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
  #1  
Old April 2nd 04, 06:16 AM
Scott Ferrin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
Ads
  #2  
Old April 2nd 04, 07:54 AM
John Cook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 2nd 04, 08:23 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old April 2nd 04, 10:35 AM
John Cook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old April 2nd 04, 03:02 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old April 2nd 04, 06:54 PM
Harry Andreas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #7  
Old April 2nd 04, 11:36 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #8  
Old April 2nd 04, 11:43 PM
Paul F Austin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #9  
Old April 2nd 04, 11:49 PM
Felger Carbon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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. ;-)



  #10  
Old April 3rd 04, 12:25 AM
Scott Ferrin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:36:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"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.



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.
 




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 08:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.