8 ms·

In the specific context of fighter jets, its worth pointing out a few trends. a) As many critical controls as possible are already stuck on the stick and throt

In the specific context of fighter jets, its worth pointing out a few trends. a) As many critical controls as possible are already stuck on the stick and throttle. For an example (ok, technically from a game/simulator, but close enough), http://falcon4.wikidot.com/avionics:hotas http://falcon4.wikidot.com/avionics:hotas . b) The expectation is that fighter combat will continue to evolve to become ever more information dominant. That means having the ability to gather, process, and act on as many information as possible, and faster than the opponent. This means information rich displays that given today's limitations on HUDs and HMDs, still means the pilot will have to look down anyways to fully exploit their information. So instead of comparing touchscreen controls to say... touchscreen controls for your radio in your car, consider if your job was to drive, while also like... playing an air traffic controller game or something.

bri3d 9y ago
That's a good point - I guess playing Falcon 4.0 is a good parallel (which makes sense, given how detailed a sim it is!), since I don't find myself needing to point-n-click over to too many onscreen cockpit controls while playing. I think what struck me about the (probably fake) image was that the pilot was entering something on what looks like a virtual DED, which seems like a tedious task even while not flying a plane. I wonder if any of the lower panels have kept a tactile DED or numpad.
- icegreentea2 9y ago
  Oh, that's a good point. No idea how fake that is... But, Elbit's line of next gen cockpits have the trade name of 'CockpitNG', and here's their sales brochure (http://elbitsystems.com/media/CockpitNG.pdf http://elbitsystems.com/media/CockpitNG.pdf). You can see that their main render/concept has plenty of dedicated entry devices left. I'm pretty confident that that render is off some legit production or semi production CAD models cause they bothered to leave in the USB port. Now, there's no knowing what the Qatari's actually ordered - I'm sure Elbit and Boeing would happily modify the cockpit interior to order. But I think from that picture, you can be pretty confident that plane makers aren't just nilly willy throwing away physical controls.
forgotmypw 9y ago
The pilot should have low-output electrodes attached all over their body that will route information as a "buzz" or a "tingle"
rsync 9y ago
"The expectation is that fighter combat will continue to evolve to become ever more information dominant." Is fighter combat a thing ? What was the last air to air ("dogfight") the US was involved in ? How frequent are they ? I am in favor of optimization and looking ahead to future use but when you use wording like "fighter combat will continue to evolve" that makes it sound like a thing that is happening in the world and that we are getting feedback from ... is it ?
- Sharlin 9y ago
  ”Fighter combat” or ”air-to-air” does certainly not equal dogfighting. Air-to-air is what fighters are made for! It’s just that these days it’s most often beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagement with radar and missiles. It’s still fighter combat.
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    > ”Fighter combat” or ”air-to-air” does certainly not equal dogfighting. Air-to-air is what fighters are made for! It’s just that these days it’s most often beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagement with radar and missiles. It’s still fighter combat. Haven't they been claiming that most air combat will be "beyond visual range" since they released the F-4 in the 60s? Then it never happens because the rules of engagement require visual confirmation, because they don't want fuckups and friendly-fire incidents because someone's IFF was broken.
    - icegreentea2 9y ago
      ROE can change. Since the generation of BVR missiles with fire and forget capability were introduced, NATO forces have never engaged in near-peer combat. In these environments, strict ROE designed around minimizing political fallout makes more sense. In the case of combat against near-peer, peer opponents, I fully expect ROE to change to allow greater use to BVR missiles to their full capability. In any case, I think most groups more or less settled on the idea that you really do need both - you need sufficient WVR and BVR capability to be a useful fighter jet in the next few decades.
- 9y ago

bri3d 9y ago

That's a good point - I guess playing Falcon 4.0 is a good parallel (which makes sense, given how detailed a sim it is!), since I don't find myself needing to point-n-click over to too many onscreen cockpit controls while playing. I think what struck me about the (probably fake) image was that the pilot was entering something on what looks like a virtual DED, which seems like a tedious task even while not flying a plane. I wonder if any of the lower panels have kept a tactile DED or numpad.

icegreentea2 9y ago
Oh, that's a good point. No idea how fake that is... But, Elbit's line of next gen cockpits have the trade name of 'CockpitNG', and here's their sales brochure (http://elbitsystems.com/media/CockpitNG.pdf http://elbitsystems.com/media/CockpitNG.pdf). You can see that their main render/concept has plenty of dedicated entry devices left. I'm pretty confident that that render is off some legit production or semi production CAD models cause they bothered to leave in the USB port. Now, there's no knowing what the Qatari's actually ordered - I'm sure Elbit and Boeing would happily modify the cockpit interior to order. But I think from that picture, you can be pretty confident that plane makers aren't just nilly willy throwing away physical controls.

forgotmypw 9y ago

The pilot should have low-output electrodes attached all over their body that will route information as a "buzz" or a "tingle"

rsync 9y ago

"The expectation is that fighter combat will continue to evolve to become ever more information dominant." Is fighter combat a thing ? What was the last air to air ("dogfight") the US was involved in ? How frequent are they ? I am in favor of optimization and looking ahead to future use but when you use wording like "fighter combat will continue to evolve" that makes it sound like a thing that is happening in the world and that we are getting feedback from ... is it ?

Sharlin 9y ago
”Fighter combat” or ”air-to-air” does certainly not equal dogfighting. Air-to-air is what fighters are made for! It’s just that these days it’s most often beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagement with radar and missiles. It’s still fighter combat.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  > ”Fighter combat” or ”air-to-air” does certainly not equal dogfighting. Air-to-air is what fighters are made for! It’s just that these days it’s most often beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagement with radar and missiles. It’s still fighter combat. Haven't they been claiming that most air combat will be "beyond visual range" since they released the F-4 in the 60s? Then it never happens because the rules of engagement require visual confirmation, because they don't want fuckups and friendly-fire incidents because someone's IFF was broken.
  - icegreentea2 9y ago
    ROE can change. Since the generation of BVR missiles with fire and forget capability were introduced, NATO forces have never engaged in near-peer combat. In these environments, strict ROE designed around minimizing political fallout makes more sense. In the case of combat against near-peer, peer opponents, I fully expect ROE to change to allow greater use to BVR missiles to their full capability. In any case, I think most groups more or less settled on the idea that you really do need both - you need sufficient WVR and BVR capability to be a useful fighter jet in the next few decades.
9y ago