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

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .
I've tried, and so far I can't find a single reference to an F-22
dropping any Bombs (JDAM or dumb), in fact theres only one recorded
ground attack on record for the F-22 and that was due to a PIO error.

Your whining is ceaseless in this regard. The USAF says the F/A-22 is JDAM
capable. LMCO says it is JDAM capable. Hell, even Wikipedia says it is JDAM
capable, IIRC! It flew the JDAM-capable Block 3.1 software back in 2002. You
don't think it is JDAM capable--seems like you are in a distinct minority.

When was the release clearance granted? "Capable" can mean as little as
"1760 bus, and 14-inch lugs stressed for the weight". Sometimes it can
mean less than that.

Eight years ago I helped with a request from an aircraft manufacturer
who for years had been widely advertising their maritime-patrol aircraft
as "Sting Ray capable": it was only when they had a potential sale to a
Sting Ray user that they bothered to talk to the manufacturer to find
out what that claim would actually *mean* and what modifications to the
weapon carriers were needed so that the potential customer could put
their torpedoes on the aircraft.

The sale didn't go through, they never modified the aircraft, it
couldn't use Sting Ray as is, and yet it's *still* listed as Sting Ray
capable despite the fact that it could only haul the torpedoes as
jettisonable ballast: couldn't preset them, arm them or have them start
up once in the water. (Maybe they could get the parachutes to open after
release, but that's all)

So take 'capable' with a generous pinch of salt.


I'm sure the dummy JDAMs fit the bay: hopefully the wiring harnesses
reach the relevant connectors within the snatch cone and with the
correct lanyard angle, there are EMRUs or similar for the arming wires,
and the drop characteristics have been properly explored to ensure the
weapons will leave the bay cleanly across a range of airspeeds and
attitudes (a frequent problem with bay-mounted weapons in fast jets).
However, there's nothing mentioning any of this on the Web that I could
find, other than the cheerful comment that the F-22 is 'JDAM capable'.

Some flight and drop tests would help turn the notional "capability"
into operational utility... so when were they carried out?



--
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

In article , John Cook
wrote:

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...


The question is does this 'new' processor conform to the 3 F's, Form
Fit and Function?, If not then the processor demands a new
architecture to support it, with the new architecture comes the the
burden of porting it over, couple that with the reliability problems
now being experienced and you have a flakey system thats being ported.

AFAIK there is no 3F for the i960, therefor the system has quite
neatly side stepped the reletivly painless CIP upgrade path.

The CIP architecture from day 1 was designed to support incremental
upgrades, but at the LRM level, not the component level as you imply.
Each LRM (Line Replaceable Module for those who don't know) has a
complete standalone interface to the avionics system, so if you change
part or all of the card, the system should not know. So the hardware
does have form, fit, and function upgradeability.
The real issue under these conditions is software portability.


The F-22 is under enormous pressure to perform right now, with the
review reporting back in the next few months, any talk of obsolete
systems in the state of the art jet are being downplayed.

Upgrading obsolete parts was also a concern from Day 1. It was
expected and planned for: it was one of the drivers for this
implementation of the Pave Pace architecture.


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.
If you take a pile of commercial parts and custom design an embedded
processing system for an aircraft, is the results a COTS system?
It uses COTS parts, so it must be, right?
But is the system available commercially? No.
Is it off the shelf? Hell no.
So how is it COTS? It's not. But is uses COTS parts.

The F-22 hardware uses COTS parts packaged in a way that will function
in an avionics environment.
The F-35 hardware uses COTS parts packaged in a way that will function
in an avionics environment.
How is one more COTS that the other?


What is the new processor? I always thought that a federated system
had certain advantages with regard to upgradeing.

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.


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.

It was a simple analogy, not designed to compare avionics and M$ code,
but to show why an upgrade is required, if it can't hack the
requirements it needs upgrading, its that simple, If it can hack it,
no upgrade is required - simple as that.

Not as simple as that. The point I tried to make is that an adequate system
overburdened with bloatware will not work and someone will point the
finger at the hardware when the problem is in fact the software.


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.

Take it up with the USAF, their requirements call for a certain level
of capability in the AtoG role, the F-22 currently does not have the
software or the hardware to fullfill that capability - hence the need
for upgrades, what other reason is there for an upgrade...?.

I'll agree that it doesn't have all the software.


BTW, I worked on AFT, F-22, and several other current AESA programs,
including airborne processors, and integrated avionics systems.


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.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

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.

Not true. The i960 was used on several other programs. I worked on some
of them myself.

We have several statements including the GAO claiming that the i960 is now
F-22 only. I stated in my other posts that the i960 was a printer control
processor in the real world.(so obsolete) The real problem for Lockmart is
that they are attempting to build an MPP that Intel could not build
themselves and the continueing structure risk mitigation.

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

"Felger Carbon" wrote in message
link.net...
"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , John Cook
wrote:


Just the official reports!!, Lockheed has only purchased enough
processors for 155 F-22's because there out of production, the
demand
for Air to ground operations has increased the demand on
processing
power, something the original processors are not quite upto hence
the
_need_ for the 'upgrade'.

So the processors are obsolete, (too old)... the Avionic
architecture
needs to be replaced before the F-22 can become the F/A-22 because
the
present system is based on the old processors and rewriting the
code
is pointless on an obsolete system, that would only support half
of
the F-22 fleet

Methinks there's some confusion there between processors, avionics
architecture, and software.
While it's true that Intel tried to shut down i960 production
causing a
chinese fire drill, there are enough assets to get by until a new
processor is
ready.

Full disclosu I'm a retired electrical engineer. I specialized in
high-end embedded microprocessors, which the "i960" in the F-22 is. I
know nothing about designing aircraft. I do know a little about the
Intel processor at the heart of the F-22:

The i960MX was designed by Intel specifically and solely for the F-22.

Nope, the i960 is a processor designed to control printers.

There were several flavors of the i960, most of which were purely
commercial and were used as printer drivers among other things.

The i960 is the follow on of the i860, from which Intel produced the i432
MPP. The i432 was such a failure that Intel was nearly bankrupt and was
forced to sell a controlling interest of 16% of Intel to IBM; it was through
this transaction that IBM was able to corner the 8088 market. The i960
found application as a printer processor in the commercial world until some
years ago. Lockmart got the bright idea of using the i960 to replicate
Intel's i432 MPP success in the Raptor.

snip of Harry making things up

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.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"John Cook" wrote in message
...


Cite please, where the evidence?.

USAF. Do your own Google.

I've tried, and so far I can't find a single reference to an F-22
dropping any Bombs (JDAM or dumb), in fact theres only one recorded
ground attack on record for the F-22 and that was due to a PIO error.
;-)

You might want to check back to March of 2003 when the Raptor failed to
deliver the new joint standoff munition for the third time. It is public
record.

In article , "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.

You have my comment exactly backwards.
I claim that JSF is NOT more COTS that F-22 because F-22 is using commercial
parts, too. And that JSF is taking commercial parts and building a full
mil-spec system, the end item being non-COTS, although made from
COTS parts.
The usual process since the early 90's.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , John Cook
wrote:

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

does have form, fit, and function upgradeability.
The real issue under these conditions is software portability.

The software will not be portable, as timing issues will make that
impossible.

The F-22 is under enormous pressure to perform right now, with the
review reporting back in the next few months, any talk of obsolete
systems in the state of the art jet are being downplayed.

Upgrading obsolete parts was also a concern from Day 1. It was
expected and planned for: it was one of the drivers for this
implementation of the Pave Pace architecture.

snip

Why is the Raptors Software so troubled?.
You are asking me to pubically bash my customer.

The GAO has already injected reality, but you should hush, Harry. If you
bash the customer you are a bad guy, but if you continue down a road of
telling what you know is subjective spin you will be unethical; the former
is at least a recoverable fault.

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , "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.

You have my comment exactly backwards.
I claim that JSF is NOT more COTS that F-22 because F-22 is using
commercial
parts, too.

Steidel was at F-35 after his successful engagement at F/A-18E. COTS is a
disaster waiting to happen without the constraints of the RPL Model. The
first thing Lockheed did when they got Power PC processors in was lose
tracability. They do not even have the dicipline to control Mil-Spec parts,
how can anyone expect them to understand the new reality?

And that JSF is taking commercial parts and building a full
mil-spec system, the end item being non-COTS, although made from
COTS parts.

The RPL Model is all there is, incarnations available from Federal Electric
Corporation, Rome Labs and SAE's as AS9100 large shop adaptation. (see new
CFR14 Part 145)

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.

"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


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.


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
(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.

Brooks


--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur