VTAS, Soviet and South African early HMS development

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
18 March 2008
Messages
3,529
Reaction score
877
Bruno Anthony said:
The tech aspects may have contributed to these 1999 reports as DASH and late model Pythons would not have been around in the 1970s, the time of the Persian Cats. A definite WVR advantage. As for the USN with bad tactical training, then I still want my money back as Top Gun and others should have kept them abreast of tactics.

Helmet Mounted Sights (HMS) for cueing IR missiles in WVR was the one big thing the Soviets had that most of the West didn’t at the fall of the Iron Curtain. Talking to a senior RAAF fighter pilot who was Aggressor trained and involved in the technical assessment at the time confirms this issue. At the time the big worry was the Soviet R-27 missile (AA-10 ALAMO) but actual testing showed it was actually inferior to the Sparrow and certainly the AMRAAM. On the other hand the combination of HMS and R-73 (AA-12 ARCHER) was terrifying.

The irony of course is that Soviet HMS technology was stolen from the west via a circular route that included the Israelis as a tangent and was inspired in the beginning by the US Navy! It was the late (and great) Brigadier General Dick Lord, SAAF, former RN that was exposed to the operational requirement for the USN’s Visual Target Acquisition Set (VTAS) 1970s HMS via his late 1960s exchange at TOPGUN that lead to the South African HMS program (Cat’s Eye). This technology was shared with Israel and also stolen by Soviet spy Commodore Dieter Gerhardt, SAN ending up in the MiG-29. IN the mean time the USN introduced the first HMS via VTAS in the 70s in the F-4 but didn’t include it in the F-14 or F/A-18. Once the Soviet’s were seen with HMS in the MiG-29 a new requirement was launched. Despite all this at the time back in the 70s testing with VTAS and the F-4 indicated HMS provided a x2 increase in IR missile lethality.

So it was the USN that started the whole thing and it was a lack of money in the F-14 program that saw VTAS die when it should have been flourishing. So don’t ask for your refund yet.
 
In fairness the USAF/USN tested HMS in the AIMVAL/ACEVAL in the mid-70s and an upgraded VTAS was installed in the F-16AFTI in the early 80s. The USN did get as far as developing VTAS III before shelving the program. The issue seems to have been, in addition to cost, the weight of the helmet, and other technological limitations. It is nice to think of the original F-14C carrying VTAS-III and AIM-95A entering service in late 70s though.

IIRC it was the Vista Sabre program, that ran from 1986-88 that came about as a result of the 1985 Mig-29 HMS sighting before leading to a bunch of other studies/programmes on the path to JHMCS.

There is some good stuff about VTAS helmets on-line, I have posted the links below, I hope to be bale to do a bit more digging this weekend:

http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtassafe.htm


http://www.salimbeti.com/aviation/helmets3.htm

The South African HMS is commonly reported to have begun development in 1975 and some of the tech was apparently used in a Rhodesian helicopter gun system called K-Car-Alpha under project Dalmatian. A bit of the story can be found here: http://www.rhodesia.nl/firefor1.htm though the best source I am aware of is Winds of Destruction: The Autobiography of a Rhodesian Combat Pilot by Peter J. H. Petter-Bowyer on pg.322-324. Some details (including photos on page 2) of the HMS associated with the Kukri system (V3 missile) can be seen here: http://www.saairforce.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4280

I believe VTAS inception was as early as 1963, I have seen several dates for IOC including 1970 and 1972.

On the British side Marconi-Elliot displayed a helmet mounted sight at Paris in 1977 and I believe it may have been this one: http://www.rochesteravionicarchives.co.uk/View_Object?ObjectId=1487
 
Last edited:
Abraham Gubler said:
Helmet Mounted Sights (HMS) for cueing IR missiles in WVR was the one big thing the Soviets had that most of the West didn’t at the fall of the Iron Curtain. On the other hand the combination of HMS and R-73 (AA-12 ARCHER) was terrifying.

The irony of course is that Soviet HMS technology was stolen from the west via a circular route that included the Israelis as a tangent and was inspired in the beginning by the US Navy! It was the late (and great) Brigadier General Dick Lord, SAAF, former RN that was exposed to the operational requirement for the USN’s Visual Target Acquisition Set (VTAS) 1970s HMS via his late 1960s exchange at TOPGUN that lead to the South African HMS program (Cat’s Eye). This technology was shared with Israel and also stolen by Soviet spy Commodore Dieter Gerhardt, SAN ending up in the MiG-29. IN the mean time the USN introduced the first HMS via VTAS in the 70s in the F-4 but didn’t include it in the F-14 or F/A-18. Once the Soviet’s were seen with HMS in the MiG-29 a new requirement was launched. Despite all this at the time back in the 70s testing with VTAS and the F-4 indicated HMS provided a x2 increase in IR missile lethality.

So it was the USN that started the whole thing and it was a lack of money in the F-14 program that saw VTAS die when it should have been flourishing. So don’t ask for your refund yet.

Typical money saving that is the equivalent of buying only one shoe. I guess midnight basketball programs needed money.

I have read about VTAS and as far as my money goes I would gladly give it to any program that increases US military capability. I get angry when the spending or lack thereof does not pan out.

If you have any files/docs on VTAS or US research into HMS I would appreciate reading them.

As for the Persian Cats, the 70s butt kicking by USN pilots could have been due to LRAAMs, no HOBS/HMS by the opponents and Top Gun training?
 
No, Abraham, the timings are all wrong. Correlation is not causation. Two South African HMS units were stolen in the early 1980s and made their way to the USSR. Investigation of this theft lead to the arrest of Dieter Gerthardt, though he wasn't directly involved. There is no evidence this has anything to do with the Soviet Schel-3U HMS program. Both were undoubtedly inspired by work on VTAS, however.


Soviet HMS studies started in 1969 at the Kiev Arsenal plant (optical missile seeker developers and producers), at the request of Molniya, the developers of the R-60 dogfight AAM. The device was initially called TsURT-60 and intended to be used to target the R-60 AAM. This design was later redesigned Schel. It used a standard flight helmet with simple clip on sight and twin tracking devices mounted in the cockpit either side of the HUD.

Geofizika started work on their HMS design around 1971 and had a working prototype in 1973 which became the Mysl HMS. They used the same basic technology as Honeywell's VTAS with photosensors on the helmet and scanning devices on the canopy, basic details of which were published in the open literature of the time.

At the same time UOMZ had a team working on an optronic polarised-emission HMS, while the BIMK design bureau in Leningrad researched a system of acoustic measurement of a helmet's position.

The official development order of an HMS in 1974 ordered full scale development of both Mysl and Schel-3 for comparative testing. By 1976, MiG-23M 23-05 was being equipped for testing. Schel-3 passed its rig tests. The Mysl system proved difficult to adapt to the MiG-23's cramped cockpit, and was never tested. Experimental Schel-3ME was fitted to 23-05 in December 1976 and flew its first mission on 4 March 1977, coupled with the R-60M AAM. A helicopter version was tested on Mi-24D 1008B the same year, also successfully. More pragmatically Arsenal's factory had capacity to spare while UOMZ. who would build Mysl, were very busy on other programs. The characteristics of the two systems were apparently close.

The Schel-3 designator was therefore specified for the production MiG-29 and Su-27 in 1977. The production Schel-3U reduced the size of the tracking units and dispensed with the dedicated computer, relying on the central computer of the OEPS/OLS, but the basic technology was identical to the 1976 Schel-3ME.

Main source:

Ildar Bedretdinov, Su-27 Fighter, Beginning of Story.
 

Attachments

  • MiG-23M - Schel-3.jpg
    MiG-23M - Schel-3.jpg
    66.9 KB · Views: 303
  • MiG-23M - Schel-3 Cockpit.jpg
    MiG-23M - Schel-3 Cockpit.jpg
    81.5 KB · Views: 290
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
No, Abraham, the timings are all wrong. Correlation is not causation. Two South African HMS units were stolen in the early 1980s and made their way to the USSR. Investigation of this theft lead to the arrest of Dieter Gerthardt, though he wasn't directly involved. There is no evidence this has anything to do with the Soviet Schel-3U HMS program. Both were undoubtedly inspired by work on VTAS, however.

Fair enough, I'm always happy to see an urban myth debunked...
 
No doubt the Soviets were interested to see how the technology compared with theirs, but it would have been too late to influence the Schel.


I'm not very familar with the South African system, would be interested to read up on it if anyone can point me to relevant literature.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
I'm not very familar with the South African system, would be interested to read up on it if anyone can point me to relevant literature.

The Dick Lord book Vlamgat is the best source that I know of.

Much of its info about the HMS is mentioned here:

http://www.saairforce.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4280&start=0

There is also some mention in Winds of Destruction by Petter-Boyer because the Rhodesians used a remote control quad Browning mount on some of their K-Cars which was developed via the same South African project (no HMS but).

Pictures from MP.net
 

Attachments

  • dsc0480s.jpg
    dsc0480s.jpg
    970.3 KB · Views: 298
  • dsc0482.jpg
    dsc0482.jpg
    312.1 KB · Views: 258
  • dsc0520.jpg
    dsc0520.jpg
    237.8 KB · Views: 275
Those pics are great, thanks.


The poster seems to clarify it was the V-3B (1979) which introduced the HMS, which puts it ahead of the Schel-3U by about 4 years. Still beaten by AIM-9H & VTAS though.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
Typical money saving that is the equivalent of buying only one shoe. I guess midnight basketball programs needed money.

:mad:
Aviation Week and Space Technology

October 23, 1995

VTAS SIGHT FIELDED, SHELVED IN 1970S

SECTION: MISSILE HANDICAP, PART 2; Vol. 143, No. 17; Pg. 52

LENGTH: 408 words

DATELINE: LOS ANGELES



The U.S. fielded the first operational helmet-mounted sight from 1973 to about 1979 on about 500 Navy and Marine Corps F-4 Phantom fighters. Effectiveness of the sight was hampered by the limited Sidewinder missile capability of the day, and it was withdrawn when service officials felt its benefits did not justify the effort to support it.

The Visual Target Acquisition System (VTAS) sight was made by Honeywell and projected a fixed reticle. Head position was measured with an infrared tracker. The helmet would direct the radar where to point, which would aim the missile seeker. The helmet could also directly command the seeker, but this mode was less favored.


The system also worked in the other direction. The radar or seeker could pass its pointing direction to the pilot via four lights at the edge of the reticle that directed him to look left, right, up and down, with an accuracy of 1-2 deg. But this was a poor way of verifying missile seeker aimpoint, and was a crucial shortcoming.

The contemporary AIM-9P and N Sidewinder models could track the wrong things, like clouds, the ground or a wingman. When the helmet was used to aim the missile outside of the head-up display field of view, there was less confidence about what the seeker was actually tracking.

Nonetheless, simulations in the 1980s showed that a helmet-mounted display operating with the limitations of a conventional missile doubled the kill ratio for visual engagements, Eugene C. Adam, McDonnell Douglas Distinguished Fellow in charge of pilot-vehicle interface, said. ''All the pilots liked VTAS,'' he said. ''It was good for quick lock of the radar.''

VTAS had other problems. The seat-mounted infrared trackers partially blocked the view behind the 4- and 8-o'clock positions. While the helmet projector was about the size of a thick pencil, the system added 1.3 lb. to an already-heavy, slippery helmet. The exit pupil was a narrow 0.2 in., so any helmet shifting made the image disappear. And the program was hurried and suffered reliability problems, Adam said.

''I think if VTAS had been better, it would have forced missile improvements, which would have forced an even better helmet,'' Adam said. ''Then we would have had this in every fighter by now.''

Dean Kocian, the Armstrong Laboratory helmet expert, disagrees. ''The weapons people then wanted long- and medium-range missiles, and their focus on that drove the resources.''
 
Publication Logo
Aviation Week & Space Technology

April 4, 1977

Fighter, Missile Gains Pressed

BYLINE: By Clarence A. Robinson, Jr.

SECTION: MANAGEMENT; Pg. 12

LENGTH: 2219 words

DATELINE: Las Vegas

HIGHLIGHT: Navy, USAF joint test in Nevada spurs advances in tactics, seeker sensitivity, avionics requirements for next decade



Navy and Air Force fighter aircraft tactics, air-to-air missile seeker sensitivity and aircraft avionics requirements for the next decade are expected to emerge from a highly unorthodox test being conducted jointly by the two services at Nellis AFB, Nev.

The $55-million test program is the air intercept missile evaluation/air combat evaluation and is known by the acronym Aimval/Aceval. Located at Nellis AFB, 10miles north of this city, is the Cubic Corp.'s air combat maneuvering instrumentation system designed to provide realistic air-to-air training with simulated missile firing.

An advanced version of the earlier Navy air combat maneuvering range, the instrumentation system is used in a 40-naut.-mi.-dia. area in the desert north of Nellis to provide realtime data on aerial combat taking place here on a daily basis.


Tactics evolving from the simulated dogfighting are already flowing to squadrons in both services. The USAF/McDonnell Douglas F-15 and Navy/Grumman F-14 are pitted against a common foe -- the Northrop F-5E used to simulate the Soviet MiG-21 Fishbed fighter. Performance characteristics of the F-5E closely approximate the USSR fighter.

Both services have selected the most highly qualified fighter pilots available for the test, and this includes the F-5E aggressor force comprising pilots from both services. The aggressor, or Red, aircrews are highly trained and are considered the equivalent of combat-experienced Israeli pilots, according to test officials.

The aerial combat is free play, requiring visual identification of targets before an attack can be initiated. To keep both Blue Force friendly pilots and Red Force pilots honest in visual target acquisition, intruder aircraft are flown through the combat maneuvering area on a random basis while dogfights are in process.

Both Red and Blue Force pilots are forced to engage a numerically superior enemy force at least 50% of the time, and the numbers range from one on one to two on one. Within the aerial combat scenarios, as many as four fighters engage four aggressor aircraft on the range.

Despite the excellent data being extracted from the test, according to officials in both services, there is an effort afoot to halt or at least delay the test.

Analysts from both services are questioning whether there is a problem with some of the seeker sensitivity data being generated from the missile evaluation portion of the program. Service officials, however, believe that while there may be a question about the seeker sensitivity data it would affect only 10% of the combat engagements in the test.

"The best way to handle the problem, if there is one, is to manipulate the data to cover the seeker problem, not halt the test," one official said. "We are learning more about aerial combat than we ever dreamed possible."

Other officials are convinced that the attempt to delay or halt the test is related to an effort to invalidate it because one of the fighters is not meeting its pre-test service projections about its capability.

One of the major problems in conducting this type of a flight test is that the immediate tendency is to make a comparison between the F-15 and the F-14 because both fighters are flying against a common foe. The test is not designed for this purpose, and even after all of the data have been analyzed, a comparison between the two aircraft will not be possible, test officials emphasized. What is being determined by the aerial combat simulation is that both aircraft are exhibiting superior performance, and that both have some problems that need to be corrected.

The test is divided into two phases taking place over a 10-month period. The air intercept missile phase is scheduled to be completed in early June, with a final report for the air combat evaluation portion scheduled for December.

More than 4,000 sorties will have been flown here before the test is concluded, and both friendly and aggressor pilots have been honing their skills for almost a year with daily flights, including a warm-up period leading up to the test.

The missile phase of the test includes:

* Defining requirements for future short-range air-to-air missiles.

* Evaluation of five infrared missile concepts.

Because of the intensity of aerial combat necessary to complete the missile evaluation, some of the aerial combat evaluation data will be gleaned from the missile evaluation.

During the air combat evaluation, the Pentagon and the two services expect to determine the relative effectiveness of opposing fighters and to provide data for deciding on future fighter force structure and composition.

the missile portion of the test is being flown to determine if the two services can use a common air-to-air missile and, if so, what degree of offboresight capability is required and what degree of seeker sensitivity. In developing a missile to replace the AIM-9L advanced Sidwinder, the Navy pressed for the Agile missile with a large offboresight capability and thrust vector control. The air force wanted a low-cost lightweight missile.

Congress denied both programs and told the two services to pursue a joint missile definition program. The missile phase of the test is to determine what will be required in the missile.

Both of the services have developed seeker heads to support the test, and the seekers are being captive-carried on both the F-15 and the F-14 with simulated firings against the aggressor aircraft to determine the seeker capability in a variety of air maneuvering situations.

The aggressor F-5Es are armed with the Raytheon AIM-9L, which simulates the all-aspect seeker sensitivity that the USSR could have available in the Atoll missile through the 1980s.

USAF's conceptual missile is called the SS-1 and is being evaluated in the dogfight tests using two modes of acquisition labeled Concept A and B. The two concepts are identical except for target acquisition.

Ford Aerospace has produced the SS-1 captive test unit for USAF, and Concept A utilizes boresight acquisition while B has a higher off-boresight capability, up to + -30 deg.

For the Nellis test, both the A and B concepts are represented by a cruciform-configured, canard-controlled missile with a seeker sensitive to a single color in the optical spectrum.

The tracker is a conventional free gyro/precession coil employing lead bias. Missile performance is in an envelope that includes an all-aspect capability against an afterburning target, and nearly all-aspect against an aircraft in a military power setting.

USAF accepted the limited forward aspect capability as a trade for reduced cost, manpower, equipment support and increased reliability from the elimination of gas cryogenics.

Employment of the SS-1 is characterized by:

* Multiple missile carriage, with up to eight missiles on the fighter. for the test eight missiles are simulated.

* Simultaneous automatic acquisition.

* Pilot consent automatic sequential launch.

In the Concept A mode, the pilot must maneuver his aircraft to place the target within the caged seeker field of view. The pilot has a circular scan function available that can be selected by depressing the scan button on the throttles. When the pilot depresses the weapon release button, all the missiles are premitted to lock-on and track the target.

The first missile within the normal launch sequence to lock on, determined by a signal above the target signal-to-noise ratio, is automatically fired. Other missiles are automatically launched at 1.5-sec. intervals if locked on and the release button is depressed by the pilot. If a missile is not locked on it will not launch.

If the weapon release button is released at any time by the pilot, the launch sequence is stopped. When the button is released all missile that are locked on are recaged to the boresight position.

The Concept B missile functions the same way, except that the seeker can be slaved to an acquisition and the Northrop visual target acquisition system or radar for off-boresight acquisition up to 30 deg. When the launch sequence is stopped, the seeker returns to alignment with the acquisition aid rather than to the boresight position.

The B concept's scan mode also is different. Circular scan is available while the seeker is in the slave mode. When not slaved to an acquisition aid and scan is selected, the scan pattern becomes vertical through the position.

The Navy captive test unit is the SS-2 and encompasses two variants, the D1 and D2 missile concepts, Both are based on heads-up, high off-boresight angles, target designation and slaving the seekers.

The visual target acquisition system is the basic method used for off-boresight target acquisition and supplements other aircraft acquisition modes.

The D1 seeker has about the same acquisition sensitivity as the AIM-9L seeker, while the D2 has increased sensitivity, providing longer detection ranges than present short-range, air-to-air missiles. This is particularly true in the head-on/forward quarter aspects. The off-boresight capability of 70 deg. for both the D1 and D2 seekers is designed for use against the projected threat armed with the equivalent of the AIM-9L in the 1980-1990 period.

The captive test units are mounted on both the F-14 and F-15 for the test, using modified LAU-7A missile launchers on pylons on each side of the aircraft. When either of the D concept modes is employed in the test, each aircraft carries two SS-2s, which will simulate four missiles.

Concept D1 and D2 captive test units are medium wavelenght infrared seekers mounted on a aluminum/steel airframe. Electronics, power supply and interface unit are contained within the 6.5-in. dia. airframe.

The seeker employs a three-axis gimbal system with a rotating optical telescope derived from the Agile missile program.Hughes Aircraft Co. produced the D1 and D2 seekers for the test. A translucent infrared dome is constructed from a hemisphere mated to a cylinder, allowing seeker viewing angles up to gimbal limits.

A single color-crossed array detector is used in conjunction with the rotating optical telescope to produce tracking errors. The error signals are processed by teh guidance and control group and drive the gimbal system to maintain track.

Seeker field of view is 3.7 deg. along the principal axes of the detector array. The detector is cooled with argon gas supplied through an umbilical harnessed to a gas bottle on the LAU-7A launcher.

Seeker lock-on and launch is accomplished using two methods -- normal and quick fire. The aircrew receives both visual and audio cues when the seeker is locked on. With the seeker locked on, the aircrew activates the missile firing switch to simulate missile launch.

Using the visual target acquisition system, an illuminated helmet-mounted sight reticle remains lighted constantly until the offboresight angle limits are exceeded.The reticle blinks at a 2 cycles/sec. rate when the angle has been exceeded.

The reticle blinks at an 8-cycle/sec. rate at lock-on when the target is within the off-boresight angle limit. Audio cues are used to denote target detection and lock-on. The synthetically generated tone is produced when the present infrared threshold is exceeded. In the D1 concept it is similar to the AIM-9L threshold, and lowered for greater sensitivity with the D2.

The F-5E aggressor aircraft in the test are configured with an AIM-9L training missile mounted on the right wingtip launcher rail with an airborne instrumentation subsystem pod for the air combat maneuvering range system mounted on the left wingtip launcher rail.The training AIM-9L can only be operated in a boresight, nonscan mode for acquisition.

The Block 90 F-14As taking part in the test required extensive hardware and software changes.They include:

* Maneuvering slats. Slat extension/retraction occurs concurrently with selection of maneuvering flaps.

* Central air data computer with high angles of attack, the flight stick utilizes rudder instead of differential stabilizer for roll control.

* Second UHF radio, replacing the ARC-51 with the ARC-150 (V)5 solid-state radio for a 20-w. output increase.

* Lower pylon Sidewinder adapter.Stations 1B and 8B can carry the AIM-9L missile.

The Honeywell visual target acquisition system -- a dual cockpit system -- has been installed by Hughes. Both the pilot and flight officer are able to slave the missile seekers off-boresight with the visual target acquisition system. All seekers slave to either crewmember's line of sight. The pilot is dominant if simulataneous slaving occurs in both cockpits.

The visual target acquisition system is used in the F-15 and provides target acquisition capability by determining the pilot's line of sight to the target. The system uses infrared light beams, which are generated by two transmitters and detedted by four helmet-mounted sensors. The sensors supply information to the target acquisition computer for line-of-sight computation. The line-of-sight direction as seen through the helmet sight piece is sent by the computer to the missile seeker which is slaved to the system. The system is used on the F-15 only with the Navy's D concept seekers.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SERIES: This is the first in a series of articles on the joint Navy/USAF air intercept missile evaluation/air combat evaluation. Subsequent articles will appear in future issues of AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY.
 
What about the story that Soviet development of indiginous helmet mounted sights was deemed unnecessary with the cancellation of US programs in the early 1970s, and was put on low priority. But it was then revived and given high priority when Cuban pilots were found to have been shot down by South Africans using helmet mounted sights? Is that legend too?
 
The other 'big' HMS program of the 60s and 70s were the US Army efforts for gun and sight control on attack helicopters. Like the XM110 for the AH-56 Cheyenne cluminating in the AH-64 Apache's M142.
 
chuck4 said:
What about the story that Soviet development of indiginous helmet mounted sights was deemed unnecessary with the cancellation of US programs in the early 1970s, and was put on low priority. But it was then revived and given high priority when Cuban pilots were found to have been shot down by South Africans using helmet mounted sights? Is that legend too?
It is possible. It certainly seems as if they had very good technical intelligence coming from the SAAF. But without an intel source there is little practical way they would have known their MiGs were being shoot down by HMS cued missiles. Its not as if air combat in southern Angola was instrumented so they could track the precise angular relationship of all the fighters in combat to deduce that a non boresight missile had been used.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
The other 'big' HMS program of the 60s and 70s were the US Army efforts for gun and sight control on attack helicopters. Like the XM110 for the AH-56 Cheyenne cluminating in the AH-64 Apache's M142.


VTAS was basically a minor variant of the XM110. Same technology.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
chuck4 said:
What about the story that Soviet development of indiginous helmet mounted sights was deemed unnecessary with the cancellation of US programs in the early 1970s, and was put on low priority. But it was then revived and given high priority when Cuban pilots were found to have been shot down by South Africans using helmet mounted sights? Is that legend too?
It is possible. It certainly seems as if they had very good technical intelligence coming from the SAAF. But without an intel source there is little practical way they would have known their MiGs were being shoot down by HMS cued missiles. Its not as if air combat in southern Angola was instrumented so they could track the precise angular relationship of all the fighters in combat to deduce that a non boresight missile had been used.


Seems like wishful thinking. The timelines don't support it, and Schel-3U was a integral part of the MiG-29 & Su-27 FCS from the 1970s onward.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Those pics are great, thanks.

The poster seems to clarify it was the V-3B (1979) which introduced the HMS, which puts it ahead of the Schel-3U by about 4 years. Still beaten by AIM-9H & VTAS though.
I have Helmoed Romer Heitman's South African Arms and Armour in front of me, published in the mid to late 80's.

Among other things, it has this to say on the matter:

The V3B is a short-ranged dogfight air-to-air missile cleared for use with all Mirage III and F-1 fighters, and the Cheetah.
It's major feature is the helmet-mounted aquisition system which allows the pilot to lock the missile's seeker head onto a target well outside his aircraft's axis. The remaining firing sequence is essentially similar to that employed for other close-range AAM's.

Mode-switching, target designation, and firing controls are all grouped on the throttle and stick on the HOTAS principal.

The flexibility and speed of reaction offered by this combination gives the pilot an important edge over his opponent, who will generally have to point his entire aircraft to acquire the target.

The missile can manoeuvre at a sustained 25g and peak at 35g, and it's launch limitations are 7g, 50 000ft, and Mach 1.8; launch velocity is the aircrafts's speed plus 500m/s.

Currently in production for the SAAF, the V3B grew out of an AAM programme which began in 1966, and progressed to the development of the V3A and it's helmet-linked sight from 1971. The first successful interceptions by the V3A were reported in 1972, and it entered production in 1975. The same year saw the beginning of work on it's successor, the V3B, which offered a more sensitive IR-head with a bigger 'look angle', and upgraded motor, and increased helmet-sight designation angle. The V3B entered production in 1979, and the export version - Kukri - became available 3 years later.
The latest version, the V3C, is currently under development.

The inference is that the V3A came with a helmet sight already, in 1971/1972.

The V3B then pushed the envelope somewhat.
 
No doubt the Soviets were interested to see how the technology compared with theirs, but it would have been too late to influence the Schel.


I'm not very familar with the South African system, would be interested to read up on it if anyone can point me to relevant literature.
The SA project was begun at the National Institute for Defence Research in 1971. I think it flew for the first time in a Mirage III in 1973. It was designed to work with the locally developed "V3" air to air "dogfight" missile (afterwards branded "Kukri") and to compensate for manoeuvrability limitations of SAAF aircraft vs the more modern Soviet types flown by the Cubans and Indians in Angola. Dieter Gerhardt, the soviet spy caught by the Americans when contacting a handler in New York, was the deputy director of projects for the SADF. His rank was Commander in the SAN. He therefore received all development reports produced by NIDR which he forwarded to the Russians.
 
Navy Pilots to Use Helmet Sight

McDonnell Douglas F-4J fighters outfitted with Honeywell system; next-generation version slated for Grumman F-14

By Philip J. Klass

Minneapolis—Honeywell optically coupled helmet sight, which allows a pilot to aim missiles or radar simply by turning and looking at a target, is now going into operational Navy aircraft, after nearly a decade of development and tri-service evaluation. Approximately 25 new Navy/McDonnell Douglas F—4J fighters have been outfitted with Honeywell helmet sights for air-to-air combat and the balance of the 220 systems now on order are to be retrofitted on already delivered F-4Js and some F-4Bs. A next generation version, with additional features, is planned for use on the Navy/Grumman F-14.

Both USAF and the Navy are expected to evaluate the Honeywell helmet sight this spring for use as an aid in air-to-ground weapon delivery systems. The Air Force flight tests, at Edwards and Nellis Air Force bases, will employ the helmet sight to facilitate target acquisition by electro-optically guided weapons, such as the Hughes AGM-65A Maverick air-to-surface missile.

The Naval Weapons Center at China Lake, Calif, will evaluate the Honeywell system to designate the location of a ground target to the IBM weapon delivery computer in the LTV Aerospace A-7E. This target “pickeling” function now is performed by a head-up display (HUD), which has a relatively narrow field of view of +-5 deg. The Honeywell helmet sight provides +-90 deg.

The Army employs a less costly and less complex mechanically-coupled helmet sight, built by Sperry, for most of its armed helicopters because they do not have ejection seats, where the mechanical attachment is an impediment to escape. A notable exception is the Army/Lockhee AH-56A Cheyenne helicopter, where the Honeywell sight system was selected.

Honeywell has made notable progress in cutting the cost, weight and complexity of its optically coupled helmet sight. The azimuth/elevation sensors that must be installed on a standard crew helmet add only 11 oz. to its weight. System price, including the digital computer required to convert sensor signals into azimuth and elevation line-of-sight, has been brought down to approximately $20,000.

However, USAF’s Aero-Medical Laboratory is seeking still simpler, lower—cost techniques and recently awarded three six-month study contracts to explore alternative concepts. The three contractors are:

Honeywell, which will explore use of ultrasonic sensors.

Polhemus Navigation Sciences Corp., which will investigate magnetic sensors.

Raytheon, which will study electro-optical sensor techniques.

The helmet sight which Honeywell is producing for the F-4s is officially called a “visual target acquisition system,” or VTAS, by the Navy. It uses a small retractable glass reticle that snaps down in front of one eye when needed by the pilot. The crosshair projected on the glass is collimated to appear at infinity to eliminate parallax problems.

The position of the pilot’s head/helmet, corresponding to his line of sight, is determined by two beams of infrared (invisible) light generated from two sources mounted in the cockpit just aft of the pilot’s shoulders. The two fan-like beams rotate at a constant velocity so the difference in their time-of-arrival at each of two pairs of sensors mounted on opposite sides of the helmet, when compared with arrival at a fixed reference sensor, is a function of the azimuth and elevation position of the helmet. The sensor signals are converted into azimuth and elevation angles by a digital computer which forms part of the system. Total weight isj ust under 50 lb.

The Navy expects that the use of the helmet sight will enable its pilots to obtain the fullest advantage from improved AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. These have guidance heads that can be remotely aimed to lock onto a target without the need for the launching aircraft to be pointed toward the target at launch. With the helmet sight, the F-4 pilot need only look at the target, and the azimuth/elevation look-angles are automatically transmitted to the Sidewinder guidance head.

Although neither Honeywell nor the Navy will discuss possible use of the helmet sight with the new Agile dogfight missile now being developed, presumably the system will have a similar role for the new air-to-air weapon.

It also seems logical to assume that the Navy’s visual target acquisition system (VTAS) will ultimately be tied in to airborne intercept radars, to speed up radar acquisition and lock~on to the target.

Honeywell engineers concede that the present snap-down reticle has not met with universal pilot acceptance, possibly because of the instinctive human reaction to any object poised so close to the eyes. The company therefore has developed an alternative arrangement in which the reticle is projected onto a parabolic shaped visor which would be substituted for the standard helmet visor. Honeywell
is building three prototype models of the new design, under Naval Air Systems contract, for flight evaluation.

In the three prototypes, the company also is molding the infrared sensors into the helmet so there is less protuberance. Honeywell currently is working with Grumman on the next-generation VTAS system for both crew members of the F-14. One of the innovations will be a “visual cueing” display, by which the pilot or radar operator can instantly and automatically indicate to the other the direction in which he is looking to help the other spot a target.

This will be done by means of four small arrows or indicating lights around the periphery of each crew member’s viewing reticle. If the pilot is looking abeam and to the right, the right-hand quadrant light in the radar operator’s reticle will be illuminated. Ifthe radar operator is looking approximately 45 deg. to the left, then both the left and forward quadrant lights in the pilot’s reticle will be illuminated. When the second crew member is looking in approximately the same direction, the visual cueing lights.will be turned off.

The same visual cueing aids can be operated from the intercept radar or from other aircraft sensors.

The visual target acquisition system for the F-14 probably will use the new parabolic visor projection type reticle. The digital computer is expected to be a new design that uses metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS) microcircuitry for smaller overall size, weight and reduced cost.
While the first tactical use of the optically coupled helmet sight will be for air-to-air missions, some observers believe that the system offers still greater potential for use against ground targets. The USAF/Hughes Maverick missile, which employs television-command guidance, currently requires the pilot to use a small “joy stick” to aim the missile’s TV camera at the intended target and to maintain it on target. With a helmet sight, the initial target acquisition by the Maverick guidance head could be greatly speeded up.

USAF is expected to conduct tests later this year at Edwards and Nellis Air Force bases using the Maverick as a test vehicle, but the technique has application to a variety of other electro-optically guided weapons. The effort is part of the Pave Scope program.

Although Sperry’s mechanically coupled helmet sight has had a cost-complexity advantage for most previous Army helicopter applications, Honeywell is attempting to crack the market for some of the proposed new helicopter gunship programs. These include the Bell AH-1G HueyCobra, which is to use the Hughes XBGM-71A TOW missile, and the Sikorsky 5-67 Blackhawk.

The reason that Honeywell believes it can compete is that such gunships will require the installation of a weapons delivery/fire control computer. The computer required for the company’s helmet sight can also handle these calculations with the addition of a couple of plug-in circuit boards, according to company engineers.

Honeywell has consigned two of its helmet sight systems to Sikorsky for evaluation and demonstrations to foreign governments as well as to the US. services.

Aviation Week Jan 31 1972
 

Attachments

  • vtas.jpg
    vtas.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 77
Helmet Sight Lets AH-56 Pilot Train on Target by Moving Head

Los Angeles—Helmet-mounted sight being developed by Honeywell for the Army/Lockheed AH-56A armed helicopter utilizes an electro-optical system to detect helmet motion so the pilot can train weapons on a target merely by looking in that direction (AW&sT Mar. 4, p. 57).

The sighting unit will be worn by Cheyenne pilots flying the helicopter from the rear seat. It will permit the pilot to aim and fire at targets independently
of the crewman in the forward gunner’s station (AW&sT Oct. 30, 1967, p. 50).

Honeywell’s Aerospace Div., Minneapolis, has designed the helmet-mounted sight to fit over the standard APH-5 Army “hard hat.” There is no physical link between the unit and the helicopter except an electric cord which plugs into a quick-disconnect receptacle along with radio cords.

The forward part of the helmet mounted sight includes a reticle projector and a miniaturized combining glass eyepiece which is positioned in front of the pilot’s right eye for aiming. Two knobs on the front of the sight unit are used to adjust the reticle image vertically or horizontally to the individual pilot’s eye level. The eyepiece is made of non-frangible plastic and is stowed under the housing cover when not in use
.
The sight image seen by the pilot’s right eye is focused at infinity and, like standard gunsight displays, consists of a crossed hair and outer mil rings. Honeywell claims that pilots adapt quickly to the miniaturized gunsight whether they are left to right eye dominant.

Once the pilot fixes a target in the crosshairs, the position of the helmet is determined by the relationship between photodetectors mounted on the rear of the helmet and fixed light sources at the rear of the cockpit. This sighting angle is relayed to the computer central data processor. There it is combined with other stored and sensed information such as ballistics, helicopter speed and range from the laser rangefinder. Computation then is made of the proper aim angles for the weapons.

The pilot, through various controls, can slew either the swiveling 30-mm. cannon under the fuselage or the nose turret to the aim position calculated
by the computer. Weapons are fired by depressing a trigger. The pilot need not worry about offsetting his aiming point due to distance from the target and motion of the helicopter, since lead and drop are automatically calculated. In another mode of operation, the pilot can command the gunner’s seat to align with the target the pilot is viewing. This permits the gunner quickly to acquire a suspected target spotted by the pilot without the confusion of trying to describe its location verbally.

Weapons Selection

The pilot in charge of the aircraft has priority selection over any of the weapons. A weapon select switch on the armament panel must be activated
before a particular turret will slave to the pilot sight. To call the gunner’s attention to a target, the pilot normally would notify him first over the intercommunications system. The gunner then would press a consent switch located on the swiveling station hand grip, and his station would slew to align with the pilot’s sight. The electro-optical link between the helmet-mounted sight and the reference frame of the helicopter consists of four photodetectors mounted on the rear of the helmet sight unit and two near infrared light sources behind the pilot.

The light sources are in the near infrared portion of the spectrum, but the system could be designed to function with other frequencies, a Honeywell
engineer says. The system theoretically would work with a single light source, but two are used for greater accuracies over extreme deflection angles.

Light Sources

The light sources are in alignment with the primary axis of the helicopter. while the photodetectors are aligned with the glass sighting device on the
front of the helmet. The system detects rotating and pitching motions of the helmet by comparing the signals from the photodetectors with signals from the fixed light source assembly.

Jack M. Herrlin, Honeywell project engineer, says the electro-optical helmet- mounted sight concept was first flight tested about a year and a half
ago in a Bell UH-1 by the Army at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. Herrlin doubts that the Army will make the helmet-mounted sight unit a part of personal flight equipment, presumably because of the high unit cost.

Most probably, he believes, it will be assigned to individual helicopters to be afterward.

Human factors studies conducted by Honeywell have shown that the extra 22-oz. weight of the sight unit does not appear to be objectionable to pilots.
Attachment of the unit to the helmet is by nylon screws designed to sever under moderate loads for safety. The sight unit may be screwed to either medium or large-size helmets.

First flight tests of AH-56 helmet-mounted sight prototype units are expected to be made this summer by Lockheed-California Co. Several units are on
hand at Lockheed and undergoing laboratory testing. Lockheed says the units are performing satisfactorily.

Honeywell is under contract to provide nine prototype sight units to Lockheed for test purposes. The company is running slightly behind the original
schedule, but the delay at this point is not regarded as serious. Honeywell is predicting a mean time before failure of 3,000 hr. for its sight
system and predicts easy maintainability. The company claims that no recalibration or boresighting is required after parts replacement.

Aside from aiming helicopter guns, Honeywell says the helmet-mounted sight system would be equally capable of aiming flexible-mounted — sensors
such as lasers, cameras and vidicon seekers. Other uses could include determining target coordinates during reconnaissance missions in aircraft with inertial platforms and computers.

The Honeywell electro-optical sight is highly sophisticated compared with present units which are hand manipulated and require manual range insertion. One of the important advantages Honeywell believes will accrue from use of an electro-optical rather than a mechanical link between helmet and airframe is that crew members feel no restriction to head movement, and accuracies are improved.

Aviation Week 8 Sep 1968


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_WxTRu7u9M
 

Attachments

  • AH-56Sight.jpg
    AH-56Sight.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 85
"Implementation of lessons learned in
design and evaluation of displays for
helmet-mounted display systems" basically just talks about concepts and Air Force stuff regarding DASH
"s. Three generations of DASH (Display And Sight Helmet) helmet
programs, and Agile EyeTM helmets have been integrated into F-l5, F-l6, F/A-l8, F-5 flight simulators either at the aircraft
manufacturers' facilities, end users' facilities and at simulators located at Elbit Systems (Figure 3) and Kaiser Electronics."
"The flight test software version is commonly more flexible than the evaluation and operational versions. Pilot control over
multiple inputs allows in-flight changes in the display type and characteristics. This flexibility to control display parameters
in flight reduces the evaluation time and allows comprehensive data collection for optimizing display modes and parameters
for the operational flight evaluation process. VSI has created a vast data base from production and demonstration programs
such as the tJS Navy and Air Force Vista Saber 11, ° (Figure 4) which utilized various HMCS displays for front-line
fighters including the F-l5, F-16, FIA-18, F-l4, F-5 and Mig-21. This allows us to improve display definitions in the
initial steps and reduces assets and cost required later in the program."Only mention of F-14 Okay, Honeywell one has some timelines and such of different HMD projects including VTAS
1972-74. F-14 VTAS. This NADC development contract adapted the VTAS HMS to the Navy's new F-14 aircraft
and its associated radar and Sidewinder missiles. The HMS still used an IR fan beam tracker with a visor-projected
LED reticle display having a 6°(H)x6°(V) monocular FOV.
1975-77. F-14 I F-15 Helmet Mounted Sight (AIMVAL). This U. S. Navy full-scale engineering development
(FSED) contract was aimed at producing the VTAS HMS for the Navy's fleet of F-14 aircraft. The HMS system
used a basic IR fan beam tracker with a visor-projected reticle display having a 6°(H)x6°(V) monocular FOV. Eight
HMS systems were produced and delivered to the Navy in 1977 for testing on the F-14 aircraft. Eight more were
delivered to the Air Force in 1977 for testing at Nellis AFB on F-15's carrying AIM missiles.
From 1979 to 1991 U. S. interest in HMS systems for fighter aircraft waned because of tactical considerations and
missile development cost. The U. S. Air Force believed that its primary mission was better supported by the
development of long range on-boresight missiles directed by the radar system. Funding was not available to also
develop the shorter range high off-boresight missiles that would complement HMS capabilities. Israel, however,
recognized the importance of being able to designate targets far off-boresight in short range encounters, and retained
a strong interest in HMS systems for this purpose.
From 1979 to 1991 U. S. interest in HMS systems for fighter aircraft waned because of tactical considerations and
missile development cost. The U. S. Air Force believed that its primary mission was better supported by the
development of long range on-boresight missiles directed by the radar system. Funding was not available to also
develop the shorter range high off-boresight missiles that would complement HMS capabilities. Israel, however,
recognized the importance of being able to designate targets far off-boresight in short range encounters, and retained
a strong interest in HMS systems for this purpose. And, as you were asking about DASH
1983-87. Display and Sight Helmet (DASH-i). This production contract with the Israeli government delivered
over 100 helmets with visor displays to Israel for integration into Israel's F-4 fighters by the Israeli company, Elbit.
The displays used a visor-projected LED reticle having a 6°(H)x6°(V) monocular FOV. Honeywell's helmet displays
formed the basis of Elbit's first HMS design, the DASH-i , which was later superceded by their own DASH-2 and
DASH-3 designs. Nothing else about DASH or F-14s

Lancecriminal86 on discord referencing papers in
“Helmet- and Head-mounted Displays ...
Volume 3362”

Also found an AWST implying Python 4 was in service as early as 1990 or perhaps earlier.
 

Attachments

  • 213F2042-C729-4876-A06E-3F8D84DE0486.png
    213F2042-C729-4876-A06E-3F8D84DE0486.png
    95.7 KB · Views: 58
  • E3C16291-6997-4AF5-9D48-EED8C3FCEB59.png
    E3C16291-6997-4AF5-9D48-EED8C3FCEB59.png
    122.6 KB · Views: 51
  • BE298EE7-9BB4-460F-89C0-5F441E1F729E.png
    BE298EE7-9BB4-460F-89C0-5F441E1F729E.png
    1 MB · Views: 63
The SA project was begun at the National Institute for Defence Research in 1971. I think it flew for the first time in a Mirage III in 1973. It was designed to work with the locally developed "V3" air to air "dogfight" missile (afterwards branded "Kukri") and to compensate for manoeuvrability limitations of SAAF aircraft vs the more modern Soviet types flown by the Cubans and Indians in Angola. Dieter Gerhardt, the soviet spy caught by the Americans when contacting a handler in New York, was the deputy director of projects for the SADF. His rank was Commander in the SAN. He therefore received all development reports produced by NIDR which he forwarded to the Russians.
Sorry to detract off topic, but I wasn't aware, let alone appreciated that "Indians" fought in Angola!

Regards
Pioneer
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom