F-22 making case for UAVs?

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post24 Sep 2012, 21:58

I can't help wondering is some of the physiological issues could be solved by putting the pilots in full-on pressure suits (as in the U-2).

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/09/24/f-22- ... -for-uavs/

Scientists and engineers generally agree the human pilot is the largest limiting factor in the progression of aircraft development. It appears the problems facing F-22 pilots are making that case even stronger...

Air Force leaders had declared that they have identified the culprits causing the problems for pilots to include the breathing regulator/anti-g (BRAG) valve on the Combat Edge upper pressure garment. The Air Force is replacing the valve, installing a new back-up oxygen system and changing the oxygen schedule for the F-22’s onboard oxygen generation system (OBOGS). Gen. Mike Hostage, head of Air Combat Command, said Sept. 19 at the Air Force Association’s annual conference he isn’t so sure it’s purely a mechanical problem. He pointed his finger in another direction — the human body...

Hostage explained that Air Force investigators have tested pilots by putting them inside the centrifuge and replicated flight conditions in the F-22 in a controlled environment, and the pilots report the same symptoms. “The bottom line is it wasn’t an element in the airplane, it was human physiology,” Hostage said...

Hostage made sure to follow up his description of the F-22’s affects on the human body with a full throated endorsement of the fifth generation fighter and the capabilities it brings to the Air Force. “The best thing about it is our adversaries watch it carefully and it scares the hell out of them,” he said.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

velocityvector

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2009, 04:21
  • Location: Chicago

Unread post25 Sep 2012, 00:06

Pressure suits would generate their own set of human physiology issues. A related challenge is how to design G protection in a pressure suit - rapid inflation of suit bladders will create rapid pressure changes inside the pressure suit, for example. Technology will eventually eliminate the pilot, whether aboard or remote, regardless and that day is likely sooner than many here will believe.
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2053
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post25 Sep 2012, 01:18

You could go to fully electronic cockpits, with the pilot fully reclined in a pressurized capsule.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.
Offline

velocityvector

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2009, 04:21
  • Location: Chicago

Unread post25 Sep 2012, 02:09

count_to_10 wrote:You could go to fully electronic cockpits, with the pilot fully reclined in a pressurized capsule.

This concept has always held paper advantages. The experiential problem with it is that a substantial percentage of human pilots, even tested/seasoned veterans, are laid low by sea sickness/air sickness/space sickness/equilibrium imbalance that negatively affects performance. The problem shows up in simulators, too. Human beings are wired to work over lengthy hours under conditions where 3-axis change rapidly with some outside view, which I suppose we can eventually reproduce electronically but we aren't there yet for fighter-sized aircraft insofar as I am aware. If F-22 pilots fly long missions with ACM involved, you'd want to provide a highly realistic view outside, ideally one with a horizon. 0.02
Offline

cola

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 532
  • Joined: 18 May 2009, 00:52
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post25 Sep 2012, 08:56

1st503rdsgt wrote:I can't help wondering is some of the physiological issues could be solved by putting the pilots in full-on pressure suits (as in the U-2).

Well, the g-issue can't be solved in the same degree, almost certainly...not sure how the rest helps, if you plan on using aircraft for combat.
Cheers, Cola
Offline

archeman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 364
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post26 Sep 2012, 00:46

count_to_10 wrote:You could go to fully electronic cockpits, with the pilot fully reclined in a pressurized capsule.


There is a great quote out there somewhere from one of the test pilots at the conclusion of the 'tail sitter' aircraft experiments (X-13 I think):

"Laying on your back is a great position for a young pilot, but not while flying an airplane!"
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2053
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post26 Sep 2012, 01:22

velocityvector wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:You could go to fully electronic cockpits, with the pilot fully reclined in a pressurized capsule.

This concept has always held paper advantages. The experiential problem with it is that a substantial percentage of human pilots, even tested/seasoned veterans, are laid low by sea sickness/air sickness/space sickness/equilibrium imbalance that negatively affects performance. The problem shows up in simulators, too. Human beings are wired to work over lengthy hours under conditions where 3-axis change rapidly with some outside view, which I suppose we can eventually reproduce electronically but we aren't there yet for fighter-sized aircraft insofar as I am aware. If F-22 pilots fly long missions with ACM involved, you'd want to provide a highly realistic view outside, ideally one with a horizon. 0.02

We're getting close to fighters being able to basically fly themselves -- and that will come before they are able to make the tactical decisions required for true autonomy. At that point, you will need a pilot to coordinate and provide judgment, rather than for piloting skill.
Also, the pilot would presumably be at some angle from the horizontal relative to the jet, since the plane has to be at some angle of attack to pull high Gs.
Offline

velocityvector

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2009, 04:21
  • Location: Chicago

Unread post26 Sep 2012, 01:34

archeman wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:You could go to fully electronic cockpits, with the pilot fully reclined in a pressurized capsule.


There is a great quote out there somewhere from one of the test pilots at the conclusion of the 'tail sitter' aircraft experiments (X-13 I think):

"Laying on your back is a great position for a young pilot, but not while flying an airplane!"

I wish all F-35 and other pilots a "fine ride" on their backs under appropriate, truly pleasant circumstances. Men women and others, not for me to judge. This said, total reclination is a terrible posture from which to fight. Strapped to the gurney, so-to-speak, a pilot cannot manage to crane his/her helmet-sighted bearing neck around for globular 360 surveillance coverage. So assuming they can toggle helmet view 180 hemispherical "top" and "bottom" many are going to experience flight sickness just due to the switching back/forth and physical adjustments. That's without ACM tossed in which, when contributing, will mess up even more pilots and their equilibrium. Now consider a radar seeker is diving on a flight and a tail chaser is ascending from below the flight. Good luck toggling that scenario with proper physical and mental wherewithal. Totally reclined is simply not doable from a human engineering viewpoint. I guess we got some de minimis value from our investment in the Pogo. 0.02
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2053
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post26 Sep 2012, 01:42

velocityvector wrote:
archeman wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:You could go to fully electronic cockpits, with the pilot fully reclined in a pressurized capsule.


There is a great quote out there somewhere from one of the test pilots at the conclusion of the 'tail sitter' aircraft experiments (X-13 I think):

"Laying on your back is a great position for a young pilot, but not while flying an airplane!"

I wish all F-35 and other pilots a "fine ride" on their backs under appropriate, truly pleasant circumstances. Men women and others, not for me to judge. This said, total reclination is a terrible posture from which to fight. Strapped to the gurney, so-to-speak, a pilot cannot manage to crane his/her helmet-sighted bearing neck around for globular 360 surveillance coverage. So assuming they can toggle helmet view 180 hemispherical "top" and "bottom" many are going to experience flight sickness just due to the switching back/forth and physical adjustments. That's without ACM tossed in which, when contributing, will mess up even more pilots and their equilibrium. Now consider a radar seeker is diving on a flight and a tail chaser is ascending from below the flight. Good luck toggling that scenario with proper physical and mental wherewithal. Totally reclined is simply not doable from a human engineering viewpoint. I guess we got some de minimis value from our investment in the Pogo. 0.02

Why have the pilot turn his head at all? With just the sensors on the F-35, the pilot can select and attack targets from a tactical map.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post26 Sep 2012, 02:13

Introducing the best of all worlds. Human in the loop, no jamming worries, pilot reclined, no need to turn head.

http://vimeo.com/16339015 :D
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

velocityvector

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2009, 04:21
  • Location: Chicago

Unread post26 Sep 2012, 02:41

1st503rdsgt wrote:Introducing the best of all worlds. Human in the loop, no jamming worries, pilot reclined, no need to turn head.

http://vimeo.com/16339015 :D

Is Carrie-Anne Moss included? (WTF is that costing me as a taxpayer.) Because I just want to taste steak again along with a fine cabernet. (Well, I have previously mentioned here that I'm a patient liar, er, a patent lawyer.) And all I ever needed was a beer can to plug back in, oh man.
Offline

sferrin

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1873
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post26 Sep 2012, 16:13

velocityvector wrote:Technology will eventually eliminate the pilot, whether aboard or remote, regardless but that day is likely much further away than many here would like to believe.


fixed it for ya.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

archeman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 364
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post26 Sep 2012, 18:15

sferrin wrote:
velocityvector wrote:Technology will eventually eliminate the pilot, whether aboard or remote, regardless but that day is likely much further away than many here would like to believe.


fixed it for ya.



he he he
Sferrin you sly dog!

I expect to see the human interaction part being -- authorization to engage.
The entire historical catalog of tactical maneuvers offensive and defensive and the entire weapon engagement technical specs and optimal release envelope wouldn't challenge a solution seeking computer like IBMs Watson - at all. It wouldn't break a sweat and it's reaction speed will stun opponents. They just need time to shrink and make it durable for flight.
Offline

em745

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 08:28

Unread post27 Sep 2012, 07:49

archeman wrote:The entire historical catalog of tactical maneuvers offensive and defensive and the entire weapon engagement technical specs and optimal release envelope wouldn't challenge a solution seeking computer like IBMs Watson - at all.

I'm wondering if Watson would've been able to pull off what Sully Sullenberger did on Jan. 15 '09.

How exactly does one program creativity and the ability to postulate solutions on-the-fly into a computer in order to prepare it for the UNFORESEEABLE?
Offline

archeman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 364
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post27 Sep 2012, 08:25

em745 wrote:
archeman wrote:The entire historical catalog of tactical maneuvers offensive and defensive and the entire weapon engagement technical specs and optimal release envelope wouldn't challenge a solution seeking computer like IBMs Watson - at all.

I'm wondering if Watson would've been able to pull off what Sully Sullenberger did on Jan. 15 '09.

How exactly does one program creativity and the ability to postulate solutions on-the-fly into a computer in order to prepare it for the UNFORESEEABLE?



We all need heroes.
Don't expect human tenders to go away, they will still be there looking over the shoulder of their charges and keeping an eye on things. Robotics is not new stuff, very old technology -- it's just this application of that technology that will be new. A2A will be just another job it does.

Bets put down against smaller and faster computing has always been a loosing bet and probably always will be.
Next

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest