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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|