Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) UK-Japan-Italy

I think it's more about LO and the ELINT/EW capability. This is where Sweden can add capability and in turn gain from it.
 
The Swedish Defence Ministry and SAAB might be very interested in the technology of GCAP and SAAB has a close relationship with BAE Systems but the Tempest-type platform may not suit Sweden's defence doctrine on account of its size. The original doctrine had the Draken and Viggen dispersed and taking off from roads in the expectation that airfields would be nuclear targets in the case of a Soviet offensive. I don't know what the case is with the Grippen, but it's still a relatively small, light aircraft that could be on distributed deployment. It may be that they consider Tempest/GCAP too big and expensive for this doctrine and are considering whether a single-engine JAS-X is affordable at this point.
 
As an aside, once Sweden fully joins NATO, more A26 submarines it has designed specifically for Baltic operations might be built and sold for the existing Baltic NATO states such as Lithuania, Estonia and Estonia.
 
Last edited:
red admiral said:
Removable bay tanks are a thing, but when you do the calculations they don't actually hold that much fuel once you take into account things like access for mounting and getting it in and out of the bay.
Click to expand...
That's where I'd just go with rubber fuel bladders over a hard tank. Suck the bay tanks dry and they're not too hard to fit in (ask any mechanic who has fitted rubber tanks into a metal wing). Test fill with a couple gallons under pressure to check for leaks at the connections, then close the bay doors before filling completely.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That's where I'd just go with rubber fuel bladders over a hard tank. Suck the bay tanks dry and they're not too hard to fit in (ask any mechanic who has fitted rubber tanks into a metal wing). Test fill with a couple gallons under pressure to check for leaks at the connections, then close the bay doors before filling completely.
Click to expand...

Problem there is there will be weight on the bay doors that they're not designed to handle. You'd have to make them far stronger, which would add weight all of the time, not just when a tank is in play. I suspect things like that we're looked at when the Buccaneer and Vulcan had their internal bay tanks designed and were discarded.
 
timmymagic said:
Problem there is there will be weight on the bay doors that they're not designed to handle. You'd have to make them far stronger, which would add weight all of the time, not just when a tank is in play. I suspect things like that we're looked at when the Buccaneer and Vulcan had their internal bay tanks designed and were discarded.
Click to expand...
Fair point. I was going to say "just use a shaped bladder then," but realized that it'd still push on the doors. Wonder about a blow molded plastic tank, shaped with access for a ground ape to lock it onto whatever... That would be less able to push on the bay doors.
 
Maybe a discussion thread should be started in the bar for speculation clearing the main theme for the heading subject as information is released ?
 
Last edited:

QinetiQ successfully conducts inaugural flight test with fitted fast jet radome​

08/08/2023

In partnership with BAE, QinetiQ’s Airborne Technology Demonstrator delivers landmark trial of future radar and sense integration capabilities.​

RJ100 with combat aircraft nose system (fast jet radome) installed

QinetiQ’s Airborne Technology Demonstrator (ATD) in partnership with BAE Systems, underpinned by the Long Term Partnering Agreement with the MOD, has conducted a flight test with the combat aircraft nose system (fast jet radome) installed onto the RJ100, paving the way to future radar and sensor integration capability. This will enable the ATD to support a breadth of future programmes, as the aircraft expands its offering as the most capable flying testbed available in the UK today to support a variety of technology developments in the sector, and will now become a core T3E capability offering under the LTPA.
Click to expand...
The flight also represents the first major Ministry of Defence (MOD) trial conducted under Category 1 Flight Test and is the first trial of its kind in the UK for 30 years. The addition of the radome is an exciting development in UK flight test capability and builds on QinetiQ’s Aviation Engineering Centre (AEC) exceptional track-record in aircraft design and modification, a key T3E offering under the LTPA.
Using an RJ100 airframe, the addition of the radome is just the latest in a series of modifications to this platform. Transformed into a flying laboratory and classroom, the ATD provides power and data backbones and multiple flexible workstations to enable research and development projects to be quickly and easily integrated.
Click to expand...
A bespoke, modular multi-role capability that meets the requirements of both military and civil customers, the ATD supports cost-effective specialist training, experimentation, air carriage, and test and evaluation (T&E) activities. The aircraft is purpose built to simplify the route of getting technology under development into airborne environment.
Click to expand...
Nic Anderson, Chief Executive UK Defence, QinetiQ: Building on QinetiQ’s Aviation Engineering Centre’s exceptional track record in aircraft design and modification, the ATD represents an exciting development in UK flight test capability. Working with BAE Systems in collaboration to support the development of future sensors and technology is a great demonstration of our expertise in aviation engineering, airworthiness and test and evaluation.
Steve Wynd, Engineering Director – Air Sector, BAE Systems: Using a flying test bed in this way allows us to much more rapidly test, develop and prove new digital technologies, with particular focus on Model Based Systems Engineering. We’re really excited in the potential this provides and look forward to our continued collaboration with QinetiQ.

QinetiQ successfully conducts inaugural flight test with fitted fast jet radome

In partnership with BAE, QinetiQ’s Airborne Technology Demonstrator delivers landmark trial of future radar and sense integration capabilities
www.qinetiq.com
Click to expand...

QinetiQ demonstrator cleared for testing fast jet radars and sensors | Shephard

QinetiQ has completed flight tests of its Avro RJ100 Airborne Technology Demonstrator (ATD) fitted with a combat aircraft nose system radome as part of a programme to test fighter aircraft radars and sensors.
www.shephardmedia.com
 
That'a testing ECRS Mk2 for Typhoon rather than anything to do with GCAP?

Tempest/GCAP is going down the 757 testbed route because the RJ was too small and didn't have enough power?
 
I understand there's a lot of overlap in the radar programs with ECRS Mk2 for Typhoon feeding into GCAP and vice versa, Excalibur the Leonardo test aircraft is focussing on sensor fusion, communications and non-kinetic effects.
 
Saudi Arabia is pushing to join GCAP as a full member but while UK and Italy are broadly in support, Japan opposes because it could introduce possible delays and reopen industrial participation negotiations. While Saud would bring money to the table there is doubts over whether they bring any meaningful technology.

Saudi Arabia pushes to join fighter jet project with UK, Italy and Japan | Financial Times

Request creates tension between partners in landmark three-way combat aircraft programme
www.ft.com www.ft.com
 
How would the joining of Saudi Arabia introduce delays to the GCAP program? Anyone know the reason why? :confused:
 
Because it would have to be worked out what Saudi companies would be industrial leads (e.g. who would contribute engine parts, who could build fuselage parts, who would do electronics, assembly and maintenance etc..) and examine whether the country had any particular performance or weapon requirements which would have to be incorporated (e.g. would seals need extra protection from sand ingress, higher average takeoff temperatures (average Temps in summer 10 degrees higher than Japan). These would have to be incorporated from the beginning into the base design rather than being a later ruggedization for export). Finally technical sharing and intelligence framework treaties would have to be signed.
 
Thanks WatcherZero. In other words it would probably lead to a similar situation to what happened to the Typhoon program where France walked out due to the same things. Let's see what happens I certainly do not want GCAP going the way of Typhoon where one member country walks away from the program dissatisfied.
 
Rhinocrates said:
The Swedish Defence Ministry and SAAB might be very interested in the technology of GCAP and SAAB has a close relationship with BAE Systems but the Tempest-type platform may not suit Sweden's defence doctrine on account of its size. The original doctrine had the Draken and Viggen dispersed and taking off from roads in the expectation that airfields would be nuclear targets in the case of a Soviet offensive. I don't know what the case is with the Grippen, but it's still a relatively small, light aircraft that could be on distributed deployment. It may be that they consider Tempest/GCAP too big and expensive for this doctrine and are considering whether a single-engine JAS-X is affordable at this point.
Click to expand...

Just circling back to Sweden...

In the 2030's there will be F-35, KF-21, Ka'an and FC-31 on the market. SU-75 might even get built...so the lower end '5th Generation' fighter market will be pretty much saturated, with a lot of nations already operating F-35 in particular out to the 2060's.

So who would the Swedish/Saab be selling any updated Gripen or newly developed LWT 5th Gen aircraft to exactly? Some of the aircraft listed above would have advantages in who they could be sold to as well (Turkey, Russia and China aren't going to be particularly fussed about Human Rights records), F-35 will have a colossal userbase plus guaranteed support and the usual US endless development and refinement, KF-21 have the huge South Korean tech industrial base backing it and I suspect a number of users by then as well...

I just can't see any market for another one by the time Saab could have it ready...
 
Let's remind one important aspect: fighter jets are national priorities. They are not developed to be economically wise. The benefits come with the dissemination of R&D later on across the nation industrial base.

Quality of execution will reorder the market. Comparing for example a KF-21 with an F-35 is particularly unfair.
If Saab can develop something that has its own niche, they should be able to sell.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Let's remind one important aspect: fighter jets are national priorities. They are not developed to be economically wise.
Click to expand...

They are in Sweden...Gripen E development was only approved by the Swedish Parliament after assurances that export orders would come.

TomcatViP said:
Quality of execution will reorder the market. Comparing for example a KF-21 with an F-35 is particularly unfair.
If Saab can develop something that has its own niche, they would sell.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at potential purchasing nations for that class of fighter that Saab could sell to in that timeframe....and they're just not there. Which countries in particular do you think would be in the market?
 
Gripen E was not a full size project, but the adaptation of an existing design. Sweden was more seeing that as an investment to strengthen its national industry by helping them gather more traction on the international market.

I am not sure that anyone 20 years ago envisioned SAAB present sell, especially in such countries as Brasil or or the Czech Republic.
 
Bringing the fuel bladder thing back for a moment, we had those in Chieftain and of the 220 odd gallons in those things only 189 were 'usable'. The residual fuel just sat there out of reach in folds etc. A regal pain in the behind yourself........
 
Foo Fighter said:
Bringing the fuel bladder thing back for a moment, we had those in Chieftain and of the 220 odd gallons in those things only 189 were 'usable'. The residual fuel just sat there out of reach in folds etc. A regal pain in the behind yourself........
Click to expand...
To be honest that just sounds like bad design. For a plane where you want to use an irregular space with alternate uses as a fuel cell I can understand if that would happen, but for a purpose designed bladder for a tank?
 
Other thing is if you add the ability to carry fuel in the internal bay you also have to plumb it and add ventilation to stop volatile fumes building up, temporary connections to bladders or drop tanks are never going to be perfect, there will be drips and spills.
 
Last edited:
Article from Aerosociety.com

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/future-cockpits-flying-with-the-blink-of-an-eye/

Future cockpits - flying with the blink of an eye​

BAE Systems is studying future fast jet cockpit technologies for enhanced combat effectiveness through advanced human-machine interfaces and increased automation, as PAUL E EDEN reports.
Agile targeting, data fusion and data sharing, helmet-mounted displays and advanced combat systems; these are the stuff of modern fast jet cockpits. And pilots too, of course, although in an era of AI and loyal wingmen, should future cockpit designers be considering human factors and limitations at all?

Nellis AFB, home to the famous Red Flag exercise series is right next door to Las Vegas. If you’ve flown from Vegas to London, you’ll appreciate there are better ways to spend ten hours than sitting in an airline seat. Without consideration for G-forces, cockpit workload or being shot at, now imagine the ten hours from Nellis to the UK strapped into the ejection seat of a Eurofighter Typhoon. No meal service, no snacks, no toilets and inflight movie.

Deployments aside, the nature of global conflict over the past two or three decades has seen fast jet crews spend hours in the cockpit before reaching the area of regard, remain on station for two hours or more, then make the long flight back to base. Future fast jet cockpits must, through necessity, balance combat efficiency with pilot health and living space.

Information overload​

blog-01a-rs31304_dp121957.jpg

The Tempest, or Future Combat Air System programme includes a major focus on future cockpit technology. The cockpit of Typhoon (left) has evolved considerably during the type’s career. (BAE Systems)
Through its work on Tempest, the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), BAE Systems is exploring the gamut of future fast jet cockpit technologies.

Any aircraft emerging from FCAS will generate more data than today’s most advanced fighter – arguably the F-35 – from more powerful sensors. It will likely place greater physiological demands upon its pilots through higher performance and require that they operate within a team comprising crewed and uncrewed assets, perhaps while controlling one or more of the latter.

Casual conversations with senior RAF pilots early in Typhoon’s service revealed the risk of ‘helmet fires’, where pilots were overwhelmed by the volume of data generated by the jet’s sensors while attempting to fly and ‘fight it’ effectively. New systems, better data displays and world-class training have reduced the problem, but could advancing technologies see it reignite?

Jacob Greene, a human factors engineer at BAE Systems, says: “Pilot overload from the availability of increased data and sensor capability is a real threat. Simplifying data provision is a key human machine interface (HMI) design consideration integral to any future cockpit display and control system. Novel cockpit HMI technologies aim to provide greater display real-estate enabling pilots to view data through enhanced helmet mounted display (HMD) systems for heads-up viewing and a large area display (LAD) for increased display functionality and customisation, while offering improved methods of display interaction.

“Next generation aircraft are also likely to include enhanced autonomous capabilities, driven through an intelligent agent. A system capable of determining which information is valuable and how to present it in a manageable form while considering the operational context, should help reduce the burden on the human operator, providing there is trust in the system.”

The concept of increased cockpit autonomy raises important questions. Is autonomy’s role simply to relieve pilot workload? Does it enhance mission capabilities outside the pilot’s ability? Does it offload tasks, leaving pilots with capacity for others? And since autonomy implies AI and AI builds on experience, what are the fundamental starting points?

Regarding this latter question, most fast jet pilots have been male, but pilots who have worked in formations of male and female pilots, or in mixed crews, suggest that considerable benefit is gained from different male and female thought processes, especially in the heat of combat or crisis. And yet the evidence of how fast jets are flown is overwhelmingly from a male perspective – will cockpit AI inevitably ‘think like a man’?

Another of BAE Systems’ human factors engineers, Lucy Crabb responds: “Flexibility is a key factor for successfully incorporating AI into the cockpit. This means that to cater for how different pilots think and react to stimuli around them, we need to give them the facility to personalise the AI to best match their working style – including their AI’s gender. It is important when designing and integrating AI and autonomous systems that there is no negative effect on the dynamic between pilots in a formation. We’re combating this by identifying the key characteristics that make a good human crew and ensuring the AI displays the same characteristics to create an optimum human-machine team.”

Continuing the theme of advanced HMI, Greene notes: “Since a 6th-generation aircraft is likely to have enhanced autonomous capabilities, haptic body cues can provide additional spatial cues to provide the operator with attention-getting and warning indicators. Haptic cues can also be programmed to activate a specific number of sensor combinations at different intensities.”

BAE Systems has used haptic gaming vests in early assessments to determine how these new sensory inputs could enhance pilot capability. Greene continues: “It is well known that inattentional deafness can occur in high stress and overloading environments, leaving pilots unable to hear traditional audio warnings. Body haptic cues could have potential for alerting the pilot to prepare for any sudden changes in g-force, for example, likely used alongside traditional methods in a multi-modal array to enhance reaction and response times rather than adding to workload as a standalone additional input.”

Eye tracking is another technology promising closer human-machine integration. Greene explains: “Eye tracking captures a variety of metrics, including gaze data, pupil dilation and blink rates, in real-time. Their analysis can infer human cognitive, emotional and physiological states, including mental workload and fatigue. Eye tracking can also be deployed as an HMI input method, enabling cursor control through gaze point selection. The use of a dedicated button that could be integrated onto a hands on throttle and stick (HOTAS) system could be used as a simple, reliable method to support eye-based input. Technical advancements are being made to ensure reliable tracking under high ambient lighting conditions, including working outdoors in direct sunlight, which has been a limiting factor.”

Virtual WSO? Loyal wingman?​

gcap-and-drones-web.jpg

How might a single seat future fighter command drone 'loyal wingmen'? (BAE Systems)

‘Maverick’ leads a formation of single-seat F/A-18E and two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornets against an ‘illegal uranium enrichment plant’ in the 2022 movie Top Gun: Maverick. The US Navy sees continuing benefits in two-seat combat aircraft, opting for a mixed Super Hornet fleet, where crews of pilot and weapon system officer (WSO) fly the F/A-18F.
However, there is no clear consensus; the French Air and Space Force operates a mix of single- and dual-seat Rafales, for example, while the Royal Air Force flies only single-seat Typhoons and F-35 operators have no choice but to fly with a single pilot.

Work under way in Australia, the UK, US and elsewhere is exploring concepts for mixed formations with autonomous or remotely piloted aircraft flying as ‘loyal wingmen’ alongside crewed fighter aircraft. Meanwhile, Boeing’s T-7A Red Hawk training system includes provision for students and instructors crewing advanced simulators on the ground to ‘fly’ alongside aircraft in the real world and Sikorsky has flown H-60 trials with a human pilot flying alongside a virtual colleague. Is there space in future fast jet cockpits for a virtual back-seater?

“Such a concept could provide important benefits including reducing platform size and weight, and the workload of a single operator,” Crabb believes. “Strong communication channels between operators would be needed for a remote crew partnership to work successfully, along with a clear division of roles to prevent confusion or vital tasks being missed. Effective training and operating procedures would also be vital. The second crew member could be displayed as an avatar that could be personalised by appearance and voice, for example, to enhance interaction.”

The ‘loyal wingman’ concept raises questions over AI, control and increasing cockpit workload. It is easy to overlook the value of discussion between pilots in a tactical formation, each with a unique viewpoint and differing experience. Following the RAF’s acclaimed participation in Operation Unified Protector over Libya in 2011, a senior RAF Tornado pilot told the author that crews regularly discussed how best to engage targets and, crucially, he identified those occasions on which the formation decided it should not release weapons as the most significant. How does a loyal wingman fit into this scenario and how might it be controlled?

Crabb continues: “Generally, control of uncrewed assets from a fast jet cockpit impacts on workload – we’re exploring and trying to address the issue. Thinking about how a pilot interacts with a human wingman, both are autonomous. Given a task or objective, they’ll use their training and experience to get the job done. Realistically, we need to achieve that kind of interaction with machine systems too, and even more so when the number of cooperating assets increases. Pilots simply won’t have the capacity to be involved in the detailed operation of those assets, so they’ll need to interact in a more goal orientated manner, supplying tasks and providing oversight as a flight lead might. The implication is that any loyal wingman assets would need to facilitate that level of capability in their technology too, so we must generate human-centred requirements for these systems if they’re going to be useful and useable.

Working from home?​

blog-eurofighter-large-screen-display.jpg

Novel cockpit HMI technologies aim to merge helmet mounted displays with a large area display (LAD) for increased display functionality and customisation. (BAE Systems)

Crabb’s vision for advanced human-machine interaction may be some way off, but the reality of controlling a loyal wingman remotely, perhaps with a pilot sitting in a ‘cockpit’ at home base, is far closer. Crabb says that may have implications for fundamental aspects of cockpit design and pilot role. “We envisage the pilot’s role developing as technology and the future battlespace continue to develop. If this leads to remotely piloted wingmen, these could be operated from ground control stations, allowing human pilots to operate the platform at a safer distance from the battlespace and in a more comfortable environment unaffected by the environmental or physiological constraints that normally impact operations, including G-forces and cockpit size.”

For now, though, pilots will remain in fast jet cockpits and BAE Systems is paying considerable attention to pilot welfare, for combat efficiency and more prosaic matters. Returning to the flight from Nellis, fast jet pilots have traditionally employed ‘tactical dehydration’ before long flights, yet dehydration has deleterious effects on performance. Greene explains: “Depending on the operational environment, the cockpit can reach temperatures that cause pilots to lose water and electrolytes excreted through sweat. Additional factors including limited aircrew relief systems and cockpit storage discourage the on take of fluids before and during flights, and even minor levels of dehydration can have negative effects on physical and mental performance.”

Measuring and understanding such effects is critical and Greene continues: “As human factors engineers, we work closely with the RAF Centre of Aviation Medicine, keeping informed on the latest findings regarding solutions for the reliable and robust measurement of pilot status. Separately, we’re exploring the possibility of monitoring and classifying human performance metrics including mental workload, fatigue and vigilance [which can be defined as sustained concentration] through psychophysiological monitoring. Wearable technologies, eye tracking, electrocardiograms and electroencephalograms among them, are being explored as possible solutions for capturing insights into pilot behaviour. Research is under way to understand how these technologies stand up during airborne testing and further our understanding of how susceptible the data is to noise and artefacts during changes in g and under high vibration.”

Future pilot​

blog-tempest-virtual-cockpit.jpg

Experts at BAE Systems are developing technologies that could enable pilots to control Tempest with just the blink of an eye. (BAE Systems)

A WW1 fighter pilot travelling through time from a Sopwith Camel cockpit to a Eurofighter Typhoon ‘office’ would notice fundamental similarities in layout and controls. But would the same be true if he travelled into the future?
Greene concludes: “The ability to effectively process the vast amount of information available in the modern battlespace will be essential to maintaining combat advantage, while human performance is often the limiting factor to overall platform performance. Cockpit research is exploring ways to alleviate this concern.

“Understanding what flying controls remain necessary when automation is increased is a fundamental question. HOTAS will remain key for HMI functionality, although novel features are being explored to understand its benefits on a new platform. The multi-modal cockpit is another important consideration for a new platform, including an augmented reality HMD for increased display real-estate in the outside world. Virtual displays also enable improved heads-out viewing and increased display area, reducing the reliance on traditional glass cockpit displays. Combining these with eye tracking, 3D audio, body haptics and other wearable technology will improve situational awareness and speed up interaction time with the HMI, while tried and tested functionalities – pressing a HOTAS button – will ensure robust, reliable functionality.”

Our Camel pilot would not feel at home, but in an era of AI and loyal wingmen, BAE Systems is working to serve fast jet pilots better than ever before.
 
Interesting article timmymagic, and interesting images also. I like the image that shows the cockpit of the GCAP/Tempest fighter, it would certainly be far more advanced than even the future cockpit of the Typhoon that has been doing the rounds on social media and in this forum recently. I wonder though would all that information available to the future pilot be information overload or would they somehow cope better than even the F-35 pilots of today?
 
timmymagic said:
Article from Aerosociety.com

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/future-cockpits-flying-with-the-blink-of-an-eye/
(...)

Working from home?​

blog-eurofighter-large-screen-display.jpg

Novel cockpit HMI technologies aim to merge helmet mounted displays with a large area display (LAD) for increased display functionality and customisation. (BAE Systems)

Crabb’s vision for advanced human-machine interaction may be some way off, but the reality of controlling a loyal wingman remotely, perhaps with a pilot sitting in a ‘cockpit’ at home base, is far closer. Crabb says that may have implications for fundamental aspects of cockpit design and pilot role. “We envisage the pilot’s role developing as technology and the future battlespace continue to develop. If this leads to remotely piloted wingmen, these could be operated from ground control stations, allowing human pilots to operate the platform at a safer distance from the battlespace and in a more comfortable environment unaffected by the environmental or physiological constraints that normally impact operations, including G-forces and cockpit size.”
Click to expand...
You run into some potentially serious communication lag issues with that...
 
MihoshiK said:
To be honest that just sounds like bad design. For a plane where you want to use an irregular space with alternate uses as a fuel cell I can understand if that would happen, but for a purpose designed bladder for a tank?
Click to expand...
I suppose there was logic in there somewherem a bit like persisting with the L60 when the rest of NATO dropped multi fuel requirements like last weeks cheese round (A week in the sun).
 
timmymagic said:
Article from Aerosociety.com

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/future-cockpits-flying-with-the-blink-of-an-eye/

Future cockpits - flying with the blink of an eye​

<SNIP>
Click to expand...
I have to wonder if we’ll come up against the same problem we had in the recent past with the USN ship collision incidents: too much “virtual” information and interfaces, not enough tactile and observable interfaces (steering wheels, throttles, prominent read-outs in a set physical position). Very easy to get information overload/information obfuscation, loss of muscle memory as an adjunct to standard memory.
 
Foo Fighter said:
I suppose there was logic in there somewherem a bit like persisting with the L60 when the rest of NATO dropped multi fuel requirements like last weeks cheese round (A week in the sun).
Click to expand...
It's not like the Abrams and T80 aren't multifuel. Turbines don't care much what you feed them as long as it's fluid and flammable. Sufficiently finely ground coal dust will work just fine.

But yes, the US basically decided to massively overbuild the fuel supply system and get everything burning the same stuff.
 
TomcatViP said:
Yes, knobs and push buttons is what makes controls reliable. Blind actuation of command is also paramount. I would have hoped that the touch screen frenzy got tamed a bit already.
Click to expand...
Exactly the same problem in car design, too much reliance on complicated touch screens for even minor things like turning the fan on that requires multiple swipes and presses and distracts the eyes off the road.

Heads-up is of course the ideal with the pilot spending minimal time 'eyes-down' but I wonder if we're reaching saturation point with immersive environments? There is only so much visual and aural information that the brain can process. Making the visual field more and more synthetic is probably not helping.

There is much here that leads to the conclusion that the pilot is the weak point more than ever - whether that's from ergonomics for long transit flights or sensory overload.
Crabb raises some interesting points on mixed manned and unmanned formations and pilot interaction. I would think that would be a problem, although there has been enough use of Reaper etc. now to prove the manned-remote manned concept in terms of comms and decision making if not in terms of large mixed formations.
Of course remote Reaper pilots have a whole team of military legal beagles on their shoulder watching every move and approving every weapons drop - fine if you're not in time critical conditions but no way to fight a war, at least keeping manned pilots in the air keeps them one-step removed from the technocratic-legal audience and interference.
I suspect that communicating with an AI wingman or even an AI WSO might be harder, it will tend to see things in black and white, might not wish to justify its actions in the way a human would - at least at present it has no tendency to admit mistakes let alone give clarity on its decision making process. Pilots are close knit and tend to trust each other with their lives, would you trust an AI programme to the same extent or have the same emotional attachment? Problems for perhaps 20 years time but ones that need thinking about.
 
GA modern EFIS being simply just a pain to configure in flight, I can't get around the idea that a fighter pilot wearing gloves while confronted with a challenging tactical situation, under tactical manoeuvring, would be able to perform better with touch screens while seated in a reclined seat. It's simply too much counter-intuitive to let it pass that easily.
 
TomcatViP said:
Yes, knobs and push buttons is what makes controls reliable. Blind actuation of command is also paramount. I would have hoped that the touch screen frenzy got tamed a bit already.
Click to expand...

starviking said:
I have to wonder if we’ll come up against the same problem we had in the recent past with the USN ship collision incidents: too much “virtual” information and interfaces, not enough tactile and observable interfaces (steering wheels, throttles, prominent read-outs in a set physical position). Very easy to get information overload/information obfuscation, loss of muscle memory as an adjunct to standard memory.
Click to expand...
And what happens with their "blink controls" when the pilot has an eyelash come loose and move between the eyelid and the surface of the eye... random blinks from the irritation?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom