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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The whole avionics suite of the F-22 is now obsolete, and will cost another $3.5 Billion to 'upgrade' thats the cut from the $11.7 Billion thats been bandied about. Do you have anything to support that contention? There is a bit of a difference between wanting to improve the computers during the spiral development process and claiming that the "whole avionics suite is *obsolete*", isn't there? I quote the GAO-04-597T report directly "The basic mission of the F/A-22, initially focused on air-to-air dominance,has changed to include a significantly greater emphasis on attacking ground targets. To accomplish this expanded mission, the Air Force will need additional investments to develop and expand air-to-ground attack capabilities for the F/A-22. Moreover, the efforts to expand its capability will also add risks to an already challenged program. To accommodate planned changes will also require a new computer architecture and processor to replace the current less capable ones." Now thats hardly ambiguous is it..... Let's see, 155 out of a possible total buy of some 269 aircraft, or a more likely buy of 200-220, would seem to indicate that the first few *years* of production are covered. Nor has it been conclusively demonstrated that these processors are incapable of handling the aircraft's air-to-ground strike needs during it's initial gestation; more in the form of not being able to handle the *ultimate* (post spiral) capability that is envisioned. Conclusivly demonstrated!!!!, it can't demonstrate stability yet The Glabal Strike Ehanced program is slated to start in 2011, thats when the Raptors system architecture is officially obsolete, the Global strike Basic is due (with current cpu architecture + systems) in 2007(read end of development cycle for the old stuff), one might well ask is 2007 too ambitious for a system that still a tiny bit 'buggy', Thats four years of use from your 'its not obsolete its proccessor challenge' system. providing its reliable enough to pass the review..... I quote again the GAO-04-597T report directly "The stability and performance of F/A-22 avionics has been a major problem causing delays in the completion of developmental testing and the start of IOT&E. Because the F/A-22 avionics encountered frequent shutdowns over the last few years, many test flights were delayed. As a result, the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center wanted assurances that the avionics would work before it was willing to start the IOT&E program. It established a requirement for a 20-hour performance metric that was to be demonstrated before IOT&E would begin. This metric was subsequently changed to a 5-hour metric that included additional types of failures, and it became the Defense Acquisition Board’s criterion to start IOT&E. In turn, Congress included the new metric, known as Mean Time Between Avionics Anomaly or MTBAA, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.5 As of January 2004, the Air Force had not been able to demonstrate that the avionics could meet either of these criteria. Testing as of January 2004 showed the program had achieved 2.7 hours— 54 percent of the 5-hour stability requirement to begin IOT&E. While the Air Force has not been able to meet the new criteria, major failures, resulting in a complete shutdown of the avionics system, have significantly diminished. These failures are occurring only about once every 25 hours on average. This is the result of a substantial effort on the part of the Air Force and the contractor to identify and fix problems that led to the instability in the F/A-22 avionics software. However, less serious failures are still occurring frequently." 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???" "Can't run the software" to do the air-to-ground mission? Odd, as the USAF claims that at present, "The F/A-22 also has an inherent air-to-surface capability." It can already lug a couple of JDAM's. So how does that even *require* an optimized ground mapping radar to allow it to strike ground targets with significant precision? Dropping a couple of JDAMS whohooooo!!!, Cutting edge that... well worth the money of investing in a system thats equivelent of a couple of cray supercomputers. one wonders what there using that processing power for?. must be a very nice graphical interface.... what the USAF have stated they want is, but cant have because of the limitations of the system are :- 2011 Improved radar capabilities to seek and destroy advanced surface-to-air missile systems and integrate additional air-to-ground weapons. 2013 Increased capability to suppress or destroy the full range of air defenses and improve speed and accuracy of targeting. 2015 Capability for full intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance integration for increased target sets and lethality. Out of curiousity, why do you have this visceral hatred of the F/A-22? Does it perhaps stem from the fact that you know your own nation can never afford it, or what? I don't hate it, I just think its not worth the money, if it had been half the price and worked as advertised I would be impressed. As it is the price is $150M and development is not mature, production has started, How would you describe the F-22 process?. LOL! By your definition, no aircraft would ever enter service, as "development is not mature". I guess you have kind of missed out on the *continuing* development of the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, huh? I'd describe it as about par for the course, especially when viewed against contemporaries like the Typhoon and Raptor, Difference is they have demonstrated their requirements and have been accepted, now they are in production. compare the F-22 which is in production and hasn't demonstrated it Do you see the difference?. I'll ask you again How would you describe they F-22 process?? If 10 is a perfect development program, and 1 is an utter fiasco that results in over priced, marginalised product thats ripe to be cancelled, whats the Raptors score? which are also entering service while development continues. You really need to get your head out of the WWII era in terms of fighter development--heck, even before that, as we saw with how both the P-47 and P-51 gestated (recall the original P-51's were purchased and produced with less-than-optimal engines, to boot). Its not a model that every industry is adopting is it. Looks an awful lot like the same model the Europeans are using, based upon where they are with Rafale and Typhoon. Yes the Typhoons processors are old, but they work as advertised now and are in production - tranche 2 models are being negotiated with the updated systems included, as per the original plans, with a federated architecture its relatively simple in comparison. I do not doubt that Australia can't afford it, however its looking increasing likely that the US may join us in that. I think you can probably count on seeing that "Silver Bullet" force enter into service... You might be right, it may go into service, and if reports are to be beleived - despite the cost, despite the reliability problems, despite the obsolete architecture, the only credable justification is avoiding an embarrising procurement fiasco, 200 odd hanger queens..... astounding... Cheers John Cook Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them. Email Address :- Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"John Cook" wrote in message ... 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'. I kind of find that hard to believe. The system I worked on (and is still a front line system) was based on Z-80's and a bunch of other 'exotic' chips. If they can still find parts for that, the F-22's radar should be too 'obselete'. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Felger Carbon" wrote in message link.net... "Harry Andreas" wrote in message ... 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. Full disclosu I'm a retired electrical engineer. I specialized in high-end embedded microprocessors, which the "i960" in the F-22 is. I know nothing about designing aircraft. I do know a little about the Intel processor at the heart of the F-22: The i960MX was designed by Intel specifically and solely for the F-22. Nope, the i960 is a processor designed to control printers. The i860, the predicessor of the i960, was designed for the i432 MPP system. The i432 nearly bankrupted Intel and caused them to have to sell 16% of the company, a controlling interest, to IBM. The Brits were the only ones to ever get any software to run on the i432 MPP and Lochkeed is lucky to have them writing the software. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The F/A-22 also has an inherent air-to-surface
capability." It can already lug a couple of JDAM's. So how does that even *require* an optimized ground mapping radar to allow it to strike ground targets with significant precision? I'm not a bombardier, but I think the SAR radar is necessary for the INS inputs. The INS being only updated by the GPS, and only if the GPS isn't being jammed (which will be unlikely down the road). I think I read where GPS only doubles the accuracy of the INS (50 feet versus 100 feet). Without SAR, and GPS being jammed, you'll need a good pair of TACAN's, which some enemies don't seem to provide :-) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:43:06 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "Felger Carbon" wrote in message hlink.net... "Harry Andreas" wrote in message ... 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. Full disclosu I'm a retired electrical engineer. I specialized in high-end embedded microprocessors, which the "i960" in the F-22 is. I know nothing about designing aircraft. I do know a little about the Intel processor at the heart of the F-22: The i960MX was designed by Intel specifically and solely for the F-22. Nope, the i960 is a processor designed to control printers. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-391 "The F/A-22 is dependent on its onboard computers and software to perform its mission. Unlike other fighter aircraft, it has a highly advanced,integrated avionics system capable of detecting, identifying, and engaging the enemy at ranges beyond a pilot’s vision. The key to the F/A-22 avionics lies in its fully integrated core architecture and its two central, networked computers called common integrated processors (CIP).CIPs use very high-speed integrated circuits to collect, process, and integrate data and signals from the aircraft’s sensors. CIP serves as the “brains” for the F/A-22’s integrated avionics system and is unique to this aircraft. The primary processor in CIP is the Intel i960MX microprocessor,which is used strictly for avionics processing. This microprocessor is based on 1990’s technology and has a 32-bit processor that operates at speeds of 25mhz." etc. Caught bull****ting again Splappy? Phil -- Great Tarverisms #3 No, a flap makes the wing thicker and thereby creates more bernoulli lift. John P. Tarver, MS/PE rec.aviation.military 09 January 2003 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"John Cook" wrote in message ... The whole avionics suite of the F-22 is now obsolete, and will cost another $3.5 Billion to 'upgrade' thats the cut from the $11.7 Billion thats been bandied about. Do you have anything to support that contention? There is a bit of a difference between wanting to improve the computers during the spiral development process and claiming that the "whole avionics suite is *obsolete*", isn't there? I quote the GAO-04-597T report directly "The basic mission of the F/A-22, initially focused on air-to-air dominance,has changed to include a significantly greater emphasis on attacking ground targets. To accomplish this expanded mission, the Air Force will need additional investments to develop and expand air-to-ground attack capabilities for the F/A-22. Moreover, the efforts to expand its capability will also add risks to an already challenged program. To accommodate planned changes will also require a new computer architecture and processor to replace the current less capable ones." There is where you go wrong--accepting the GAO report at face value. Don't you know they have a well known reputation for shading things in the direction they want, or just plain ol' incompetency in some cases? What they are describing is the spiral development program that the USAF has already articulated--nothing new about it, and nothing shocking. Now thats hardly ambiguous is it..... Well, either it is being ambiguous, as the USAF has decidedly stated that the F/A-22 is already capable of conducting ground attack missions, or you are slanting it to your purposes. IIRC this is the same GAO report that ol' Henry used when he began trumpeting the $11 billion claim--until it was pointed out to him that the small print explained that cost was for a whole range of spiral developments, from air-to-air, to ISR, to *improving* (note--NOT *creating*) its ground attack capabilities, etc. Let's see, 155 out of a possible total buy of some 269 aircraft, or a more likely buy of 200-220, would seem to indicate that the first few *years* of production are covered. Nor has it been conclusively demonstrated that these processors are incapable of handling the aircraft's air-to-ground strike needs during it's initial gestation; more in the form of not being able to handle the *ultimate* (post spiral) capability that is envisioned. Conclusivly demonstrated!!!!, it can't demonstrate stability yet Uhmm..you missed the USAF statement that it can indeed carry and deliver JDAM's? What, you think JDAM is some kind of air-to-air weapon?! And that is with the current processors--I believe Harry Andreas has already addressed that particular issue much better than I can...and oddly, you don't seem to have replied to his comments... The Glabal Strike Ehanced program is slated to start in 2011, thats when the Raptors system architecture is officially obsolete, Uh, what?! "Officially obsolete"? And where do you come up with *that* little factoid? never heard of any US program going forward with an already "officially" established date of obsolescence... the Global strike Basic is due (with current cpu architecture + systems) in 2007(read end of development cycle for the old stuff), one might well ask is 2007 too ambitious for a system that still a tiny bit 'buggy', Thats four years of use from your 'its not obsolete its proccessor challenge' system. providing its reliable enough to pass the review..... I quote again the GAO-04-597T report directly You just never learn, do you? GAO does not equal either competence or accuracy in terms of military developments, organizations, etc. "The stability and performance of F/A-22 avionics has been a major problem causing delays in the completion of developmental testing and the start of IOT&E. Because the F/A-22 avionics encountered frequent shutdowns over the last few years, many test flights were delayed. As a result, the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center wanted assurances that the avionics would work before it was willing to start the IOT&E program. It established a requirement for a 20-hour performance metric that was to be demonstrated before IOT&E would begin. This metric was subsequently changed to a 5-hour metric that included additional types of failures, and it became the Defense Acquisition Board's criterion to start IOT&E. In turn, Congress included the new metric, known as Mean Time Between Avionics Anomaly or MTBAA, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.5 As of January 2004, the Air Force had not been able to demonstrate that the avionics could meet either of these criteria. Testing as of January 2004 showed the program had achieved 2.7 hours- 54 percent of the 5-hour stability requirement to begin IOT&E. While the Air Force has not been able to meet the new criteria, major failures, resulting in a complete shutdown of the avionics system, have significantly diminished. These failures are occurring only about once every 25 hours on average. This is the result of a substantial effort on the part of the Air Force and the contractor to identify and fix problems that led to the instability in the F/A-22 avionics software. However, less serious failures are still occurring frequently." You know, this reminds me a bit of the early MBTF problems with the F-15, in particular its radar IIRC. What all of this says is that we have a new system with typical new system teething problems. Thank goodness neither you nor the GAO were making the decisions at that time--we'd still be trying to keep F-4E's in the air, no doubt, as y'all would have undoubtedly cancelled that obviously deficient F-15 program... 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???" "Can't run the software" to do the air-to-ground mission? Odd, as the USAF claims that at present, "The F/A-22 also has an inherent air-to-surface capability." It can already lug a couple of JDAM's. So how does that even *require* an optimized ground mapping radar to allow it to strike ground targets with significant precision? Dropping a couple of JDAMS whohooooo!!!, Cutting edge that... well worth the money of investing in a system thats equivelent of a couple of cray supercomputers. All of that computing power helps it get to the target area so it can drop those "whohooo" JDAM's. And last i heard the JDAM was judged a particularly accurate and lethal munition. Now, I do believe you were crowing that the F/A-22 is incapable of performing the ground attack mission? How do you like your crow, rare or well done? one wonders what there using that processing power for?. must be a very nice graphical interface.... what the USAF have stated they want is, but cant have because of the limitations of the system are :- 2011 Improved radar capabilities to seek and destroy advanced surface-to-air missile systems and integrate additional air-to-ground weapons. 2013 Increased capability to suppress or destroy the full range of air defenses and improve speed and accuracy of targeting. 2015 Capability for full intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance integration for increased target sets and lethality. Gee, can't have any of that, huh? And why not? Out of curiousity, why do you have this visceral hatred of the F/A-22? Does it perhaps stem from the fact that you know your own nation can never afford it, or what? I don't hate it, I just think its not worth the money, if it had been half the price and worked as advertised I would be impressed. As it is the price is $150M and development is not mature, production has started, How would you describe the F-22 process?. LOL! By your definition, no aircraft would ever enter service, as "development is not mature". I guess you have kind of missed out on the *continuing* development of the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, huh? I'd describe it as about par for the course, especially when viewed against contemporaries like the Typhoon and Raptor, Difference is they have demonstrated their requirements and have been accepted, now they are in production. Have they now? rafale was in production while its ground attack capability was in the pure ghostware stage--which is why the French Navy went to sea with them being capable *only* of performing air-to-air missions. The RAF wants to retune the Typhoon to perform in the multi-role strike manner before they had originally planned--meaing that their aircraft were not optimized for that mission when Typhoon went into production. Sounds a bit like the F/A-22, doesn't it? compare the F-22 which is in production and hasn't demonstrated it You don't think it has successfully dropped a JDAM? Do you see the difference?. I'll ask you again How would you describe they F-22 process?? Like most current advanced aircraft projects--that you still can't see that is hardly surprising, given your obvious bias and reliance upon the *GAO* as your primary source. If 10 is a perfect development program, and 1 is an utter fiasco that results in over priced, marginalised product thats ripe to be cancelled, whats the Raptors score? which are also entering service while development continues. You really need to get your head out of the WWII era in terms of fighter development--heck, even before that, as we saw with how both the P-47 and P-51 gestated (recall the original P-51's were purchased and produced with less-than-optimal engines, to boot). Its not a model that every industry is adopting is it. Looks an awful lot like the same model the Europeans are using, based upon where they are with Rafale and Typhoon. Yes the Typhoons processors are old, but they work as advertised now and are in production - tranche 2 models are being negotiated with the updated systems included, as per the original plans, with a federated architecture its relatively simple in comparison. I do not doubt that Australia can't afford it, however its looking increasing likely that the US may join us in that. I think you can probably count on seeing that "Silver Bullet" force enter into service... You might be right, it may go into service, and if reports are to be beleived - despite the cost, despite the reliability problems, despite the obsolete architecture, the only credable justification is avoiding an embarrising procurement fiasco, 200 odd hanger queens..... astounding... Yes, it is amazing--you, Cobb, and Tarver are the only ones gifted enough to realize what a true dog it is, huh? All of those blue-suited folks being too darned dumb to figure it out, right? Again, thank goodness you are not in the decisionmaking chain. Brooks Cheers John Cook Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them. Email Address :- Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"D. Strang" wrote in message news:1%obc.4658$zc1.3787@okepread03... The F/A-22 also has an inherent air-to-surface capability." It can already lug a couple of JDAM's. So how does that even *require* an optimized ground mapping radar to allow it to strike ground targets with significant precision? I'm not a bombardier, but I think the SAR radar is necessary for the INS inputs. The INS being only updated by the GPS, and only if the GPS isn't being jammed (which will be unlikely down the road). I think I read where GPS only doubles the accuracy of the INS (50 feet versus 100 feet). Without SAR, and GPS being jammed, you'll need a good pair of TACAN's, which some enemies don't seem to provide :-) I have yet to hear that a SAR update is required. Doing so would require the preloaded data for the terrain (so that the SAR would have something to relate its picture to). From what i understand, the weapon gets its update from the aircraft (through its own INS), then after release it uses GPS to improve the accuracy of its own INS. If SAR was required, then I guess the A-10 would never be certified to carry JDAM...? Brooks |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"D. Strang" wrote The F/A-22 also has an inherent air-to-surface capability." It can already lug a couple of JDAM's. So how does that even *require* an optimized ground mapping radar to allow it to strike ground targets with significant precision? I'm not a bombardier, but I think the SAR radar is necessary for the INS inputs. The INS being only updated by the GPS, and only if the GPS isn't being jammed (which will be unlikely down the road). I think I read where GPS only doubles the accuracy of the INS (50 feet versus 100 feet). Without SAR, and GPS being jammed, you'll need a good pair of TACAN's, which some enemies don't seem to provide :-) I have yet to hear that a SAR update is required. Doing so would require the preloaded data for the terrain (so that the SAR would have something to relate its picture to). From what i understand, the weapon gets its update from the aircraft (through its own INS), then after release it uses GPS to improve the accuracy of its own INS. If SAR was required, then I guess the A-10 would never be certified to carry JDAM...? An A-10 at altitude? What a waste. They were designed to be down with the tanks... The way I picture it, and I admit I may be completely bogus on this, but I picture the navigator finding a reference point (coordinates), and then using the SAR to find the point in weather, and then updating the INS from this point. You wouldn't need SAR if the point was available by other means, or the target could tolerate greater than 100 foot error. For example, if a 2k/lb jobber hit 500 foot from my house, I'd still be dead, and the house would be destroyed :-) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"D. Strang" wrote in message news:HNpbc.4808$zc1.3884@okepread03... "Kevin Brooks" wrote "D. Strang" wrote The F/A-22 also has an inherent air-to-surface capability." It can already lug a couple of JDAM's. So how does that even *require* an optimized ground mapping radar to allow it to strike ground targets with significant precision? I'm not a bombardier, but I think the SAR radar is necessary for the INS inputs. The INS being only updated by the GPS, and only if the GPS isn't being jammed (which will be unlikely down the road). I think I read where GPS only doubles the accuracy of the INS (50 feet versus 100 feet). Without SAR, and GPS being jammed, you'll need a good pair of TACAN's, which some enemies don't seem to provide :-) I have yet to hear that a SAR update is required. Doing so would require the preloaded data for the terrain (so that the SAR would have something to relate its picture to). From what i understand, the weapon gets its update from the aircraft (through its own INS), then after release it uses GPS to improve the accuracy of its own INS. If SAR was required, then I guess the A-10 would never be certified to carry JDAM...? An A-10 at altitude? What a waste. They were designed to be down with the tanks... The way I picture it, and I admit I may be completely bogus on this, but I picture the navigator finding a reference point (coordinates), and then using the SAR to find the point in weather, and then updating the INS from this point. You wouldn't need SAR if the point was available by other means, or the target could tolerate greater than 100 foot error. For example, if a 2k/lb jobber hit 500 foot from my house, I'd still be dead, and the house would be destroyed :-) I am guessing that the primary means of updating the aircraft INS is via GPS; maybe BUFFDRVR or one of the folks who has a clue can answer that question. Otherwise you'd have a wee bit of a problem if your target was a coastal one and your ingress was from over the water, or if you were dropping it over a nice, relatively flat desert plain where you could not get much in the line of significant terrain features from which to perform your update, etc. Brooks |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Felger Carbon" wrote "Harry Andreas" wrote 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. Full disclosu I'm a retired electrical engineer. I specialized in high-end embedded microprocessors, which the "i960" in the F-22 is. I know nothing about designing aircraft. I do know a little about the Intel processor at the heart of the F-22: The i960MX was designed by Intel specifically and solely for the F-22. It was an extremely large chip (die) for its day, being octagonal in shape so that the production 'mask' could be projected by the largest then-available optics. The reason for the large size was the triple redundancy built into the chip, which is what separates the i960MX from all the other COTS i960s. The i960MX was _not_ a particularly high-performance part, even when new. It's likely that the reason Intel issued an end-of-life advisory on the i960MX was that Intel was closing down the last 'fab' that was capable of running that long-ago technology. A chip with a million transistors on the die was pretty big back then, while 200 million transistors per die is routine today. Intel built the i960MX at the tail end of the period when electronics companies would manufacture special "mil spec" parts for the military. I suppose it was intended to be a public-relations gesture, as the part was most certainly never going to make a profit, or anything remotely close to that. I don't think Intel realized that the F-22 project was going to drag out so long that no significant production would occur before the manufacturing technique and facilities for the i960MX would become so obsolete (not merely obsolescent). These problems exist WRT replacing the i960MX: 1. It unlikely that Intel would, these days, agree to build a special triple-redundant microprocessor as a replacement. Charity for the military is now a vanished concept, even (especially?) as a public-relations effort. 2. You can't just replace a dozen-plus-year-old micro with a new one and make no other changes. A complete new computer subsystem would have to be designed. New parts are simply too fast to have any chance of working in the old system. 3. Airplane controllers are necessarily real-time systems, and that means a vastly-faster microprocessor, while a good thing at an abstract level, requires a total re-write of the software (aside from the new features to be designed in). If the system were _not_ real-time, this could be avoided. Alas. I now return you to your regularly scheduled aircraft experts. ;-) Thanks for the insight into the i960MX. As it happens, GDIS in Mineapolis has developed a quad-redundant voting PPC603E module for spacecraft applications. Voting schemes aren't new, years ago Harris build a triple R3000 hybrid. You're right that you just can't slip a new CPU into an existing system. You_can_build a new processor CCA compliant with the existing ICD. F-22 uses a multicomputer architecture based on FDDI which is of course stone slow by current standards. The FDDI plant should be adequate until the next block change. Newer systems are using FibreChannel signaling at 1GBaud while 10Gb Ethernet is the future. That said, You're quite right about the real-time code for flight control. The RADAR data and signal processing and ICNIA functions should be fairly unperturbed and quite portable. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|