radar systems, but aren't up to running the advanced sensor fusion used in the F-22 or F-35.

Posted by: George Skinner at November 9, 2007 08:27 PM

Visualize flying through space in your plane, and wherever you look, you see what you need to see. More 'eyes-out' is a VERY good thing.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at November 9, 2007 08:18 PM

Just a thought, but UAV have to send the data miles if not thousands of miles so there is lag due to radio waves. An ifrared camera sending an image to your helmet by fiberoptic cable or even copper wire is likely to still be faster, less lag, than sending the same image to a satelite then back down to a ground station. If the sensors are so much more better than the enemy and the aircraft is so much more stealthy because it doesn't have to support life than maybe UAV could still be better, but it would have to be a few levels of technology better than the enemy.

Posted by: txzen at November 9, 2007 07:45 PM

"So why not do the synthesizing on the ground, from beamed raw data?"

The whole control from the ground thing bugs the hell out of me. Does anyone not realize that data beamed from the ground could be tampered with, jammed, or otherwise intercepted? Sure, there are no enemies now that can do it, but then we only had primacy of the A-bomb for five years as well. Keep the pilots in the planes, with hands on the controls.

Posted by: mattrmsf at November 9, 2007 07:45 PM

Apparently the DoD decided that they really needed more really cool lookin stuff. And they did a pretty good job of it.

Posted by: Pantera at November 9, 2007 07:29 PM

O dang, were can I buy one for a Cessna. Way to cool.

Posted by: 22lr at November 9, 2007 06:46 PM

Likewise, if it is necessary for manned pilots and so revolutionary, why can't you put it in an F16? Or, for COIN work, a Super Tucano?

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at November 9, 2007 05:22 PM

So this inspires a question to all those who insist that we really "need" this white elephant:

Whenever it's suggested that we ditch the F-22 and the JSF for UAV's, the counterargument is that nothing can match the presence of a human pilot on the scene. Now I suppose we can't be sure that this prototype helmet really will be part of the JSF system, but suppose it is, and suppose it actually lives up to the hype.

In that case, isn't the pilot very much like a UAV operator who happens to be sitting in his own aircraft? I mean, if the press release is to be believed, it sounds as though these pilots will be relying entirely on synthesized presentations of their environment. So why not do the synthesizing on the ground, from beamed raw data?

Posted by: sglover at November 9, 2007 05:16 PM

I love the whole concept of being able to see through one's own aircraft. Talk about an edge. Christian, do you have any idea what the price tag is on that beautiful peace of machinery? If I'm not mistaken, current helmets are already quite pricey.

Posted by: JRS at November 9, 2007 05:10 PM