![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , John Cook
wrote: Just the official reports!!, Lockheed has only purchased enough processors for 155 F-22's because there out of production, the demand for Air to ground operations has increased the demand on processing power, something the original processors are not quite upto hence the _need_ for the 'upgrade'. So the processors are obsolete, (too old)... the Avionic architecture needs to be replaced before the F-22 can become the F/A-22 because the present system is based on the old processors and rewriting the code is pointless on an obsolete system, that would only support half of the F-22 fleet Methinks there's some confusion there between processors, avionics architecture, and software. While it's true that Intel tried to shut down i960 production causing a chinese fire drill, there are enough assets to get by until a new processor is ready. That has nothing to do with the avionics architecture, which is not changing. Plus the whole point of writing all the OS and AS in Ada was to be as platform independent as possible, so that upgrades to the CIP could be relatively painless and not force re-flight testing of the A/C. Ideally, one would not re-write the code, but re-compile the code for the new platform, then do a LOT of integrity checks, and take it from there... They have to go with a more COTS based system (similar to, if not the same as the JSF), which they are working on now, for fielding in (very optomisticlly) in 2007. Other than using commercialy available processor chips, what is "COTS" about it? Hint - nothing. Other facts (what a concept in RAM) The F-22 is also based on commercialy available processor chips (but not a commercial architecture) Avionics systems require a much higher level of security and determinism than any "COTS" package will ever offer. COTS is not necessarily cheaper when talking avionics COTS is one of those words that everyone thinks they understand, until it comes down to brass tacks. A simple analogy for you, the old 486 computer still works, but when I wanted to run XP on it the demands of the system increased to the point where it was useless to try, and you couldn't buy a 486 processor anywhere to support it. I call that an 'obsolete system', it worked great running win 98. Your analogy is seriously flawed for several reasons: A processor does not stand alone, it's part of a system, and many, many other things affect the system performance besides processor speed. Backside bus bandwidth, memory architecture, frontside bus bandwidth, etc. Plus the system in this case contains MANY processors in parallel. The system is officially termed a heterogeneous multi-processing system which means that it has several different kinds of processors as well as the i960, and all running in parallel. I think someone calculated the actual processing resources are equal to 2 Cray Y-MP supercomputers. Software also matters. Comparing avionics software to microS's bloatware is ludicrous. Now the Raptor can't run the software to do its air to ground mission for the same reasons what would you call it?. "processor challenged???" I'd say, take a hard look at the above assertation and explain how it can be true, given that other AESA radars, in service, and with smaller avionics processors, don't seem to be having these problems. BTW, I worked on AFT, F-22, and several other current AESA programs, including airborne processors, and integrated avionics systems. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|