The T-50 (PAK-FA) Thread

[NOLA]

do we see in the video 1.14 there is some canards element in the T50?)) or is this canard embedded in the wing and activates when needed.. )lol..

 

That is called "PChN" or "Povorotnaya chast' napliva" or in other words: Moveable part or LERX.

 

...and 500 missions flown seems right as they made about 4 planes by now or is it 3

 

Well, there are currently 4 flyable frames, but right now 3 of them flies. T-50-2 is undergoing modifications to join T-50-1 testing. And no, 500 missions number is a BS one, i am fairly sure. In January total number was 200. I don't believe for a second there has been 300 flights since then shared across 3 frames.

 

That is more than 2 flights per day, ever day. Nope, not buying it.

Edited June 14, 2013 by NOLA

[GGTharos]

How so? His hands were on the controls. How do you know when a pilot needs saving? The responsibility of flying the plane is the pilot's, the the plane needs to do things that help him without getting in the way - and that's exactly what an F-22 does.

 

I'm pretty sure that there's either a translation or missing info problem concerning the PAK-FA, because no pilot worth his salt will let the AP takeover just by letting go of the stick. There are valid reasons for letting go of the thing during long flights.

 

There is at least one F22 pilot that could have been alive today if the F22 could take over and land itself. Instead, he is dead...

[Kaktus29]

yeah, Russians have always been on the forefront of automation, from submarines to tanks..reducing people in the process .. i can imagine AI will be able to do missile evasion much better and faster with 0.01 seconds of time reaction than any human pilot can.. so most of the time pilot will sit in the canopy and press buttons to determine different kind of approach to initiate attack/defense according to situation..

 

i am also amazed Raptor doesn't have the automatic take over-land ability.. i thought even Airbuses have this by now.. i guess Russian 5gen will be the first.. unless US crammers this into the already crammed up F-35..

[Kaktus29]

@GG .. a computer on the plane can see "crash pattern" and take control.. this is how AI can "know" the pilot is obviously not worth his salt as you say.. and in F22 case this would save his life.. the pilot was aware but with much diminished consciousness cuz of lack of oxygen.. so when crash was approaching i guess it shouldn't be too much problem to cram in a system that takes over and lands the plane for the f22

[GGTharos]

No, not really. They have been at the forefront of reducing people, which debeatable reults:

 

Ka-50: Nothing new in automation, no one really wants it

Tanks: Fewer people, more explodeable tank, less people to maintain it, etc. Their doctrine is different from US tank doctrine which allowed them to do this.

Planes: F-18 automation > Su/MiG automation, period, end of story.

 

Russians have done well enough with automation, but 'forefront'? No.

 

yeah, Russians have always been on the forefront of automation

[GGTharos]

A computer sensor can also malfunction and send your AI into a frenzy. How would you like for your plane to pull up every time the 'pull up' command sounded? That command sounds with plenty of time for you to use it.

 

Regarding the particular evidence you're talking about, there was no proof that the pilot had suffered hypoxia, but there is proof that he was disoriented. Unfortunately there is no way for an 'AI' to detect this.

 

These pilots are selected from the best of the best - so in other words, when the plane is designed in a certain way, it is with the understanding that the pilot is a well-trained professional. Accidents do happen, and that's all there is to that.

 

@GG .. a computer on the plane can see "crash pattern" and take control.. this is how AI can "know" the pilot is obviously not worth his salt as you say.. and in F22 case this would save his life.. the pilot was aware but with much diminished consciousness cuz of lack of oxygen.. so when crash was approaching i guess it shouldn't be too much problem to cram in a system that takes over and lands the plane for the f22

[Kaktus29]

@GG wrong.. Alfa subs tops in automation, tanks top in automation, space shuttle "copy" Buran tops in automation-flew into space and back without personnel.. Top in space exploration automation,first robotic extraction of space/planets debris was done by Russia with moon extraction by a drone..

 

but hei, its a free world you can of course interpret this as Russia not being at a forefront of automation..

[Kaktus29]

a computer system can malfunction ..well of course it can, but we don't see people using stairs anymore but we trust the elevator machine right? .. automation is good, a system like this is already implemented in cars.. obviously americans are far behind this and germans are best in civilian versions like mercedes.. a car will detect that the driver is not "present" with his mind as the car steers off the road, a warning is given to "wake up" the driver who obviously is sleeping or is dead, and if nothing happens AI takes over and steers the car back in the land and slowly decelerates..

 

i can't believe you find this soo hard to have such a system..

[Brisse]

Sorry for off topic, but I found some funny stuff related to automation.

You know those Volvo's with pedestrian detection system that are supposed to be able to avoid collision without driver interference?

[NOLA]

I'm pretty sure that there's either a translation or missing info problem concerning the PAK-FA, because no pilot worth his salt will let the AP takeover just by letting go of the stick. There are valid reasons for letting go of the thing during long flights.

 

Nope. Bogdan says specifically that the plane will correct itself after take off if pilot lets go of the stick. Journalist then says it can land itself if needed. Now, they did say plenty of BS in those 4 min some of which i pointed out earlier, but i don't have much trouble believing it can do that. Such systems have been tested before. I remember a shot of MiG-29M2 with pilot at front holding his hands up, i can't claim it was automatic landing, but it must have been some sort of automatisation.

 

It would be correct to question what are the parameters the system are measuring to understand if it needs to do automatic landing or not. Does it monitor pilots health in any way for example?

 

I also believe Kvochurs company has been testing automatisation.

 

No, not really. They have been at the forefront of reducing people, which debeatable reults:

 

Ka-50: Nothing new in automation, no one really wants it

Tanks: Fewer people, more explodeable tank, less people to maintain it, etc. Their doctrine is different from US tank doctrine which allowed them to do this.

Planes: F-18 automation > Su/MiG automation, period, end of story.

 

Russians have done well enough with automation, but 'forefront'? No.

 

You are being extremely simplistic. As pointed out Buran is a great example. Extra fun fact from that landing is that system was smart enough to calculate something humans in control room didnt notice, and since they didn't notice they panicked for a bit. Automatic landing from space was only repeated many many years after Buran, by X-37. There are also examples of automatisation systems on submarines and so on.

 

Another good one would be rocket launches which are also being done in automatic, no "red button" pushing involved.

[GGTharos]

It would be correct to question what are the parameters the system are measuring to understand if it needs to do automatic landing or not. Does it monitor pilots health in any way for example?

 

That is the point. Automated flight has been happening for a while now, but taking control from the pilot without pilot consent is another story.

 

You are being extremely simplistic. As pointed out Buran is a great example. Extra fun fact from that landing is that system was smart enough to calculate something humans in control room didnt notice, and since they didn't notice they panicked for a bit. Automatic landing from space was only repeated many many years after Buran, by X-37. There are also examples of automatisation systems on submarines and so on.

Please. NASA has operated automated craft much further. The X-37 wasn't used earlier because the space shuttle was available. Given the fact that F-18's have been landing themselves on carriers for ever, I really doubt you need to make the subject particularly complicated: If they had wanted such a vehicle earlier, they could have had such a vehicle earlier.

Submarines and tanks are a similar story, with doctrine, the need to maintenance and duty cycles dictating using human or automation - it was all there to fit a particular concept, and there was nothing pioneering about it in terms of technological novelty.

 

Another good one would be rocket launches which are also being done in automatic, no "red button" pushing involved.

There are plenty of systems that can do this, but the red button is there because you want to involve humans. It has nothing to do with the capability of automation. PATRIOT and AEGIS can engage at will, but there is a reason why the designers decided that the ability for the operator to consent must be present. Same goes for modern F-15/18/22/35 fire controls.

[Weta43]

How would you like for your plane to pull up every time the 'pull up' command sounded?

 

If I wasn't holding the stick at the time - I think I'd appreciate it the next day...

[Kaktus29]

@weta )) lol)) ditto.. i don't know why is that so hard to accept its a good idea to have in a plane.. why should a plane "wait" until it craters the ground when it can take over and correct its flight path..

 

about Volvo, well that video of two bufoons doing something wrong is not descriptive of what Volvo can do.. check this out..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl1UMfxa_r4

 

all in all automation in cars is coming fast, i think self-driving cars will be a must by law in 10 years or less.. it will improve the fluidity and speed of transport by a magnitude of 4 or higher and safety to such levels that dying in a car accident will be as likely as dying in a falling elevator ..

 

about automation, there is this AK-130, naval gun its a big caliber gun firing almost instantaneously one shot after another.. the automation is incredible while on US ships you are manually loading and firing..

 

first "drone" -a craft flown remotely or being able to influence its flight path through remote way was by a Russian anti-ship missiles back in the 50's..

 

all systems that come online and speed at which you do this is also a sign of automation of internal systems and built-in design, for this reason T-90 will start up faster than other tanks and drive longer without need to stop and calibrate the computer, ballistic comp, and god knows what else..

 

 

all in all Russians have been at a fore-front of automation, especially mechanical, in electronic department they are lagging, but mechanical they excel..

[ФрогФут]

Ka-50: Nothing new in automation, no one really wants it

???

Planes: F-18 automation > Su/MiG automation, period, end of story.

???????????????

What do you understand as automation?

[GGTharos]

In military machines, any mechanical or electronic device that reduces pilot workload compared to not having such a device.

 

What do you understand as automation?

[GGTharos]

about automation, there is this AK-130, naval gun its a big caliber gun firing almost instantaneously one shot after another.. the automation is incredible while on US ships you are manually loading and firing..

 

Really? ....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/54_caliber_Mark_45_gun

 

first "drone" -a craft flown remotely or being able to influence its flight path through remote way was by a Russian anti-ship missiles back in the 50's..

 

Really? ...

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/166124/brief-history-drones#axzz2WI6WoLJn

 

In World War II a different approach was taken: the Navy launched a new program, called Operation Anvil, to target deep German bunkers using refitted B-24 bombers filled to double capacity with explosives and guided by remote control devices to crash at selected targets in Germany and Nazi-controlled France. Remote control technology was still limited—involving crude radio-controlled devices linked to motors—so actual pilots were used for takeoff: they were supposed to guide the plane to a cruising altitude and then parachute to safety in England, after which a “mothership” would guide the plane to its target. In practice, the program was a disaster. Many planes crashed, or worse. John F. Kennedy’s older brother, Joseph, was one of the program’s first pilots: he was killed in August 1944 when a drone-to-be that he was piloting exploded prematurely over Suffolk, England.

 

 

all systems that come online and speed at which you do this is also a sign of automation of internal systems and built-in design, for this reason T-90 will start up faster than other tanks and drive longer without need to stop and calibrate the computer, ballistic comp, and god knows what else..

 

Really? I've worked with M1 and Chally systems, and they say you don't know what you're talking about. And that was a long time ago :)

[ФрогФут]

In military machines, any mechanical or electronic device that reduces pilot workload compared to not having such a device.

I'm not going to argue of avionics, but the relief as a pilot is much greater in soviet aircraft.

[UCAS]

Really? ....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/54_caliber_Mark_45_gun

The Otobreda 127/64 and 127/54 system fire at twice that rate.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otobreda_127/64

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otobreda_127/54_Compact

 

But the AK-130 is twin cannon setup, firing at a combined rate of up to 80rpm.

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_51-70_ak130.htm

 

It's like a machine-howitzer.:D

 

The first cruise missile was the Kettering Bug:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_Bug

 

However the first modern cruise missile was the V-1. The Nazis also invented the first wire-controlled, TV-guided bombs and missiles and SAMs.

[SimFreak]

I think Mig-31 has very similar system....but probably still highly classified.

[GGTharos]

Then argue the relief, but I don't know why you'd say they get more carefree handling - it just doesn't seem to be the case. And when the time comes for combat, avionics cannot be factored out.

 

I'm not going to argue of avionics, but the relief as a pilot is much greater in soviet aircraft.

[ФрогФут]

And when the time comes for combat, avionics cannot be factored out.

When you set everything on the ground and don't touch for the whole flight - is it automation or not?:)

[GGTharos]

Do you mean in conjunction with GCI? Here we enter a realm of doctrine, which is what I was talking about.

 

When you set everything on the ground and don't touch for the whole flight - is it automation or not?:)

[ФрогФут]

Do you mean in conjunction with GCI? Here we enter a realm of doctrine, which is what I was talking about.

No, i mean the cockpit.:)

[GGTharos]

You can set stuff in an F-15 cockpit and leave it too ... how successful you will be depends on which generation of radar you have.

 

No, i mean the cockpit.:)

[ФрогФут]

You can set stuff in an F-15 cockpit and leave it too ... how successful you will be depends on which generation of radar you have.

Then what about F/A-18 automation is better, than Su and MiG?:)