backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 68 comment(s) - last by CascadingDarkn.. on Oct 26 at 2:23 PM

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II  (Source: Lockheed Martin)
"Too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns."

Many high-end luxury cars feature voice recognition to simplify such mundane tasks as controlling radio volume/tuning, adjusting the climate control and setting GPS navigation waypoints. The use of voice commands allows drivers to focus more intently on driving instead of fiddling with buttons or accessing increasingly complex driver interface systems like iDrive, COMMAND or MMI.

Researchers for the Air Force Research Laboratory's Human Effectiveness Directorate have similar aims at simplifying the current control schemes used in today's fighter aircraft. Researchers are currently using a NF-16D Variable-stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft (VISTA) to fine-tune the voice recognition system that will be used in the F-35 Lightning II.

The system has been tweaked to enhance voice recognition performance and minimize errors. An error rate of less than two percent is expected for the voice recognition system.

The DynaSpeak speech recognition software used was developed by SRI International. SRI has previous experience developing voice recognition software for in-car navigation systems and mobile devices.

"We're going to work with the vendor to improve the baseline system for the F-35," said David Williamson, senior crew systems engineer for the directorate's Warfighter Interface Division. "Collaboratively, we're going to make the system much better before it even gets to the initial operational test and evaluation phase."

While the F-35 Lightning II will be the first next generation fighter to receive the voice recognition system, the F-22 Raptor could be retrofitted if tests are successful.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
2% is acceptable?
By darkpaw on 10/18/2007 12:05:39 PM , Rating: 5
"Current elevation"

~Eject sequence in progress~

as the pilots flying out the tope "No elevation not eject you stupid piece of crap"

I'm sure that wouldn't happen, as all critical controls would need manual activation. I think even 2% error rate is a bit high for something this important though.




RE: 2% is acceptable?
By Etsp on 10/18/2007 12:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure that it would be actually pretty easy to get the individual pilots to record all the commands that they use, and have the software use that as a reference to further reduce the error rate.


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By michal1980 on 10/18/2007 12:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
I would sure hope that this is 2% right out of the box.
Not 2% lifetime.


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By cw42 on 10/18/2007 1:20:00 PM , Rating: 3
that 2% = dead pilot


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 1:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
Hardly. You think they won't design in safeguards and verification into the VR system?


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By JohnnyCNote on 10/18/2007 7:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
Ever hear of the V-22 Osprey? How long have they been trying to get it right? Maybe the problems are different, but these are defense contractors - need I say more?


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By BladeVenom on 10/18/2007 8:50:31 PM , Rating: 3
Trusting your life to the lowest bidder.


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By AntDX316 on 10/20/2007 10:38:39 AM , Rating: 2
it would be used more like for navagation and radio tuning such as ILS and the radio stack or whatever it is

missle launching and arming commands still most likely would have to be done manually by hand but the rest number movements for autopilot should be done by voice


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By lompocus on 10/18/2007 10:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
roflmao, you read time magazine?

They overhype the problem. Every bit of new technology went through that. The Osprey is the pinnacle of earthly aircraft, short of super hovering hovercraft things that go the speed of sound.

Defense Contractors = NOT EVIL! Now will you get that damn liberal bias out of your head, that conservative idiocy out of your head, the moderate retardation out of your head, and realize advance requires time and effort?

Besides, it's set to be deployed around 2009 or sooner. Imagine this: A helicopter, which can stay still, move at the blink of an eye to dodge fire, turned wholly vertical while its propeller-jets keep in it midair, firing the same gun a warthog has down on the enemy, with an array of many other guns at its disposal. It can do almost everything.


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By dflynchimp on 10/18/2007 11:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
signed.

Time overhypes alot of things, and the Osprey was easy prey (almost hit a pun there). It's not as dangerous as people think. It's the fact that it overhauls the flight controls of an aircraft, blending fixed wing with rotary that complicates a pilots job and creates new aerodynamic hurdles. Things will get ironed out in time.

I do think they should just have all the pilots train in Harrier jump jets before tackling the Osprey, lol


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By werepossum on 10/19/2007 7:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Defense Contractors = NOT EVIL!
AMEN.

quote:
It can do almost everything.


Except bank at low speed. The Osprey's problem is pretty simple: if the rotors are overhead and you bank sharply, the upper rotor steals the lift from the lower rotor. The sudden loss of lift turns the bank into a catastrophic TUI. The beast is fly-by-wire, so presumably that behavior (banking with the rotors up, not the physics) can be programmed out. It's probably taking so long because getting to the maximum stable bank angle (considering the almost-infinite combinations of speed, rotor angle, and loading) is difficult, and settling for less than the maximum stable bank angle can get you killed as well as transform the Osprey into a flying pig. Also, once that behavior is prohibited by the computer, you have to re-train the pilots, as that thing flies like nothing else in the air.

The basic concept is pretty simple, and training pilots to avoid repeating that behavior is equally simple. It's just that you can't allow a fatal problem to hinge on the pilot not doing what is perfectly safe in any other aircraft. Not in the USA, in today's world. When this bug is worked out, it will be a good piece of kit. Lord knows the Marines are way overdue on rotorcraft replacement. Although IIRC they have backed off the Osprey somewhat and will be replacing some of their choppers with the new Seahawk/Blackhawk cross?


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By Misty Dingos on 10/18/2007 1:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
An emergency system (like the ejection system) will always be a simple pull these levers system. No voice control. The standard ejection system has to be initiated with by the pilot either pulling up on a yellow and black handle between his knees or two separate handles on either side of his knees. Some earlier ejection systems used handles above the pilots head.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/acesii.htm

Fire suppression would be in the same boat. Not that your example does not have its own comic implications.

I would imagine that the two percent error rate is more likely to be related to edge of the envelope flying when the pilot and aircraft are under a great deal of stress.


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By timmiser on 10/18/2007 7:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
While you make an excellent point about the ejection handles, I can also see it the other way around. If your plane gets hit and pilot becomes injured or goes into some type of unnatural gyrations where the extreme G-forces are preventing you from moving your arms to grab such a handle, I could see a voice command coming in very handy in such a situation.

Even so, you could still employ a multi-stage voice command for safety to be able to eject without needing to physicall pull a lever.


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By boing on 10/19/2007 5:27:32 AM , Rating: 3
wouldn't want to have a wingman who stammers....


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By Misty Dingos on 10/19/2007 8:11:36 AM , Rating: 2
There have been moves toward automatic recovery systems in fighters. Pilots often push themselves beyond what they can take becoming incapacitated. At that point the aircraft takes over places the aircraft into level flight. Allowing the pilot to recover and resume control of the aircraft. I am not sure how far along this has gotten in the community.

The natural extension of this is that if the pilot becomes injured or incapacitated with a more adaptable and comprehensive system the aircrafts computer could return the aircraft and pilot to base. Either landing the aircraft automatically or ejecting the pilot near the base before crashing. This second option might be used if the aircraft is so damaged as to be unsafe to land. Of course the option of allowing some form of remote controlled landing is also viable.

Having voice cues is already in aircraft. In the F-15 if the aircraft’s computers calculate that the pilot needs to pull up or that he is running out of fuel a voice warning is given. The voice they use is a woman’s voice. They tested lots of voices and found that male pilots respond more promptly to a young woman’s voice. We called her Bingo Betty.


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By EODetroit on 10/19/2007 12:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
If there were any female pilots, I wonder who's voice they would respond to quickest...


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By Alexstarfire on 10/19/2007 12:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
Brad Pitt or George Clooney.


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By timmiser on 10/19/2007 6:54:08 PM , Rating: 1
I've not heard of "Bingo Betty", I thought she was known as "Bitchin Betty"!


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By squishborka on 10/18/2007 1:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
I think the missing piece of data is the current error rate because someone hit the wrong button or whatever. What if button pushing error is 3% under some conditions (high coriolis force)?


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By Golgatha on 10/18/2007 2:12:07 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y_Jp6PxsSQ

If they're using Vista, 2% is a very low estimate.


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By Golgatha on 10/18/2007 2:12:57 PM , Rating: 3
Oh snap, they are using VISTA!


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By Drexial on 10/18/2007 2:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
if this works anything like my phone, i sure as hell wouldn't trust my life to it.


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By Gul Westfale on 10/18/2007 10:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
watch jeremy clarkson trying to get the phone in an S-class to call someone (at 3:52)... i'm sure the plane's software is more sophisticated than that, but still... seems kinda spooky to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmkX9mtF9zI


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By Trisagion on 10/18/2007 11:27:38 PM , Rating: 2
The "Variable Stability" in the name doesn't inspire too much confidence now, does it?


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By gt1911 on 10/19/2007 7:03:21 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder how much that 2% rate blows out to when the Pilots are under a significant G loading? I would think that would be the most critical time and yet the hardest for the system to translate your voice.

I assume the answer is going to be that the tasks it would control would be ones you wouldn't be using during harsh manouvering.


RE: 2% is acceptable?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/19/2007 7:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
2% error rate would allow all sorts of fun side effects.

1, 2, 4... no 3! <bang>


What is this for?
By Scorpion on 10/18/2007 12:26:51 PM , Rating: 3
Soo... What "mundane" tasks do these fighter pilots need voice recognition for? "Play Iron Eagle mix tape at volume 11." Is it really that difficult to flip a cover and press a button to use the weaponry? Or is this more intended for navigation system integration. I'm just not seeing where the real need for this is, and how it will greatly improve pilot performance.




RE: What is this for?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/18/2007 12:44:08 PM , Rating: 3
Well since they are using Heads Up Displays built into the Helmet now, voice recognition would let them acquire and fire without having to move, which is good during a high speed bank where the G forces might make moving ones arm kind of hard.


RE: What is this for?
By CascadingDarkness on 10/18/2007 12:51:24 PM , Rating: 5
I also suspect that being able to fire flares and chaff while simultaneously pulling evasive maneuvers would come in handy.


RE: What is this for?
By Martin Blank on 10/18/2007 1:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's not just during combat that pilots would want this. Even when flying patrol, a few seconds head-down to switch frequencies may mean the difference between life and death if coming under sudden attack. And even outside of patrol, things happen mighty fast at 500 knots, so even the easiest button-presses distract from situational awareness enough to add a little bit of danger. One could look down to press a button and look up just in time to see the bird that disappears into the intake, knocking out the engine, leading to a very bad day.


RE: What is this for?
By Scorpion on 10/18/2007 4:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
That is the response I was waiting for. So here, let me counter with this. Why Voice recognition? Why not intelligent sensor networks that can perform these tasks automatically when needed, without the pilot even having to "voice the order". Some of these "actions" can be taken care of automatically so why not go that route? I thought we were moving towards autonomous aircraft anyhow.

I still don't understand how "saying" it is easier than pushing a button on that stick you're already holding onto.


RE: What is this for?
By CascadingDarkness on 10/26/2007 2:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well I'm no fighter pilot, save my dreams and video games, but I suspect there is a 'best' window in time to eject flares/chaff. I would guess it's based on largely on vectors, and how the pilot intends to avoid said missile.

You'd have to ask the pilots themselves what they would prefer. Control or a CPU that starts ejecting as soon as there's a missile warning. Not sure what they'd say, but my guess would be 'Control'.


RE: What is this for?
By Sahrin on 10/18/2007 12:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
"Play Iron Eagle Mix Tape" - Thank you for the laught.

I disagree for the reasons pointed out already, but still - hilarious.


RE: What is this for?
By kextyn on 10/18/2007 1:27:42 PM , Rating: 4
Most of the tasks people are mentioning in the comments are things that are already very easy for the pilot to do because of the buttons/switches on the sticks. They us a HOTAS setup to do anything important without moving your hands.

Some of the tasks that might be done with voice recognition would not be directly related to combat as those are already taken care of. But things like navigation equipment would be a good example.


RE: What is this for?
By timmiser on 10/18/2007 7:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
There is a well known slogan in the world of air combat: "Lose sight, lose the fight".

When you are sawing on the controls in a dogfight for life, regardless of your HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick) buttons, there is more of a need to switch weapons/radar modes, zoom in/out, lock on target, switch targets, fire chaff/flares, etc.

I've flown many years of combat sims and was using voice recognition back in the 90's with a program called "Game Commander." Funny that the air force is just now starting to use voice controls!


RE: What is this for?
By EODetroit on 10/19/2007 12:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh interesting except that it so happens that dogfights don't really happen any more, at least for the US. Maybe if there were local conflicts similar to the Falklands there might be dogfights between those two nations, if they had similarly matched airforces using last generation technology. But that last generation tech wouldn't have VR.


Your name is "Not Sure"
By Kefner on 10/18/2007 12:52:22 PM , Rating: 2
This story reminded me of Idiocracy, when Joe is getting his Tattoo, and the computer thinks his name is Not Sure because Joe answered he was "not sure" how he should answer a question about his name. :)




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/18/2007 12:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
Pimp Masta


RE: Your name is "Not Sure"
By Screwballl on 10/18/2007 1:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
excellent movie... there will be at least some truth to it...

President Not Sure!!!


RE: Your name is "Not Sure"
By Spivonious on 10/18/2007 1:40:37 PM , Rating: 2
I got a kick (pun intended) out of the kicked in the balls show.


RE: Your name is "Not Sure"
By James Holden on 10/18/2007 2:18:21 PM , Rating: 1
Fantastic movie if for the social commentary only.


Computer?
By iFX on 10/18/2007 12:11:44 PM , Rating: 5
Hello Computer?

FIRE PHASERS!




hypothesis
By drew494949 on 10/18/2007 12:25:33 PM , Rating: 5
new black box audio comes back from a dog fight...

Pilot has already custom mapped his voice commands.

"Bogey on my tail, he's firing missiles! S***!"

Flares fire like an explosion of...




2%
By slawless on 10/18/2007 12:29:37 PM , Rating: 3
I work all day with voice recognition. The error rate is supposedly is 2%. Even.....if.....you....speak.....like ....this you still get alot more than 2%. hopefully they will keep it off the nuclear bombers




RE: 2%
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 12:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
An error rate of 2% is easily achievable with a very limited vocabulary like they are likely to have, even without voice training based on individual pilots.

I assume the VR you are using is, on the other hand, general-purpose that is required to recognize basically all words in the entire language. That's a much harder task for the software.


This should be interesting.
By MrTeal on 10/18/2007 1:16:33 PM , Rating: 5
"Fire missle!"

"I believe you said fire missile. To confirm, say 'Yes'. If this is incorrect, say 'No', and issue another command."

"Yes"

"I'm sorry, I was unable to understand you. Please, repeat your command, or press 1 to connect to mission control."

Boom




been done
By Heidfirst on 10/18/2007 3:56:27 PM , Rating: 3
Eurofighter Typhoon (in operational service) has speech recognition (Direct Voice Input) already.




RE: been done
By ruslan124 on 10/18/2007 5:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
and the French Rafale and the Saab Gripen I think.

The company integrating this system (Adacel) are also working on the Apache helicopter and a civil aircraft with Rockwell Collins.


Ted, today you'll be flying with Steve...
By kileil on 10/18/2007 5:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
"...and to turn on the heads up display just say. 'cupcakes'."

"cupcakes?"

"Yeah, I changed the voice commands to better suit me. Anyways, whenever you want to contact the tower just say 'I'm soooooo pretty".

"I'm so pr.."

"Make sure to drag out the 'oooo's "




RE: Ted, today you'll be flying with Steve...
By gsellis on 10/19/2007 9:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
Because anytime we say "mattress", you put a bag over your head?


By kileil on 10/22/2007 12:49:14 PM , Rating: 1
Close, but replace "a bag" with "my bag" and "your head" with "your mother". ;)


bwhahah
By cw42 on 10/18/2007 1:19:33 PM , Rating: 4
FIRE ZE MISS-ILES!




Was anyone else scared when...
By TechLuster on 10/18/2007 1:38:42 PM , Rating: 4
...after glancing over an article about a fighter jet's OS and UI, they saw the word "VISTA"?

Scenario:

"I've got tone I've got tone--firing!"
<2 second pause>
*chime* "VISTA needs your permission to fire a missile"
"God damn it VISTA!!!"




Nice!!
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/18/2007 1:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
I can imagine pilots using their cell phones with this:

"Hey babe, if fuel is not an issue, I'll be flying over home in some minutes so you can go to the roof with the digicam and take a pic of me making some silly facial gestures!"




RE: Nice!!
By glitchc on 10/18/2007 2:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't the cellphone throw off all that expensive navigation equipment? He might end up at the wrong house.. in which case his wife/gf might be more pissed than him.


Voice recognition?
By Kenenniah on 10/18/2007 2:30:25 PM , Rating: 3
The Russians were way ahead of this technology back in the early 1980's.

"You must think in Russian"




RE: Voice recognition?
By Fnoob on 10/18/2007 6:52:13 PM , Rating: 1
You beat me to it. I was thinking of that line from the get-go.

Of course, with the 2% error rate for voice recognition... one might imagine that the 'thought' recognition might be a weeeee bit worse :

Pilot thinking "Fire Harpoon"
CPU "Did you think fire Harpoon missle, or were you just worried about pulling out of that poon last night?"
Pilot "Shit"


I wonder ...
By Screwuhippie on 10/18/2007 3:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have to press "1" for English?




RE: I wonder ...
By werepossum on 10/19/2007 7:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
LOL

Just as well I'm not a fighter pilot then. I'm pretty sure I could only assign one function to "scream like a little b!tch".


very cool
By Screwballl on 10/18/2007 12:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
it is very cool seeing the F-22s here close to Eglin AFB and soon to see the F35s on a regular basis once they get that wing ready.
They are very cool planes to see taking off or landing over your head.




By decapitator666 on 10/18/2007 12:24:21 PM , Rating: 1
"Researchers are currently using a NF-16D Variable-stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft (VISTA)"

File copying as an explanation for the 2% error rate leading to los aircraft comes to mind..




By decapitator666 on 10/18/2007 12:26:03 PM , Rating: 1
The 2% error rate will not be solved by SP1


Spelling
By MrDiSante on 10/18/2007 1:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
Don't mean to be a Nazi or anything but you've a typo: it's supposed to be missiles, not missles.




Preview
By CapZap on 10/18/2007 1:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
"Good morning Dave. . . .
You're looking particularly well rested this morning, Dave. I trust that you slept well?"




i'll chime in
By inperfectdarkness on 10/18/2007 3:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
since i work for the USAF, i'll comment here.

visual recognition is just another extension in a long line of projects, experiments and upgrades to help the pilot enhance his situational awareness (SI).

the f-15 has been cited as requiring 75% of the pilot's effort to simply fly the plane. compare this to the f-22, where that figure is closer to 35%. modernized avionics, more intuitive controls, and other advancements have made this possible. the less effort required to simply "fly" the better SI the pilot has, and the deadlier he is in combat. if voice recognition can reduce that "minimum required effort" by another 5-15% the results are totally worth it.

you could put an f-22 pilot armed with aim7-sparrows and aim9-m's up against an f-15 pilot with amraams and aim9-x's, and the f-22 pilot would still win 90% of the time. why? because it's altogether a much more advanced airframe, and much simpler to fly. raptors have successfully trained in 2 vs 16 against f-15's.

the f-35 will make a nice replacement for the vipers (f-16). i'm very interested to see how autonomous and intuitive they can make these planes before they totally remove the pilots.

p.s. to the idiot who posted in the article about unmanned f-35's;

the j-10 can't do shit against an f-15, it's only marginally on par with a viper. the j-11/su-27's are much more of a potent threat. still...nothing compared to the raptor.




Firefox
By skeeter123 on 10/18/2007 5:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
Someone been watching too many Clint Eastwood movies.




Manners
By Kyanzes on 10/19/2007 3:55:19 AM , Rating: 2
"Fire missiles!" - "You didn't say please..."




Tracking multiple targets?
By SiliconAddict on 10/18/2007 6:08:09 PM , Rating: 1
I have to imagine now a days the on board navigation and fire control have a lot to do with one another. As such wouldn't voice commands come in handy with sorting out what targets are priorities and such? Heck you'd think the less time a pilot has their hands off the stick and throttle the better. *shrugs* As If I know jack shit about this.




"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki