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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Question about the F-22 and it's radar.
Gotta question about the following: ""USAF officials also rejected the forecast that the service will need to spend $11.7 billion to introduce air-to-ground capabilities in the F/A-22. Roche says planned upgrades, including a new radar and small-diameter bomb, are budgeted and would cost less than $3.5 billion. . . "" So when they say "new radar" are the talking about replacing the APG-77 with an APG-XX or are they just talking about new software or a mod of the -77? I'd ask what the hell they need a new radar for as the F-22 itself is not even in service yet and it's *current* radar should be considered "new" but seeing how it's been over a decade since the YF-22 flew it's no wonder. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:16:28 -0700, Scott Ferrin
wrote: Gotta question about the following: ""USAF officials also rejected the forecast that the service will need to spend $11.7 billion to introduce air-to-ground capabilities in the F/A-22. Roche says planned upgrades, including a new radar and small-diameter bomb, are budgeted and would cost less than $3.5 billion. . . "" So when they say "new radar" are the talking about replacing the APG-77 with an APG-XX or are they just talking about new software or a mod of the -77? I'd ask what the hell they need a new radar for as the F-22 itself is not even in service yet and it's *current* radar should be considered "new" but seeing how it's been over a decade since the YF-22 flew it's no wonder. OK this is from memory... and the sources are not strictly 'official'. I had heard some rumours that the F-35 and F-22 AESA antennae will be merged because the MMIC's from the F-35 will be retrofitted to the F-22's ( they are very expensive and larger.) The number of MMIC's may also be the same in both aircraft to make a common 'cheap' AESA antennae (1200 IIRC). 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. Normally a program this far into production can't be cancelled, but this program seems to be trying real hard... The JSF seems (at least so far) to be much more aware of getting development right first, then moving onto production. (and it doesn't need the F-22 SMURFS:-)) 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"John Cook" wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:16:28 -0700, Scott Ferrin wrote: Gotta question about the following: ""USAF officials also rejected the forecast that the service will need to spend $11.7 billion to introduce air-to-ground capabilities in the F/A-22. Roche says planned upgrades, including a new radar and small-diameter bomb, are budgeted and would cost less than $3.5 billion. . . "" So when they say "new radar" are the talking about replacing the APG-77 with an APG-XX or are they just talking about new software or a mod of the -77? I'd ask what the hell they need a new radar for as the F-22 itself is not even in service yet and it's *current* radar should be considered "new" but seeing how it's been over a decade since the YF-22 flew it's no wonder. OK this is from memory... and the sources are not strictly 'official'. I had heard some rumours that the F-35 and F-22 AESA antennae will be merged because the MMIC's from the F-35 will be retrofitted to the F-22's ( they are very expensive and larger.) The number of MMIC's may also be the same in both aircraft to make a common 'cheap' AESA antennae (1200 IIRC). 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? 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? Brooks Normally a program this far into production can't be cancelled, but this program seems to be trying real hard... The JSF seems (at least so far) to be much more aware of getting development right first, then moving onto production. (and it doesn't need the F-22 SMURFS:-)) 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
OK this is from memory... and the sources are not strictly 'official'. I had heard some rumours that the F-35 and F-22 AESA antennae will be merged because the MMIC's from the F-35 will be retrofitted to the F-22's ( they are very expensive and larger.) The number of MMIC's may also be the same in both aircraft to make a common 'cheap' AESA antennae (1200 IIRC). 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? 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 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. A simple analogy for you, the old 486 computer still works, but when I wanted to run XP on it the demands of the system increased to the point where it was useless to try, and you couldn't buy a 486 processor anywhere to support it. I call that an 'obsolete system', it worked great running win 98. 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???" 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?. Its not a model that every industry is adopting is it. I do not doubt that Australia can't afford it, however its looking increasing likely that the US may join us in that. Brooks Normally a program this far into production can't be cancelled, but this program seems to be trying real hard... The JSF seems (at least so far) to be much more aware of getting development right first, then moving onto production. (and it doesn't need the F-22 SMURFS:-)) 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 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"John Cook" wrote in message ... OK this is from memory... and the sources are not strictly 'official'. I had heard some rumours that the F-35 and F-22 AESA antennae will be merged because the MMIC's from the F-35 will be retrofitted to the F-22's ( they are very expensive and larger.) The number of MMIC's may also be the same in both aircraft to make a common 'cheap' AESA antennae (1200 IIRC). 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? 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'. 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. 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 You appear to be reading quite a lot into this situation that has not been clearly stated. The F/A-22, when it first enters into frontline operational service, will be capable of conducting precision ground strike operations, with the existing systems. It is desired that the system be enhanced through its lifetime, hence that $11 billion dollar cost, which includes enhancements to its ISR capabilities (and one would suspect that is where the enhanced radar is goinfg to be of the most value), its AA capabilities, etc. 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. A simple analogy for you, the old 486 computer still works, but when I wanted to run XP on it the demands of the system increased to the point where it was useless to try, and you couldn't buy a 486 processor anywhere to support it. I call that an 'obsolete system', it worked great running win 98. 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? 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, 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. 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...oh, that's right, you are the guy who can't grasp the viability of that approach, being so firmly wedded to your purely Lanchesterian model of attritionary combat and all... Brooks Brooks Normally a program this far into production can't be cancelled, but this program seems to be trying real hard... The JSF seems (at least so far) to be much more aware of getting development right first, then moving onto production. (and it doesn't need the F-22 SMURFS:-)) 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 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. Other facts (what a concept in RAM) The F-22 is also based on commercialy available processor chips (but not a commercial architecture) Avionics systems require a much higher level of security and determinism than any "COTS" package will ever offer. COTS is not necessarily cheaper when talking avionics COTS is one of those words that everyone thinks they understand, until it comes down to brass tacks. A simple analogy for you, the old 486 computer still works, but when I wanted to run XP on it the demands of the system increased to the point where it was useless to try, and you couldn't buy a 486 processor anywhere to support it. I call that an 'obsolete system', it worked great running win 98. Your analogy is seriously flawed for several reasons: A processor does not stand alone, it's part of a system, and many, many other things affect the system performance besides processor speed. Backside bus bandwidth, memory architecture, frontside bus bandwidth, etc. Plus the system in this case contains MANY processors in parallel. The system is officially termed a heterogeneous multi-processing system which means that it has several different kinds of processors as well as the i960, and all running in parallel. I think someone calculated the actual processing resources are equal to 2 Cray Y-MP supercomputers. Software also matters. Comparing avionics software to microS's bloatware is ludicrous. 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???" I'd say, take a hard look at the above assertation and explain how it can be true, given that other AESA radars, in service, and with smaller avionics processors, don't seem to be having these problems. BTW, I worked on AFT, F-22, and several other current AESA programs, including airborne processors, and integrated avionics systems. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Andreas"wrote John Cook wrote: 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???" I'd say, take a hard look at the above assertation and explain how it can be true, given that other AESA radars, in service, and with smaller avionics processors, don't seem to be having these problems. BTW, I worked on AFT, F-22, and several other current AESA programs, including airborne processors, and integrated avionics systems. There was also a kerfuffle about ASM. Any Assembler is likely direct hardware interface codes. As far as air to ground missions and portability is concerned, read on. To my certain knowledge (we write this stuff for various platforms), SAR and GMTI as examples of compute intensive codes are "written" by translating MATLAB algorithms into C and compiling them for whatever engine you happen to be using this week. Portability is a non-issue. And ever since the "Perry Initiative" memo came out (in 1993), C or any other ANSI language is perfectly OK for military systems. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 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. ;-) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|