Posted on 02/24/2013 10:52:31 AM PST by lbryce
Think Windows 8 is a usability nightmare? Two pilots of the infamously expensive F-22 fighter jet recently went on 60 Minutes to describe how this “phenomenal, phenomenal machine” poisons its pilots’ air supply in the course of normal flight. But the plane is also smart enough to land itself with no help from its passed-out pilot. This is UX design by way of Brazil: the human interface is so bad that it actively tries to kill you the entire time you’re using it, and so good that it can deliver your comatose body back to safety with no help from you at all.
Military technology has never been a paragon of usability, and the very notion of “user experience” becomes a kind of moral paradox in this context anyway. Drone warfare “solves” the UX problem of operating an F-22: never before has it been simpler, easier, and less physically dangerous for a human being to fire airborne missiles at other human beings. Of course, this highly effective user experience has its own unintended drawbacks. The AR-15, which Quartz reporter Christopher Mims called the “iPhone 5 of guns”, has such a “good” UX that even an untrained lunatic can use the technology with hellish effectiveness. Chemical weapons and neutron bombs were both invented from what could be characterized as a desire to make the user experience of waging war more “humane”; meanwhile, actually using these technologies would be considered a crime against humanity.
What should “good” user experience design for weapons and military technology look like? As robotics lets us separate the “user” from the “experience” ever further, it’s definitely food for thought.
Within the Army Operational Testing of an IT system includes Manpower Personnel Integration (MANPRINT), of which Human Factors Integration (HFE) is a part.
“To correct the problem, the Air Force plans to replace the valve on the vest and increase the volume of oxygen flowing to pilots by removing a filter installed to determine whether oxygen contamination was the cause of the hypoxia symptoms.”
A mechanical device was faulty. Point/Set/Match. I suggest you clean that mirror in front of yourself.
Nothing to do with computer software/hardware said the Electrical Engineer ;-)
I’m going to take this just a little farther. Did a few searches. Everything that references the 60 minutes piece, etc was before around July. The original article I pointed to was late September.
So this is actually OLD news, and the stuff that the article points to is WAY older.
Really?
Check the date on the article you posted - sorta dated, eh?
The filter referenced was another "fix" that didn't work, as it leaked carbon into pilots lungs, causing them to hack up black spittle.
Oh, by the way, AFTER the valve was redesigned it seems the problem was not solved, so LockMart was given a $24 MILLION contract to study (not fix, just study) the problem. If you think the problem was solved, why spend this money?
By the way, Sport, the term is "Game/Set/Match".
“Unfortunately, air-to-air combat is a near constant high level of effort, causing an oxygen deficit.”
Actually, A/A combat is not constant. . .but it is intense. A/A engagements, if you closed to the merge, usually last 30-sec or less. During that 30-sec’s you will be exposed to massive G's and pressures upon your body. . .hence the G-suit. And with the F-22, it can sustain G's at a much higher rate and for longer periods of time than other fighters. Even in a 30-sec engagement, other fighters have to extend for energy, ease off a little here and there, do something to get back their energy.
Anyway, most times, especially with the F-22, you make BVR kills and take advantage of your L/O capability to avoid a knife-fight (dog-fight).
“I only have two gripes with the F-22: We bought too few”
Yup. Congress and their infinite wisdom and all that.
“and the internal weapons bay is too small.”
The weapons bay is actually a result of expanding the area in the belly. You see, “not a pound for air-to-ground” was the mantra when the Air Force issued the first studies and proposals. It was to be a A/A platform—ONLY. No A/G mission at all. Then things changed and the bay was modified to accept weapons. Limited amount for sure, but all PGMs.
“A smart tactician would give up a little stealth for more missiles on the external wing stations.”
As a short note, 5th gen jets are L/O for a reason and adding any amount of external reflective surfaces, and missiles would be a huge external reflective surface, would be like adding day-glo stripes on the jet. . .not good and destroy any capability you might have for L/O.
Cheers
Hulka; thanks for the expansion, I was a little to glib with constant. As to the weapons bay; I recall that is started quite a bit bigger and was nibbled down for one reason after the next until they finally put a halt to that process. The same thing happened to the F-35. It was supposed to carry a lot more air-to-ground weapons internally.
As for the stealth: You may want to go from awesome to great if this future becomes true: Weak copies of 5th generation fighters augmented by lots of UCAVs built buy individuals making $2 a day and using software purchased from the French. Until then, take every advantage you can!
Fight to know just how much you give up (in detection range) with a variety of external configurations (especially tanks). It might not be as bad as you think. Especially in the the forward quadrant. Stay sharp! Combat probabilities peak at the 3 to 5 year point and the 8 to 12 year point from now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.