Nick_76I dont know whether the F-22 has the same concept as the LCA in terms of employing SSDUs. The F-22 cockpit is however larger than the LCAs and that allows designers to use large LRUs including displays.
The LCA design currently splits the avionics data across 3 MFDs, the HMDS and the HUD. The SSDUs are backups for the MFDs and can also be used for other purposes, plus there is a dedicated “get you home panel” with critical navigation information for the pilot.
Whats unique to the LCA (and to every homegrown fighter, I guess) is the degree of customization acc. to IAF pilots requirements. The MMI acc. to pilots is comprehensive. In its final form, the LCA will have sensor fusion, DVI and greater automation than any other IAF aircraft currently flying. This plane is more customized to IAF requirements than even the MKI. Its MMI was brushed up by IAF Test crew deputed to the program, but many design features were retained to cut down on development time and testing. In contrast, the LCA is being built from the ground up, so the IAF has got all its needs met in the ASRs and its test crew make it a priority to have it implemented.
Nick_76I have to be honest, the cockpit seems ugly. The displays are definitely too small and look obsolete, something along the lines of Czech L-159 ALCA which is a low cost trainer and attacker rather than a 4th gen multirole aircraft.
Is this a definitive design for Tejas?
You have to understand the rationale behind a cockpit before analysing it.
The larger each MFD, the fewer the number you can incorporate.
Size matters if you want to present the maximum amount of data in each display but even this is addressed by three displays, a HUD and a HMDS. What more could a pilot need?
The displays themselves are state of the art, in terms of technology. But they are also backed by SSDU’s. The two small displays are smart (integrated processor) STandby display units which provide a backup in case the main MFDs fail and are insulated from the main display units failure.
So you see, there is a logic to it all, besides the sheer aesthetics of three huge MFDs or the most jazzy HUD.
But here , the size of each display, the positioning, is being decided by IAF Test pilots who are driving the cockpit ergonomics. In other words, while it may not look jazzy, it is functional as heck. There is a lot, for example, that is being done on the HOTAS which is unique to the Tejas and will allow the pilot to select and use each earmarked sensor. The LCA also has a departure from conventional glass cockpits in the SSDU and “get you home panel” as well as constant attempt to reduce LRU counts.
Nick_76Check out Arun Vishwakarmas excellent gallery on http://www.bharat-rakshak.com AeroIndia 2007 section. Good stuff on latest Indian electronics and stuff.
Nick_76Why does the HUD looks so “old and big”-ish?
Compare with the Gripen cockpit
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/gripen/cockpit/cockpit.jpg
The current HUD is from some five-six years back (when it was developed). Its developed by the CSIO HUD and is very competitive in its price range (weight, volume, cost, noise etc). It has a FOV of 25 degrees.
In comparison, the MKI’s Su967 from Elbit has a FOV of 28 degrees.
The CSIO HUD on the LCA is going to be replaced by the new CSIO HUD, frameless and with a larger FOV being developed for the N-LCA and also, used for other aircraft programs.
The current SSDU’s are from Datapatterns India. The Elbit MFDs will be replaced by HAL SAMTEL (a local design, with locally made LCDs) which are to be superior to the Sextant MFD66s (The displays will be able to show both analog and digitally processed data simultaneously, as compared to only the latter on the MFD66). The IAF TPs are not concerned with the 25 deg. FOV HUD as the LCA is to use a HMDS (Elbit DASH) to be ultimately replaced by a CSIO-DARE (DRDO) HMDS.
Nick_76every project is towards workable system.
Then why ask?
so undetermined date?
The date is determined, but it wont be tomtommed as the Indian defense establishment doesnt care for its impact on PR.
so if India is so good in COTS why not supply components to Zhuk-ME or for Seeker of R-77 upgrade and want TOT for every foreign project.
design of components is totally separate thing from manufacturing process with advance lithiography equipment. Intel can design chips but not fab equipment. there is limit of fabless semiconductor to give to commercial vendors.
More bullsh!t and which is why you are the biggest bullsh!tter on this forum. First you claimed that India cannot utilize COTS and make it mil-grade or use it for mil-grade apps. I pointed out that it could and does so for a variety of projects. Now you changed tack, and are claiming India should supply Russia components for already existing projects (which, if you werent a complete Doofus but which you are, has been explained to you a dozen times that it has no economic value for India to have russia reengineer existing items to incorporate COTS based designs from india for limited production runs) and then you claim that India doesnt make COTS components- well duh, thats why they are COTS, you fool. They are procured off the shelf from non sanctionable, easily available suppliers who supply the same items worldwide, and what is sanctionable or critical is made inhouse by India from key processors, to multiple ASICS. COTS usage in India is bloody widespread, and they are routinely designed to be part of systems for ind grade to Milspec apps.
The problem with you is your ignorance is as long as a mile, and you continue to write absolute nonsense based off lexis-nexis. First graduate from college and get yourself a job, twit, mouthing jargon without understanding it does not make you an expert, it makes you an utter idiot in front of those of us who can make you out for what you are, H177 or whatever you call yourself.
Nick_76You can check Elettronica SPA site for info on the technoogy behind its systems…they take part on a LOT of european programs (NH-90, Typhoon, Tornado, EH101, Horizon frigates and the IMEWS system for Mirage-2000-9 of UAE)…they’re not newbies on this business! 😮
😎 😉
http://www.defensenews.com/aero/story.php?id=2542208
Elettronica Finds Indian Partner For Electronic Warfare
By DEFENSE NEWS STAFF
Italy’s Elettronica is moving into the Indian electronic warfare market with the Feb. 8 announcement of a joint venture with local company Alpha Design Technologies to develop and produce systems for air, land, and sea.
The two companies announced the creation of the Alpha Elettronica Defence Systems at Aero India 2007 here. The joint venture, in which Alpha will have majority control, will be based in Bangalore and use the Indian company’s existing manufacturing and software development facilities based here.
The joint venture is expected to seek export sales, the two companies said.
The Elettronica deal is the latest in a string of local and international joint ventures set up by Alpha since it was formed as a private company three years ago. Company expertise covers electronic warfare, tactical communications, radars, optronics and simulators.
Alpha makes the MARS sight from ITL in a Joint venture as well.
http://www.itlasers.com/company_structALPHA.asp
The next phase of outsourcing, partly to address Indian concerns over TOT, and product support as well.
Nick_76this again more research oriented stuff.
Not really- this is a project to field a workable system.
what i want to see actual implementation and manufacturing.
Will only be revealed once the project reaches critical mass.
Not all COTS suitable for Military application. u need world class Fab specifically dedicated for military industrial complex.
Get off the jargon horse, complete your basic undergrad and acquire some basic grounding in reality. India & several other countries use COTS as necessary and are well aware of its pros and cons. :rolleyes:
Nick_76Quote:
Originally Posted by xanadu
Weaponisation is to begin this year with the EL – 2032 radar for which 4-5 sets have been ordered.————————————————————————–
Didnt the DRDO top honcho say that they had succeeded in integrating an AESA with the LCA? An AESA the EL-2032 is not
————————————————————————
He didnt say anything of the sort, he said advances in phased array radars had been achieved, which probably meant x band Tx/Rx modules for future applications. Instead the import crazy crowd promptly to the conclusion it was an Elta 2052 and fitted onto the LCA.———————————————————————–
Maybe he was just playing with words. But if I remember the interview he trumpeted the fact that integrating an AESA with the LCA had been completed.
He neither played with words nor did he trumpet anything. All he stated was that a breakthrough had been made in fielding a phased array radar for the LCA. That is pretty conservative and taken logically means that Tx/Rx modules or the like have been developed for the LCA or a design has been developed or the like.
Nick_76Another factor is that if India chooses the Mig-35 they will likely be making the TR modules for the AESA radar themselves. The result will likely be a high rejection rate, but eventually, as they get better it will mean they will have mastered the hardest part of AESA… lots of TR modules made cheaply.
I doubt there will be a high rejection rate- several Indian firms are already making Tx/Rx modules en masse and their production facilities are top notch. In fact, if we see- L Band AESA modules, S Band etc are already in production. The DRDO chiefs recent comment implies that even X Band modules have been realised. So where the Russian expertise would help is not in Tx/Rx modules but other radar stuff- signal generators, exciters, and the software algorithms for different modes, all these can help Indian programs extensively.
Nick_76Joey cool down please.
Xerox is just stating his opinion my friend!
Nick_76Please provide us with the proof.
Did Pakistan pay out of its own pocket for the AN/TPS-77, F-16 Block 50/2, AMRAAM, Harpoon? The answer is obvious.
Compare these to JF-17, SD-10, Bakhtar Shikan, YLC etc.
The former are generally more sophisticated, versatile, expensive and donated.
Nick_76FWIW
If the above is not clear enough, I just checked the other stuff.
The multinode PowerPC supercomputing board I was mentioning has 4 Power PC Altivec processors on each baseboard, with each board able to pump out greater than 38 Gigaflops. If the specification demands, several such boards can be used as part of a larger processor system.
And of course, the same company ruggedizes h/w etc to MilSpec/CEMILAC.
If HAL/ DRDO want to, they definitely have the hardware providers ready.
Nick_76Weaponisation is to begin this year with the EL – 2032 radar for which 4-5 sets have been ordered.
————————————————————————–
Didnt the DRDO top honcho say that they had succeeded in integrating an AESA with the LCA? An AESA the EL-2032 is not 😡
He didnt say anything of the sort, he said advances in phased array radars had been achieved, which probably meant x band Tx/Rx modules for future applications. Instead the import crazy crowd promptly to the conclusion it was an Elta 2052 and fitted onto the LCA.
Nick_76For example of what an indian company did for DRDO, this is from 2-3 years back or even more. The aim was to use COTS DSP chips. Now you can use PPC & others but heat always poses a problem..but I know of 3 PPC chips on a single board also used. CEMILAC—-Airworthiness org, therefore, this is for an airborne radar. As Panda said, embedded hardware is not a concern now..
VME based High-speed
Signal Processing System
Introduction
Often there is a need in
the industry to use multiple processors
based systems to solve
specific problems because of the
inherent processing power limitations
of a single processor
based system. However, the interconnect
architecture between
multiple processors poses a severe
engineering challenge to the development
of these systems. This
case study showcases xxxx’s
ability to design high-speed,
dense interconnect multiprocessor
systems.
The Customer
Solution Provided
The Requirement
A leading Defense Lab in India
approached xxxxx to design and
develop a high-speed signal processing
system for their radar application.
Radar applications need a large
amount of signal processing. These
are usually performed using an array
of DSPs. The speed and the
interconnectivity between the various
DSPs determine the effective processing
capability of the signal processing
sub-system.
The customer requirement was for
XXXX to design a high-speed signal
processing system involving:
• As many DSPs as possible in a
single 6U VME card
• System support for VME and
P0-PCI interface
• Support for one PMC site
• Conformance to CEMILAC
(Center for Military Airworthiness
and Certification)
ruggedization requirements
xxxx came up with a solution involving
twelve Analog Devices
ADSP21160 DSPs. The DSPs were placed
in two clusters of six each. Each DSP
operates at 80 MHz and the system
provides a peak processing power of
5.76 GFlops. The design also included
CPLD based SDRAM controllers (a Mistral
IP) that facilitated optimal access
to the SDRAMs. A Tundra bridge was
used for the VME interface. The required
PMC site was provided using
PCI9656.
The Challenges
Component Selection
• Component level thermal analysis
was performed to ensure that the
chosen components would work
at the temperatures desired.The DSPs were not available in
industrial temperature grade. To
overcome this problem heating
elements were used to heat up the
card when the ambient
temperature is below 0oC.
• Significant thermal modeling and
analysis were performed to locate
the placement position of the
heating elements.
Interconnect architecture
• The effective processing
bandwidth available on the system
is heavily modulated by the
interconnect architecture. The
ADSP21160 provides only six link
ports for interconnection whereas
this twelve DSPs architecture
needs eleven link ports to
facilitate complete any-any
interconnect. Connecting each
DSP to four other DSPs and two
connectors to receive external data
solved this. A virtual any-any
interconnect was provided
through software to maximize
communication throughput
without unduly complicating the
system.
Routing Constraints
• High component and interconnect
density posed a severe routing
challenge. Signal flow was arrived
at after thorough signal integrity
analysis.
• Routing lengths had to be
matched in the shared buses.
Given this the layout of
components and choice of routing
layers proved to be another big
challenge.
Board support software
The board support firmware (BSF) had
to provide:
• Functionality for the developer
to take full advantage of the
board since the system did not
run an operating system
• Substantial diagnostics to verify
the health of the board
• Control functions such as
turning off the heaters based on
the ambient temperature.
CEMILAC Compliance
• Ruggedize the board to meet
stringent environment specifications
for airborne application
• Fine-tune the hardware to meet
ESS (Environmental Stress
Screening) as per QTP
(Qualification Test Plan)
• Documentation conforming to
LCSO specifications.
Key Achievement
• Despite the presence of
significant airflow in the VME
chassis, a booting time of less
than two minutes was achieved
at -20oC
• The link port interfaces operate
at 80MHz without any signal
integrity problems. Achieving
this result on point to multipoint
nets that run across the
board is a significant
accomplishment.
• The well laid out design
facilitates the shared memory
interface between the six DSPs to
run at 40 MHz successfully.
• The interconnect architecture
presents an efficient data
movement platform and the
customer is able to migrate the
current software architecture to
the new system with no trouble.
Customer Benefits
• Customised solution to suit their
radar signal processing needs
• A high-power signal processing
system in a single 6U VME form
factor
• The PMC site provides room for
future expansion to the design.
Nick_76Even our MFI-10-5 have embedded processors (for 2D generating maps) and those are one of the olders…will upload the Air Fleet edition when it was being talked about that…
exactly; so the “display processors” for those 1600 MOPS systems does not make sense. 1600 MOPs is likely the entire performance of the system (all modules included), some of which are for mission computing, some for others, and some for map generation/ creation (which is probably why the description says display processing)
Sign In
