How does the Eurofighter Helmet Mounted Sight compare to US and Rafale systems?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 150

Looking at the Eurofighter helmet mounted sight how does it compare to say the JHCMS that is mounted on a range of US platforms and how does it compare to say the Gerfaut system mounted on the Rafale?

What are the key differences between the systems?

Mowers

Original post

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 5,707

Looking at the Eurofighter helmet mounted sight how does it compare to say the JHCMS that is mounted on a range of US platforms and how does it compare to say the Gerfaut system mounted on the Rafale?

What are the key differences between the systems?

Mowers

Well seeing as Gerfaut is not mounted on the Rafale it compares quite favorably in that department.:p

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 150

Well seeing as Gerfaut is not mounted on the Rafale it compares quite favorably in that department.:p

Are you sure sealordlawrence? Its just that the sagem website if full of information claiming that they do provide the Gerfaut for the Rafale? Plus here is an interview that went out in all the Paris air show dailys where Sagem were interviewed and claim, at length, they do infact provide the Gerfaut.

If I am wrong I would be really pleased for any information you might have as this is not an area that I am particularly strong on.

Thanks again
Mowers

http://www.parisairshow2005.com/en/i_1606_1.php

Thursday June 16
Gerfaut helmet-mounted display for Rafale: 3 questions for Jean-Christophe Mugler, from Sagem Défense Sécurité

Sagem Défense Sécurité’s Gerfaut helmet-mounted display was chosen for Rafale air force and navy fighters in 2003. The innovative technologies incorporated in the Gerfault will give Rafale pilots a real advantage in aerial combat. We talked to Jean-Christophe Mugler, deputy director of the military equipment department at Sagem Défense Sécurité.

What exactly does a helmet-mounted display do?

A helmet-mounted display, or HMD, considerably increases a fighter’s offensive capabilities, since it allows the pilot to designate a target by simply looking at it, thus directing the air-to-air missile’s sensors and seeker. It goes far beyond the field-of-view covered by a conventional head-up display, without any other limit than the pilot’s ability to turn his head under G loads. Of course, the helmet continues to provide physiological protection, and it can also be used to designate ground targets, by displaying geo-referenced points, or by pre-pointing the sensors. The visor is specially treated to display flight and fire control symbology.

What are some of the technical features of the Gerfaut HMD?

Sagem Défense Sécurité won this contract because it had the most innovative solutions, along with timely technology breakthroughs, especially in terms of miniature flat-panel displays and image processing. The Gerfaut uses optronic position detection, which is much easier than the electromagnetic detection devices used previously. The system determines which way the pilot is looking by a precise analysis of the helmet’s movements, using miniature cameras. The Gerfaut system’s electronics are calibrated once and for all during manufacture of the airplane. Each pilot has his own personalized helmet, and can subsequently use it without any restrictions, and without having to worry about the heavy electromagnetic environment inside the cockpit.

Where does the program stand today?

A total of 336 Gerfaut HMDs have been ordered for all French air force Rafale pilots, in the F3 version. This same standard is on offer in export markets. We signed the contract in 2004, and the helmet is now being integrated, for delivery to test pilots in early 2006. Production should start in 2007.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 1,498

Thank you mowers.

But the problem is that finally, the Gerfaut has been dropped, will not equip the Rafale F3, and yet has to be (re)ordered for later batches.
And according to latest news :
-the Thales Topsight-E (or Topowl-F) may replace it for France
-for export, an israeli solution may be prefered...
That's all i can tell you, sorry. It seems that the DGA (délégation générale pour l'armement) has a problem with Sagem, but i don't really know.

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 150

Thank you mowers.

But the problem is that finally, the Gerfaut has been dropped, will not equip the Rafale F3, and yet has to be (re)ordered for later batches.
And according to latest news :
-the Thales Topsight-E (or Topowl-F) may replace it for France
-for export, an israeli solution may be prefered...
That's all i can tell you, sorry. It seems that the DGA (délégation générale pour l'armement) has a problem with Sagem, but i don't really know.

Thank you, that was facinating.

So Topsight-E may replace Gerfaut? Do you know what factors will determine this?

Is Topsight-E ready to go as a system? Or would it require further development to integrate it into the Rafale?

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 1,498

The Topsight-E (i think Topowl-F is its new name) is ready to go with some Mirage 2000 and integrated on indian MiG-29K.
But it would still need some integration work for the Rafale. (sorry, sometime i really wonder if my grammar is good or not :D :D :D )

Do you know what factors will determine this?

I have no idea.
The only official fact is that the Rafale F3 won't get its helmet mounted sight system as it was previously planned (for 2008). The helmet has been dropped, and hasn't been ordered at all up to now. It should happen, but simply not yet.
And in a book published recently, the Topsight-E/Topowl-F was referred as being the Rafale's HMS, instead of the Gerfaut. Maybe the author of this book wrote a mistake, and this is why i wrote "may replace". ;)

I'm afraid we won't hear about the HMS on Rafale until an export customer ask for it. :confused:

Pictures here :
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1130817&postcount=786
I think that the Topsight-E and the Topowl-F are actually the same :
Thales' Topowl-F

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 150

The Topsight-E (i think Topowl-F is its new name) is ready to go with some Mirage 2000 and integrated on indian MiG-29K.
But it would still need some integration work for the Rafale. (sorry, sometime i really wonder if my grammar is good or not :D :D :D )

I have no idea.
The only official fact is that the Rafale F3 won't get its helmet mounted sight system as it was previously planned (for 2008). The helmet has been dropped, and hasn't been ordered at all up to now. It should happen, but simply not yet.
And in a book published recently, the Topsight-E/Topowl-F was referred as being the Rafale's HMS, instead of the Gerfaut. Maybe the author of this book wrote a mistake, and this is why i wrote "may replace". ;)

I'm afraid we won't hear about the HMS on Rafale until an export customer ask for it. :confused:

Pictures here :
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1130817&postcount=786
I think that the Topsight-E and the Topowl-F are actually the same :
Thales' Topowl-F

Great. So Gerfaut is definitely dead then and the Rafale wont be getting a head mounted EO sight any time in the foreseeable future.

Has any funding been allocated to put Topsight-E on French Mirage 2000's? Or is there a date suggested for the addition of Topsight-E on French Mirage 2000's?

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 371

Well ... some people say that the HMS are not that usefull in the very latest planes with a good "god eyes" 360° situation awarness.
I-e: when you can shoot behind the shoulder on a target given by any vector's data (another plane of the patrol, AWACS, ground radar ...)

Remember that the F22 doesn't have a HMS either.

But maybe people who say that just try to hide their disapointment :p

SAGEM is clearly in the line of fire of the DGA lately. The 2 years delays of the AASM, the problems of the 3-5 µ IR way of the OSF, the Gerfaut....

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 2,357

Even a simple helmet mounted cueing system is more useful than not having one, not just for air-to-air but for air-to-ground missions as well.

But then if your chosen helmet solution doesn't work, or is dropped for budgetary reasons, you're almost bound to justify the decision by pretending that it "wasn't useful anyway."

Member for

19 years 3 months

Posts: 1,877

IAF may order more Topsight-Es for its Mirage-2000H/TH upgrade program and like mentioned here already, the MiG-29K is TopOwl-F qualified.

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 150

So without going too far off topic.

With Gerfaut out of the way is the Eurofighter helmet equivalent to the JHMCS?

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 371

The Topsight is also mounted in the Malaysian SU30 MKM if i'm not mistaken (nice beast BTW ... the SU30 MKM i mean)

But then if your chosen helmet solution doesn't work, or is dropped for budgetary reasons, you're almost bound to justify the decision by pretending that it "wasn't useful anyway."

Certainly. In another hand, having the Topsight as backup, the DGA nevertheless prefered to make a non-planed spending to equip all Mirage 2000D and N with L16 which means something concerning priorities.

The Topsight-E is available anyway. And the gerfaut is maybe not buried yet...

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 1,498

But then if your chosen helmet solution doesn't work, or is dropped for budgetary reasons, you're almost bound to justify the decision by pretending that it "wasn't useful anyway."

It sounds obvious, but when asked about the lack of such an helmet, Rafale pilots' concerns are more about the fact that they loose the navigation data when they don't look straight in front of them (HUD). Why ? Because in modern conflicts, for AdA, there are not many "opportunity" targets, due to RoE, that would be treated better with an HMS. L16 is enough. And HMS isn't a priority.

Member for

16 years 8 months

Posts: 959

Gerfaut was a Denel system, was it not?

Not sure how it would compare to JHMCS but if I remember rightly they were similar in design capabilities. JHMCS is much the same as a later DASH helmet in capability, but designed to US usability specs (and it has a removable module rather than being an integrated helmet design).

The EF helmet is designed to do more because it has provision for night-vision on the sides of the helmet - but it does look clunky that way.

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 2,357

Typhoon will have a full Helmet Mounted Display, not just a cueing system.

TMor, You're swallowing apologist's propaganda. It's UTTER nonsense. Even a simple HMSS is better than not having one, as the RAF's Jag force found out. For air-to-ground as much as for air-to-air.

NOTHING IS QUICKER THAN LOOKING AT A POINT OF INTEREST TO LOAD IT INTO YOUR SYSTEM.

NOTHING is quicker than looking at a target to fire a weapon at it. Even if it's within your HUD!

“The Jaguar’s combination of a Helmet Mounted Sighting System (HMSS) with the IDM (Improved Data Modem) data-link provided the aircraft’s most useful and unique capability.

The helmet was even more useful in the air-ground role than for designating off-boresight targets for AAMs (a capability which saw Flight Lieutenant Jim Luke ‘down’ a Rafale during a recent NATO TLP exercise). Using the helmet made it much quicker to find a target, and to accurately determine its position.

With a known target position, the pilot simply plugs the coordinates into the navigation system, and then follows the HMS cueing to get ‘eyes-on’ to a target, confirming with the FAC that he is looking at the right target. Medium-level CAS used to take upwards of 20 minutes trying to get ‘eyes-on’, depending upon the terrain and the FAC’s ability to describe the target. It still does for every other air-to-ground platform. I estimate that we are typically hot on target in under 5 minutes. No one else can do that. During recent exercises in the UAE the Jaguars proved able to find a target and strike it with four aircraft within three minutes – something that might take more than five times as long with a formation of Harriers or Tornados.”

Alternatively a Jaguar pilot could search for targets of opportunity, targets of unknown location or Time Sensitive Targets and, once found, instantly generate accurate coordinates using the HMS sightline, loading the co-ordinates into the nav attack system with a single stick-top button press, with no need to overfly the target or to point the aircraft’s nose at the target (‘nose-point’) to position it in the head up display. This meant that the aircraft could remain non-escalatory (not pointing directly at the intended target), avoiding warning the enemy, and avoiding having to dive and risk exposure to enemy MANPADS. The alternative, of using TIALD or Litening to locate and fix a target is much more long-winded, searching for the target via the pod’s much smaller field of view.

Target coordinates generated via the HMSS sightline could then be transmitted to the rest of the formation, or to a Forward Air Controller on the ground, via the datalink, allowing much more rapid engagement of time sensitive targets.

Receiving aircraft get a HUD message, make 2 stick top selections to view it on the AMLCD and can then, with one single button press, drop the coordinates into the IN and simultaneously send an ‘accept’ message back to the leader. Two further stick-top selections bring up steering to the target and weapon aiming."

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 150

anyone have any information on the JSF helmet mounted system and how this compares?

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 2,297

Jack- if thats your work, thats a fine piece of writing, that is.

Its a darn credit to have you onboard at AFM even if we are debating. :)

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 1,498

TMor, You're swallowing apologist's propaganda. It's UTTER nonsense.

:rolleyes:
If you had understood what i wrote, if you had only an idea of where it comes from, my friend, 'old chum', i'm sure you would feel sorry for having used those words.
I wish you sweet dreams Jack.;)
Nice article though.

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 2,357

You could usefully categorise helmet sights by 'generation'.

MiG-29/Su-27 etc.: FIRST GENERATION - basically a simple cueing system that tells the missile seeker where to look.

Jaguar HMSS, JHMCS: SECOND GENERATION - Still monocular, but with expanded symbology, allowing the helmet to tell the pilot where to look, as well as allowing the pilot to tell missile seekers (or the LDP) where to look or to update the nav kit using the helmet sightline.

Typhoon (Striker)/Gripen (Cobra): THIRD GENERATION - Binocular, with full raster and cursive (virtual HUD) symbology, night vision, video imagery from sensors, often with laser eye protection, etc. Lower latency, higher accuracy head tracking, etc.

F-35: Will be FOURTH GENERATION if it actually delivers the step change in reliability required to be a full replacement for a HUD. This is a hell of a challenge for an item plugged in and unplugged every flight. LCD-based (not LED, not CRT), with wider FoV, sensor fused display.

I'd call Gerfaut and TopFlite/Top Owl 2.5 Gen....... or better.

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 150

Excellent work Jackonicko.
It appears that the JSF helmet has yet to be awarded which makes working out this whole area much easier.

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 2,357

"If you had understood what i wrote, if you had only an idea of where it comes from, my friend, 'old chum', i'm sure you would feel sorry for having used those words."

Not at all. Not remotely sorry.

And I don't care where it came from, because it's utter, utter nonsense. I've seldom seen such bol.locks, and I've read through pages of posts by Gegene, Fonk and the rest. Words cannot express what tosh you repeated.

Let's repeat what you wrote.

"when asked about the lack of such an helmet, Rafale pilots' concerns are more about the fact that they loose the navigation data when they don't look straight in front of them (HUD). Why ? Because in modern conflicts, for AdA, there are not many "opportunity" targets, due to RoE, that would be treated better with an HMS. L16 is enough. And HMS isn't a priority."

This sounds like the newly modified F-117Ks purchased by the Irish Air Corps. The visual signature reduction measures reduce the aircraft's visual signature sufficiently to allow unrestricted daylight ops. But the addition of a Klingon cloaking device comes with a disadvantage, in that the signature starts to increase whenever the pilot loses eye contact with the small pixie who sits cross legged in front of the HUD....... That might not be strictly true, but it's about as sensible as what you wrote, TMor.

Marry your contact, TMor, or if you're squeamish about man-love, make him marry your sister. He will soon be dead, so you will inherit all of his money and property. And if Dassault listen to him, he'll be rich as a result of the Rafale F3 cost reductions. Replacing those expensive perspex canopies with aluminium, and reducing the windscreen to the size of the HUD will certainly save a Euro or two. Why bother with a cockpit at all? A simple porthole, or periscope should be ample.

Rafale pilots' concerns are more about the fact that they loose the navigation data when they don't look straight in front of them (HUD).

OK.

1) If they had a Gen 3 helmet, they'd have the nav data wherever they looked.

2) If they had a Gen 1 HMSS they'd still only have to look away from the HUD briefly to designate a target (air or ground), update the nav system, etc. And they wouldn't have to dive and point the nose at a ground target to designate it or update the kit, and they wouldn't have to grunt and strain and try to get the enemy aircraft slap bang in the HUD to loose off a short range missile.....

But if you're seriously saying that Rafale pilots sit there, looking straight ahead, then I want to know why they haven't had a couple of dozen air-to-air collisions, and why young Jim Luke only managed to shoot down one of the bug.gers. If they don't ever look away from the HUD, even briefly, anything less than ten Rafale kills per sortie is a bit of a disgrace.

"Because in modern conflicts, for AdA, there are not many "opportunity" targets, due to RoE, that would be treated better with an HMS."

Debateable, since even a simple cueing device will help in both BVR and close in combat. Simply better to have it than not. But even if you ignore air to air applications, a helmet (even a cheap-as-chips, integrate it at station level, basic HMSS) is still a MUST HAVE, as the Jag helmet stuff above demonstrates. It's simply the best, quickest way of achieving what you need to achieve, whether that's cueing your stuff onto the target, or having the aircraft cue your eye onto the target.

As soon as you fly with a helmet, it's obvious. Truly revelatory.

One of the most compelling criticisms of Typhoon is that they are waiting for the full Striker helmet, instead of going ahead integrating an interim helmet years ago. The fact that Typhoons will deploy to Helmand next year less well equipped (in the helmet sense) than the Jaguar is a complete disgrace.

They'll have L16. They'll have a bloody marvellous HUD. They'll have Litening III. They'll have superb SA. But they'd be better still with a helmet.

Even a noddy one.

"L16 is enough. And HMS isn't a priority."

No-one who understands what you can achieve with the simplest helmet would say that, unless they were lying to justify a budgetary decision, or covering up a technical problem.

One begins to wonder whether (like the F-22 team) the Rafale blokes found some insoluble problem in mapping the cockpit that makes integrating a proper helmet problematic. But even if that's the case, a simple HMSS would be a huge improvement - with absolutely NO downside.