Adress to Harry – continue of Cockpit design

This is address to Harry to continue the disccusion of Cockpit and MFDs.

Warning: Flamers are not welcome, will be banned by mod.

I already proved to you that MFD failure is a reality. On all aircraft. It is not about x being better than y.

But some aircrafts have a fail prove system to let it display/working again, some don’t.

1. On all aircraft, be it the blk-60 or MKI, the first level of backup is to transfer the functions to an available display. But consider the case of failure of *all* MFDs. In this case, the MKI has analog backup but the others do not. Now, I don’t think that it was actually a design consideration but its nice to have.

Wrong, in the case of all MFDs fail, there is second power/third power backup units and bring the MFDS work/function again. If all these backup are also fail, that mean you are badly hit.
If the MKI have this kind of fail prove system, all those analog backups (per your claimed) are just useless garbage that took up a lot of cockpit space. I don’t consider that is “NICE”

2. Your aircraft won’t get shotdown or crash if your MFDs fail. The HUD can present enough info. I guess that J-7s, early MiGs et al, would all crash after takeoff or if they do combat?

I am not referring to the planes crash because of MFDS fail, it is silly to use these J-7s or mig-21 to compare with 21 CENTRUY FIGHTER MKI since they are not the same level.
I am referring in a combat situation, especially in BVR, If an aircraft’s MFDs fail and just relying on those analog switches means it become blind. It lost tracking of the enemy planes, which exact location of them are maybe from its own radar, or ground station, or AWAC datalink, etc that display on the MFDS.
Since you lost track of the enemy, you lost combat/first shot capability, and you are just vulnerable and under attack with many missiles from them.
The HUD does not help in this situation, especially out of visual range.

First of all, you don’t do combat but looking down into the screen at all time. Basics – keep your eyes on the situation outside the cockpit, as much as possible. (Remember that its 3D SA, not 2D) Hence the priorities assigned to HMS, Voice etc

Human visual range is limited. Just keep looking outside the cockpit only let you see a blocking of the clouds, or just a darkess if at night time or in a bad weather. This is where the MFDS help you to visualize.
1) It can display/keep track a number up to 15-20 of enemy planes and their exact location, while the human eyes can’t.
2) It can show on the screen where exactly your own position with high resolution mapping by means of GPS or other means of positioning system.

There are many many more useful functions of MFDS but can’t keep counting.
HMS is just an improvement over HUD that let you to aim/fire at enemy more quicker. it just can’t function as complete as MFDS.

3. In regards to eye level placement of MFDs, the blk-60 and JAS-39 do not implement their MFDs that way. I was referring to examples such as the SSDUs on the LCA or the MFDs on the MiG-21-2000. You’ll notice that they’re closer to the HUD level.

2 MFDS on the side of JAS and F16 do raise higher, very close to the base of the HUD. 2 MFDS of the MIG-21-2000 show good eye level. The funny thing is, MKI does not.

4. The HMS cannot replace all the functions of MFDs but developers are trying to squeeze in as much critical info (flight/targetting/imagery) as possible, in there.

I don’t think it can display the whole page of high resolution terrain/map with text on it.

5. Don’t compare the crappy voice recognition used in cell-phones to those being developed for a/c. The latter have to function perfectly under commands issued at high-G, adapt to variations and dissimilar pilots. They have to extensively use Neural Networks at the very basic levels.

No matter how import you think this voice recognition is, it just not as capable as MFDs that give you the whole environment situation in WYSIWYG fashion.
It is just a voice command driven, or may be it give you situation alert. But the problem is Human brain is limited. They tend to forget the information they heard a few seconds ago, especially throwing a whole bunch of numbers to them.
Another drawback is the machine misunderstand human voice, like “T” and “D”, like “S” and “X”. Whenever human give a voice command, the machine take that voice command (convert to binary) and then compare with what is in its database and it just match to the one that looks close, but may not be exact matching. Also consider that when human give voice command, there are other factors like environment around, background noise interference etc. If you said India already develop and 100% error free voice (I mean not just a few words/commands) recognition, then the only thing I can say is “I will believe when I see it”.
I just can’t think of what usefulness of voice recognition in a air combat!!!

6. If you still think that the MFD-55s suck just because of the existance of analog backup, then simply look at the Mirage-2000-5/9. No analog backup there but the MFDs are the same. So it can’t suck afterall.

The problem is not on MFD-55 itself. MFD-55 is just a industry standard screen interface, like a computer monitor. The problems is on the system inside the aircraft who feed the information to this interface/screen and which has no fail prove/ power backup unit that makes it fail.