JohnWooFind this in PDF, by Johndull.
Quite impressive development, but don’t know how true this article is:
To Johndull, hopefully you don’t mind I post your work here.
Recently a chinese megazine called Ordnance Industry Science Technology pulished an article that provided certain detailed information regarding JF-17 / FC-1 avionics. Given the fact that the megazine was published by an organization with military background, it seems the info is very creditable to me.
since I have been surfing this site for years and have limited contribution thus far, I try my best to summarize the points here. However, I was not trained in aviation, and English is not my native language either, I am not familiar with some special jargons … …
Reasons for changes (improvement over the opriginal designs / specs)
– initially specs were not as advanced as it is now for the cost reason. However, the US surdenly decided to sell more advanced F-16s to PAK aiming to kill JF-17/FC-1 project
– the project team was forced to improve the specs and make it happen at prototype 04, and they did.very advanced cockpit
– control pannel is consisted by 3 color screens (20.3cm x 20.3 cm) only, all information is processed and displayed on them. the functions of each one is exchangeable. brightness & contrast can be adjusted either automatically or manually. each of the screen can be re-defined.
– HUD is also state-of-the-art. many image / infomation can be displayed at the same time.
– HUD is better than that of the latest su-30 for the reason that JF-17/FC-1 can display both raw signal as well as processed infomation (i.e. more meaningfull) whereas su-30 displays, by and large, raw signals directly.HOTAS Control
Intelligence Avionics
– avionics system is all digital and fully integrated
– distributed structure, two independent but exchangeable (can back-up each other) STD-MTL-1553B data buses connected all equipment, plus two powerful control computers (also can back-up each other). Each computer controls one data bus
– only very recent airplanes such as F-16 E/F have similar structure and powerful computers– Radar. initially Pak wanted to use grifo ones (Grifo-S2000). However, Chinese one offers key advantages such as compatibility with Chinese weapon systems
– Radar has multiple modes, such as A2A (both BVR & close), air to ground, air to sea, etcs with strong anti-interference capacity.
– it can handle > 40 targets, tracking 10 of them and guiding 2 BVR missiles to attack 2 of them at the same time
– the detecting range for a typical air target of RC 3 square metter is > 75 km; looking down range is > 45 km; range for sea target is > 135 km
– it has digital map, and is going to have 3D digital map.– robust & advanced electronic warfare system
– has all standard electronic warfare systems, such as radar warning, nissile approaching warning, etcs.
– the computer can store more than 300 existing radar signals for identification, and actually already stored more than 100 known radar signal partens
– 360 degree range for missile approaching warning system with both infra-red & ultra-violet spectrum detecting, very sensitive to “afterburn” of missiles and the detecting range is > 20km. one detecting sensor in the tail and two at the front. moreover, it can provide certain capacity of tracking and positioning the approaching missile.– JF-17 / FC-1 has a computer controlled infra-red interference bullet (missile?) system, which automatically calculate the right timing (based on the rsult of detecting system) to release the interference bullets to maximaze the impact. Only recently released airplanes such as F-22 / Rafale have such system. Even F-18E/F and F-16 E/F need further upgrading to acquire such capacity.
– JF-17 also has an “focused interference system”, which can beam the enegy on one direction (i.e. attacking missile’s guiding system) to distrub it. By doing this, a small equipment can have the same impact as a large electronic warfare airplane in that particular direction. Initially FJ-17 / Fc-1 did not have this system. However, in view of the fact that Pak’s potential enemy is IAF equiped with Su-30 & R-77 missiles, CAC add this system into the plane. As of today, non india airplane has such system nor do PAk’s f-16s.
– JF-17 has two communication radios. one of them has the capacity for data link, receiving data from either ground control center or AWACS.
– all equipment has auto-detection function, i.e. at the time of maintanance, plug in a notebook computer and all working parameters can de displayed in the computer– weaponary system is designed to be compatible with both western system (i.e. supporting MIL-STD-1760 data bus) and russia system (of course china system as well). at present, its standard missiles are PL-9C for close fight and SD-10 for BVR. However, it also support AIM-9L/M and AIM-7F etcs
– every weapon point has the data bus interface, i.e. each point can carry guided weapons.
– for ground attacking weapon, already demonstrated laser guided bombs, it is going to have A2G missles.– the article concluded that the avionics as it is is very advanced, certainly at par with current European system.
OK. that is the summary of the article for your information.
JohnWooHeres the video that briefly shows the flight.
http://www.pakistanidefence.com/videos/AirForce/JF17Prototype4Flight/JF17_May102006Proto4Flight.wmv
Sort of disapointed cause I was expecting to see those rolling and diving in the air like the PT-01 did.
Hopefully, they show us more later.
JohnWooWonder how many J-10B already produced?
JohnWooThe “B” is realy a beautiful plane.
Thanks Pinko for the photo.
JohnWoohmm that reminds me of the Su-35UB’s cockpit that uses larger MFDs in the front..
see attached file
Yes, these large MFDS are quite nice, giving you high resolution and clear images. But the cocpit layout is looks kind of sloppy, agree?
JohnWooPretty much all do and its just your speculation that some don’t. There are several layers/levels of backup.
Here is what you have quoted, ” The analog instruments have apparently been retained for backup purposes ie the case of MFD failure”.
Another one: ” be it the blk-60 or MKK must address the case of MFD failure. In the former’s case, if one fails, the info will be re-prioritised and displayed on the next MFD. In the MKIs case, you have analog backup.”
First, you said MKI’s MFDs might fail. Second, you said other has fail prove system, but MKI has only analog backups.
Power failure is just one of the things that can happen. Using the first few levels of backup, the utility of dial pointers is reduced but as long as they don’t cause any interference or any other problems, they are always useful as the final level of backup. You also cannot deny that they free up MFDs for displaying other SA related and tactical info. Why waste precious MFD space for the mere display of basic instruments. Look at the F-2 for instance.
Yap, power failure is not an unusual incident. That’s why the modern fighters have several layers of fail prove/ power back up units to prevent the disaster. These preventions make the analogs useless. If the power is totally a failure and not even the protection can bring it up, then the probable cause is you are badly hit. Those analogs are also failed since they also use power to display/control.
In the case of F-2, there are a couples of analogs display on the side. The cockpit is mainly using three fairly large MFDS, 2 of them is close to the eye level. But, what we do know about those analogs for? Are they for backup or for other purposes?
Since we don’t know about the purpose, can’t compare with MKI case.
Now, do notice that the MKI’s panel board is quite huge. Just compare it to Mirage-2000-5 cockpit (which uses MFDs of the same size which will show them to occupy a larger area on the Mirage). Space is afforded on the MKI for those dial pointers of which there are just the basic instruments for survival in the case of large scale system failure.
Because of MKI has large cockpit, then put in all those useless analogs backup does not mean nice. I rather like to see the plane developed into full use of automated larger MFDS which you can integrate pieces of analog information/flight parameters onto 1 page of MFDS, which you can have many pages to work with.
In the case of large scale power failure, those analogs will probably fail since they also using power/electricity to be function.
The *potential* disadvantage is that of cluttering the cockpit but like I said, one can’t comment on the extent of disadvantage unless he’s flown those configs. With the advantages of backup and supplement, its a sacrifice worth making.
How many people here actually flown a fighter aircraft?
There are many, many comments made in the forum (including you) which aircraft is good or which is bad. So all of us should stop all these gossips and listen only to the pilot’s comments. This forum should be rename to “Modern Aviation Forum, FOR PILOTS ONLY”.
In BVR or WVR, your tracked targets are displayed on the HUD (The lower priority targets may be 2D on the MFD). You do not extensively rely on
HDDs or MFDs here because you’re dead if you disregard the height of your target and the actual situation outside your cockpit. No one flies their aircraft by looking down into the cockpit all the time. Even your bomb release cues come on the HUD.
If your HUD fails during BVR, you should just abort and turn back. Backups are primarily aimed for contingencies which are expected after heavy use. If a
failure occurs at the very beginning, it means that the mission should be aborted.
[IMAGE]
In the past, pilots were trained to attack targets at night using nothing more than a compass and stopwatch for navigation. Never underestimate the importance of basic analog instrumentation, which you may not even have if all your MFDs fail.
Just using HUD and all analogs switches and dials as your means of confrontation is old philosophy. I don’t underestimate the capability of HUD, in fact HUD is still to be here. But the trend is going to develop more advance means of display devices like larger, high resolution, image processing capability, and also fully controllable MFDS. We are seeing a few of these advance fighters already eliminate the dials and going to this direction.
From my knowledge, HUD was developed to help the pilots to distinguish how their plane flying condition and relative position to the earth. Later on, it was used in combat as pointing device to target enemy fighter for shooting the gun, then incorporated the missile shooting capability. It may have been tried to squeeze as much info (BVR) into this little mirror screen.
But this device is limited, it does not give clear view of all targets, especially if it has multi targets on the screen. It is transparent view, with lighting or other color of sky will interfere the pilot view, bad for all crunching full of 10/15 tracking targets in to this small frame. Nonetheless, it is still useful in dog fight which to engage single and 2 target after tracking 10/15 of enemy planes. MFDs are the logical next step of improvement over the HUD limitation.
compare with 21 CENTRUY FIGHTER MKI
F-2, MiG-29M2 etc are not new?`
You are trying to twist other’s comment, you should post the whole sentence, not just cut off it.
Here is my whole sentence: 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.
You keep on comparing MKI flaws with these 70’s planes, I think it is not appropriate.
There is something called a radar or IRST, you know?
The tracked targets will be displayed on your HUD. An MFD can act as a HUD-repeater but if you are stupid enough to do combat by looking down into your HDD and not outside the canopy, you’re dead.
Did you know what is call INPUT- PROCESS – OUTPUT? You can have whole bunch of powerful radar, IRST, etc. These systems are category as Input devices. To take full advantages these systems, you also need advance output system to interface between the plane and the pilot. I still don’t see a whole bunch of 10/15 targets tracking with HUD, maybe they can crunch the information to the HUD, but it is limited interface and less user friendly for the pilot. This is where the advance larger MFDS come. They are the not the repeater of HUD. They are the next logical step to fix the limitation of HUD. Do you think those aircraft manufactures that stupid enough to spend a whole lot of money just to develop a HUD repeater while the HUD is here and functioning?
You don’t “think”? Even the latest HUDs feature imagery.
Then show me the whole map on HUD.
Don’t twist the argument. No one is comparing the usefulness of an MFD to that of VTAS. MFDs are nothing new but VTAS is. The JF-17’s cockpit has the similar MFDs to those found in Super Tucanos. When there’s space available, any smaller MFD can be switched with a bigger one. I’d prefer separate displays/MFDs/SSDUs to a smaller no. of larger MFDs anyday.
No big deal. The Dhruv has *four* larger MFDs. No one was bragging about that.
You are the one twisting from here to there, and then there to…
We are in conversation in case MFDs failure with MKI, and you were saying analog backup and HUD are good enough and also bring in voice recognition. Weren’t you implying more important and usefulness of MFDS?
Ok Dhruv has four larger MFDs, but why no MKI?
Have not been introduced to Neural Networks and Machine learning, have we?
Which century are you in? Simply use your DSP as an FFT noise filter. Radars faced the same problems of clutter and noise and these are non issues in the digital world.
Machine learning? Are you referring to AI?
Where the machine learning from? They only learn from numerous mistakes, mistakes and misunderstanding which make many MKI already being shot down.
Noise filter? It is far from perfect, far from 100% error free.
Similar to HOTAS. So that you can max possible info without having to look here and there or reach out to a button, and concentrate on your target.
HOTAS is much more faster operation and error free than using voice command. The fire control button you press on the HOTAS is wire connected directly to the weapon system. It is much more faster than using wireless concept Voice recognition. The latter has to use a microphone system to receive the voice and send the voice command to a voice recognition device which has to interpret to binary code, then send the code to weapon control system. This receiving/conversion take longer time and tend to make more errors.
Changed the story? Let me quote you,
In the case of Su-30 MKI cockpit, if those analogs are backup as you claimed, then the MFDS are really sucks, they fail all the times.
When I say MFDs, which I am referring to the whole system, not just a mere screen. That’s why I keep repeating words like ”fail prove system, power back up units”etc. You are the one keep changing the story, you are the one keep mentioning MFD-55 fail, you are just referring to the screen but I was not.
JohnWooWhite Knight & U2
Very interesting to see white knight with one large MFD, and a small device look like “GPS nevigation device”.
Thanks.
JohnWooWow, nice to see all these advance cockpits. Really love to see all different designs and layout.
Welcome to post all different aircraft cockpits here, either they are the most advance or 50’s, 60’s, 70’s era plane.
Thanks.
JohnWooThere reason i am doing it is because the real level of design capability of China is quit similar to India, making license built aircraft does not mean you can design aircraft.
to me a real chinese aircraft is the JH-7 i do not see any Russian help there and only the engine is english.
The J-8II is also Chinese up to a certain level but i see the MiG-23Ms and MiG-21SMT influence still.
those two jets are Chinese but are not entirely Chinese but mostly chinese.
Is that make you feel better to compare India level to the Chinese? Don’t you guys always think Chinese level is so suck and India is much better than that?
Designing is nothing compare to the whole process. Anyone has a good aviation engineering background can use a good design software put that on to the paper. The most difficult, time consuming, resorce consuming is to bring that paper design to materialize. You need alot of wind tunel testing, endurance testing, quality testing, and debugging the flaws. Modifications require, and testing again and again. You also need many special toolings, material, machinary to build what you have designed, and TESTING again.
There are many subsystems, radar, engine, electronic, databus, computer chips, etc. are required to complete the whole aircraft and China can build all of them internally in their home. The only weakness they have now is aircraft engine, but this weakness coming to end soon since their engines (if not all) are certified now ie WS-10A.
This is where India having diffculties now, may be they can design air plane, tank, engine etc. but cannot sucessfully materilized them in timely fashion and to meet the user specifications and requirement.
JohnWooI have never said India has not used the same tactics but undoutedly in aircraft they have not, i will confess you something the chinese were quit smart in cheating Russia but in 2006 you can buy Ak-47 even built in California US.
The whole point as a national strategy China has achieved great feats in aviation but at least addmit China has been trained and helped by Russia.
You also know India is doing that?
So, why you keep repeatingly say China violate IP while you never criticized India? May be there are more violations by India, but no one pay attention to it, that’s all.
JohnWooFlagger,
India also produced cheap clone of Russia stuff and sold to other countries, heard of AK47 incident? They never got the license and the right either.
JohnWooWhy did they need two pilots in the aircraft for this ‘first flight’?
To see how this little plane fly with 2 pilots weight.
JohnWooEver heard of a HUD?
No I don’t. :confused:
Is that some kind of magic system that can work all functions of MFDs?
Then who need MFDS? All the modern fighters just scrap the MFDs and retain the HUD alone to save a lot of development cost.
Yes, cockpit layout is important but I don’t see those analog instruments causing any serious interference.
The problem is not on the word INTERFERENCE, I have never claimed that in my posts.
In fact the MKI badly needs them because:
1) As back up – means the MFDs are not reliable — > your claim
2) As complement – since the functions of MFDs are not complete — > my claim
Neither you nor I can comment on whether the MFD layout of -_- (Gripen,LCA et al) or – – – (MKI) makes a critical difference in SA.
Then what all these discussion forums are for?
Why am I seeing you make comments all over the forum?
Are we only allowed to made positive comments but not negatives?
Only pilots with extensive experience can. In the same way, one can speculate that raising the MFDs to ‘eye’ level would be better but few are doing that and theres more to it than “looks”.
Sure, we are not pilots, but I can imagine I am a pilot and see what kind of requirements I need, then surely, I will discover just a few very simple requests.
The cockpit of MKI does not even satisfy my SIMPLE requirements, how can it satisfy the experience pilots needs?
Regarding eye level, it is just a very small improvements among many others things. Some modern fighters are already doing that, like JAS39, F16 Block 60. Go and check the photo I posted, they are not photoshopped.
Nowadays, the focus is on presenting all required info on the HMS. IAF Mi-35s have that capability (?HeliDASH) but I’m not sure the Sura-K on the MKI does.
You mean HMS can replace all MFDS like you claim HUD replaced MFDS?
Even so, you can’t compare a single seat+3 MFD+one brain cockpit to an aircraft that has division of workload with 7 MFDs and 2 pilots/brains.
Are you implying a single seat MKI (if any) will disadvantage to those “single seat+3 MFD+one brain” fighters? I totally agree with you based on the technology level I am seeing.
3 or more MFDs are pretty standard today and no big deal.
Yes, it is not big deal, but theirs are fail prove and no need dials and swithes as back up but yours do.
The MFDs can always be switched with larger ones.
Yeah, you can dig a bigger hole on the cockpit, put in the larger MFDs. But the problems is the information/controls are still the same with those small ones and still badly need the analog dials.
The newer focus is on voice-recognition/VTAS, info on the HMS, advanced HUDs. The LCA uses the better SSDU (5 MFD) approach, VTAS, the JHMCS/DASH and will also have a pilot associate and single-panel-multiple-function selection capability.
Voice recognition is not any kind of new technology. It was already here many years ago . Every time I called a company who use voice recognition, it p*issed me off and I have to hang up. They misunderstood me all the time.
All above you mentioned cannot replace the advantages MFDs.
It was you who imagined “The MFDs must suck”
Then, why you need those analogs backup, if they are fail proved?
Here’s a dose of reality – MFD failure is very possible. If it is a possibility on the A-380, why should’nt it be be possible on combat aircraft?
http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0303&file=0303a380.htm
http://www.rogersonkratos.com/mfd.html
The difference here is that they are fail prove but your is not.
Besides, is the A-380 facing the enemy attack? Is the A-380 need to react in a fraction of second to defense itself from the attack? But the MKI does, if its MFDs fail, the only thing can it do is run, no more offensive. Those analog dials (backup) are not helping him to win the fight.
All aircraft, be it the blk-60 or MKK must address the case of MFD failure. In the former’s case, if one fails, the info will be re-prioritised and displayed on the next MFD. In the MKIs case, you have analog backup. In the LCA’s case, you have SSDU backup. The F/A-18E/F also seems to use SSDU approach. In the Falcon-2000 and newer airliners, the eye level glass panel will display all critical info on MFD failure.
Bingo! Those blk-60s have fail prove system in case the MFDs fail, it does not effect their offensive capability. In the MKI case, if the MFDs fail, there are only two choices, either it is being shot down or run home.
Dude, neither of us should diss Russian aircraft. Our airforce and industry would have moved very little and yours would be absolutely nowhere without the Russians.
I agree, without Russia help, China aviation is not up to the level now.
However, this is what the difference of you and us. We don’t boost what we have. A certain weapon does not automatically become invincible because we use/purchase that weapon. We tell what we see.
The MiG-29M2/MRCA is a new build, not a 70-80s upgrade.
Well, the same story with MKI then.
You don’t care what they mean?
There is NO Multi-slash-Smart. “Smart” means a built in SGU.
Thanks for pointing out, I am a very simple, not very technical taxi driver. Too bad MKI does not even satisfy my SIMPLE requirements.
BTW Where did you get that figure of $1.5 billion for J-10 development?
I read an article a few years ago from China.com, I don’t know how true was it, that’s why I asked anyone have the exact figure to post here. Too bad it seems no one has the figure.
JohnWooGood news to the L-15. That little plane on the runway looks like a toy.
JohnWooLMAO. Why would you get shot down if one or more of your MFDs fail.
Simple, your pilot is relying on the MFDS to give him precise information, for example, the location of the enemy plane. If your MFDs fail, you lose track of the enemy. Hence, the opponent get the first shot and you are just under attack.
A missile or a single AAA hit could cause power failure. You’re not going to crash but you’ll miss critical flight parameters in such a situation.
All the modern fighters have back up power. Besides, if you get hit and fortunate enough not crashing to the ground, you are not that stupid to stay in the battlefield.
What’s wrong in retaining some dial pointers for backup/supplement as long they don’t interfere?
You don’t seem to understand how important is cockpit layout to the pilot. When a pilot looking for a few information at the same time, he has to look there, and then here, and then another side. Under these analog instruments, this procedure delays the reaction. If you have a good multi display MFD, you can setup the frequently look up info on one single page with only one key pressed.
Not only those analogs keys disappointed me, but also the cockpit layout. Look at those three MFDS, they are placed horizontally at the same high, which very low and almost at the bottom of the cockpit, away from the level of the pilot’s eye sight.
Russia planes are like that, they tend to emphasis on fire power, agility, power radar etc, but really sucks on electronic/ avionics, and detailing. I thought MKI has already addressed this weakness since you guys so hype about how much advance electronic in it.
They are Sextant MFD-55s and 66s. Industry standard. Used on Mirage-2000-5/9.
The problem is not on the MFD, rather what and how much information can the MFD display/control and how is the layout.
Can we assume that the MFDs on your MKKs, which also use analog instruments, suck too?
After seeing the MKI cockpit, I don’t have confidence on MKK either, since they are basically based on the same plane. I think that might be the reason the Chinese not very satisfy with Russia’s plane.
Jaguar GR.3 upgrades, the MiG-29M2, Mirage-III/V ROSE-I/II upgrades etc also seem to retain dial pointers.
These are 70’s-80’s design aircraft, no matter how they are upgraded, no way to get rid of these dials and switches, they will never have a advance cockpit like F-16 Block 60. A 21st Centry fighter like MKI should not be the same level with them.
Do you even realise what the “Multi” in MFD refers too? 😀
A “smart” MFD is one which performs all the symbol generation itself with a built-in SGU, without the need for a separate DP/VSU.
Whatever Multi/Smart MFD means, MKI does not seems to fully utilized it. It still needs many switches and dials to present those functions/procedures/task that missing from the MFDs.
Sign In
