Another helo vs the world thread (moved from helmets)

[phrogdriver]

Are we talking the ANVS HUD? If so, call me crazy. I was an NSI in the fleet, so I wore it A LOT. I'm an NSI in the reserves, and for my recert - I had to talk my instructor through it (even though I wasn't wearing it). TERF/NAV route? Money. Externals? Money. Cals? Not so much.

So for 2 of the 3 regimes you're describing, it's money? Doesn't that mean you mostly agree with me?

 

[RotorHead04]

Maybe this is a bigger/different issue, but why am I (or anyone else) wrong for doing a mission with a certain set of tools that might be different than how you do them (and still be within various SOPs)? More tools may not always mean better for everyone. I think this might be a corollary to what Lumpy was saying.

Never said you were wrong. (hence the "one man's garbage" quip) This is the same argument I was making for the Day HUD. I personally think a Day HUD is a great tool. Mission critical, no. But it complements the Night HUD, and so many people have fairly judged the Night HUD more distracting than helpful. I'm guessing if it was always part of your scan, regardless of day/night, it might be easier to adopt.

 

[RotorHead04]

hscs has it right, but the problem is that senior folks see the overland missions as a route to achieve parity with the jet guys (not that we would even come close) while the junior guys get all excited about joining the fight.

It always seemed to me that somewhere along the way we lost the ability to take pride in being good at the missions that big Navy actually wants us to do.

This. Though I don't think it is wrong to want to do SOMETHING, there is a time and place for us to shine. There are a few things that will have to change to enable that, and a tighter PMA focus is where I believe that needs to come from.

 

[busdriver]

Day HUD for anyone that may be interested. Yes, I blurred my face.
View attachment 10961

Holy shit that thing is huge! Does it head track?

This is what the A-10s are getting:

A head tracking HUD has enormous possibilities: displaying Link info, artificial depiction of terrain based on DTED data, artificial hover references for restricted vis approaches, display of FLIR imagery/slaving the FLIR to head movement, etc, etc, etc.

In short I really want one and will never see it.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Holy shit that thing is huge! Does it head track?

This is what the A-10s are getting:


A head tracking HUD has enormous possibilities: displaying Link info, artificial depiction of terrain based on DTED data, artificial hover references for restricted vis approaches, display of FLIR imagery/slaving the FLIR to head movement, etc, etc, etc.

In short I really want one and will never see it.

We were given the prototype to use and evaluate. They have since gone back to the manufacturer, I believe the production one is going to be much slimmer.

 

[insanebikerboy]

But if I had my choice, I'd rip them off once I was over the deck. I find them more of a hinderance over the deck. Other guys dig 'em over the deck. Neither one of us are wrong, it's just what works for each of us.

Both are wrong, just close your eyes on short final and listen to the crewman, when he says you're in the circle, bottom the collective.

60% of the time, it works all the time

 

[revan1013]

The day HUD at NHA was focused on brown-out landings that drew out a "highway in the sky" on the display. No idea how useful it'd actually be, but it got my attention. It was interesting to see the video of the aircraft demo'ing the HUD. The guy explaining it said they blacked out the flying pilot wearing the HUD (maybe a hood? not sure) and had a safety pilot in the left seat. They're certainly trying.

 

[usmarinemike]

I'm a stranger in a strange land here, but I need to ask, what is the plan to effectively employ forward firing guns or rockets without heads up weapons symbology? CCIP would be stupid easy without extra sensors since your target elevation will always be zero. Why resist a HUD so much? Especially a helmet mounted one? That's one rocking SA builder regardless of the flight profile.

 

[squorch2]

Both are wrong, just close your eyes on short final and listen to the crewman, when he says you're in the circle, bottom the collective.

Ah, the old "720 fpm" demo.

 

[phrogdriver]

That'll get you 2 or 3 landings for the price of one.

 

[RobLyman]

Ah, the old "720 fpm" demo.

LOL...the UH-60A/L/M has a 540 fpm limit. I really "surprised" a few IPs when I first landed the Blackhawk. That and the differences in tailwheel location (think fulcrum) makes landing the two aircraft a bit different.

Do any Navy guys fly both the S and the B,F, H or R?

 

[BACONATOR]

LOL...the UH-60A/L/M has a 540 fpm limit. I really "surprised" a few IPs when I first landed the Blackhawk. That and the differences in tailwheel location (think fulcrum) makes landing the two aircraft a bit different.

Do any Navy guys fly both the S and the B,F, H or R?

Yeah the S is 540fpm, too. Most recent NATOPS change.

 

[Renegade One]

It always seemed to me that somewhere along the way we lost the ability to take pride in being good at the missions that big Navy actually wants us to do.

I like your dedication to "being the best at what's most important"...and agree.

Aw, crap...I guess there's always a "however". After you've done that, no harm in devoting some time, talent and investment in working towards "what big Navy might need next". That's sort of a "one sentence history" of the development of the F-14 "Bombcat" capability. Times (and threat environments) change.

"Next best" to always being best at the big things is to try and be relevant in other things.

 

[bert]

LOL...the UH-60A/L/M has a 540 fpm limit. I really "surprised" a few IPs when I first landed the Blackhawk. That and the differences in tailwheel location (think fulcrum) makes landing the two aircraft a bit different.

Do any Navy guys fly both the S and the B,F, H or R?

A few of us (R and S for me). Honestly only the tactical quals should be different - they could easily have a single NATOPS qual.

 

[Gatordev]

Never said you were wrong. (hence the "one man's garbage" quip) This is the same argument I was making for the Day HUD. I personally think a Day HUD is a great tool. Mission critical, no. But it complements the Night HUD, and so many people have fairly judged the Night HUD more distracting than helpful. I'm guessing if it was always part of your scan, regardless of day/night, it might be easier to adopt.

Didn't mean for it to be directed specifically at you, just quoted your post. Sounds like for the various tools available/possibly available, we're on the same page.

I'm a stranger in a strange land here, but I need to ask, what is the plan to effectively employ forward firing guns or rockets without heads up weapons symbology? CCIP would be stupid easy without extra sensors since your target elevation will always be zero. Why resist a HUD so much? Especially a helmet mounted one? That's one rocking SA builder regardless of the flight profile.

I think one reason is that it's not necessarily a HUD as you're thinking of it or as the sexy pictures above show. The current NVG HUD is actually a monocle slid on to the end of the NVG tube with a fat cable going to a fat connector. Couple that with a display that, if the user gets carried away, can way to cluttered.

My opinion is that if you grew up with it, you become used to it and find it a valuable tool. If you didn't grow up with it, you may or may not find it useful. Either way, keeping the symbology down to a minimum seems to be a universal technique.