Qatar's F-15s Will Feature New 'Low Profile' Heads Up Display and New Cockpit | Hacker News Reader

Qatar's F-15s Will Feature New 'Low Profile' Heads Up Display and New Cockpit

thedrive.com

75 pointsExcelSaga84 comments

Do any pilots want to chime in about the utility/value of touchscreen UIs vs. tactile controls in planes? As a non-pilot I don't really want to comment, but I know they're controversial and I personally find them obnoxious in cars.

They suck. I've flown in a Cessna with a touchscreen transponder, and it was nearly impossible to enter the required four-number code in light turbulence.

edit: That said, you could probably make a decent aviation touchscreen. The main issue with off-the-shelf screens is it's easy to brush the wrong thing. A screen that takes significant pressure to register a touch would probably be usable, and for all I know this system might do that.

Well, there's your next startup idea.

It's not really a startup idea, it's just a bad choice that was made when equipping the plane (often the manufacturer's choice, not the purchaser's). Button and dial based options exist for every instrument and piece of avionics, even modern systems. The person making the equipment selection just fell victim to slick advertising photos instead of practicality, or got conned into buying a Lynx because they thought they were getting some sort of deal.

Real knobs _work_ and _worked_ for the past 100 years. You could replace them with touch screens if their advantages were compelling.

the key advantage that touchscreens have is that they show many different displays to expose different controls and information, while a physical panel necessarily offers less functionality in the same cockpit area.

i think it would be really nice to combine physical controls with a digital display. either the buttons themselves could have little displays that show different labels depending on which mode you're in, or there could be generic buttons/knobs around the display whose function changes depending on what UI page you're on.

Its interesting that its easier to buy physical flight instruments with alternative units (feet/min m/s or knots for a VSI, for example) than to buy physical flight instruments in foreign languages. Other than some Russian military gear, the whole world uses English language flight instruments. I've never flown outside CONUS the idea of a IFR approach or departure being defined in knots vertical is kinda weird but theoretically possible. Maybe its for balloons or something else non-general aviation.

Being able to load up a touch screen transponder to read "ident" in hebrew or japanese is exciting both for native language familiarity and the inevitable random language changes while in flight. I can imagine the conversations on 121.5 already, "does anyone speak Romanian, my engine computer rebooted and now I can't figure out how to richen up my fuel mixture so I can land" "What is the Korean acronym for what in English is a NDB (non directional beacon)?" or whatever. At least while you're flying in Romania, even if no one speaks English you're at least surrounded by other Romanian speaking pilots also flying English language flight instruments.

Already exists. The only aircraft touchscreens I've used have been those from MGL Avionics [0], which required a firm intentional press and provided feedback.

There's no reason to use screens that trigger on just a light touch.

[0]: http://www.mglavionics.co.za/iEFIS.htm

Physical UI affordances are extremely helpful anytime you need to interact with something in the cockpit and have your eyes on something else. The discrete click click of a radio knob lets you tune to a new frequency by counting the clicks. Having little handholds on the front bezels lets you steady your hand during turbulence as your finger hovers above a button. Different sized controls mean I can know without looking which one I’m grabbing. There are probably tons more examples—I’m not an avionics industrial designer.

I suppose with practice you could navigate a touchscreen without looking but I’m not even there with my phone.

"Different sized controls mean I can know without looking which one I’m grabbing."

Two famous examples, one WWII era plane had gear up crashes because pilots pulled the wrong lever up, until the engineers replaced the landing gear levers (right next to the throttles and mixtures) with stylized landing gear wheels. Another example was a nuclear power plant where all the primary coolant loops had the identical handles causing accidents until the ops replaced all of loop1 handles with coors beer tap handles, loop2 with bud tap handles, such that you'd instantly know if you're trying to drain loop2 and you're touching all bud levers except one coors tap, you're doing it wrong.

Needless to say in both cases management wanted engineers to cut the cutesy stuff out and damn the safety results all we need is more abusive harder training because professional appearance is far more important than measurable safety increases. That's why we'll be stuck with ever increasing touch screens, more pilot error accidents or distracted driver accidents are a feature not a bug to a certain mindset that just wants to yell at and blame humans for being human.

They’re terrible, especially in a turbulent and/or cold environment. A good EFIS should have physical buttons on the perimeter of the display, and many do.

Analog controls have a lot of physical feedback that a screen cannot mimic. Switches vs knobs. Some knobs are multi-detent switches. I can look at a radio, see the frequency, and know how many detents to get at or close to the desired new frequency while looking elsewhere because I can feel the increments happen, same for transponder codes, same for changing mode or view.

And in turbulence and/or at night, or heavy workloads, it's even more handy.

About the only replacement I can imagine being better is the Firefox (film/novel) interface. I'd even learn Russian just to have that interface. You must think in Russian.

Not a pilot but like you I can't stand them cars. Tactile means I can keep my eyes on the road, which is the only thing that matters while driving. I found myself glancing at the screen before touching it and got rid of the touchscreen only device that was in my car and replaced it with something that has the major functions under a button. And I don't use it for navigation, I have a dedicated device for that I've placed on the right of the rear view mirror.

Airplanes have to deal with turbulence and I really would not want to change any critical settings on a touch screen while being bounced around, I remember when I still had the bloody touchscreen device in the car I mis-touched and I had no idea how to get back to where it was before, it took a stop at a gas station to reset the interface. In general I think the obsession with getting rid of knobs and buttons is a bad thing.

I'd love it if there was a general prohibition on touch screens in cars, I'm pretty sure that it is a safety issue. Any device that requires that you take your eyes of the road in a vehicle is a bad device.

I agree. Even with force feedback I don't think these interfaces will ever be as good as physical knobs, buttons, and sliders. "Good" in the sense that they can be reached, perceived, and manipulated with our senses completely without eyesight. For instance I recently drove a Volvo V90 (every control on a large flat screen) and the climate control for seat heating was tiny and slow to update -- I had to take my eyes off the road to find it, aim at the specific setting I wanted, and wait to see whether the setting had changed as intended; by contrast in my current Volvo V60 there are physical buttons that I press (without aiming because I know exactly where each one is) and they instantly change the settings as desired.

Could haptic feedback be “granular” enough to mimic specific shapes of knobs and switches?

Introduce vibration. Physical controls give you a topology to orient to. A flat screen doesn't.

Every control becomes an exercise in sustained hand-eye coordination.

Talk about your distracted driving -- or flying.

Can haptic feedback really help with that? (Serious question: I haven't had the opportunity.)

That's one crucial aspect of the problem. My fingers can navigate across physical controls, simply using my sense of touch, without triggering any of them until I exert sufficient pressure. Could this be emulated in theory with haptic feedback? possibly, but nobody is offering such flat-screen UIs at the moment.

One reason i actually liked resistive screens, because i could rest my fingers on it without triggering anything.

Probably. I’ve experienced a haptic device that made it feel like I was pushing my hand through sand, so making it feel like knobs and switches must be possible. I also remember seeing something once where haptic feedback was used to make a flat surface feel like a keyboard.

Real knobs have built-in force feedback and none of the disadvantages of touch buttons. I have no idea what it will take the industry to realize the sub-optimality of touch environment.

I high end brand going on a retro binge...

[ Shoot ] [ Eject ]

... tries to tap the Shoot button, but the plane shakes. Eject button is tapped instead ...

"Fuck!"

Ejecting will render plane not usable, are you sure? [ Yes ] [ Cancel ]

... taps Cancel very carefully ...

You have chosen to Cancel the ejection process, but you don't have enough coins! [Purchase Coins] [Cancel and Eject]

Do you want to drop engines 1-4?

[yes] [ask me again in 30 seconds]

Please turn off Airplane Mode to continue. [Eject]

This plane has new updates available. The operating system shall reboot now. Hopefully you're not in flight right now.

Don't even joke about that: OTA updates in mobility applications is a thing and not everybody in that space is smart enough to only do this when the vehicle is stationary.

I'm waiting for the first aviation GPS nav system to pull the automobile trick and refuse to accept programming while in flight. "Sorry you may not select an emergency landing airfield as a new destination, the aircraft is in flight, please land the aircraft then for your safety the GPS configuration screen will be unlocked". Its merely obnoxious nanny when a car driver is alone, but its incredibly frustrating when the car or airplane has a "copilot" dedicated to the task.

There's a bit of a difference between you changing your destination vs the manufacturer updating the software while the vehicle is in motion.

A really good voice interface would be a solution here. But I'd want to that to be 'on device', not through some service where the audio gets sent.

Fortunately avionics tend to be better behaved than car electronics but there are plenty of people bitching about the latest generation of touch screen hardware in general aviation planes.

Nice stackexchange thread about this:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/22729/why-are-t...

In the specific context of fighter jets, its worth pointing out a few trends.

a) As many critical controls as possible are already stuck on the stick and throttle. For an example (ok, technically from a game/simulator, but close enough), http://falcon4.wikidot.com/avionics:hotas .

b) The expectation is that fighter combat will continue to evolve to become ever more information dominant. That means having the ability to gather, process, and act on as many information as possible, and faster than the opponent. This means information rich displays that given today's limitations on HUDs and HMDs, still means the pilot will have to look down anyways to fully exploit their information.

So instead of comparing touchscreen controls to say... touchscreen controls for your radio in your car, consider if your job was to drive, while also like... playing an air traffic controller game or something.

That's a good point - I guess playing Falcon 4.0 is a good parallel (which makes sense, given how detailed a sim it is!), since I don't find myself needing to point-n-click over to too many onscreen cockpit controls while playing. I think what struck me about the (probably fake) image was that the pilot was entering something on what looks like a virtual DED, which seems like a tedious task even while not flying a plane. I wonder if any of the lower panels have kept a tactile DED or numpad.

Oh, that's a good point. No idea how fake that is...

But, Elbit's line of next gen cockpits have the trade name of 'CockpitNG', and here's their sales brochure (http://elbitsystems.com/media/CockpitNG.pdf).

You can see that their main render/concept has plenty of dedicated entry devices left. I'm pretty confident that that render is off some legit production or semi production CAD models cause they bothered to leave in the USB port.

Now, there's no knowing what the Qatari's actually ordered - I'm sure Elbit and Boeing would happily modify the cockpit interior to order. But I think from that picture, you can be pretty confident that plane makers aren't just nilly willy throwing away physical controls.

The pilot should have low-output electrodes attached all over their body that will route information as a "buzz" or a "tingle"

"The expectation is that fighter combat will continue to evolve to become ever more information dominant."

Is fighter combat a thing ?

What was the last air to air ("dogfight") the US was involved in ? How frequent are they ?

I am in favor of optimization and looking ahead to future use but when you use wording like "fighter combat will continue to evolve" that makes it sound like a thing that is happening in the world and that we are getting feedback from ... is it ?

”Fighter combat” or ”air-to-air” does certainly not equal dogfighting. Air-to-air is what fighters are made for! It’s just that these days it’s most often beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagement with radar and missiles. It’s still fighter combat.

> ”Fighter combat” or ”air-to-air” does certainly not equal dogfighting. Air-to-air is what fighters are made for! It’s just that these days it’s most often beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagement with radar and missiles. It’s still fighter combat.

Haven't they been claiming that most air combat will be "beyond visual range" since they released the F-4 in the 60s? Then it never happens because the rules of engagement require visual confirmation, because they don't want fuckups and friendly-fire incidents because someone's IFF was broken.

ROE can change. Since the generation of BVR missiles with fire and forget capability were introduced, NATO forces have never engaged in near-peer combat. In these environments, strict ROE designed around minimizing political fallout makes more sense.

In the case of combat against near-peer, peer opponents, I fully expect ROE to change to allow greater use to BVR missiles to their full capability.

In any case, I think most groups more or less settled on the idea that you really do need both - you need sufficient WVR and BVR capability to be a useful fighter jet in the next few decades.

1999, Serbia; infrequent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Air...

Private pilot and military officer here (but not military pilot). On the military side, touchscreens suck horribly but are already being crammed into planes where soft buttons on the side of a display and controls on throttle and stick are already solutions that work fine. F-15s also have (depending on country) head tracking in the form of HMCS, so doing a gaze based interface is feasible and a better solution than touchscreens.

Honestly, page-based systems that can be accessed with a castle/boat switch is fine for modern fighters and trained pilots. Hearing a trained Eagle driver rattle off how to get to a specific menu/page from any other page is pretty impressive- "You need to change missile mode but you're on the ECS page? Back, down, down, right, right. [or something like that]" And they aren't even sitting in the plane or looking at the screens, it's just muscle memory.

Non-military specific, and the biggest con of touchscreens in a cockpit: - Turbulence makes it hard to hit the right places on the touchscreen. Traditionally you'd rest your hand or stabilize a few fingers on the outside of your radio/navigator before twirling the dials or pushing buttons, and there was enough resistance to keep from accidental presses. With stuff like the GTN 650 pushing the screen out to the edges, resting your hand on the bezel means you accidentally make touches to the edge of the screen. Competitors like Avidyne actually market old school buttons as a feature, and it's a compelling one.

Military specific concerns: - Wearing gloves while flying means that button size needs to be huge and touchscreens aren't very precise. - High-G maneuvers make it really hard to touch the right part of the screen.

All of the touchscreen UIs I used when I was in the infantry actually were mostly pretty good. The contractors seem to have been told explicitly that people will be wearing gloves or using knuckles in generally poor operating conditions. The sensitivity always seemed just right and it was almost impossible to accidentally send an unintentional input unless you hit the wrong button thinking you were hitting another. For example using the Blue Force Tracker inside a gun truck at night on shitty roads wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be.

Grunts have to live with stuff because they have no other choice. Pilots are zipper suited gods whose complaints actually matter.

All joking aside, they have human factors experts work on the UI, and it must go through operational testing- passing isn't a requirement though- systems have been fielded with failing UI evaluations because they were super effective. But pilots still hate touchscreens even though a lot of thought was put into making them suck less.

> Honestly, page-based systems that can be accessed with a castle/boat switch is fine for modern fighters and trained pilots. Hearing a trained Eagle driver rattle off how to get to a specific menu/page from any other page is pretty impressive- "You need to change missile mode but you're on the ECS page? Back, down, down, right, right. [or something like that]" And they aren't even sitting in the plane or looking at the screens, it's just muscle memory.

Reminds me of seeing cashiers operating ansi/tui POS without even looking because they had worked up the keyboard muscle memory.

Then came the touch UIs and it all seemed to go to hell.

Sitting here thinking about it, i wonder if what made it all work was that you used arrow keys to navigate the UI and then hit a specific button to activate the focused element.

With mouse/touch oriented UIs there is no concept of activating a element. They are all "hot".

What's a castle/boat switch?

They're separate things. They are multi-function buttons on a throttle or stick.

Here's a castle picture in the link below- on the right side of the F-22's throttle you can see a large button that has angled sides and four tabs sticking out the top. The castle moves up/down/left/right and lets the pilot select targets and navigate menus. It's kind of like the eraser nub on ThinkPad computers, but bigger so you can use it with a gloved thumb : http://www.essexindustries.com/products/f-22-raptor-throttle...

Here's a boat (switch #1 in the link below)- Boats are only forward/back, and are often used as a do/undo option. Imagine pushing forward on the boat to designate a target for a missile, then deciding you don't want to kill that target. You'd pull back on the boat to un-designate the target. They are curved like the bottom of a boat, which gives them their name and lets your finger push forward and back: http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/technology/cockpit/81-pilot-thr...

Thanks! Now i know what i'm looking for, it's much easier to google. Here's a castle switch, with much smaller battlements, that you can buy:

https://www.alliedelec.com/-t4-0122/70329688/

And here's one you can print (the plastic button of one, at least):

https://i.materialise.com/shop/item/f16-flightstick-dms-cast...

Plus a boat switch button you can print:

https://www.shapeways.com/product/KUZB6VZAM/f-15-boat-switch...

I notice that on the F-15 throttle, there is a switch below the boat switch that is sort of its inverse - raised in the middle and sloping down at the ends. I would guess that it's different so that the pilot can easily tell which is which.

Not a fast jet pilot, but in smaller aircraft with much less wing loading we can get tossed around a lot by turbulence. While a bunch of touchscreens have found their way into general aviation aircraft and seem to be received well, they're always fairly small, no larger than the iPads that are often used for maps and navigational databases.

As others have said, touchscreens suck in planes. Particularly in turbulence, they're very hard to use. The problem is twofold. First, when you're flying, you're usually multitasking. It's very useful to be able to perform tasks with the electronic gadget without looking at it. If there are physical buttons, you can find the right control by feel. You can't do that with a touchscreen. If things are a little bumpy, the tactile feedback is also very useful because you can subconsciously tell when you are about to push a button or turn a click knob without actually doing it, based on the force feedback. Since the whole thing isn't touch sensitive, you can also brace your hand with your other three fingers against the panel so that it doesn't move during turbulence. I fly gliders a lot as well as small single engine planes, and I really like the LK8000 software for gliders. It has a "turbulence proof" interface. Even though it's a touchscreen, the interface mostly restricts itself to touch events like "top half or bottom half of screen" or "corner of screen." The UI then provides unique audio feedback. Between the two, it's possible to use the UI to get to a particular view of information without looking at the screen. UIs that require you to do things like precisely tap on the icon of one airport among many in the middle of the screen are almost unusable.

Trying to operate touch screen buttons (even flat glass ones) in a car on winter pavement, with gloves on has made me quite sad over the past 4 months.

Without fail, I wait and wait and almost always hit a bump right when I go in for the button press.

The manual shift lever and physical dials for the air-conditioning are 100% reliable, by contrast.

I'm still aghast that Tesla decided to go "all-in" with touch screen controls in their latest car, big step back in ergonomics (and even safety!) for the reasons you have given and more. I would never buy a car with one big touch screen.

I know it doesn't apply to Tesla's since they only have motors and batteries to monitor, but the more physical instrumentation and analog controls I have, the better I feel.

Not much of a more clear "you missed that shift" feedback loop than hearing gears crunch and the shift lever vibrating like a magic wand.

My plane has the GTN650[0] and it's fine up to and including light turbulence, but it's going to be largely dependent on your overall panel setup. My panel is situated such that I can steady my hand on other things while utilizing the touch screen. If you had a different panel setup you might have issues in anything but smooth air. And remember there are knobs on the GTN650 that you can use too, you're not required to use the touchscreen.

As far as situational aware, you're going to be looking away from the windscreen no matter what. Touchscreen v. tactile doesn't change that at all. Personally, touchscreen like the 650 is more intuitive to me than something tactile like a G1000, but the G1000 is also cramming a lot more info onto the screen. I just never liked reassigning unlabeled buttons to do something on the screen, it makes developing muscle memory harder (for me).

[0] https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/67884

Touchscreen provided by (drumroll) Elbit! The Israeli military electronics company.

Qatar has always had a weird diplomatic position for an Arab state.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Qatar_relatio...

Qatar seems to have good diplomatic relations with that country, since the 90s

Yeah. And at the same time is considered a major Hamas supporter.

And is a close US ally, and hosts the Taliban's exiled leadership.

And is a GCC member, and maintains friendly ties with Iran. (Though the KSA has lost patience with that lately.)

Qatar excels at playing both sides.

I guess we've kind of lost the war on pointing out that it actually stands for "Head-Up Display"...

Aren't both valid? Dictionary.com lists heads-up display: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hud?s=t

In fact, I think that is what it means to lose the war :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-up_display

Both are valid

Depends on how many people are in the cockpit.

Moot point, because a fighter pilot will never say "head." That and the word "box" are strictly prohibited.

Interesting, why?

Apparently you are not supposed to say anything rude or even mildly sexually related on the PA, according to [0]

No idea about "box" tho, is that even remotely sexual (not an english native)?

[0](http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4224)

http://urbandictionary.com is often helpful if you suspect there's something you might be missing. Even as a native speaker, I find it useful. I'm not always hip to the yout patois.

Box is slang for vagina.

It's a cultural thing. Fighter pilots play several games with each other, usually violating a rule means you have to pay money (the dead bug game and fixation on the number 69 are also interesting). They claim the games increase situational awareness, but it's really just an excuse to create a very tight culture (some would say exclusionary).

Yup, I have heard many a fighter pilot say things like "Over-Cranial Projector" instead of "Overhead Projector".

Why does Qatar need 72 F-15s?

They've managed to piss off Saudi Arabia/the rest of the GCC, and they are between the GCC and Iran. It's conceivable they could be fighting Iran, GCC, or both. There's an argument that having a lot of capability will deter actual aggression. 72 F-15s are a bargain compared to an actual war.

It's also a way to buy closer relationship with the US.

I'd feel a lot worse about any other country spending money on potentially needless arms; Qatar is solidly in the "we have extra money" range as a government.

As you know, Saudi Arabia and Iran currently have a cold war going on, accompanied by proxy wars through out the Middle East. Qatar is a small peninsula sticking out of Saudi Arabia. It is smaller than the Falkland Islands.

In 2017, Qatar and Saudi Arabia had a major falling out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_Qatar_diplomat...

SA demanded that Qatar shutdown Al-Jazeera and all other news orgs, break off relations with Iran, pay unspecified piles of money that SA got to determine, and "align itself with the other Gulf and Arab countries militarily, politically, socially and economically, as well as on economic matters...".

SA and neighboring countries then closed the land border, and stopped allowing ships to unload cargo and transfer to smaller ships for delivery to Qatar. This affected almost all cargo headed into the country, since Qatar's port can't support large ships.

The neighboring countries also announced that anyone who shows sympathy to Qatar "whether it be through the means of social media, or any type of written, visual or verbal form", would be subject to $130,000 fine and three to fifteen years in jail.

And that's where things have been for the last nine months.

(Qatar, Iran, and SA all fund terrorism and terrorist organizations. There are all busy playing the Middle East version of the game of thrones. Any sympathy I feel for Qatar is because they are one of the little guys in this fight.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kushner-companies-co...

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/02/jared-kushner-real-estat...

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/how-jared-kushn...

Many more but you get the idea - business as usual!

Am I the only one that thought you were saying Qatar pissed off GNU Compiler Collection? I should learn more history / geopolitics.

Gulf Cooperation Council for those that don't know. It's a regional alliance of countries around Saudi Arabia. Their major interests are 1. making tons of money, and 2. defending against Iran.

Happens. A common mistake today's AI would probably make. But we humans have strong value for the CONTEXT.

In the greater context of Hacker News I really should have been more clear about the meaning of GCC.

When I saw GCC, I asked Google Assistant what it was and it actually made the "mistake"

Humans (at least most) have a sense of fallibility.

Thus when unsure we do not simply go with the best assumption.

"AI"s seems to just go with whatever is the "most" likely, even if it is just some 0.0001% above a sea of alternatives.

To protect them from Iran and Israel. Not directly as weapons systems but as a means to transfer billions to the US as a political retainer.

Which is somewhat ironic considering the billions in military aid we give Israel which returns to the US as a back door MIC subsidy. Playing both sides is great for business.

The article lists Elbit (an Israeli company) as the touchscreen provider.

US political and military protection.

One strategy to airframe maint popularized by the USA would be a punishing maintenance load keeping all 72 operational.

Another strategy popularized by Iran and their F-14 collection would be realistically only a fraction will remain operational over time due to maintenance and parts logistics limitations such that in 20 years they'd like to be able to field, perhaps, 16 actual flyable aircraft, which is realistic for a small state, a couple CAP, a couple hot standby, a couple for training, maybe the occasional very small raid, 16 or so is about right. As a side note about Iran's F14 collection IIRC the Iraqis claimed in hundreds of press releases, added up over the entire Iran-Iraq war, to have shot down more Iranian F14s than the USA had delivered to Iran... so giving Qatar 72 planes means at least 140 or so claimed kills by someone, eventually, LOL. And we also sell ADA missile systems and A-to-A missiles so 140 claimed kills is good for business.

Is the "low profile" HUD any different than typical ones? Also why do they mix up the HMD? Is the HMD going to replace HUD by using some kind of parallax-free motion-compensating technology? I'm confused by the article.

Makes sense to upgrade a proven design rather than risk everything on the F35.

The F-15 is indeed a proven design, but against modern integrated air defense systems it is going to have a really, really hard time without extensive support from other platforms (EA-18G for protective jamming as just one example). And even then the crew of an F-15 may find themselves in a situation they can't survive. Even if F-35 isn't the answer, 4th generation aircraft have serious survivability issues.

OTA updates are going to be brutal XD

Reply on news.ycombinator.com