A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Question about the F-22 and it's radar.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 3rd 04, 04:50 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Phil Miller" wrote in message
...
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?


Not me.

Do you even have a clue what you cut and pasted, moron? As Mr. cook pointed
out, the i960 is very obsolete.


  #22  
Old April 3rd 04, 05:23 AM
Paul F Austin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scott Ferrin" wrote
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Harry Andreas" wrote
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.


Intel has agreed to provide mil-spec i960s, thanks to a very fat check

from
USAF. The new processor has already failed to be integrated, due to a

loss
of tracability. (ie scrap)

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.


Wrong. Name for us the one and only modern processor that is mil-spec,
Harry.



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.


Intel did donate the rights to Pentium 1 to the USG and Sandia has been
working on producing a rad-hard flavor but it seems to have been overtaken
by events.

In general, MIPS and PowerPC processors are favored over Intel parts because
of power vs performance metrics. Intel parts deliver lots of performance but
put a heavy burden on the designers trying to get the heat out.

The main issues in using commercial parts in military applications are 1.
Quality level, 2. Operating temperature range and 3. Packaging.

As far as quality level is concerned, there are several MIPS and PowerPC
CPUs available screened to -883B and also to class S (space grade). Both IBM
and Moto PPC603Es and -750s of various flavors are available screened to MIL
standards. You have to buy upscreened parts (by second parties) but that's
the way it's done. Aeroflex sells a 600MIP MIPS processor that's also
available compliant with MIL standards. .A secondary problem is support
chips. That's most often done with IP hosted on FPGAs.

As for temperature, all the high performance CPUs operate over a restricted
temperature range smaller than the mil -55 to 125C. Instead, you have to
work within industrial temp range (-40 to 105C) but that just makes life
hard for the thermal designers.

Packaging can be tough. There are a few sources for hermetic, flat-pack high
performance CPUs (Aeroflex is one). Mostly though, we've had to learn to use
ball grid array parts, some of which are ceramic and others plastic.
Depending on the application, the plastic ones are used as is or repackaged
(which is expensive and risky). Either way, BGAs present major challenges in
avionics applications because of temperature cycling induced ball failures.
Each vendor is working to develop processes that will survive but right now,
it's a black art.



  #23  
Old April 3rd 04, 05:32 AM
Denyav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The whole avionics suite of the F-22 is now obsolete, and w

Whole avionics suite?
I think thats an understatement

..Normally a program this far into production can't be cancelled, but
this program seems to be trying real hard...

LOL

  #24  
Old April 3rd 04, 05:36 AM
Paul F Austin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Kevin Brooks" wrote

"D. Strang" wrote

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.


On-board SAR's main purpose in fighters is autonomous targeting. As far as I
know, no fighter is planned to have GMTI functions but SAR imaging has been
a standard function for a long time. Other targeting options of course
include off-board sensors and Guys On the Ground. GPS is unlikely to be
jammed for aircraft since any ground based jammer is going to be 'way out of
the main lobe of an AJ GPS antenna. JDAM and SDB are going to get AJ
antennas as well.

There is an issue with geolocation. From what I've read in AvWeek,
geolocation errors are the dominant error term in the JSTARS to JDAM loop.
B2s (again according to AW) are the most accurate platform for RADAR imaging
and targeting, which is surprising.


  #25  
Old April 3rd 04, 05:47 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"John Cook" wrote in message
...


snip


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?


Oops--spoke too soon; looks like you can add Denyav to your rabidly
anti-F/A-22 cohort! My, what a fine, reputable group you have there... :-)

Brooks


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





  #26  
Old April 3rd 04, 06:23 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Denyav" wrote in message
...
The whole avionics suite of the F-22 is now obsolete, and w


Whole avionics suite?
I think thats an understatement


True, but the money is already spent.

.Normally a program this far into production can't be cancelled, but
this program seems to be trying real hard...

LOL


No, the F-22 has been hosed from before there was a YF-22. The fighter
mafia screwed the pooch mightily on this one. To actually try to do with
the i960 what Intel themselves failed to do with the i860 is laughable.

I remember the i432 we received to do controls development for large space
structures at RPL and it was supposed to be capable of being faster than our
Cyber 180. Intel was toast on that one and IBM was more than happy to
corner the 8088 market.


  #27  
Old April 3rd 04, 06:28 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...


Oops--spoke too soon; looks like you can add Denyav to your rabidly
anti-F/A-22 cohort! My, what a fine, reputable group you have there... :-)


I was on my own here at ram in '98, but now GAO says I was always correct.

We must now all bow to the Kevin Brooks troll.

Fifty B-2s that never were ...


  #28  
Old April 3rd 04, 06:43 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...


In general, MIPS and PowerPC processors are favored over Intel parts

because
of power vs performance metrics. Intel parts deliver lots of performance

but
put a heavy burden on the designers trying to get the heat out.


Intel went out of the Mil-Spec processor business and Motorola kept making
them. The Mil-Spec components specifications were abandoned in place in
2000 and Intel had no incintive to continue to support a fantasy world.

The main issues in using commercial parts in military applications are 1.
Quality level, 2. Operating temperature range and 3. Packaging.


AKA the Rome data, as based on the RPL Model. RL has a pretty nice software
reliabilty model as well, but of course the F-22 was to early for COTS. I
am optimistic about the F-35, with it's injection of the RPL model.


  #29  
Old April 3rd 04, 07:15 AM
Phil Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:50:44 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

Not me.

Do you even have a clue what you cut and pasted, moron? As Mr. cook pointed
out, the i960 is very obsolete.

Obsolete? Ok. So?

Let's simplify this thread a bit.

"Felger Carbon" said;

The i960MX was designed by Intel specifically and solely for the F-22.


You said;

Nope, the i960 is a processor designed to control printers.


I found this;

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-391

The primary processor in CIP is the Intel i960MX microprocessor,which is
used strictly for avionics processing.


Pretty obvious I think.


Phil
--
Great Tarverisms #7

Pitot: French word meaning tube.

John

alt.disasters.aviation
25 February 2002
  #30  
Old April 3rd 04, 07:27 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Phil Miller" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:50:44 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

Not me.

Do you even have a clue what you cut and pasted, moron? As Mr. cook

pointed
out, the i960 is very obsolete.

Obsolete? Ok. So?

Let's simplify this thread a bit.

"Felger Carbon" said;

The i960MX was designed by Intel specifically and solely for the

F-22.

You said;

Nope, the i960 is a processor designed to control printers.


I found this;

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-391

The primary processor in CIP is the Intel i960MX microprocessor,which

is
used strictly for avionics processing.


Pretty obvious I think.


Yep, you somehow believe because Phill Miller is clueless, others must be
clueless as well. I was correct and what Felger wrote is wrong. I do
wonder at Phil's reading disability sometimes. The i960 has no application
outside Lockmart's MPP.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.