Viper AGCAS saves a life

Started by Spam, September 14, 2016, 12:03:09 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Spam

It was hard to make the case, within the Raptor program a few years ago, for why AGCAS was worthwhile mod candidate. I had a briefing room of guys at Nellis scoff when I first briefed it. Now there's more compelling evidence: four lives (and ships) saved since 2014. This is the latest:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/watch-this-f-16s-autopilot-save-an-unconscious-pilots-life

V/R
Spam


NIN

Two more and you get a set of steak knives :)

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Fubar

Quote from: Spam on September 14, 2016, 12:03:09 AMIt was hard to make the case, within the Raptor program a few years ago, for why AGCAS was worthwhile mod candidate.

What was the argument against it?

PHall

Quote from: Fubar on September 16, 2016, 12:52:14 AM
Quote from: Spam on September 14, 2016, 12:03:09 AMIt was hard to make the case, within the Raptor program a few years ago, for why AGCAS was worthwhile mod candidate.

What was the argument against it?

Fighter Pilot Mafia Egos....

Eclipse

I've said it before - the last fight pilots have already been born.

The sooner that is accepted, not to mention the idea of autonomous autos, the better.

"That Others May Zoom"

Spam

Well, yeah, but you have to take it in context:

Setting:
We've had a couple of Administrations and Congresses that would rather not raise taxes to pay for the two wars that we've been in. Therefore, to pay for MRAPS, UAVs, and Lance Corporals, something had to give. One of the things that gave was continued F-22 production (after all, that wonderful F-35 was promised to be the Swiss Army Knife of DoD and would slice, dice, perform CAS, Strike, and bake cakes all at a unit cost of 27 mil per aircraft (and we know how well that's turning out). As the Raptor program was winding down, SAF mandated that tacair platforms look at putting AGCAS in as modernization candidates due to the cost/benefit ratio (only one of the now-rare Raptors lost due to an incapacitated pilot would have paid for the AGCAS program).

The customers position:
No patch wearin', beer drinkin' zipper suited Sky God worth his salt would want to admit that he could pass out and mort due to a "stupid reason" like hypoxia or graying out under G. So, it was a hard sell to a room full of guys at Nellis AFB to spend very limited modernization dollars on this, when other candidates were on the agenda like upgraded missiles and radar improvements against foreign threats. The argument was: I need radar and weapons to avoid getting shot, which is more likely/important than the potential of graying out. So... a lot of eye rolling there.  The counter to that was to present a set of potential CONOPS use cases, such as getting shot/decompressed at altitude (60K'), where your time of useful consciousness would be... short, necessitating a rapid descent racing against hypoxia (while fighting the enemy). I remember the Payne Stewart mishap was discussed, with some gradual moderating of attitudes around the room, and we overcame the chest thumping "never happen" attitudes, and pressed on with the design.

Ironically, they similarly prioritized the OBOGS and O2 system improvements 37th in line... and that later was a mishap source and fleet grounding issue.

Vr,
Spam




Spam

I would respectfully disagree on the issue of manned vs. unmanned, though.

Once you look at realistic information on data link latency and sensor to shooter timelines, coupled with the EW environment expected in the current and future battle space, you'll realize that having a human in a tactical platform deep in the fight is absolutely necessary to meet engagement timelines while being jammed/spoofed/defeated with EW means. Beyond that however, there's always the potential for systems, weapons, and sensors remotely fought by a pilot or WSO from a survivable tactical platform.

V/R
Spam

Eclipse

Quote from: Spam on September 16, 2016, 02:28:58 AM
I would respectfully disagree on the issue of manned vs. unmanned, though.

Once you look at realistic information on data link latency and sensor to shooter timelines,

There's no latency with "point and shoot". Fully autonomous platforms already exist, in a number of platforms
and functions.  It only takes the will to develop them.

One of the biggest limiting factors in aircraft design is the need to accommodate human occupancy and physiological limitations (such as
the above case).  Remove that and things open wide fast.

THis is not "future-tech", it's systems that already exist that only need either approval or refinement.

"That Others May Zoom"

Spam

There's a great deal of latency with weapons engagement timelines, Eclipse, even with directed energy, but especially with kinetic weapons. That's one of the first things you have to deal with in designing systems to engage other systems that fly (at you). With combined engagement speeds that push required operator/system reaction timelines to be measured in milliseconds, having even a MADL timeline that exceeds a quarter of a second is too much to enable a successful weapons quality solution.

"Fully autonomous" platforms just do not exist. From mission planning to weapons data links to air vehicle links, a human has been or is in the loop at some point, and if you mean Reapers and so forth, being successful against insurgents with a data link to a CONEX back at base (or CONUS) is one thing, and against advanced threats in a contested environment with electronic warfare measures employed to shut down your data links is another game entirely.

V/R
Spam


PHall

Sorry Eclipse, but AI is still not the same level as the Mark 1, Mod 0 Human Brain.
Maybe in the future, but not now. And the cost of such a system will probably ensure that very few will be procured in the near future.

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: PHall on September 16, 2016, 02:58:06 AM
Sorry Eclipse, but AI is still not the same level as the Mark 1, Mod 0 Human Brain.
Maybe in the future, but not now. And the cost of such a system will probably ensure that very few will be procured in the near future.

Technology is progressing quite quickly. Think of where we were 30 years ago.

Eclipse

Quote from: Капитан Хаткевич on September 16, 2016, 03:36:10 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 16, 2016, 02:58:06 AM
Sorry Eclipse, but AI is still not the same level as the Mark 1, Mod 0 Human Brain.
Maybe in the future, but not now. And the cost of such a system will probably ensure that very few will be procured in the near future.

Technology is progressing quite quickly. Think of where we were 30 years ago.

1986 was a very different place in so many ways, and that's my point, saying "the last fighter pilot has been born"
puts the timeline out 40-50 years.


Quote from: PHall on September 16, 2016, 02:58:06 AM
Sorry Eclipse, but AI is still not the same level as the Mark 1, Mod 0 Human Brain.
Maybe in the future, but not now. And the cost of such a system will probably ensure that very few will be procured in the near future.

Cost? Literally a non factor in a world where people are literally building autonomous quads in their basements
and commercial self-driving cars are already a reality, not to mention the value of a human life not
risked.  The pinch point is will not cost.

Not today, not tomorrow, but within the lifetime of many reading this thread.

"That Others May Zoom"

NIN

Quote from: Eclipse on September 16, 2016, 02:37:02 AM
Quote from: Spam on September 16, 2016, 02:28:58 AM
I would respectfully disagree on the issue of manned vs. unmanned, though.

Once you look at realistic information on data link latency and sensor to shooter timelines,

There's no latency with "point and shoot". Fully autonomous platforms already exist, in a number of platforms
and functions.  It only takes the will to develop them.

One of the biggest limiting factors in aircraft design is the need to accommodate human occupancy and physiological limitations (such as
the above case).  Remove that and things open wide fast.

THis is not "future-tech", it's systems that already exist that only need either approval or refinement.

You do realize that Spam is "in the industry" and probably knows like 500x more about this stuff than you do, right?  Like, more than the Popular Mechanics back-issues at the doctor's office.
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse

#13
Quote from: NIN on September 16, 2016, 01:11:06 PM
You do realize that Spam is "in the industry" and probably knows like 500x more about this stuff than you do, right? 

And?  This makes my point invalid?

Do you really believe that, all things being equal, the military will still be risking pilot lives in combat in 50 years?

Or even ground troops (on an invasion / expeditionary scale) for that matter?

"That Others May Zoom"

Spam

I believe that in fifty years yes, we will still have humans in the loop forward engaged in aerial combat employing both manned and remotely directed systems against other air, ground, and cyber target systems which are themselves composed of human and automated elements. Making sound choices based on tested performance to field automation like AGCAS (a program which started in the 1980s and was tested in the 90s, along with a similar program for Hornets) is a good example of iteratively incorporating automation where it can be proven to work. Other examples include auto carrier landing systems and automated AAR systems.


The use of ground troops will always remain a political question independent of the technical war fighting question of crew/automation mixes necessary to counter threat systems, so I can't answer that. The long history of US ground combat system development isn't pretty, though, from WW2 up through Crusader, Sgt. York, Bradleys, MRAPs and Strykers, so I don't believe that bits and bytes will replace brigades, if that's what you're implying.


We have a national history, and some would argue a service specific history in USAF, of believing the hype and overselling the product. I don't think we can afford that.


V/R
Spam


NIN

Quote from: Spam on September 16, 2016, 02:23:57 AM
The customers position:
No patch wearin', beer drinkin' zipper suited Sky God worth his salt would want to admit that he could pass out and mort due to a "stupid reason" like hypoxia or graying out under G. So, it was a hard sell to a room full of guys at Nellis AFB to spend very limited modernization dollars on this, when other candidates were on the agenda like upgraded missiles and radar improvements against foreign threats. The argument was: I need radar and weapons to avoid getting shot, which is more likely/important than the potential of graying out. So... a lot of eye rolling there.  The counter to that was to present a set of potential CONOPS use cases, such as getting shot/decompressed at altitude (60K'), where your time of useful consciousness would be... short, necessitating a rapid descent racing against hypoxia (while fighting the enemy). I remember the Payne Stewart mishap was discussed, with some gradual moderating of attitudes around the room, and we overcame the chest thumping "never happen" attitudes, and pressed on with the design.

Ironically, they similarly prioritized the OBOGS and O2 system improvements 37th in line... and that later was a mishap source and fleet grounding issue.

25+ years ago in sport parachuting, a similar "it can't happen to us" sort of battle started.

Prior to 1991, automatic openers ("Automatic Activation Devices" or AADs) on reserve parachutes were considered the province of student jumpers, not active, licensed jumpers. The US Parachute Association had mandated AADs for all student jumpers, and the AADs on the market (at the time) were, uh, how can I put this delicately?  They were pretty universally awful.  There were three units that were common, the FXC 1200, the Sentinel and a Russian device called a KAP-3.  Through testing and operational use, they were found to be wildly inaccurate in reading altitude and descent rate, fairly fragile and prone to be easily damaged, and probably misfired more times than they actually fired to save someone.   Non-student jumpers wouldn't be caught dead (literally!) with an AAD on their gear, and wouldn't jump with anybody who had one of these AADs because they didn't want to have a misfire potentially involve them.  The attitude was "If I need that mechanical thing to do my work, I should just stop jumping"

Along about 1991, a company called Airtec in Germany created a microprocessor-controlled battery-powered and pyrotechnically actuated device called the Cypres (CYbernetic Parachute RElease System.. clever, right?).  It was far more accurate, completely internal to the parachute rig (no obvious outside signs "Hey, I have one of those thing you hate!"), set-and-forget as far as determining 0 feet AGL during changing weather, arming itself when you left the ground, etc. 

Still, people were like "I'll never jump with that thing, and I won't jump with anybody who has one" or "I won't put my safety in the hands of a myopic device" and similar things that were substantially based on ego and machismo, not facts and data.  Eventually, Airtec sponsored a couple high-profile skydivers to start jumping their gear (ironically, one of the top competitors of the time, a fellow named Tom Piras, was killed following a freefall collision and, because he still didn't trust the device, he hadn't turned on the AAD, which would have saved him in this exact circumstance), but it was still very, very slow going. It didn't help matters much that the Cypres cost almost $1100 at the time, either, which made adoption slow for economic reasons.

When I started jumping in 1994, people were still of the "I don't need an AAD, I can always activate my reserve, and if I can't, well, I'll probably be dead anyway" mindset. Much like the zipper-suited sun gods about AGCAS.   I bet less than 30% of skydivers had an AAD in 1995 when I bought my first rig. Mine didn't come with one pre-installed, and I had the frame of mind that I probably didn't *need* an AAD right away, but eventually I should get one when I could afford it.  It was only after I'd had my rig a little over a year that I scraped together enough cash to buy a new Cypres (12 year lifespan, so yeah, $1000 was a lot of coin when my entire rig only cost me $1800 total).

It still took a fair amount of time for AADs to really catch on, and other companies tried to "cash in" on the AAD trend by bringing similar (and cheaper) devices to market (generally, these devices were found to be inferior, requiring either too much jumper interaction to maintain on a jump-to-jump basis, or being poorly tested and having design flaws that caused misfires, no-fires, etc. Only one, the "Vigil" AAD, is a legitimate, safe and viable competitor to the Cypres).  Since the introduction of the Cypres in 1991, and the Vigil in 2004, they've logged over 1000 "saves" where the device activated the reserve parachute and saved someone's life that otherwise would have been a likely fatality.

A couple DZs in the US started requiring AADs (Skydive San Diego being the first. The DZO, Buzz Fink, got a lot of flak from people over that, but he stuck to his guns) and in the mid-2000s, it really started being a "Why wouldn't you jump with an AAD?" instead of "Why would you?" question among new jumpers.

Now, people look at me horrified when I say that I jumped for about 2 years without one.  "What, did you have a death wish?"

So I get the resistance to AGCAS.










Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

NIN

Quote from: Eclipse on September 16, 2016, 02:18:24 PM
Quote from: NIN on September 16, 2016, 01:11:06 PM
You do realize that Spam is "in the industry" and probably knows like 500x more about this stuff than you do, right? 

And?  This makes my point invalid?

Do you really believe that, all things being equal, the military will still be risking pilot lives in combat in 50 years?

Or even ground troops (on an invasion / expeditionary scale) for that matter?

It makes your position tenuous.  There are people here who are knowledgeable and skilled in this area, as in "this is my day job" knowledgeable and skilled.

Its like when I ask C/SSgt Snuffy why he's doing something (ie. some drill or customs & courtesies thing) and he says "Sir, its more military that way!"  C/SSgt Snuffy's ability to opine on what is "more military" in the face of people with years more of actual military experience is, you know, funny.

And yes, there will still be a need for ground troops on an expeditionary scale.  To quote the back of the Fort Dix challenge coin: "If he is not there, you don't own it."

Kind of hard to effect change on the ground without, you know, people on the ground.

Unless we can send in a legions of robot overlords to pacify the turf.  Cyberdyne systems, anybody?


Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Spam

Quote from: Капитан Хаткевич on September 16, 2016, 03:36:10 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 16, 2016, 02:58:06 AM
Sorry Eclipse, but AI is still not the same level as the Mark 1, Mod 0 Human Brain.
Maybe in the future, but not now. And the cost of such a system will probably ensure that very few will be procured in the near future.

Technology is progressing quite quickly. Think of where we were 30 years ago.


To the general public, the differences in the digital consumer products available are staggeringly evident in every day life. The computing revolution spurred by defense has now been overtaken in volume and variety by consumer needs. Yet, none of those products would meet combat requirements to work without failure when hit by EMP, baked, shocked by carrier landings, jammed and fried by enemy electronics, and subjected to freeze/bake/freeze cycles on launch and recovery to altitude. No matter how much "will" we have to make it so.


I think, rather, of the advances in threat systems, including the wide proliferation of IADS and EW systems for which there are no "off the shelf", "existing", or "easy" solutions, and those threats projected for which we will need a sound roadmap and development programs to ensure that when and if we go to war, we're not trying to fight a sixth gen foe with systems optimized for the LAST WAR (e.g. UAVs which worked great against low intensity threats, but not so much against a tough threat laydown and dense environment).


I do respect everyone's inputs and differing positions on these issues though; if you are one of us who pay the tax burden, you certainly have a right to question where and how your defense is being managed.


V/R
Spam



Eclipse

#18
Quote from: Spam on September 16, 2016, 03:08:09 PM
We have a national history, and some would argue a service specific history in USAF, of believing the hype and overselling the product. I don't think we can afford that.

I wouldn't argue that, and just as there were the "first failures", there will be plenty of badness on the way to a
steady state, but most of the history of the world, let alone, the US, has a presupposition for combat equipment
that it must be human-centric.  That's no longer a certainty.

In point of fact, the single most limiting factor for everything, design, manufacturing, and use-cases has always been the
need to accommodate human beings in the use of a given device or product.  As soon as the design and operational context removes the operator paradigm, things start to change radically and quickly.

I am not deluding myself that this doesn't present other problems such as "how do I feed myself when there are no jobs left?" but that is a desperate issue and a train that has already left the proverbial station.

And the technology is no longer the shielded purview of governments.  For better or worse, people are developing and
iterating in their basements and garages (not to mention in incubators and startups all over the world).

40 years ago, it took NASA to launch space vehicles, today we have CAP units touching space.

40 years ago design was done with a slide ruler and a building full of people. Today it's done on a handheld device
and a computer can iterate ten years of change overnight.

Those of a "certain age"will never accept autonomous vehicles, let alone combat equipment, but those people
are moving on to their respite and being replaced by a generation who grew up with the internet, and the following generation
is surprisingly ambivalent towards driving at all, let alone caring who or what is at the wheel.

That acceptance of tech will accelerate the acceptance and adoption of autonomous everything because for the generation running
the world, it won't be "new", it'll just "be".

Thankfully, by 2063, we'll have made first contact with Vulcan and we can finally get thing going around here.

I, for one, welcome our pointy-ear overlords.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Quote from: NIN on September 16, 2016, 03:10:02 PM((*snip*))

So I get the resistance to AGCAS.

When I first heard about "airbags on motorcycles", I thought it was the stupidest idea I'd ever heard,
then I saw a high-speed of an accident with a motorcycle that had one.

I can't retro-fit my bike, but I'd sure not scoff at an airbag if I could get one.

"That Others May Zoom"