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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Andreas" wrote in message ... In article , "Tarver Engineering" wrote: The usual process since the early 90's. You are way behind the power curve Harry. Have a look at the fleet numbers for reliabilty for the F/A-18E vs the F-14s. Think about how the F-22's target number compares. snip of non-sequiturs You're trying to teach me what exactly? Even if the F-22 were to hit it's target it would remain inferior. Been there, done that, doing it presently, with COTS and high reliability. BTW, the current system I'm working has a reliability number higher than the airframe life. COTS in a vacuum is a disaster waiting to happen. Do you mean that your application of my RPL model is driving your COTS application, as it is everywhere outside USAF and even with the F-35, or do you mean you are just making the numbers up? The sample of Mil-Hbk 217F is dependant on certain procedures and processes, as are all of the related datum. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Andreas" wrote in message ... In article , "Tarver Engineering" wrote: Nope, the i960 is a processor designed to control printers. There were several flavors of the i960, most of which were purely commercial and were used as printer drivers among other things. The i960 is the follow on of the i860, from which Intel produced the i432 MPP. The i432 was such a failure that Intel was nearly bankrupt and was forced to sell a controlling interest of 16% of Intel to IBM; it was through this transaction that IBM was able to corner the 8088 market. The i960 found application as a printer processor in the commercial world until some years ago. Lockmart got the bright idea of using the i960 to replicate Intel's i432 MPP success in the Raptor. snip of Harry making things up Well John, I was there. Funny, I didn't see you name listed on the IPT. Mine was. I am pleased to be missing from that list. All this i860 & 432 stuff is just smoke that has no bearing on the decision to use the i960. Lockheed had no say, BTW, in the i960 decision. I'd say that it is a demonsable error in judgement for Hughes to fail to consider Intel's failure WRT the i432 when estimating the risk induced by their poor decision making in selecting the i960. You're talking through your hat again John. Time to give up before you demonstrate your ignorance of the selection process and the era the decision was made in. I made up an alternative system personally that is now the Sole means. I understand full well the paradox of a rapidly shrinking mil-spec market attempting to support a technology reaching military, as that is why the tab to my work has grown geometrically for the past 20 years. The i960 decision process was flawed and failed to consider important information, by your own admission. (ie i432) The technocratic means through which the entire F-22 program has progressed is failing in direct technological application, no matter how pleasant such an idealogy is to politics. That was an internal Hughes decision and we had a lot of selling to do with our customer. The stuff you snipped has the real reason for the selection of the MX over the competition. I was there. You here claiming that you somehow determined that Hughes could do what Intel could not shows that you have not come to terms with the dimensions of your error, Harry. To come here now and claim the problems are a result of your personal incompetence is hardly comforting to the American tax payer. What are you on about? We designed and delivered a heterogeneous MPP that works as advertised. No one else has done anything remotely close. What programmers choose to do with it is up to them. The in service reliability numbers do not bear out your statement, Harry. The avionics are failing to meet minimums, even before considering their short lifecycle expectation it seems that they are a mistake. snip of Harry wisely denying culpability |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:eOEcc.85785$JO3.44029@attbi_s04... Uhmmm...Harry, what GPS guided munitions were in service during the "early 90's"? SLAM. OT&E was courtesy of Desert Storm. Yep, you are right, at least sort of; SLAM used GPS and INS for rough guidance and a converted Walleye seeker for final targeting. My mistake. Brooks |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Andreas" wrote in message ... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Harry Andreas" wrote in message ... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "D. Strang" wrote in message news:1%obc.4658$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...? That's ridculous. No, what is ridiculous is your misunderstanding of my statement. As you acknowledge later, SAR is NOT required to launch a JDAM. And correct me if I am wrong, but you do indeed have to have a digital terrain model data set loaded in order to use the SAR to update a location--merely looking at the screen and saying, "Yep, that's a bridge!" doesn't cut it--the system would have to know that the bridge is at (insert 10 digit grid for centerpoint), either by vurtue of having access to a DTM or by inputting the accurate coordinates? The following article indicates that the basic procedure for JDAMS usage is as I described it--the carrying platform updates the weapon through both its own INS and GPS systems; use of a SAR, as in the case of the B-2 JDAM usage in Kosovo and Afghanistan, does indeed increase the accuracy further. http://www.aero.org/publications/cro...er2002/05.html It's ridiculous that anyone would think SAR is required. That has been discussed here over and over. BTW, DTM is not required either. All that's required is GPS, INS, and for better accuracy, SAR. Which is why I argued that SAR is NOT required; maybe you were addressing your "that's ridiculous" elsewhere and mistakenly appended it after my response? As to DTM, I guess it would not be required if the coordinates of the target or the IP (or whatver point is chosen as an update location) are known and input into the equation; the system takes the known point and then compares the chosen point on the SAR output to further refine the "where am I at release" info. OK, that makes sense. SAR updates to pre-programmed INS settings have been used since the early 90's to improve the accuracy of GPS aided munitions. Uhmmm...Harry, what GPS guided munitions were in service during the "early 90's"? JDAMS was not; perhaps the ALCM or SLCM used GPS updates in conjunction with their stored DTM (but there you go again, that pesky DTM...); I can't think of any others that used GPS during that timeframe. SAR updated GPS aided munitions were used by the B-2's in Bosnia with eye-opening effect. You don't think that happened overnight? Actually, B-2's were not used in the first (Bosnia) episode--they came later during the Kosovo operation. So unless you are thinking that 1999 was "early 90's".... :-) Another poster has noted that GPS was used earlier, in the case of SLAM, but not IAW any SAR usage that I am aware of--it instead, along with an INS, got the missile to the general target area, where an optical system took over, the signal being datalinked back to the launch aircraft. You don't need the SAR update to launch a JDAM, but it dramatically improves the CEP of the weapon and essentially means that you can use a smaller weapon to take out a target. Well, it improves it, but not sure how "dramatically"; dramatic improvement of JDAMS appears to be dependent upon use of a secondary IR imaging system not IR. SAR. And the amount depends on the performance of the radar. Numbers will not be mentioned here. DAMASK is not IR? According to the following (amongst other sites), it does indeed use an imaging infrared seeker: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...cle.cfm?Id=667 (DAMASK) or ISAR input after the drop, as was tested in the joint F-16 dropped, and E-8 updated AMSTE (Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement) JDAM. Hmmm. DAMASK at least has a future. Can't imagine flying an E-8 close enough to a potential target to get useful data without becoming a target yourself. Well, maybe in the future if they port it to a UAV. That is one possibility. But also recall that the E-8 can look pretty deep into a battlefield; one orbiting fifty miles behind the FLOT can see, under optimal conditions, some 100 miles beyond the FLOT, if you use the FAS numbers (actual range being classified, no doubt). Being able to kill mobile targets of opportunity with JDAM to that depth would seem to be a rather valuable capability. Brooks -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Kevin Brooks writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... Some flight and drop tests would help turn the notional "capability" into operational utility... so when were they carried out? Ask the USAF. I've checked their website and searched elsewhe best I could do was a five-year-old plan that had JDAM test drops sometime after 2000. Unfortunately I don't have any personal contacts there to tap. I trust them a bit further in this regard than I do the peanut gallery. I've only *done* weapon system acceptance and integration, so what do I know? Not as much as the USAF, I'd wager. At least about the F/A-22 and its capabilities. I know this for su all "capable" means is "has not been proved impossible". I don't think so. Must be Brit-speak, huh? The software that is capable of handling the JDAM has been flying for a couple of years now; Arnold has done wind tunnel tests of the separation characteristics, and the F/A-22 was listed as one of the platforms to receive clearance in a fact sheet dated June 03 ( www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=108). Even Mr. Cook has acknowledged that dummy drop tests were conducted. When, where and how many, out of interest? There seems to be a paucity of data, and nobody's either claimed clearance or projected a date when it will be achieved. Let's see--software is in place, dummy tests have been conducted...yep, seems like it is indeed capable of delivering the puppy. No. I don't tell you combat engineering, you don't tell me how to integrate weapons onto airframes. Why don't you not tell the USAF how to define what the initial capabilities of the F/A-22 are/will be when it enters into operational service? "Software in place" is relatively straightforward when the weapon's in use elsewhere and the software is developmental: "dummy tests conducted" can be as simple as "flew with a blivet" or "conducted one safe jettison from safe, slow and level" and certainly does not imply "cleared for operational use". Argue it with the USAF--they appear quite confident that the "A" in the title will be justified when it starts flying with the 1st TFW sometime during the next year or two. That you are not is not going to cause me any loss of sleep, OK Paul? Brooks The USAF says the F/A-22 will be able to carry JDAM's when it enters into operational front-line service with 1st TFW--if you disagree, take it up with them. When was the clearance signed? If it hasn't been signed, when is it expected? Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, still have the scars. "Will be able to carry" has been translated as "is able to carry, but not safely drop or jettison, inert training versions" for contract acceptance in the past when an aircraft program was under pressure. The USAF don't seem to be saying it very clearly or very loudly: while there's no reason to believe it impossible, neither is this blind acceptance that the Raptor is currently a fully-capable JDAM-dropper reasonable. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Kevin Brooks writes "Harry Andreas" wrote in message ... SAR updates to pre-programmed INS settings have been used since the early 90's to improve the accuracy of GPS aided munitions. Uhmmm...Harry, what GPS guided munitions were in service during the "early 90's"? "In service" or "in development and undergoing testing"? JDAM did not begin being delivered for testing purposes until 1997, from what I have read in a couple of sources; the program was not started until 1992. Another poster has noted that the SLAM used GPS prior to that date, but not independently--it used an optical terminal seeker with a datalink back to the launch aircraft. You don't need the SAR update to launch a JDAM, but it dramatically improves the CEP of the weapon and essentially means that you can use a smaller weapon to take out a target. Well, it improves it, but not sure how "dramatically"; Depends how good your maps are. GPS/INS guidance will hit a designated point, but how well does that relate to the actual location of the target? SAR radar helps a lot if you know that the target is "fourth warehouse from the road" but your mapping isn't precisely sure about exactly where in WGS84 co-ordinates that warehouse, or the road, is (but you know fairly closely where, and the warehouses and the road both show on SAR) Actually, from what I have read the SAR contribution is not so much in terms of allowing for defective mapping as it is a case of providing both a much more accurate position of the weapon at release, and a finite release-to-target distance and altitude. Doubtless in those areas that do lack good digital mapping affording reliable 10-digit grids it would also be of significant value. Brooks |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Even Mr. Cook has
acknowledged that dummy drop tests were conducted. The dummy tests I saw were for models of the JDAM being dropped from a model of the F-22 in a four foot wind tunnel. Quote:- from http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/highma...ct9/raptor.htm "Although AEDC conducted wind tunnel tests on the F-22 Raptor in its development stages, the center had never performed a non-proprietary store separation test involving the aircraft until 1998. Store separation is the release of any weapon, munition, pod or fuel tank carried by an aircraft. In 1998, the center employees used 1/15th scale models to conduct five tests in AEDC’s 4-foot transonic aerodynamic wind tunnel (4T) to obtain separation characteristics of the AIM-120C missile, AIM-9M missile and GBU-32 JDAM. This test involved cooperation among AEDC and multiple test customers, including the F/A-22 Program Office, the Joint Direct Attack Munitions Program, Wright Labs, Lockheed Martin and the Air Force Seek Eagle Office. In 1999, the F/A-22 Raptor returned to 4T for a series of store separation tests. During this series of tests, center testers used seven-percent scale models of the F/A-22 aircraft, AIM-9X missile and 600 gallon-fuel tank to acquire and evaluate data to prepare a mission summary for use in flight testing." I also saw some 'pods' in test for the F-22 which are wing mounted that cover the jdams to make them stealthy.... There sort of internal bomb bays for the wings, complete with bomb doors underneath (where else would you put bomb doors:[))... Thats a new one on me...hang on a mo I'll get the link heres the link :- http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/highmach/stories/f22.pdf 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 |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
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 than the Raptors costs its the cheapest fighter in the world... seriously the F-22 team will be levering the development work on the JSF for all its worth, anything to shove costs away from the f-22 program. The question asked above says that the F-35 system is more COTS than the F-22, and I dispute that. When people talk COTS wrt avionics I usually start laughing, most have no idea what they are talking about. Present company excluded of course. Harry I'm no expert on computer architecture, far from it, I couldn't design one from scratch without some serious training. but I note the USAF have called for more 'COTS based' solutions and they sure are making a mark in aircraft avionics (rugged PowerPC's in the Typhoons DASS etc), how they are connected and the software that runs them are certianly not COTS. Moto-based processors were tried. I don't know what the current vector is, I'm on different programs, but I expect they'll eventually settle on a G5 or better. Thanks for that. Great, here' s a couple of questions for you. Do you think they will combine the AESA antennas for the JSF and the F-22 to a common 1200 module system? (I saw the number of modules for the F-22 was at 1500). I had heard a rumour that this was on the cards for cost savings etc. I can not comment on that for security reasons, but I did hear the same thing. Why is the Raptors Software so troubled?. You are asking me to pubically bash my customer. No, I wouldn't ask anyone to do that publically (my emails at the bottom ;-) ) , thanks for the info. 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 |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... I don't know if it's milspec but ISTR reading that Intel donated the Pentium 1 design to the US military to do with as it pleased. I also remember reading an article on some Russian naval electronics in which the advertiser was boasting that they were "Pentium" powered. It is all gone Scott and I think Harry expressed the frustration of trying to build a super fighter without access to parts. The mil-spc componencts market completely collapsed coincident with the engineers trying to build this electric airplane. You can't really blame them for the way things turned out, as somone high up decided to ride mil-spec to the end. (ie FY00) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|