It’s infuriating trying to use the touch screen in my wife’s minivan to change the radio station. I can’t imagine the frustration trying to use a touch screen to fly a fighter jet.
The G3000 integrated flight deck is pretty much the default in new business jets too.
In my opinion the touch screens are a lot easier to use than the old G1000 screens except for when you are getting tossed around in turbulence. Fortunately, there are still physical buttons for all of the "safety critical" or "time critical" inputs such as configuring the autopilot, changing radio frequencies, or adjusting the barometric pressure for the altimeter.
Source: I am a private pilot and have used the G1000, G300, and G3X touch.
I've always wanted to build a big rig of buttons to surround my pc monitor that I could program for various functions I do every day.
When working on Bioshock I had a strip of buttons that could be programmed to send keystrokes like it was a keyboard. I was working in Unreal Engine on the Xbox 360. I could plug these keys it into the dev kit, and with one click could enter all kinds of obscure console commands I could never remember. Was great.
My company builds and works with industrial automation, custom CNC machines, and industrial robots. I've observed a shift from purely button-and-neon operated panels from early PLC or relay logic machines, to multifunction keys on the human-machine interface display (HMI) before touchscreens, to a fitful few years when people thought it was a good idea to build machines with VB6 and various serial to digital IO adapters, to purely touchscreen-driven machines with one legally-mandated physical emergency stop button (about when I arrived in the industry, the other machines were mostly historic beasts I've occasionally been charged with maintaining), and back towards multifunction keys. There are usually a few dedicated buttons and indicators for common operations (reset, cycle start, control power on, feed hold, feed rate override, etc), that still makes sense most of the time.
I really think multifunction keys are the best of both worlds. As the author of this piece describes, the multifunction display with 20 keys around the outside (or, for CNCs, 10 keys across the bottom of the monitor and 10 off to the right, in a 1-4-4-1 spacing so you can feel exactly which button you're hovering over while you're staring unblinking at a cutter chewing through 5-figure assemblies) is a good compromise. It takes some serious concentrated planning to design a set of keys that are intuitive (top to scroll up, bottom to scroll down, one dedicated for enter, two for context-specific operations, etc), but it gives you the freedom to design relatively shallow but featureful menu systems that you can memorize and get tactile feedback to operate with confidence.
I have a StreamDeck[1] that I use for various random things. There's an open source driver for it too that you can drive from Python[2], letting you run Python code when a button is pressed. You can do some cool stuff with it (eg I've used mine to make HTTP requests on button press)
Haha, yes, indeed! The python library is quite easy to use and lets you go beyond what the official application allows (plus, I use it on Linux).
I actually looked at those XKeys ones first, but IIRC they were a little too expensive for what I wanted (yes, the StreamDeck isn't that cheap either, but its easier to use out of the box)
StreamDeck is great for non-streaming tasks. I'm very happy with it.
I've got a StreamDeck XL mounted under my monitor, in a button box; its capabilities as a macro machine are vastly underrated, although a few people are catching on that it's not just for live content creation.
It's absolutely amazing when doing remote work to be able to fire up OBS Studio, the meeting join, microphone control etc in a single click - and I have that just on one page, along with other meeting controls such as camera scenes. Another for VS Studio, there's integration with that which is quite useful to send commands directly. I have all my most of ten work websites on buttons of their own.
As mentioned, I also have button boxes however I'm still working out what the best way of sending commands would be; Joy2Key seem to mess up alt keys sometimes, making it sticky. When it worked it was nice, imagine adjusting text size just twisting a rotary for example.
This is why the macbook touchbar is so awesome. I know it got a lot of hate when it first launched, but I use it all the time and have with all sorts of customizations.
Physical buttons are critical. That's the key difference between an MFD and a touchscreen. The touchbar is a one-dimensional touchscreen, with most of its downsides.
This isn't to say that displays on the buttons themselves are bad. But we pay way too little attention to the ergonomics of fine motor control and tactile/muscle memory. If you look at the article linked in this post, the key point being made is how hard it is to hunt for a featureless touchscreen button while your wrist is in the air being jostled around by turbulence. You don't have to be a pilot to appreciate interfaces that go easy on your fine motor skills though. Any action that requires extended use of fine motor skill (like holding your wrist in the air while hitting a tiny spot) will be at minimum tiring (both mentally and physically), and maybe impossible for children and the elderly.
An MFD with a wrist rest, uneven button spacing/sizing/tactile patterns, rotary controls in the corners, and maybe button LEDs to color-code functions in addition to on-screen labels, would be superior to the touchbar. Actually, the numpad on "full-size" keyboards is tantalizingly close to that in some ways - it would be great if someone took a full-size keyboard and replaced the numpad with something that sort of looks like it but is functionally an MFD.
By the way, all keyboards already have tactile pattern aids - the little bumps on the F and J keys that let your fingers quickly know if they're correctly positioned on the home row. Everyone knows that, but it's just a glimpse of what's possible if we invest more in tactile interfaces.
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that it was originally designed to live in the bottom bezel of the screen, but that got cut due to aesthetic concerns. Seems like a more natural functional fit.
Sounds interesting! Could you give some examples on how you use it? E.g. how did you create the shortcuts, how many do you use, how do you display them or roughly what tasks are you accomplishing?
> I can’t imagine the frustration trying to use a touch screen to fly a fighter jet.
A war plane is something you have to operate while it's burning, or while you're bleeding on it, or while you can't see properly because it's full of smoke or someone just blinded you with a laser. The adoption of touch screens in this sort of cockpit seems misguided. Particularly for anything related to controlling comms or navigation.
That’s really not how we design modern jet fighters. Air combat involves a huge number of tradeoffs and ejecting is now the correct response to a wide range of issues. For example, the F-35 so engine so engine failure is likely to result in a lost aircraft.
It’s basically been decided that we are going to spend silly money keeping a small number of absolutely cutting edge aircraft flying rather than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft.
PS: To be clear it’s possible their making the correct choice. I personally doubt it, but I don’t have access to the kind of classified documents to justify things in one way or another. An effective labor weapon for example might render vastly cheaper drone fleets ineffective.
Ejecting from an aircraft is an absolute last resort, and you stand a good chance of dying or being badly injured if you have to do it, and even if you survive the ejection, the parachute ride, and the landing, it's a better than even chance you're going to be captured and beaten, tortured, or killed on the ground. That's if you land on land of course -- if you land in the water you might just drown or never be found.
> it’s better than even chance you’re going to be captured and beaten, tortured, or killed on the ground.
That’s simply not the reality of modern fighter jets. The vast majority of time is going to be spent flying over either open ocean or friendly territory. That’s been true even if you’re only looking at recent combat missions.
Anyway, single engine aircraft are always going to be at higher risk for mechanical failure, yet that’s the chosen design. Just look through this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident.... In commercial aviation 4 crashes per year worldwide not that great, in military aviation 4 crashes a month worldwide is a very good month.
You're describing training flights, not combat missions. It is very common for aircraft to fly missions that are hundreds of miles long, most of which is over enemy territory. I used to sit in CDC on a CVN and watch the missions every day during Operation Southern Watch, which wasn't even really war -- but those pilots were flying over enemy territory for many hours every day.
Same thing in Afghanistan and Iraq, every flight was essentially over enemy territory for its entire duration -- surveillance, strike, and transport. You really don't want to bail out of an aircraft in the tribal areas if there's any way to get it home.
Modern aircraft are extremely reliable, they don't break often. Modern ejection seats are extremely reliable, they don't fail often. And yet, everything I posted above is exactly correct.
The essentially over enemy territory and wasn’t really a war are important qualifications. Compare the odds of a downed pilot avoiding capture in a WWII bombing mission over Germany with the majority of missions over Afghanistan and it’s clear they where contested territory. Still high risk, but also a very different situation.
Close Air Support is definitely a major role for the F-35, but you have troupes there so it’s contested territory. Patrolling no fly zones is currently much better suited for drone aircraft, but might become important again.
So yes exceptions exist, but you really don’t want to run air to air combat missions out of air force bases anywhere near contested airspace. The risk vs rewards very much favor longer flights with mid air refueling.
You can't patrol a no fly zone with a drone. Drones don't do air to air combat, the only real use of drones at this time is ground surveillance.
That may change some day in the future, but that's the reality now.
And the F35 can do CAS, sort of, but that's not really its role. We've got a whole host of fourth gen aircraft to do CAS as CAS is nearly always done in an environment where we have full air superiority.
Is this due to some fundamental change in warfare or just due to the fact that modern wars are typically a large country fighting a comparatively tiny and unequipped militia? Like, would it still be true if China and the U.S. actually went toe-to-toe?
High aircraft speeds combined with mid air refueling give nearly arbitrary ranges, add in and the risk associated with air defenses makes long distance attacks more common. You don’t want your air bases within easy striking distance of the enemy.
Several other factors are relevant for example prop aircraft can handle rough runways, but jets need a clean surface as they can suck debris into engines. So, even in the event of a US / China war, it’s not clear how long both sides would be capable of having effective air forces anywhere near each other.
> it’s better than even chance you’re going to be captured and beaten, tortured, or killed on the ground
Is demonstrably false. War is still an extremely unpleasant business, but the term acceptable losses applies even in peacetime.
Every mission training or otherwise is rolling the dice that the aircraft will be lost. Yet, they still send pilots up knowing those risks in preparation for war. Aircraft designs really do involve similar tradeoffs and injured, dead, or captured pilots really are part of the equation.
That’s really not what I was arguing about, if over the 50+ year lifespan of an aircraft it spends less than 10% of total flight time over enemy territory and ejecting over enemy territory has a 99% odds of capture.
Then overall odds of ejecting resulting in capture is way less than 50%. Further, if mechanical failure is expected to bring down say 15% of aircraft, then the odds of mechanical failure over enemy territory is low vs actually being shot down.
That said, actual odds are a little different as mechanical failure isn’t evenly distributed, and hours spent over disputed territory also risk capture etc. Still it’s clear that a low percentage of ejecting pilots are expected to be captured.
A pilot who ejects over enemy territory is almost certain to be captured. Obviously, a pilot who ejects on a training flight over Tonopah isn't going to get captured, and thus my statement about a pilot being captured would not apply to such a training flight where there is zero risk of capture. The numbers you've made up mean nothing, even if they were correct, which they aren't. Nearly no aircraft have a 50 year lifespan, and any aircraft shot down over enemy territory is going to end up with the pilot almost certainly either killed or captured, just as I said.
You're adding in all kinds of things that have no bearing on the discussion and don't mean anything in the context of the discussion. And the numbers you made up are silly.
Individual fighters don’t, but widely adopted designs from the 70’s and after stuck around. The F-16 family is currently expected to be in service for 75 years though it’s only reached 42 years at this point. F-15’s have done 45 years at this point and “We intend to maintain the F-15C fleet through the 2020s.” Suggesting 55+ with a fair amount of uncertainty. F-14 was introduced in 1974 and ironically enough is still in use by Iran. Hell the F-4 entered service in 1961, and is still used by Japan.
As to what you said, nearly certainly killed or captured isn’t it’s better than even chance. You can quibble about meaningless numbers chosen to convey meaning not specifics, but as your making a different statement clearly you agree a small percentage of total elections are expected to result in capture. Death and serious injury is a much greater risk, but again overall risks for the lifespan of the design is what’s important, the US military will sacrifice far more lives than the a most few hundred F-35 pilots we are talking about. As demonstrated by the decision to double down on manned aircraft in the first place rather than try and make a air to air combat capable drone.
The F14 is not in service anymore. Iran has probably less than 10 that are actually flyable, and they've been so heavily modified as to be mostly not recognizable as F14s anymore. The only other actual airframes that are anywhere near a 50 year lifespan are the B-52s, and they've been totally redesigned and rebuilt multiple times over those years.
There are no F15 airframes over 45 years, there are no F4 airframes over 45 years. The F15 production line is still open, there are 7 F4s still in service and they are a heavily upgraded version that wasn't produced in 1984 -- and those 7 leave service next month. You're confusing first date of production with the actual production dates of the aircraft still flying in order to make up a point that isn't even accurate as you've stated it.
Anyway, you just keep making up stuff so I'm going to leave this discussion here for now.
I mentioned that in my post, Individual fighters don’t
However, again for any future readers it’s irrelevant how long an individual aircraft is in service from a design perspective. What’s relevant is the what people using that design use it for, and this how long. Bullets for example are single use. However, individual designs can be used for very long periods of time as long as their serial useful, specific aircraft designs for the same criteria where you can see some of them manufactured for 20+ years.
As the other point was dropped I will take this as you conceding the argument. ;-)
No, I'm not "conceding" anything. Your goalpost moving straw man arguments from a position of total ignorance of the subject aren't worth addressing anymore.
The situation can escalate very quickly in a fighter jet so that leaving the last resort to late could be fatal. Encouraging ejection may be a good idea when the pilots natural inclination is always to stay with the plane.
> It’s basically been decided that we are going to spend silly money keeping a small number of absolutely cutting edge aircraft flying rather than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft.
What is the basis for saying that? From what I understand, the U.S. military is investing very heavily in unmanned aerial vehicles, including having F-35's control large numbers of them.
It's the drone boogeyman again. They are cheap because I can buy them in a brick and mortar store. Surely the military can just buy tens of thousands of them.
>It’s basically been decided that we are going to spend silly money keeping a small number of absolutely cutting edge aircraft flying rather than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft.
Well, you're missing the fact that there will be thousands of F-35s on earth (500 already built). Meanwhile there are less drones like MQ-9 Reaper (200 built) which are basically primarily to bully some ground troops than F-35s despite them only costing $40 million a pop. After all they are cheap. Because you see, the brick and mortar store sells them, so they must be cheap even when they are not.
>than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft.
In a war less capability might mean the total loss of all aircraft. You only need a few F-35s and some anti air support on the ground and the drones will be shot down. Yes, you might be able to execute a saturation attack but once you lost your entire fleet how are you going to respond to the counterattack? Oh right, with your own 5th generation fighter that matches the F-35.
Honestly, the biggest benefit of drones is that you can equip your infantry with loitering munitions and thereby reduce the need for conventional CAS provided by a conventional air force. This isn't a stupid lets build ten million drones swarm buzzword bingo to scare some people who barely know anything about the capability of military weapons. That's nonsensical. It's like plastering machine guns everywhere because "cheap". As if militaries only care about stockpiling weapons with no logic behind mission objectives.
Yep, that 40 million really is cheap. An apples to apples comparison puts 200 MQ-9 for 8 billion vs 600 F-35’s for 400 billion. So about 40 Million vs 667 Million.
But that’s just the start, the MQ-9 costs about $3,600 per flight hour vs ~35,000 per hour for the F-35. Though that slightly favors the F-35 because training an F-35A pilot costs a little over 10 million dollars.
That said, the MQ-9 is designed for a very different role so per aircraft numbers are deceptive. F-35’s have a much higher payload, higher top speed, stealth etc.
> Meanwhile there are less drones like MQ-9 Reaper (200 built) [...] costing $40 million a pop.
Prices like this for military equipment are deceptive. They're not $40mil a pop. They're the product of an $8 billion project. The build price is probably less than $100k... or at least it would be if a military contractor wasn't absolutely creaming it.
There are lots of buttons and switches on the throttle and stick. Most modern western fighters are designed for HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick) operation, where the pilot never takes their hands off the throttle and stick during combat.
More buttons please!