I love these mid-thrust single engine fighters…

light of the (unaligned-independence-loving-don’t-want-to-get-arm-twisted-just-to-get-a-basic-air-defense-capability) world.

now, a 4/5th-gen stealth Grippen? or a stealth version of JF-17 that sells uner 20million? would be great!

He must be a talented guy to work on so many high profile projects, and judging by his presentation, I can’t say I’m surprised. I actually saw him at Farnborough last year, he was at the PAF static display of the JF-17 🙂

I think the JF-17 has quadruplex digital FBW in pitch control only, and analogue FBW for roll and yaw. Does the J-10 have something similar or digital in all axis?

Thanks for clarifying, I wasn’t completely sure what was being referred to by the term.
Also, do you know what was meant by the term “Bend and Twist” in the wing layout and the “Differential Horizontal Tail”?

I think his English was quite good actually, and besides, maybe we should learn Chinese rather than expecting everyone else to learn English? 🙂

1. The presentation seems like a standard trade show talk.
If you ever bump into him say hi to him for me. :p
He was the right person at right time in 611. He works too hard. resilient as hell to carry through the project as he did on J-10.

I am surprised CIA hasn’t tried to kidnap him or assasinate him at these trade shows… prob would set the chinese effort back 5 years. 🙂

2. “quadruplex digital ” etc describes the hardware side of things. what I am talking about is the the law. in JF-17 the lateral side is prob direct signal actuation, in the directional side prob just a yaw damper. J-10 prob is all digital.
imho, all digital is the way to go for FC-1/JF-17. you have most of the same hardware anyways it is not more difficult to host the extra functions in the hardware you already have. having a mixed system on some level actually cost complexity and headache.
anyways, the hw stuff on JF-17 should have some heritage from lear-siegler stuff. 🙂

3. “Bend and Twist”… prob Diahedral of the wing and wing twist. wings are usually designed with twist as a function of span… usually the more you go out from the wing root, the wing chord has more a nose down angle.
“Differential Horizontal Tail”: elevarons. at high speed ailerons due to aeroelastic effects their effectiveness drop to nothing. elevator in the back is scheduled in to move differentially to generate rolling moment.

4. He should stick to chinese and force all the journalist scramble to learn chinese. :p

with Decline of EU/US and more hard cash in Russia/China hands. Brazil will have hard time competing with them for the highly skilled management and technology.

Brazil has one advantage that no amounts of Russia/Chinese money can make up…

it is not seen as a strategic competitor/ideological nemesis.

It’s companies faces much less political hurdle in importing technology.

it’s a double edge sword though.. it forces Russia/China to develope the key parts in-house…minus in short term, as particular bottle neck would slow down a program, but a big plus in long run as it forces the technologic-political complex to focus on core-competencies to have the ability to develope key technoloigy.

Brazil… and I would say same for India also, don’t have that issue. also a double edge sword. less-pressure to pour money into R&D. big plus in short term to be able to easily acquire technology, big minus in long run as your ability to develope core-competency gets less focus.

Its not the 1970s anymore.

Research “smart actuators” and you will find them used in F-35, RQ-4 and even the B787. And I can guarantee that LM, NG and BA did not develop the control software for those actuators in house.

djcross is right.

Suppliers usually supplies the actuation control electronics and software.

but the user usually puts careful scrutinies on how each failure modes are dealt with and what the actuation behaviors are.
sometimes change flight control software to compensate for the new state of the system.

now here is a post we can talk about in earnest

Modern airplanes/UAVs are built using nested control loops. Any/all of those control loops can have autonomy capabilities programmed into them.

The lowest level control loop is the effector loop. An effector loop controls individual actuators, valves, motors, Etc. The effector controller can be programed with diagnostics and logic that allows identification and compensation for effector off-nominal conditions. Control surface rates, deflection and forces are the territory of the effector controller. Since the effector controller is typically located adjacent to the effector, control latencies are extremely low.

the electronics that controls the actuation. in manned aircraft this exist in levels pretty much automously too, wit all of their diagnostic modes.

The second lowest control loop is the subsystem loop. The subsystem loop controls a gaggle of effector loops. An example would be a flight subsytem controler which controls a group of actuator controllers. The flight subsystem controller can be programmed to make autonomous decisions to compensate for individual actuator problems due to failure of battle damage, yet still provide the desired airplane handling qualities. Airplane pitch/yaw/roll rates and attitude are the territory for the subsystem loop. Control latencies are measured in milliseconds.

The next higher control loop is the pilot loop. The pilot loop controls a gaggle of subsystem control loops. The pilot loop integrates the operation of a multitude of subsystems, assuring the fuel system delivers fuel to the engine, which provides thrust and operates the electrical generators and hydraulic pumps, which power the computers, which operate the flight controls, sensors, communications and weapons systems. Real time controls provide capabilities such as flight path, bank and sideslip angles. Control latencies are measured in tens of milliseconds.

The outer control loop for UAVs is essentially an autopilot loop, controlling heading, altitude and airspeed. But also autonomously coordinates various sensors and communications.

typically 2/3/4 are hosted same box, wrote by the same people.
in manned flight world it is typically done in the same box too, wrote by the same people.
essentially it is the primary flight control and autopilot functions. and usually if people are smart they would realize it is almost the same software so typically the lines are very blured.

The highest control loop is the mission loop (equivalent to a mission commander in function). The mission loop controls the airplane per the rules of engagement and how it interfaces with other airplanes, friendly off-board entities and threats. Control latencies are measured in hundreds of milliseconds.

There is a choice of two autonomy modes for the three highest control loops, the “Mother, may I?” mode and the “Do it, but keep me informed” mode. There is no mode which allows the UAV to operate without human oversight.

The last loop is essentially the difference between manned and unmanned. but still manned fighters this is still assisted in part by “mission computer”. the difference been the way points are autoset per instructions or by the pilot’s finger onboard. granted for situations such as interactions there needs to be a level automation not needed in manned fighters, but even in these cases these technology are not new… for example tomahawk anti-ship variant uses a target search algorithm (i am sure all the russians ones too have some sophistated algorithms) after arriving at target area.

And why would Malaysia prefer GE-F110 engines instead of AL-31FM1:confused:

what is the MTBO of latest F110 vs AL-31FM1?

There is a hell of a difference between a fully autonomous military aircraft and a civil airliner auto-pilot.

Yes,

but not as you think. 😀

the redunduncy on a cat-IIIc is prob higher than those on a UCAV whose systems design requirement typically tolerates a much higher probability of failure per flight hour.

do you see triple radar altimeters, triple inertials with dissimilar hardware voting, quad redunduncy in airdata system on your typical UCAV? may be double some times triple but certainly not triple or quad all the time with dissimilar hw sw.
if you doubt that just count how many external AOA probes a ucav/fighter have, vs a Boeing 787.

@Prom

Whilst I agree with the points you mention, i.e tried to play a sleight of hand there, and substituted what I said “UCAV” for something different, “UAV”, which as I’m sure you are aware are quite different in terms of the likely level of complexity, especially in the combat systems and airframe design.

As I point out, BAE has proven it’s ambition through real projects, SAAB has not proven anywhere near as much ambition.

what Sleigh of hands???

I left one letter out and all of a sudden it is some sort of sinister intentions?

Ok, I correct it then, UCAV.

now, do tell me what new technology UCAV requires that are not on manned aircraft today.

and what ambition has BAE proven with its projects? ambition demoed but not carried through is not the same as a track record of sustained fighter developement through thick and thin.