Share Email Print

Proceedings Paper

Requirements for AMLCDs in U.S. military applications
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00
cover GOOD NEWS! Your organization subscribes to the SPIE Digital Library. You may be able to download this paper for free. Check Access

Paper Abstract

Flat panel displays are fast becoming a significant source of more defense for less money. Military instruments have begun to use color active matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCDs). This is the beginning of a significant transition from electromechanical, CRT. dichroic LCD, and electroluminescent display designs to the AMLCD designs. We have the opportunity with this new technology to establish common products capable of meeting user requirements for sunlight-readable, color and grayscale capable, high-sharpness high-pixel count, flat panel displays for military applications. The Wright Laboratory is leading the development of recommended best practice, draft guidance standard, and performance specifications for this new generation, the flat panel cockpit display generation, of display modules based on requirements for U.S. military aircraft and ground combat human system interfaces. These requirements are similar in many regards to those in both the civil aviation and automotive industries; accordingly, commonality with these civil applications is incorporated where possible, against the requirements for military combat applications. The performance requirement may be achieved by two approaches: militarization of displays made to low requirements of a large volume civil products manufacturer like Sharp or integration of displays made to high requirements by a niche market commercial vendor, like Optical Imaging Systems, Litton Systems Limited, ImageQuest Inc., and Planar Advanced Inc. teamed with Xerox PARC and Standish Industries. [Note that the niche market companies listed are commercial off-the shelf vendors, albeit for high requirement low volume customers.] Given that the performance specifications can be met for a particular military product by either approach, the choice is based on life cycle cost and a thin analysis based on initial costs alone is not acceptable as it ignores the fact that military product life cycles and procurements are 20-60 years compared to 1.5 years for civil products. Thus far there is no convincing evidence that the large volume commercial product approach for combat systems will meet the combat performance specification or be cheaper from a life cycle cost perspective. National and economic security requirements require some military/avionic-grade AMLCD production domestically (i.e. in the U.S. and/or Canada). Examples of AMLCD demand and performance requirements in U.S. military systems are provided.

Paper Details

Date Published: 5 June 1995
PDF: 12 pages
Proc. SPIE 2462, Cockpit Displays II, (5 June 1995); doi: 10.1117/12.210949
Show Author Affiliations
Darrel G. Hopper, Air Force Wright Lab. (United States)
Daniel D. Desjardins, Air Force Wright Lab. (United States)

Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 2462:
Cockpit Displays II
Darrel G. Hopper, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top