Integrated Flight Fire Control System

[sferrin]

Anybody know if this went anywhere? (Starts about 6 minutes in.)

[fiskerwad]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LouqEIBLTzU

Anybody know if this went anywhere? (Starts about 6 minutes in.)

I remember sitting in an MSIP meeting around this time where the presentation was an interconnect between FLCS and FCS. There were some "twisty" ladder displays on the HUD and a switch that DISCONNECTED the FLCS from FCS (the default was to have them coupled). There were several Viper pilots in attendance and the response from all of them was no.

One of the major features discussed was non-wings-level A-G delivery. Sort of jinking while bombing.
fisk

[LinkF16SimDude]

The wingless bomber at 03:22 looked interesting. Lifting body maybe?

[sferrin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LouqEIBLTzU

Anybody know if this went anywhere? (Starts about 6 minutes in.)

I remember sitting in an MSIP meeting around this time where the presentation was an interconnect between FLCS and FCS. There were some "twisty" ladder displays on the HUD and a switch that DISCONNECTED the FLCS from FCS (the default was to have them coupled). There were several Viper pilots in attendance and the response from all of them was no.

"No" as in they didn't want it or "no" that it never got implemented?

[count_to_10]

I've been wondering about something like that since I was a kid. Seems like a no-brainer (push a button and let the computer line up your plane for the shot), but I've never seen it implemented even in a video game.

[fiskerwad]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LouqEIBLTzU

Anybody know if this went anywhere? (Starts about 6 minutes in.)

I remember sitting in an MSIP meeting around this time where the presentation was an interconnect between FLCS and FCS. There were some "twisty" ladder displays on the HUD and a switch that DISCONNECTED the FLCS from FCS (the default was to have them coupled). There were several Viper pilots in attendance and the response from all of them was no.

"No" as in they didn't want it or "no" that it never got implemented?

Exactly. They did not want the computer flying the jet during weapons delivery, so it never happened. Lots of meetings go like that, the engineers have all types of brilliant, makes-perfect-sense ideas. Putting a pilot in a drone makes no sense.
fisk

[johnwill]

Fisk, the non-wings-level A-G delivery was tried several times on F-16XL in 1982, using the standard CCIP mode. It worked fine. Those were Mk-82 dumb bombs. The fire control computer was not coupled into flight controls. Later, in 1985, AFTI F-16 successfully demonstrated automatic tracking of air to air targets, with simulated gun firing at the proper time. The pilot simply designated the target and became an observer to all the maneuvering, meanwhile depressing the trigger so the gun would fire at the proper time. Another AFTI trick was automated ground attack. Here again, the pilot would designate the target and hang on. The airplane would roll inverted, and pull hard toward the ground. Based on the all-aspect radar altimeter, it would then roll out and fly a turning flight path into the target, releasing the bombs at the right time. Again, it worked fine.

I wouldn't say the pilots were initially overjoyed to fly those missions, but starting high and gradually going to lower altitudes, they gained confidence in the system until it became almost routine. Doing something like that in a rigidly monitored and controlled flight test is much different from operational use. I don't blame operational pilots for not wanting it, as it is their butt on the line, not the engineer. Fortunately, smart bombs have made all that unnecessary.

Not wanting the computer to completely fly the airplane must be universal. In 1990, we had developed an automatic maneuvering system for the Taiwan IDF fighter flight test. It would fly perfect roll maneuvers, at any g level, time after time. The purpose was to get better test data and eliminate the need to repeat maneuvers due to incorrect stick inputs. Normally around 50% of the rolls had to be repeated. The pilots campaigned hard against the system, but eventually agreed to try it. It worked perfectly of course. Before the test program ended, several pilots told me we should have programmed all the maneuvers, not just rolls.

[linkomart]

The wingless bomber at 03:22 looked interesting. Lifting body maybe?

IIRC a Rockwell proposal for a ....I think they called it scissors wing (forgive my memory, it was something like 20 years ago I read it).... you can see the wing stoved at the top of the fuselage, this was envisioned to be the position at high speed, low level flight. For take off and landing the wing was rotated 90 degrees to give a high aspect ratio wing with all the benefits of low to and landing speed etc. There were flight tests with a less (?) extreme idea where the wing were only rotated 45 degrees giving an asymmetrical aircraft with one wing swept forward and one swept backwards

this is the first Google hit I made, but there are others:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -Nasa.html

Here is a little (not much about the Rockwell plane you saw:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-440/ch8-2.htm

Best regards

[KamenRiderBlade]

How are you suppose to turn with a lifting body?

[linkomart]

Don't know, but logically looking at the picture it would be something like:
Pitch, Canard deflection or TVC (if installed)
Yaw, rudders.
Roll, Differential Canard deflection or differential TVC.

my 5 cent

[fiskerwad]

Fisk, the non-wings-level A-G delivery was tried several times on F-16XL in 1982, using the standard CCIP mode. It worked fine. Those were Mk-82 dumb bombs. The fire control computer was not coupled into flight controls. Later, in 1985, AFTI F-16 successfully demonstrated automatic tracking of air to air targets, with simulated gun firing at the proper time. The pilot simply designated the target and became an observer to all the maneuvering, meanwhile depressing the trigger so the gun would fire at the proper time. Another AFTI trick was automated ground attack. Here again, the pilot would designate the target and hang on. The airplane would roll inverted, and pull hard toward the ground. Based on the all-aspect radar altimeter, it would then roll out and fly a turning flight path into the target, releasing the bombs at the right time. Again, it worked fine.

I wouldn't say the pilots were initially overjoyed to fly those missions, but starting high and gradually going to lower altitudes, they gained confidence in the system until it became almost routine. Doing something like that in a rigidly monitored and controlled flight test is much different from operational use. I don't blame operational pilots for not wanting it, as it is their butt on the line, not the engineer. Fortunately, smart bombs have made all that unnecessary.

Not wanting the computer to completely fly the airplane must be universal. In 1990, we had developed an automatic maneuvering system for the Taiwan IDF fighter flight test. It would fly perfect roll maneuvers, at any g level, time after time. The purpose was to get better test data and eliminate the need to repeat maneuvers due to incorrect stick inputs. Normally around 50% of the rolls had to be repeated. The pilots campaigned hard against the system, but eventually agreed to try it. It worked perfectly of course. Before the test program ended, several pilots told me we should have programmed all the maneuvers, not just rolls.

Hi John,
I agree on all points. I do know that the software/airplane were completely capable of flying the mission, it was the "just along for the ride" part that was a tough sell. I'm always reminded of the joke about the guy driving the RV that sets the cruise control and goes in the back to make coffee. Ha!

The technology was advancing so rapidly then that we could have had drones years earlier, it just that it's tough to get funding for drones FROM drones, ya know?
fisk