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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Kevin Brooks writes "John Cook" wrote in message .. . I've tried, and so far I can't find a single reference to an F-22 dropping any Bombs (JDAM or dumb), in fact theres only one recorded ground attack on record for the F-22 and that was due to a PIO error. Your whining is ceaseless in this regard. The USAF says the F/A-22 is JDAM capable. LMCO says it is JDAM capable. Hell, even Wikipedia says it is JDAM capable, IIRC! It flew the JDAM-capable Block 3.1 software back in 2002. You don't think it is JDAM capable--seems like you are in a distinct minority. When was the release clearance granted? "Capable" can mean as little as "1760 bus, and 14-inch lugs stressed for the weight". Sometimes it can mean less than that. Eight years ago I helped with a request from an aircraft manufacturer who for years had been widely advertising their maritime-patrol aircraft as "Sting Ray capable": it was only when they had a potential sale to a Sting Ray user that they bothered to talk to the manufacturer to find out what that claim would actually *mean* and what modifications to the weapon carriers were needed so that the potential customer could put their torpedoes on the aircraft. The sale didn't go through, they never modified the aircraft, it couldn't use Sting Ray as is, and yet it's *still* listed as Sting Ray capable despite the fact that it could only haul the torpedoes as jettisonable ballast: couldn't preset them, arm them or have them start up once in the water. (Maybe they could get the parachutes to open after release, but that's all) So take 'capable' with a generous pinch of salt. I'm sure the dummy JDAMs fit the bay: hopefully the wiring harnesses reach the relevant connectors within the snatch cone and with the correct lanyard angle, there are EMRUs or similar for the arming wires, and the drop characteristics have been properly explored to ensure the weapons will leave the bay cleanly across a range of airspeeds and attitudes (a frequent problem with bay-mounted weapons in fast jets). However, there's nothing mentioning any of this on the Web that I could find, other than the cheerful comment that the F-22 is 'JDAM capable'. Some flight and drop tests would help turn the notional "capability" into operational utility... so when were they carried out? Ask the USAF. I trust them a bit further in this regard than I do the peanut gallery. 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. Let's see--software is in place, dummy tests have been conducted...yep, seems like it is indeed capable of delivering the puppy. 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. Brooks |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Andreas" wrote in message ... In article , John Cook wrote: Harry Quick question - I just read that F-22 crew now carry cell phones for when the systems go down, so they can talk to ground control, is this true?? LOL, I have not heard that. But then again, like I said, I'm working other programs, not F-22. I'l ask the F-22 crew if they/ve heard that one. Handheld GPS on the dash? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Uhmmm...Harry, what GPS guided munitions were in service during the "early
90's"? SLAM. OT&E was courtesy of Desert Storm. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "Harry Andreas" wrote in message ... In article , "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "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. 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. 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. 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. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Andreas" wrote in message ... In article , "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Harry Andreas" wrote in message ... In article , "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "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. 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. 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. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
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. Ummm, let me check....yep, one of my radars is on the F/A-18E/F, and it uses COTS parts. Oh, and the new AESA radar is on the F/A-18E/F, and it uses COTS parts, too. Digging a little deeper; yep, I worked on the F-14D's APG-71 and that one uses Mil-spec parts. And, of course, I worked on ATF and F-22 back in the day. And JSF currently. You're trying to teach me what exactly? 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. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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? 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) 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. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
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? I know this for su all "capable" means is "has not been proved impossible". 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. "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". 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 |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
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"? 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) -- 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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. BTW, you're giving me way too much credit, but thanks anyway. I was part of a very large multi-discliplinary team that fulfilled the contract design parameters. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|