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

"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.

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

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

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

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:38:01 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

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.

Thanks again...

Heres what I read, Unfortunatly its in German and I'm very rusty
now..

interviewer: Letzte Frage. Weil ich gestern wieder Neuigkeiten über
die F-22 gelesen habe. Eine Menge Troubles. Es gehen sich finanziell
nur noch 217 Stück aus und erst im Dezember wird man wissen ob man,
wann man in Serie und nicht nur in stückweise genehmigter Vorserie
produzieren wird können. Was sagst du dazu?

Test Pilot: Gemessen an der Zeitspanne - also wenn man überlegt wann
die zuerst geflogen sind (Erstflug 29.09.90), haben wir denen jetzt
schon drei bis vier Jahre abgeknöpft. Und das was ich sehe und was ich
höre...
Letzten Sommer war ich in Edwards, wo wir Probeflüge gemacht haben für
unser Helmdisplay in einer F-16. Und da haben die Amerikaner so in
bisschen über Raptor gesprochen. Und die müssen extreme Probleme
haben. Die haben halt in das Flugzeug alles integriert über einen
einzigen Computer - da ist so ein riesen Computer drinnen der ausser
Flugsteuerung eigentlich alles macht. Und da bin ich eigentlich sehr
froh über unsere Avionikarchitektur. In diese "fünf Familien" ist sehr
viel Redundanz eingebaut. Wenn uns etwas ausfällt, dann übernimmt ein
anderer Computer die wesentlichen Funktionen des defekten Systems.
Die Amerikaner haben halt das Problem, dass wen dieser Computer
abstürzt oder Fehler hat, dann geht alles unter - inklusive
Kommunikation, Navigation und allem. Und die Piloten haben erzählt,
sie haben jetzt Vorrichtungen im Cockpit wo sie ein Handy eingebaut
haben, damit der Pilot mit unten telefonieren kann wenn nichts mehr
geht. Da muss ich sagen, was wir bei uns haben ist ein serienreifes
Flugzeug und in USA ist das immer noch im Prototypenstadium.



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

"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)