JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF

[Shinigami]

And is not fixing quickly either. It is a double edged sword as the IAF can not(and should not) drop standards but at the same time its salary package is not as competitive as the many airlines that have popped up. A lot of the IAF was "Lost" to Indian airlines. Many opportunists dumped the IAF to the dismay of their seniors and went for greener waters.

So while there have been new intakes, these are matching the numbers of previous years whereas the IAF needs to exceed those numbers. So both being a larger force and a larger economy is hurting the IAF in certain areas.

not just iaf.
my dads a former navy carrier pilot, retired early to fly commercial
thanks to all that free flight hours

 

[SQ8]

not just iaf.
my dads a former navy carrier pilot, retired early to fly commercial

And you can appreciate his choice, that helped you and your family which came first. But at the same time, that was training and experience the IN "spent" on him that is lost. The issue is not folks like your dad but the high standards by the IAF and the lack of motivation for those seeking careers. Essentially, the IAF needs to expand its intake pool otherwise it will end up with more aircraft than well qualified and trained pilots.

 

[amardeep mishra]

The major programming of the aircraft is also in C++, so that allowed a lot of engineers to settle in fast as compared to those needing to go through the steep learning curve of ADA.

hi dear @Oscar
A lot of people not in aerospace domain tend to think that ADA somehow miraculously provide superior performance,but they simply cant pin point the reason for such a thing,i will briefly re-iterate some of the points that make ADA the preferred choice everywhere in the world including in india and it has something to do with the security aspect and performance aspect.
1)ADA has superior type casting as compared to C
2)ADA minimizes bugs as compared to c or c++(strong bug checking)
3)ADA also has built in multi-tasking - something C/C++ would delegate to the operating system(i.e in case of C or C++ operating system would do that)
This two requirements are very critical from control perspective as you wouldnt want any glitches in your military plane flying at machs close to 2
For normal embedded systems though C or C++ is the preferred choice and not to mention the fact that C++ is way easier to learn than ADA.I personally prefer python for my day to day use

Because the JF is unstable in pitch only, the hybrid system needed only to focus on one channel as fly by wire while the rest are computer assisted hydraulic.

Not correct,Not at all correct. You see,@Oscar developing a control law is NOT the same thing as writing a piece of code in either python or ADA. Since any decent aerospace control engineer would tell you that to develop "CONTROL LAW" you would need a very strong background in advanced control systems engineering. Now coming to the main part-
JF-17 in my knowledge does not incorporate RSS(relaxed static stability). Relaxed as opposed to stable means that the motion breaks out into gradually increasing oscillation due to small perturbations around the equilibrium point(popularly known as TRIM STATE in aerospace engineering). This is very useful in military fighter jets especially when you need to place your nose faster in longitudinal plane. What this means is - smaller control surfaces can yield desired pitching effect and hence smaller actuation energies is required however this puts stringent requirement on control systems design because now the computer has to dynamically set the gain matrix to produce the desired control vector U.
Now one would naturally ask,what causes instability in longitudinal plane? Well the answer lies in equations, the pitching moment equation. If somehow the center of gravity is aft of NEUTRAL STICK FIXED point then the aircraft is said to be statically unstable as it would produce increasing oscillations upon introduction of small perturbations around TRIM CONDITION.

At this juncture I would like to point out that-The complete analysis of a fighter jet(or for that matter any aerial vehicle) involves 6DOF and subsequently 12 NON-LINEAR AND COUPLED DIFFERENTIAL equations. However normally we take only 8 equations(4 for lateral plane and 4 for longitudnal).
1)We then run various algorithms to find a set of equilibrium points(lets say for level flight,constant turn,constant ascent,descent etc).
2)We then linearize our 8 non-linear and coupled differential equations around equilibrium points obtained in step-1 .
3)This results in neat and clean SET OF LINEAR AND COUPLED DIFFERENTIAL equations that looks something like this-
Xdot=AX+BU and
Y=CX+DU
Where A is a 8x8 matrix,B is 8x2 matrix(provided we take de and eta as control inputs for longitudinal analysis and da and dr in lateral plane) and C is a 1x8 matrix
One such algorithm was developed and used by my professor is standard bifurcation analysis.

 

[SQ8]

hi dear @Oscar
A lot of people not in aerospace domain tend to think that ADA somehow miraculously provide superior performance,but they simply cant pin point the reason for such a thing,i will briefly re-iterate some of the points that make ADA the preferred choice everywhere in the world including in india and it has something to do with the security aspect and performance aspect.
1)ADA has superior type casting as compared to C
2)ADA minimizes bugs as compared to c or c++(strong bug checking)
3)ADA also has built in multi-tasking - something C/C++ would delegate to the operating system(i.e in case of C or C++ operating system would do that)
This two requirements are very critical from control perspective as you wouldnt want any glitches in your military plane flying at machs close to 2
For normal embedded systems though C or C++ is the preferred choice and not to mention the fact that C++ is way easier to learn than ADA.I personally prefer python for my day to day use



Not correct,Not at all correct. You see,@Oscar developing a control law is NOT the same thing as writing a piece of code in either python or ADA. Since any decent aerospace control engineer would tell you that to develop "CONTROL LAW" you would need a very strong background in advanced control systems engineering. Now coming to the main part-
JF-17 in my knowledge does not incorporate RSS(relaxed static stability). Relaxed as opposed to stable means that the motion breaks out into gradually increasing oscillation due to small perturbations around the equilibrium point(popularly known as TRIM STATE in aerospace engineering). This is very useful in military fighter jets especially when you need to place your nose faster in longitudinal plane. What this means is - smaller control surfaces can yield desired pitching effect and hence smaller actuation energies is required however this puts stringent requirement on control systems design because now the computer has to dynamically set the gain matrix to produce the desired control vector U.

The first part would make sense had the F-35 not used C++ as well. So we'll leave it for you and lockheed martin to debate about.

The second part too seems to be unrelated to anything I wrote since at no point do I mention the inclusion or exclusion of a control system engineer. Considering that the PAF Aerospace engineer corps has a long list of graduates from institutions like Cranfield , Embry Riddle and Georgia tech.. I cannot fathom why they would not be involved in the project.

So again, since I have not worked on the project and only know those who do; I cannot comment as to whether these folks were there or not. However, so far the aircraft is operational and flying.. and in the recent exersizes; outflying F-16s in certain cases.

So as far as I am concerned and the focus of this write up is concerned; a working thing is better regardless of how it is put together than something that is yet to achieve anything.

 

[amardeep mishra]

The first part would make sense had the F-35 not used C++ as well. So we'll leave it for you and lockheed martin to debate about.

The second part too seems to be unrelated to anything I wrote since at no point do I mention the inclusion or exclusion of a control system engineer. Considering that the PAF Aerospace engineer corps has a long list of graduates from institutions like Cranfield , Embry Riddle and Georgia tech.. I cannot fathom why they would not be involved in the project.

So again, since I have not worked on the project and only know those who do; I cannot comment as to whether these folks were there or not. However, so far the aircraft is operational and flying.. and in the recent exersizes; outflying F-16s in certain cases.

So as far as I am concerned and the focus of this write up is concerned; a working thing is better regardless of how it is put together than something that is yet to achieve anything.

I have edited my post @Oscar , kindly read it again,I merely wanted to say that JF-17 does NOT incorporate RSS. What it does is something known as "dampers"- it is a kind of control law that makes the plane stable by increasing/decreasing the damping terms to desired value(in normal cases it increases the damping term).
I would really love to read any technical treatise on JF-17 incorporating RSS
As for the reason why LM prefers c++ in F-35- it has something to do availability of a pool of aerospace engineers proficient in C++. Boeing on the other hand has made ADA a norm.

Secondly once you have developed your control law in either C++ or ADA you would need a test facility on ground to test your control algorithms - something known as "IRON BIRD".This set up has everything from flight sensors,actuators etc and is commonly used to validate your control laws. Your quadruplex control is tested here. I dont think there is one such facility in pakistan.

And is not fixing quickly either. It is a double edged sword as the IAF can not(and should not) drop standards but at the same time its salary package is not as competitive as the many airlines that have popped up. A lot of the IAF was "Lost" to Indian airlines. Many opportunists dumped the IAF to the dismay of their seniors and went for greener waters.

So while there have been new intakes, these are matching the numbers of previous years whereas the IAF needs to exceed those numbers. So both being a larger force and a larger economy is hurting the IAF in certain areas.

That is absolutely correct

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

This is Jang news reporting----amazing----is it blk 3---!!!@ What a joke

JF-17 PAF Pakistan | Daily Jang

 

[rockstarIN]

Hi,

This is Jang news reporting----amazing----is it blk 3---!!!@

JF-17 PAF Pakistan | Daily Jang

9 hard points as per the picture

 

[~HaMzAaD~]

9 hard points as per the picture

by mistake the news paper used Photoshoped picture. you forget to mention two tail fins.

 

[Lightning Soul]

A lot of people not in aerospace domain tend to think that ADA somehow miraculously provide superior performance,but they simply cant pin point the reason for such a thing,i will briefly re-iterate some of the points that make ADA the preferred choice everywhere in the world including in india and it has something to do with the security aspect and performance aspect.
1)ADA has superior type casting as compared to C
2)ADA minimizes bugs as compared to c or c++(strong bug checking)
3)ADA also has built in multi-tasking - something C/C++ would delegate to the operating system(i.e in case of C or C++ operating system would do that)
This two requirements are very critical from control perspective as you wouldnt want any glitches in your military plane flying at machs close to 2
For normal embedded systems though C or C++ is the preferred choice and not to mention the fact that C++ is way easier to learn than ADA.I personally prefer python for my day to day use

Basically, the comparison b/w ADA & C++ is not much conclusive. Both have its pros and cons. (Although I do not have practical knowledge of ADA) but C++ is not much antiquated language in comparison to ADA as you make it seem to be. Both were developed around same time frame. Infact C++ was designed even later. Where you highlighted pros of ADA, you also neglected that C++ is a much common platform and with the addition of lots of libraries and gradual improvement work been done and along with development of more powerful IDE for C++ its more easier to debug and develop and as quite rightly you mentioned easier to learn. So you cannot say that ADA is better than C++ or vice versa.
I also believe that now the prefered language should be Python being more modular and modern.

 

[Viper0011.]

1)ADA has superior type casting as compared to C
2)ADA minimizes bugs as compared to c or c++(strong bug checking)
3)ADA also has built in multi-tasking - something C/C++ would delegate to the operating system(i.e in case of C or C++ operating system would do that)

I would really love to read any technical treatise on JF-17 incorporating RSS
As for the reason why LM prefers c++ in F-35- it has something to do availability of a pool of aerospace engineers proficient in C++. Boeing on the other hand has made ADA a norm.

Secondly once you have developed your control law in either C++ or ADA you would need a test facility on ground to test your control algorithms - something known as "IRON BIRD".This set up has everything from flight sensors,actuators etc and is commonly used to validate your control laws. Your quadruplex control is tested here. I dont think there is one such facility in pakistan.

I thought I'd answer two of your posts. ADA, Small Talk and the likes are going away (majority already gone). The reason for that is, the Cost and Availability of talent. The more proprietary you get, the higher the $$$$ are. The market wants "COTS" for which, C++ is an excellent choice. NATO countries and future larger customers like India, ALL want to either have maintenance facilities in-house for the JSF, -16 and 18's, or have their labor do customization per their need. That takes you away from proprietary so you go to C++ as a COTS solution (Common off the Shelf).

But the F-22 and B-2 type planes will remain proprietary and in ADA with Small Talk and the likes building the back end communications systems. Which makes perfect sense as certain systems will never be for export so cost isn't a huge factor.

ADA and C++ error checking and other things mean nothing as there is serious availability of cheap talent. For example I can get 10 guys sharp with C++ for the likes of Cognizant, Satyams, Delloittes of the world for like $ 25 an hour from India. That's where future of these jets will be going. So 19-20 don't have a huge gap in terms of capability of the ADA vs. C++. But the later has hundreds of thousands of people working on it and making it much more affordable of an option for many countries.

RSS in terms of Relax Static Stability is in the JFT already. If you see a most recent aerobatics display by the JFT, you can very quickly see the -16's like RSS capability during flight and almost immediate smooth relaxed flight characteristics from quick G-turns, nose dives (nose pointing), directional differentiation and other performance points.

Remember, the JFT isn't a Western or an American plane. What you are confusing here, is the term "RSS". What you are missing is that the Chinese have used RSS like technologies in all their modern planes with their own version, control features and all. So the term may not be there but the capability is. Its VERY visible in the recent flight performance vs. the any flight performance a few years ago. In other words, the proof is in the pudding.

The 6DF, Equilibrium points, etc, good to see that you are educated in the subject. But too many terms in Western acronyms don't mean anything. If you couldn't find "Equilibrium Points" your flight performance couldn't match that of F-16 (which was a baseline for the JFT) and Rafale / Mirage 2000-9 (which were used as baseline for the FC-20).

The Russians are the pioneers of the mainframe computing and they had actually tested 11 out of 12 equations decades ago (got to give it to them sharp Russians using black Unix screen while the world uses the PC based high speed distributed computing, or Super Computing tech for crap like this). While the West is still using 8 as the primary baseline. In fact, you want to talk about equilibrium points, the Russians have advanced in this field so much that they've been using TVC on many of their jets (SU-30 MKI an example sold to India). Where the thrust vector actually requires much advanced equilibrium control computations to take place by SU-30's flight computers, additionally, both Relax and Static surfaces are used (hybrid model) to maneuver around the shift in velocity, balance, drag and equilibrium dislocation (due to sudden aerodynamic, gravitational and wind related forces acting in within a mil-second as the TVC's are applied).

The Chinese J-10A and J-11 all have incorporated advanced algorithms, flight control laws, characteristics, similar to the ones used on the Western jets, and thus, the higher end quality they have started to produced (outside of the engine tech, where they are still lagging about 3 years at this point, but closing the gap rapidly).

 

[amardeep mishra]

I thought I'd answer two of your posts. ADA, Small Talk and the likes are going away (majority already gone). The reason for that is, the Cost and Availability of talent. The more proprietary you get, the higher the $$$$ are. The market wants "COTS" for which, C++ is an excellent choice. NATO countries and future larger customers like India, ALL want to either have maintenance facilities in-house for the JSF, -16 and 18's, or have their labor do customization per their need. That takes you away from proprietary so you go to C++ as a COTS solution (Common off the Shelf).

But the F-22 and B-2 type planes will remain proprietary and in ADA with Small Talk and the likes building the back end communications systems. Which makes perfect sense as certain systems will never be for export so cost isn't a huge factor.

ADA and C++ error checking and other things mean nothing as there is serious availability of cheap talent. For example I can get 10 guys sharp with C++ for the likes of Cognizant, Satyams, Delloittes of the world for like $ 25 an hour from India. That's where future of these jets will be going. So 19-20 don't have a huge gap in terms of capability of the ADA vs. C++. But the later has hundreds of thousands of people working on it and making it much more affordable of an option for many countries.

RSS in terms of Relax Static Stability is in the JFT already. If you see a most recent aerobatics display by the JFT, you can very quickly see the -16's like RSS capability during flight and almost immediate smooth relaxed flight characteristics from quick G-turns, nose dives (nose pointing), directional differentiation and other performance points.

Remember, the JFT isn't a Western or an American plane. What you are confusing here, is the term "RSS". What you are missing is that the Chinese have used RSS like technologies in all their modern planes with their own version, control features and all. So the term may not be there but the capability is. Its VERY visible in the recent flight performance vs. the any flight performance a few years ago. In other words, the proof is in the pudding.

The 6DF, Equilibrium points, etc, good to see that you are educated in the subject. But too many terms in Western acronyms don't mean anything. If you couldn't find "Equilibrium Points" your flight performance couldn't match that of F-16 (which was a baseline for the JFT) and Rafale / Mirage 2000-9 (which were used as baseline for the FC-20).

The Russians are the pioneers of the mainframe computing and they had actually tested 11 out of 12 equations decades ago (got to give it to them sharp Russians using black Unix screen while the world uses the PC based high speed distributed computing, or Super Computing tech for crap like this). While the West is still using 8 as the primary baseline. In fact, you want to talk about equilibrium points, the Russians have advanced in this field so much that they've been using TVC on many of their jets (SU-30 MKI an example sold to India). Where the thrust vector actually requires much advanced equilibrium control computations to take place by SU-30's flight computers, additionally, both Relax and Static surfaces are used (hybrid model) to maneuver around the shift in velocity, balance, drag and equilibrium dislocation (due to sudden aerodynamic, gravitational and wind related forces acting in within a mil-second as the TVC's are applied).

The Chinese J-10A and J-11 all have incorporated advanced algorithms, flight control laws, characteristics, similar to the ones used on the Western jets, and thus, the higher end quality they have started to produced (outside of the engine tech, where they are still lagging about 3 years at this point, but closing the gap rapidly).

Your post is very vague and not structured at all.I'll reply elaborately in the evening

I also believe that now the prefered language should be Python being more modular and modern.

The problem with python(although I'm a huge fan of python and prefer python over matlab) is that it isn't a compiled language like c++.hence it is difficult to substitute c++ with python in embedded domain. But that's not to say there ain't any efforts,ESA is aggressively pushing micropython for their payload fairing embedded electronics. I use python a lot for my scientific computing and controlling various linux boards like raspberry pi,panda etc.
I infact deal with simulations of aircraft controls and I use python's scientific libraries like NUMPY,SCIPY,SYMPY,MATPLOTLIB,CONTROL.MATLAB etc etc

 

[amardeep mishra]

In fact, you want to talk about equilibrium points, the Russians have advanced in this field so much that they've been using TVC on many of their jets (SU-30 MKI an example sold to India). Where the thrust vector actually requires much advanced equilibrium control computations to take place by SU-30's flight computers, additionally, both Relax and Static surfaces are used (hybrid model) to maneuver around the shift in velocity, balance, drag and equilibrium dislocation (due to sudden aerodynamic, gravitational and wind related forces acting in within a mil-second as the TVC's are applied).

@Viper0011.
You sure what you said is correct?I would like you to take a look again?Do you really think by having a different dimension of control vector U,one can have a different system matrix A?The answer is No! The system matrix A and it's dimension depend on the variables in a system we assume to be "state variables"- it is NOT unique as it depends on the choice of the state variables.- as a SIMILARITY TRANSFORMATION would prove(I am sure you would know similarity transformation?).
But once we have decided the state variables for instance v,alpha,beta,theta etc then what it means is,we have fixed the system matrix A. And once we have fixed system matrix A- it means we have fixed the "static" and "dynamic" properties of a fighter jet. Pardon me if i am going a bit technical ,but i see no other way to make you understand that characteristics of system matrix is INDEPENDENT Of choice of control vector U.
I am sure you'd agree that nullspace of (s*I-A) is nothing but the eigenvector(lets denote it by vector V) of our system matrix.--------------eqn 1
A fighter jet is said to be dynamically unstable if the real part of all the eigenvalues of system matrix A lies on the right half plane(this is INDEPENDENT of choice of control vector U). What we mean by "dynamic" is by observing the flight of the plane over a period of time and if it breaks into ever-increasing oscillations over large period of time then it is said to be "dynamically unstable"."Static" on the other hand refers to short period dynamics- a jet is said to be "statically unstable" if it has tendency to recede away from equilibrium point(for instance ever-increasing pitch attitude) right after it has been disturbed from itz equilibrium point(trim state).Static unstability results from the fact that your CG is aft of neutral stick fixed point.ANd neutral stick fixed point is obtained by equating the C em alpha =0,I.e dC/dalpha=0 or variation of pitching moment wrt alpha equals 0.
You see,what i am trying to say is the inherent property of a fighter jet i.e its static or dynamic stability/instability is determined by position of CG and the system matrix A respectively and not by the choice of control input U(TVC in your case).Where TVC matters is the design of control law as i will explain below-

Now i will touch upon the part where control vector U really matters and that is - in designing CONTROL LAW. Well unlike other applications of control systems engineering wherein simple PID,feedback,feedforward control strategies normally yield desirable results and where the system is not expected to have more than one equilibrium point**, Aerospace controls requires extensive use of control system design in state space. WHat we essentially do here is,find the gain vector K that will yield the desired aircraft performance(considering control vector U).One can approach this problem in many ways- some of the ways are-
1)Ackerman formulation
2)Optimal control
3)Eigen-structure Assignment problem.
#2 is the preferred choice in missiles and #3 in aircrafts

PS-
a) eqn-1 is used in #3 to determine the gain matrix K=UV^(-1) or K= U times V inverse
b)** stability is a function of equilibrium point and in traditional systems like thermal power plants etc ,there exists only one equilibrium point for all the state variables.However in aerospace there exists a lot of equilibrium points and the system matrix A changes accordingly because we are linearizing our 8 NON-LINEAR AND COUPLED DIFFERENTIAL EQNs around each equilibrium point.
c)I use python to code everything i have written above however if you wish to implement it on a piece of hardware then you would need either C++ or ADA- preferrably ADA because it is becoming norm in aerospace thanks to boeing

RSS in terms of Relax Static Stability is in the JFT already. If you see a most recent aerobatics display by the JFT, you can very quickly see the -16's like RSS capability during flight and almost immediate smooth relaxed flight characteristics from quick G-turns, nose dives (nose pointing), directional differentiation and other performance points.

I didnt know that one can determine if a plane has RSS simply by looking at the performance of the jet in airshows. However,in real academic terms you need to furnish literature or prove it using equations/engineering/logic etc

For example I can get 10 guys sharp with C++ for the likes of Cognizant, Satyams, Delloittes of the world for like $ 25 an hour from India. That's where future of these jets will be going.

Sure you can get them cheap,but will they have background in aerospace engineering?I doubt that pretty much.Besides i have not seen in my experience anyone from these companies writing control laws for fighter jets. yeah,but i agree,anyone can code a control law in either C,ADA or python provided he knows what a control law is- it is like knowing algorithm

 

[Viper0011.]

Your post is very vague and not structured at all.I'll reply elaborately in the evening

My post is VAGUE? If simple explanation is considered "vague" then Yes, it should be. Because I am not brain fukking the entire reading community by using technical terms that highly "smart" people like you use, from the books to show others "I am smart". And when I hear this term being said about engineers who take proud in brain effing people listening to them, its actually considered derogatory. I actually "employ" some "smart" people like you.....and often, I ended up taking over the conversation or the presentation as I know my audience all don't have Aerospace or Aeronautical or PhD in Physics degrees.

What you've read in Physics and Flight Control and Aerodynamic related technical books and manuals, is a part of your curriculum. I don't know your background, but I can tell you with extreme confidence that you don't have serious experience in designing, or working with Jets (and 4th generation at that).

Let me further dumb it down, what are Jets at their basics? These are Aerodynamic objects. How do they fly? Primarily using of Physics. You reading your course books today, the US was working on a Stealth jet back in the 50's. So RSS, 6DF, etc, is nothing new. These things have been in place since the F-86 Sabre. F-104 Star-fighter, the SR-71, etc.

I am glad you are very educated in this field. But trust me, these concepts were put in place back in the 60's. They had computers back then too, just very limited and the instructions were usually sent to the processors through using lower level languages for limited purposes, like the ENIAC coding system was being used in 1942, BASIC, PASCAL, FORTRON, FORTH, ProLog were being used starting in 1972-73, ML, LISP, Python, RUBY, DELPHI, APL, CPL,C, PERL in late 70's and then the advanced ones like C++, Java, .Net with OOC libraries and all came about).

So the models you are "reading about today", actually existed in limited capacity back in the 1943!! So do me a favor, remove SO MUCH technical jargon from the posts as no one will read them. We are ALL glad you are educated and its nice to have another member with good education. But on this forum, majority of the people are fan boys. Reading your posts, they'll be confused.

Last but not least, the thread has been derailed. So let's get back to the JFT. If you MUST try to win the argument and write thesis on here, open up a new thread and name it JFT's flight controls and aerodynamics. We can discuss there. This is a GENERAL JFT thread.

 

[amardeep mishra]

My post is VAGUE? If simple explanation is considered "vague" then Yes, it should be. Because I am not brain fukking the entire reading community by using technical terms that highly "smart" people like you use, from the books to show others "I am smart". And when I hear this term being said about engineers who take proud in brain effing people listening to them, its actually considered derogatory. I actually "employ" some "smart" people like you.....and often, I ended up taking over the conversation or the presentation as I know my audience all don't have Aerospace or Aeronautical or PhD in Physics degrees.

Read my post above and see how structured it is.And i was merely trying to dispel misconception.I wouldnt really use such foul language while discussing a topic this serious.Whats your age again?

I don't know your background, but I can tell you with extreme confidence that you don't have serious experience in designing, or working with Jets (and 4th generation at that).

Oh really? Perhaps you should take the pain of reading my other posts- i spend considerable amount of time writing them.instead of vaguely arguing with someone way more educated than you yourself are,why dont you get your hands dirty and prove me wrong based on equations?
and do tell me how do you come to the conclusion that JFT has RSS simply by looking at itz airshow performance?Have you read any technical treatise from the designer?If not then you have no right to claim such a thing and you would forfeit your right to be taken seriously! good luck!

What you've read in Physics and Flight Control and Aerodynamic related technical books and manuals, is a part of your curriculum

I work with these things!enough said,i REPEAT PROVE ME WRONG based on mathematical framework or technical treatise produced by the designer of JFT which is CATIC.Believe me I will be more than happy to accept your story of RSS being available on JFT if you produce such a literature!

FORTRON

*FORTRAN

 

[Viper0011.]

Read my post above and see how structured it is.And i was merely trying to dispel misconception.

I don't think you are paying attention. Allow me to explain and it'll be a little offensive. You are a "Structured Freak", not normal and a higher functioning individual. Which explains your education in this area as its super dry to sit down and master algorithms and control fractions (extremely dry and complex). People doing these studies, are VERY focused and introverts. They are like you, VERY structured and want everything done the way they think it should be, literally a LINE, with point A,B,C,D,E,F. There shouldn't be any missing or changed, in other words, A,B,C,D,E,F should always remain in an algorithmic style, and so does the ENTIRE life, from eating to sleeping to playing and all. Which is good for you.

But the remainder of the world, outside of a few thousands of structured people, doesn't work like that. So when you write something, the best part is, you should have less and less technical jargon (which your kind of PROUD of using as you think it establishes "technical or educational" superiority between you and others and somehow its better for you). Its not. I deal with a crew of people like you and every other day, I take a most complex Physics or Aerodynamic or Controls related presentation put together by my guys, and I spend my evenings in dumbing it down so the average person in our meetings can understand.

How many years of experience do you have, designing the likes of the F-16's, F-18's (4th gen jets)? I can say with 200% confidence "NONE". But I'd like to see an honest answer. In these jets and all 4th gen jets, everything you are talking about, is being used. In fact, if you re-read my post, the US was building Stealth jet back in the 60's. ENIAC was being used for control surface and equilibrium management and other force's management techniques back in the F-86's time. So nothing you are writing is a "new" addition to the science today that you somehow "uncovered". But I am glad you have good education, keep up the good work. I gave you a career advancing tip, don't try to show that you are the "expert" by speaking technical jargon too much. If you can explain the concept in plain English, without confusing people by using highly technical terms, it is always the best thing to do and you'll move up quickly.

The programs worth $ 500, 1000 or 10,000 millions, aren't delivered by using structure to a degree where you lose everything. Its managed by people who imply "structure" from people like you, when needed, and apply other crashing techniques to deliver faster, cheaper and more effective results. And these are the people who dumb things down so others with different expertise can understand and work with them and get their jobs done. If I put 5 of you in front of an Avionics, Radars, Ejection Mechanism and Metallurgical management engineers, you'll all confuse each other to limits. That's when we create specifications outside of SO MUCH technical jargon so everyone can understand it and things move forward. Otherwise, everyone will need to get a PhD in the other person's area of expertise to understand what they are saying . Keep it simple, the life will be simpler for you . Good work though!!