F-35 helmet costs $400,000 — 4 times that of predecessor

[IDemo]

When the joint strike fighter, the F-35 Lightning II, finally takes to the skies on its first official mission, it will be one of the most advanced and one of the most expensive planes ever.

And the pilots flying the aircraft will be wearing the most advanced and most expensive helmet ever.

The helmet will give pilots quicker access to the information they need to see and has special cameras to "see" through the bottom of the plane. But it will cost an estimated $400,000 per helmet — more than four times as much as the Air Force paid for head wear for other aircraft such as the F-16.

Helmets for all the F-35s scheduled to be purchased will cost at least $1 billion, Air Force Times estimates.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/10/26/f-35-helmet-costs-400000-4-times-predecessor/74650574/

[Auggie]

1. Wonder what the profit margin is?

[Owl]

9. Criminal level price gouging.

[Auggie]

11. Mix in some bribery and/or collusion too

[Initech]

21. I'm guessing that this level of price gouging has nothing to do with generally accepted accounting.

[BlueJazz]

25. Yep. As a person with quite a bit of electronic background and one who has put (some) of the space..

..."stuff" together....NOTHING fucking costs that much...I don't care what the hell it has in it.

I feel your anger.

[olddots]

2. some where a repukian is getting a boner

[Thinkingabout]

3. I wonder who voted for the helments, maybe the same one who votes with Lockheed Martin. Big money

Hole.

[Vincardog]

4. And unless the pilot is 200 + Lbs they will break their neck

[KeepItReal]

7. The lack of accountability in this procurement is astounding

They knew this was an issue found in ejection tests of lightweight dummies and then proceeded to ignore it.

They fixed the blindspot issue with cameras and displays in the helmet. Now the damned thing is so heavy it can kill a pilot on ejection.

[Comrade Grumpy]

5. But we have to cut Medicaid and Social security disability. Priorities!

[gratuitous]

6. "When" the F-35 takes to the skies?

Good one, USA Today!

But we have to keep pouring money into this project because jobcreationnationalsecurityprotectamerica, but we have to cut social security and medicare. You hoi polloi are okay with that, right? Doesn't matter, really, just so long as you appreciate that you'll be starving to death or dying from something totally preventable so that the U.S. keeps trying to build a completely superfluous fighter jet that still can't outperform its predecessors from two generations ago.

[frizzled]

8. I find news at present makes a lot more sense if you read it as a documentary

about the excesses of a long-gone empire.

[trof]

10. Aw jeez. Really?

This F-35 boondoggle just keeps getting worse and worse.
It's like the tar baby.

Back in the 60s my brain bucket probably cost around $12.95.
OK, probably more than that, but sure as hell not approaching half a mill.

[EX500rider]

13. Yeah but that was just a simple metal helmet....this is a little more:

[trof]

16. WHOA!

Darth Vader?

[Thor_MN]

19. That last point needs an asterisk.

http://www.janes.com/article/55452/f-35-helmet-s-weight-to-be-reduced-to-improve-safety

Ejection fatal (possibly) to pilots under a certain weight.

[frizzled]

20. But the helmet's perfectly ejection safe! Just not so much the pilot.

Losing the pilot might actually be cheaper.

[tabasco]

12. Air Force used to pay $500 for a "metal binder impact device."

A hammer in civilian parlance.

[Recursion]

35. I think the issue there was that they weren't paying for "a hammer"

But they didn't want to admit what they were paying for.

In this case they do seem to actually be paying this much for the helmet...

[workinclasszero]

14. Which will destroy America first?

The MIC or the healthcare companies?

[pa28]

15. Last US combat fatality from a dogfight was during Vietnam.

Interesting they are investing so much for technology and hardware for a type of combat that doesn't really exist anymore.

The fact we even decided to make our next gen fighter aircraft a mannned aircraft makes me think somebody watches "top gun" too much. Either that or the F-35 is being built entirely for it's own sake.

[trof]

18. Manned aerial vehicles are a thing of the past.

We can do the same thing with ground controlled craft without consideration for a human's tolerance to Gs.

[Adrahil]

22. Not yet we can't.

I'm in that business. We're still 15-20 years away from that.

[Logical]

38. No true at all. nt

[Adrahil]

39. Oh yeah? Tell that to the Navy's UCLASS program. We're not there yet.

Right now, UASs are limited to a permissive air environment and ground targets.

[Logical]

40. 15 years? Bullshit. nt

[IronLionZion]

24. When's the last time a US fighter jet was even used in air-to-air combat?

The F-35 is not even designed for air to ground attacks like the A-10 and Harrier and other jets it is replacing.

[EX500rider]

36. 1st Gulf War saw some:

The aerial strike force was made up of over 2,250 combat aircraft, which included 1,800 US aircraft, which fought against an Iraqi force of about 500 Soviet-built MiG-29, MiG-25, and MiG-23, and French-made Mirage F1 fighters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign

[Thor_MN]

17. Expensive, but with that price you get enough weight to snap the neck of smaller pilots

if they have to eject....

[Adrahil]

23. Just so ya know....

The risk of neck injuries have been an issue since pilots started using night vision devices. They'll figure it out. Probably a head tether or something like that.

[Thor_MN]

28. Just so you know, their plan is to reduce the helmet weight by 6 ounces.

The risk of neck injuries has been an issue since the ejector seat was invented. The risk of a potentially fatal neck fractures in lighter weight pilots was discovered in testing the Gen III helmets. Currently, pilots under 136 lbs. are banned from wearing the Gen III helmets.






For people who think the F35 program is not meeting its goals, they don't realize the primary goal is transferring money from US taxpayers to shareholders of Lockheed Martin.

[Adrahil]

29. Yeah, I'm aware of the weight reduction efforts.

But another strategy is to stablize the head during ejection.

[Thor_MN]

31. Hence the side airbags on the ejection seat.

But they add air resistance to the top of the seat which can accentuate the snap with lighter weight pilots. Your tether idea seems to be a non-starter, or at least not in the plans.

[jmowreader]

32. Six ounces. Six ounces.

What's it weigh, fifty pounds?

[Thor_MN]

33. That's their plan. nt.

[tammywammy]

34. From 5.4lbs to 4.8lbs. n/t

[lonestarnot]

26. rifuckingdickulous!

[CentralMass]

27. i wonder how many palms were greased ? although even worse, it sounds like ths

aircraft, tat doesn't seem ready for prime time, could weaken our air power and defense capabilities.

[valerief]

30. Well, so long as rich people get richer, because that's the whole purpose for the war racket.

We can starve.

[Owl]

37. k&r