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

John Cook

April 2nd 04, 10:35 AM

>
>> 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

Kevin Brooks

April 2nd 04, 03:02 PM

"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

Harry Andreas

April 2nd 04, 06:54 PM

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

Tarver Engineering

April 2nd 04, 11:36 PM

Paul F Austin

April 2nd 04, 11:43 PM

"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.

Felger Carbon

April 2nd 04, 11:49 PM

"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 disclosure: 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. ;-)

Scott Ferrin

April 3rd 04, 12:25 AM

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.

John Cook

April 3rd 04, 01:44 AM

>> >> 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

Brian

April 3rd 04, 02:24 AM

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> 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'.

I kind of find that hard to believe. The system I worked on (and is still a
front line system) was based on Z-80's and a bunch of other 'exotic' chips.
If they can still find parts for that, the F-22's radar should be too
'obselete'.

Tarver Engineering

April 3rd 04, 02:43 AM

"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 disclosure: 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. The i860, the
predicessor of the i960, was designed for the i432 MPP system. The i432
nearly bankrupted Intel and caused them to have to sell 16% of the company,
a controlling interest, to IBM. The Brits were the only ones to ever get
any software to run on the i432 MPP and Lochkeed is lucky to have them
writing the software.

D. Strang

April 3rd 04, 03:06 AM

> 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 :-)

Phil Miller

April 3rd 04, 03:33 AM

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:43:06 -0800, "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 disclosure: I'm a retired electrical engineer. I specialized in
>> high-end embedded microprocessors, which the "i960" in the F-22 is. I
>> know nothing about designing aircraft. I do know a little about the
>> Intel processor at the heart of the F-22:
>>
>> The i960MX was designed by Intel specifically and solely for the F-22.
>
>Nope, the i960 is a processor designed to control printers.

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-391

"The F/A-22 is dependent on its onboard computers and software to
perform its mission. Unlike other fighter aircraft, it has a highly
advanced,integrated avionics system capable of detecting, identifying,
and engaging the enemy at ranges beyond a pilot’s vision. The key to the
F/A-22 avionics lies in its fully integrated core architecture and its
two central, networked computers called common integrated processors
(CIP).CIPs use very high-speed integrated circuits to collect, process,
and integrate data and signals from the aircraft’s sensors. CIP serves
as the “brains” for the F/A-22’s integrated avionics system and is
unique to this aircraft.

The primary processor in CIP is the Intel i960MX microprocessor,which is
used strictly for avionics processing. This microprocessor is based on
1990’s technology and has a 32-bit processor that operates at speeds of
25mhz." etc.

Caught bull****ting again Splappy?

Phil
--
Great Tarverisms #3

No, a flap makes the wing thicker and thereby
creates more bernoulli lift.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

rec.aviation.military
09 January 2003

Kevin Brooks

April 3rd 04, 03:43 AM

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> >> 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."

There is where you go wrong--accepting the GAO report at face value. Don't
you know they have a well known reputation for shading things in the
direction they want, or just plain ol' incompetency in some cases? What they
are describing is the spiral development program that the USAF has already
articulated--nothing new about it, and nothing shocking.

>
>
> Now thats hardly ambiguous is it.....

Well, either it is being ambiguous, as the USAF has decidedly stated that
the F/A-22 is already capable of conducting ground attack missions, or you
are slanting it to your purposes. IIRC this is the same GAO report that ol'
Henry used when he began trumpeting the $11 billion claim--until it was
pointed out to him that the small print explained that cost was for a whole
range of spiral developments, from air-to-air, to ISR, to *improving*
(note--NOT *creating*) its ground attack capabilities, etc.

>
>
>
> >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

Uhmm..you missed the USAF statement that it can indeed carry and deliver
JDAM's? What, you think JDAM is some kind of air-to-air weapon?! And that is
with the current processors--I believe Harry Andreas has already addressed
that particular issue much better than I can...and oddly, you don't seem to
have replied to his comments...

>
> The Glabal Strike Ehanced program is slated to start in 2011, thats
> when the Raptors system architecture is officially obsolete,

Uh, what?! "Officially obsolete"? And where do you come up with *that*
little factoid? never heard of any US program going forward with an already
"officially" established date of obsolescence...

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

You just never learn, do you? GAO does not equal either competence or
accuracy in terms of military developments, organizations, etc.

>
>
> "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."

You know, this reminds me a bit of the early MBTF problems with the F-15, in
particular its radar IIRC. What all of this says is that we have a new
system with typical new system teething problems. Thank goodness neither you
nor the GAO were making the decisions at that time--we'd still be trying to
keep F-4E's in the air, no doubt, as y'all would have undoubtedly cancelled
that obviously deficient F-15 program...

>
>
>
> >> 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.

All of that computing power helps it get to the target area so it can drop
those "whohooo" JDAM's. And last i heard the JDAM was judged a particularly
accurate and lethal munition. Now, I do believe you were crowing that the
F/A-22 is incapable of performing the ground attack mission? How do you like
your crow, rare or well done?

>
> 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.

Gee, can't have any of that, huh? And why not?

>
> >> >
> >> >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.

Have they now? rafale was in production while its ground attack capability
was in the pure ghostware stage--which is why the French Navy went to sea
with them being capable *only* of performing air-to-air missions. The RAF
wants to retune the Typhoon to perform in the multi-role strike manner
before they had originally planned--meaing that their aircraft were not
optimized for that mission when Typhoon went into production. Sounds a bit
like the F/A-22, doesn't it?

>
> compare the F-22 which is in production and hasn't demonstrated it

You don't think it has successfully dropped a JDAM?

>
> Do you see the difference?.
>
> I'll ask you again How would you describe they F-22 process??

Like most current advanced aircraft projects--that you still can't see that
is hardly surprising, given your obvious bias and reliance upon the *GAO* as
your primary source.

>
> 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...

Yes, it is amazing--you, Cobb, and Tarver are the only ones gifted enough to
realize what a true dog it is, huh? All of those blue-suited folks being too
darned dumb to figure it out, right?

Again, thank goodness you are not in the decisionmaking chain.

Brooks

>
>
> Cheers
>
> John Cook
>
> Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
> opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
>
> Email Address :-
> Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
> Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

Kevin Brooks

April 3rd 04, 03:47 AM

"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...?

Brooks

>
>

D. Strang

April 3rd 04, 04:00 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> "D. Strang" > wrote
> > > 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...?

An A-10 at altitude? What a waste. They were designed to be down with the
tanks...

The way I picture it, and I admit I may be completely bogus on this, but I
picture the navigator finding a reference point (coordinates), and then using
the SAR to find the point in weather, and then updating the INS from this
point. You wouldn't need SAR if the point was available by other means,
or the target could tolerate greater than 100 foot error. For example, if
a 2k/lb jobber hit 500 foot from my house, I'd still be dead, and the house
would be destroyed :-)

Kevin Brooks

April 3rd 04, 04:14 AM

"D. Strang" > wrote in message
news:HNpbc.4808$zc1.3884@okepread03...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> > "D. Strang" > wrote
> > > > 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...?
>
> An A-10 at altitude? What a waste. They were designed to be down with
the
> tanks...
>
> The way I picture it, and I admit I may be completely bogus on this, but I
> picture the navigator finding a reference point (coordinates), and then
using
> the SAR to find the point in weather, and then updating the INS from this
> point. You wouldn't need SAR if the point was available by other means,
> or the target could tolerate greater than 100 foot error. For example, if
> a 2k/lb jobber hit 500 foot from my house, I'd still be dead, and the
house
> would be destroyed :-)

I am guessing that the primary means of updating the aircraft INS is via
GPS; maybe BUFFDRVR or one of the folks who has a clue can answer that
question. Otherwise you'd have a wee bit of a problem if your target was a
coastal one and your ingress was from over the water, or if you were
dropping it over a nice, relatively flat desert plain where you could not
get much in the line of significant terrain features from which to perform
your update, etc.

Brooks

>
>

Paul F Austin

April 3rd 04, 04:43 AM

"Felger Carbon" wrote
> "Harry Andreas" wrote
> >
> > 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 disclosure: 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. ;-)

Thanks for the insight into the i960MX.

As it happens, GDIS in Mineapolis has developed a quad-redundant voting
PPC603E module for spacecraft applications. Voting schemes aren't new, years
ago Harris build a triple R3000 hybrid. You're right that you just can't
slip a new CPU into an existing system. You_can_build a new processor CCA
compliant with the existing ICD. F-22 uses a multicomputer architecture
based on FDDI which is of course stone slow by current standards. The FDDI
plant should be adequate until the next block change. Newer systems are
using FibreChannel signaling at 1GBaud while 10Gb Ethernet is the future.
That said,

You're quite right about the real-time code for flight control. The RADAR
data and signal processing and ICNIA functions should be fairly unperturbed
and quite portable.

Tarver Engineering

April 3rd 04, 04:50 AM

"Phil Miller" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:43:06 -0800, "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 disclosure: I'm a retired electrical engineer. I specialized in
> >> high-end embedded microprocessors, which the "i960" in the F-22 is. I
> >> know nothing about designing aircraft. I do know a little about the
> >> Intel processor at the heart of the F-22:
> >>
> >> The i960MX was designed by Intel specifically and solely for the F-22.
> >
> >Nope, the i960 is a processor designed to control printers.
>
> http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-391
>
> "The F/A-22 is dependent on its onboard computers and software to
> perform its mission. Unlike other fighter aircraft, it has a highly
> advanced,integrated avionics system capable of detecting, identifying,
> and engaging the enemy at ranges beyond a pilot's vision. The key to the
> F/A-22 avionics lies in its fully integrated core architecture and its
> two central, networked computers called common integrated processors
> (CIP).CIPs use very high-speed integrated circuits to collect, process,
> and integrate data and signals from the aircraft's sensors. CIP serves
> as the "brains" for the F/A-22's integrated avionics system and is
> unique to this aircraft.
>
> The primary processor in CIP is the Intel i960MX microprocessor,which is
> used strictly for avionics processing. This microprocessor is based on
> 1990's technology and has a 32-bit processor that operates at speeds of
> 25mhz." etc.
>
> Caught bull****ting again Splappy?

Not me.

Do you even have a clue what you cut and pasted, moron? As Mr. cook pointed
out, the i960 is very obsolete.

Paul F Austin

April 3rd 04, 05:23 AM

"Scott Ferrin" wrote
> "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
>
> >
> >"Harry Andreas" wrote
> >> John Cook wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Just the official reports!!, Lockheed has only purchased enough
> >> > processors for 155 F-22's because there out of production, the demand
> >> > for Air to ground operations has increased the demand on processing
> >> > power, something the original processors are not quite upto hence the
> >> > _need_ for the 'upgrade'.
> >> >
> >> > So the processors are obsolete, (too old)... the Avionic architecture
> >> > needs to be replaced before the F-22 can become the F/A-22 because
the
> >> > present system is based on the old processors and rewriting the code
> >> > is pointless on an obsolete system, that would only support half of
> >> > the F-22 fleet
> >>
> >> Methinks there's some confusion there between processors, avionics
> >> architecture, and software.
> >> While it's true that Intel tried to shut down i960 production causing a
> >> chinese fire drill, there are enough assets to get by until a new
> >processor is
> >> ready.
> >
> >Intel has agreed to provide mil-spec i960s, thanks to a very fat check
from
> >USAF. The new processor has already failed to be integrated, due to a
loss
> >of tracability. (ie scrap)
> >
> >> That has nothing to do with the avionics architecture, which is
> >> not changing. Plus the whole point of writing all the OS and AS in Ada
> >was
> >> to be as platform independent as possible, so that upgrades to the CIP
> >> could be relatively painless and not force re-flight testing of the
A/C.
> >> Ideally, one would not re-write the code, but re-compile the code for
> >> the new platform, then do a LOT of integrity checks, and take it from
> >there...
> >>
> >> > They have to go with a more COTS based system (similar to, if not the
> >> > same as the JSF), which they are working on now, for fielding in
(very
> >> > optomisticlly) in 2007.
> >>
> >> Other than using commercialy available processor chips, what is "COTS"
> >> about it?
> >> Hint - nothing.
> >
> >Wrong. Name for us the one and only modern processor that is mil-spec,
> >Harry.
> >
>
>
> I don't know if it's milspec but ISTR reading that Intel donated the
> Pentium 1 design to the US military to do with as it pleased. I also
> remember reading an article on some Russian naval electronics in which
> the advertiser was boasting that they were "Pentium" powered.

Intel did donate the rights to Pentium 1 to the USG and Sandia has been
working on producing a rad-hard flavor but it seems to have been overtaken
by events.

In general, MIPS and PowerPC processors are favored over Intel parts because
of power vs performance metrics. Intel parts deliver lots of performance but
put a heavy burden on the designers trying to get the heat out.

The main issues in using commercial parts in military applications are 1.
Quality level, 2. Operating temperature range and 3. Packaging.

As far as quality level is concerned, there are several MIPS and PowerPC
CPUs available screened to -883B and also to class S (space grade). Both IBM
and Moto PPC603Es and -750s of various flavors are available screened to MIL
standards. You have to buy upscreened parts (by second parties) but that's
the way it's done. Aeroflex sells a 600MIP MIPS processor that's also
available compliant with MIL standards. .A secondary problem is support
chips. That's most often done with IP hosted on FPGAs.

As for temperature, all the high performance CPUs operate over a restricted
temperature range smaller than the mil -55 to 125C. Instead, you have to
work within industrial temp range (-40 to 105C) but that just makes life
hard for the thermal designers.

Packaging can be tough. There are a few sources for hermetic, flat-pack high
performance CPUs (Aeroflex is one). Mostly though, we've had to learn to use
ball grid array parts, some of which are ceramic and others plastic.
Depending on the application, the plastic ones are used as is or repackaged
(which is expensive and risky). Either way, BGAs present major challenges in
avionics applications because of temperature cycling induced ball failures.
Each vendor is working to develop processes that will survive but right now,
it's a black art.

Denyav

April 3rd 04, 05:32 AM

>The whole avionics suite of the F-22 is now obsolete, and w

Whole avionics suite?
I think thats an understatement

..>Normally a program this far into production can't be cancelled, but
>this program seems to be trying real hard...
>
LOL

Paul F Austin

April 3rd 04, 05:36 AM

"Kevin Brooks" wrote
>
> "D. Strang" wrote
> >
> > The way I picture it, and I admit I may be completely bogus on this, but
I
> > picture the navigator finding a reference point (coordinates), and then
> using
> > the SAR to find the point in weather, and then updating the INS from
this
> > point. You wouldn't need SAR if the point was available by other means,
> > or the target could tolerate greater than 100 foot error. For example,
if
> > a 2k/lb jobber hit 500 foot from my house, I'd still be dead, and the
> house
> > would be destroyed :-)
>
> I am guessing that the primary means of updating the aircraft INS is via
> GPS; maybe BUFFDRVR or one of the folks who has a clue can answer that
> question. Otherwise you'd have a wee bit of a problem if your target was a
> coastal one and your ingress was from over the water, or if you were
> dropping it over a nice, relatively flat desert plain where you could not
> get much in the line of significant terrain features from which to perform
> your update, etc.

On-board SAR's main purpose in fighters is autonomous targeting. As far as I
know, no fighter is planned to have GMTI functions but SAR imaging has been
a standard function for a long time. Other targeting options of course
include off-board sensors and Guys On the Ground. GPS is unlikely to be
jammed for aircraft since any ground based jammer is going to be 'way out of
the main lobe of an AJ GPS antenna. JDAM and SDB are going to get AJ
antennas as well.

There is an issue with geolocation. From what I've read in AvWeek,
geolocation errors are the dominant error term in the JSTARS to JDAM loop.
B2s (again according to AW) are the most accurate platform for RADAR imaging
and targeting, which is surprising.

Kevin Brooks

April 3rd 04, 05:47 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Cook" > wrote in message
> ...

<snip>

> >
> > You might be right, it may go into service, and if reports are to be
> > beleived - despite the cost, despite the reliability problems, despite
> > the obsolete architecture, the only credable justification is avoiding
> > an embarrising procurement fiasco, 200 odd hanger queens.....
> > astounding...
>
> Yes, it is amazing--you, Cobb, and Tarver are the only ones gifted enough
to
> realize what a true dog it is, huh? All of those blue-suited folks being
too
> darned dumb to figure it out, right?

Oops--spoke too soon; looks like you can add Denyav to your rabidly
anti-F/A-22 cohort! My, what a fine, reputable group you have there... :-)

Brooks

>
> Again, thank goodness you are not in the decisionmaking chain.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > John Cook
> >
> > Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
> > opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
> >
> > Email Address :-
> > Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
> > Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk
>
>

Tarver Engineering

April 3rd 04, 06:23 AM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >The whole avionics suite of the F-22 is now obsolete, and w
>
> Whole avionics suite?
> I think thats an understatement

True, but the money is already spent.

> .>Normally a program this far into production can't be cancelled, but
> >this program seems to be trying real hard...
> >
> LOL

No, the F-22 has been hosed from before there was a YF-22. The fighter
mafia screwed the pooch mightily on this one. To actually try to do with
the i960 what Intel themselves failed to do with the i860 is laughable.

I remember the i432 we received to do controls development for large space
structures at RPL and it was supposed to be capable of being faster than our
Cyber 180. Intel was toast on that one and IBM was more than happy to
corner the 8088 market.

Tarver Engineering

April 3rd 04, 06:28 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...

>
> Oops--spoke too soon; looks like you can add Denyav to your rabidly
> anti-F/A-22 cohort! My, what a fine, reputable group you have there... :-)

I was on my own here at ram in '98, but now GAO says I was always correct.

We must now all bow to the Kevin Brooks troll. :)

Fifty B-2s that never were ...

Tarver Engineering

April 3rd 04, 06:43 AM

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
...

>
> In general, MIPS and PowerPC processors are favored over Intel parts
because
> of power vs performance metrics. Intel parts deliver lots of performance
but
> put a heavy burden on the designers trying to get the heat out.

Intel went out of the Mil-Spec processor business and Motorola kept making
them. The Mil-Spec components specifications were abandoned in place in
2000 and Intel had no incintive to continue to support a fantasy world.

> The main issues in using commercial parts in military applications are 1.
> Quality level, 2. Operating temperature range and 3. Packaging.

AKA the Rome data, as based on the RPL Model. RL has a pretty nice software
reliabilty model as well, but of course the F-22 was to early for COTS. I
am optimistic about the F-35, with it's injection of the RPL model.

Phil Miller

April 3rd 04, 07:15 AM

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:50:44 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:
>
>Not me.
>
>Do you even have a clue what you cut and pasted, moron? As Mr. cook pointed
>out, the i960 is very obsolete.
>
Obsolete? Ok. So?

Let's simplify this thread a bit.

"Felger Carbon" said;

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

You said;

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

I found this;

>> http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-391
>>
>> The primary processor in CIP is the Intel i960MX microprocessor,which is
>> used strictly for avionics processing.

Pretty obvious I think.

Phil
--
Great Tarverisms #7

Pitot: French word meaning tube.

John

alt.disasters.aviation
25 February 2002

Tarver Engineering

April 3rd 04, 07:27 AM

"Phil Miller" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:50:44 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
> >
> >Not me.
> >
> >Do you even have a clue what you cut and pasted, moron? As Mr. cook
pointed
> >out, the i960 is very obsolete.
> >
> Obsolete? Ok. So?
>
> Let's simplify this thread a bit.
>
> "Felger Carbon" said;
>
> >> >> The i960MX was designed by Intel specifically and solely for the
F-22.
>
> You said;
>
> >> >Nope, the i960 is a processor designed to control printers.
>
> I found this;
>
> >> http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-391
> >>
> >> The primary processor in CIP is the Intel i960MX microprocessor,which
is
> >> used strictly for avionics processing.
>
> Pretty obvious I think.

Yep, you somehow believe because Phill Miller is clueless, others must be
clueless as well. I was correct and what Felger wrote is wrong. I do
wonder at Phil's reading disability sometimes. The i960 has no application
outside Lockmart's MPP.

John Cook

April 3rd 04, 11:54 AM

>
>There is where you go wrong--accepting the GAO report at face value. Don't
>you know they have a well known reputation for shading things in the
>direction they want, or just plain ol' incompetency in some cases? What they
>are describing is the spiral development program that the USAF has already
>articulated--nothing new about it, and nothing shocking.

OK don't like the GAO? ..... fine! How about Lockheed or the
USAF who have a IPT team to find the obsolete items, and find Form Fit
and Function replacements using 'commercial products' where they can
(Note the COTS reference).

General Musala lamented in 1998 that non of the 339 F-22 will be
built the same because at least 500 parts are already obsolete!!!
(As quoted in 1998!! use your imagination in regard to that number
today, Oh thats right! in your world its probabley been dealt with
already and only minor issues remain like coffee cup holders etc. )

>> >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
>
>Uhmm..you missed the USAF statement that it can indeed carry and deliver
>JDAM's? What, you think JDAM is some kind of air-to-air weapon?! And that is
>with the current processors--I believe Harry Andreas has already addressed
>that particular issue much better than I can...and oddly, you don't seem to
>have replied to his comments...

Its all very well that it can drop a couple of JDAMs around a target
area, but it does need to have a running system to perform this
rudimentary function, something which is not happening at present.

You are sytil avoiding the question of how you rate the F-22
development? well whats it to be..... paragon of industrial/military
cooperation or balls up......

how would you describe it....?
..

>>
>> The Glabal Strike Ehanced program is slated to start in 2011, thats
>> when the Raptors system architecture is officially obsolete,
>
>Uh, what?! "Officially obsolete"? And where do you come up with *that*
>little factoid? never heard of any US program going forward with an already
>"officially" established date of obsolescence...

The current processors can't handle the workload, they need to be
replaced before the F/A-22 can do the job, from the data supplied by
the USAF they expect it to be able to 'do the Job' from 2011.

what would you call a system that can't do the job, come on its an
easy question!!

>> I quote again the GAO-04-597T report directly
>
>You just never learn, do you? GAO does not equal either competence or
>accuracy in terms of military developments, organizations, etc.

At least there getting their figures from the team thats testing the
F-22, where are you getting your figures from?.

What figures are you putting into this debate, whats your assesment of
MTBAA??, Go on I'm interested.

>>
>> "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."

<snip>

>> >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.
>
>All of that computing power helps it get to the target area so it can drop
>those "whohooo" JDAM's. And last i heard the JDAM was judged a particularly
>accurate and lethal munition. Now, I do believe you were crowing that the
>F/A-22 is incapable of performing the ground attack mission? How do you like
>your crow, rare or well done?

Listen Matey don't put words in my mouth, the F-22 can drop JDAM's, it
can also strafe the ground with its cannon, But a ground attack
aircraft it ain't, and won't be until an upgrade to the avionics
occurs.

My point is the super duper cray like performance that has be repeated
touted can't hack a AtoG mission, don't you see anything wrong with
this??? why 11.7 billion what that for then? if everythings fine and
dandy why would you want to spend 11.7 billion on a perfectly capable
AtoG aircraft.

>> 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.
>
>Gee, can't have any of that, huh? And why not?

Because it would cost 11.7 billion to get it, If they pay they get it.
(or at least some of it, I'm not that confident of their cost
projections. Are you?.)

>> >>
>> >> 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.
>
>Have they now? rafale was in production while its ground attack capability
>was in the pure ghostware stage--which is why the French Navy went to sea
>with them being capable *only* of performing air-to-air missions. The RAF
>wants to retune the Typhoon to perform in the multi-role strike manner
>before they had originally planned--meaing that their aircraft were not
>optimized for that mission when Typhoon went into production. Sounds a bit
>like the F/A-22, doesn't it?

Planned being the operative word here, they planned to have an Ato G
capability for a number of years, they developed the systems as per
that plan, and produced them.

The fact that they can pull forward the requirements to an earlier
date seems to prove the systems are capable of doing the job,
Actually _Doing_the_Job_ and not - 'give us 11.7 billion and we will
see what we can do'..

>> I'll ask you again How would you describe they F-22 process??
>
>Like most current advanced aircraft projects--that you still can't see that
>is hardly surprising, given your obvious bias and reliance upon the *GAO* as
>your primary source.
>
>>
>> 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?

Your evading the question!!!, whats its score?.

>
>Yes, it is amazing--you, Cobb, and Tarver are the only ones gifted enough to
>realize what a true dog it is, huh? All of those blue-suited folks being too
>darned dumb to figure it out, right?

Some of those blue suited folks are questioning its utility, stop
trying to evade the real question by comparing my opinion to others,
Is the F-22 program value for money? and if you think it is (why
bother to ask I thinks to myself) at what point in your mind does it
become too expensive to field?. dollar values are fine by me!.

>Again, thank goodness you are not in the decisionmaking chain.

From your view point I can see why you said that, but that doesnt mean
your view point is correct.

The F-22 program is in trouble, the system is very very expensive,
the system has been so long in development that the ambitious system
it pioneered have become obsolete, the program needs addition funds
and also input from the JSF program to make it more reliable and
update its avionics.

I could equally say the Nimrod AEW project would have been the best in
the world if only the Software would run and the equipment had of
worked, But then again I know that having the software run and the
equipment work is the 'project'.......

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

Frijoles

April 3rd 04, 03:38 PM

Kevin,

Ye doth protesteth too much...

F-22 is not a 'dog.' But its clear that absent SIGNIFICANT upgrades to its
avionics suite it will have nowhere near the AG capability of the F35.
That's why the USAF is spending the money, and for their efforts, they
should get a nice capability to go with the signature, speed and other
attributes possesed by the airframe.

Remember, that's a capital 'B' behind that $ sign. These are not trivial
amounts. You remember that line -- a billion here, a billion there, before
you know it we're talking real money...

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "John Cook" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > You might be right, it may go into service, and if reports are to be
> > > beleived - despite the cost, despite the reliability problems, despite
> > > the obsolete architecture, the only credable justification is avoiding
> > > an embarrising procurement fiasco, 200 odd hanger queens.....
> > > astounding...
> >
> > Yes, it is amazing--you, Cobb, and Tarver are the only ones gifted
enough
> to
> > realize what a true dog it is, huh? All of those blue-suited folks being
> too
> > darned dumb to figure it out, right?
>
> Oops--spoke too soon; looks like you can add Denyav to your rabidly
> anti-F/A-22 cohort! My, what a fine, reputable group you have there... :-)
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > Again, thank goodness you are not in the decisionmaking chain.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > John Cook
> > >
> > > Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
> > > opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
> > >
> > > Email Address :-
> > > Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
> > > Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk
> >
> >
>
>

Tarver Engineering

April 3rd 04, 03:58 PM

Kevin Brooks

April 3rd 04, 04:59 PM

"Frijoles" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Kevin,
>
> Ye doth protesteth too much...
>
> F-22 is not a 'dog.' But its clear that absent SIGNIFICANT upgrades to
its
> avionics suite it will have nowhere near the AG capability of the F35.
> That's why the USAF is spending the money, and for their efforts, they
> should get a nice capability to go with the signature, speed and other
> attributes possesed by the airframe.

Actually, any protestations "too much" are due to trying to correct the
ridiculous assertion that it has *no* air to ground capability as is. I
understand fully that the optimization of that capability requires
money--which is why there is a spiral development plan in place. Recently in
this NG we have seen folks try to claim the $11 billion estimate was solely
directed at turning the F/A-22 into a strike platform; not the case, as it
also includes air-to-air upgrades, ISR upgrade, etc. IMO, the F/A-22 does
indeed have its share of problems, chief among them being the change in the
nature of the threat it was originally intended to counter; I went on record
supporting a 180 aircraft buy before that number even became fashionable in
the DoD rumor mill. Currently I'd support a 200-220 number. Nobody has (with
any factual basis) accused me of being a rabid supporter of the program--but
I don't think there is any point in making up negative points about it
either, which is largely what we have been seeing of late.

Brooks

<snip>

Henry J Cobb

April 3rd 04, 05:16 PM

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> Actually, any protestations "too much" are due to trying to correct the
> ridiculous assertion that it has *no* air to ground capability as is. I
> understand fully that the optimization of that capability requires
> money--which is why there is a spiral development plan in place. Recently in
> this NG we have seen folks try to claim the $11 billion estimate was solely
> directed at turning the F/A-22 into a strike platform; not the case, as it
> also includes air-to-air upgrades, ISR upgrade, etc. IMO, the F/A-22 does
> indeed have its share of problems, chief among them being the change in the
> nature of the threat it was originally intended to counter; I went on record
> supporting a 180 aircraft buy before that number even became fashionable in
> the DoD rumor mill. Currently I'd support a 200-220 number. Nobody has (with
> any factual basis) accused me of being a rabid supporter of the program--but
> I don't think there is any point in making up negative points about it
> either, which is largely what we have been seeing of late.

So let's make lemonade here.

Give the F/A-22 as close to the same sensors, computers and software as
the F-35 as possible so that not only is the JSF kickstarted but also
the F/A-22 will have an upgrade path in the future as improvements are
made to the JSF.

-HJC

Kevin Brooks

April 3rd 04, 05:36 PM

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> >There is where you go wrong--accepting the GAO report at face value.
Don't
> >you know they have a well known reputation for shading things in the
> >direction they want, or just plain ol' incompetency in some cases? What
they
> >are describing is the spiral development program that the USAF has
already
> >articulated--nothing new about it, and nothing shocking.
>
> OK don't like the GAO? ..... fine! How about Lockheed or the
> USAF who have a IPT team to find the obsolete items, and find Form Fit
> and Function replacements using 'commercial products' where they can
> (Note the COTS reference).
>
> General Musala lamented in 1998 that non of the 339 F-22 will be
> built the same because at least 500 parts are already obsolete!!!
> (As quoted in 1998!! use your imagination in regard to that number
> today, Oh thats right! in your world its probabley been dealt with
> already and only minor issues remain like coffee cup holders etc. )

No, in my world the folks that are managing this program, and who are
confronting the very real challenges inherent to developing and fielding the
most advanced fighter aircraft in the world, are more capable of handling
these developmental issues than some amateur rotten tomato tosser who has
amply demonstrated that despite his attempts to sound as if he has a real
grasp on the issues, doesn't. You earlier posted a long-winded diatribe
including "calculations" which were purported to support the claim that the
F/A-22 has insufficient range/endurance capabilities to perform its
originally intended air-to-air role; when a gent with an obvious real
understanding (i.e., a design engineer) of issue countered your argument,
IIRC you ignored his trashing of your faulty assumptions and merely shifted
your anti-F/A-22 rant into a new direction. You obviously are a rather
intelligent fellow, and your arguments would be taken with a bit more
seriousness if you had not established such a firm record of trying to
oppose the program on each and every level, in regard to every issue; as is,
it just sounds like more shrill, "I don't like it, no how, no way" ranting.
>
>
> >> >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
> >
> >Uhmm..you missed the USAF statement that it can indeed carry and deliver
> >JDAM's? What, you think JDAM is some kind of air-to-air weapon?! And that
is
> >with the current processors--I believe Harry Andreas has already
addressed
> >that particular issue much better than I can...and oddly, you don't seem
to
> >have replied to his comments...
>
> Its all very well that it can drop a couple of JDAMs around a target
> area, but it does need to have a running system to perform this
> rudimentary function, something which is not happening at present.

"Drop a couple of JDAM's around a target area"? LOL! The JDAM's record for
accuracy/precision has been rather well proven--mate it to the survivability
capabilities inherent to the F/A-22 and you have a system that can go deep
early and take out critical targets with great precision. Hardly a
"rudimentary" capability. You see, this is what i mean; first you said it
has NO ground attack capability, and when corrected, instead of just saying,
"Oops, yeah, it does indeed have a precision deep strike capability in its
present form", you instead head off on this ridiculous, "Being able to stike
a target with a JDAM does not really mean anything" crap--thus destroying
any credibility you may have had in terms of offering an unbiased critique
of the system.

>
> You are sytil avoiding the question of how you rate the F-22
> development? well whats it to be..... paragon of industrial/military
> cooperation or balls up......
>
> how would you describe it....?
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
> >> The Glabal Strike Ehanced program is slated to start in 2011, thats
> >> when the Raptors system architecture is officially obsolete,
> >
> >Uh, what?! "Officially obsolete"? And where do you come up with *that*
> >little factoid? never heard of any US program going forward with an
already
> >"officially" established date of obsolescence...
>
> The current processors can't handle the workload, they need to be
> replaced before the F/A-22 can do the job, from the data supplied by
> the USAF they expect it to be able to 'do the Job' from 2011.
>
> what would you call a system that can't do the job, come on its an
> easy question!!

Show me where the USAF has said, the F/A-22 "can't do the job" in terms of
either air-to-air or precision deep strike with internally carried JDAM's.

>
>
>
>
> >> I quote again the GAO-04-597T report directly
> >
> >You just never learn, do you? GAO does not equal either competence or
> >accuracy in terms of military developments, organizations, etc.
>
> At least there getting their figures from the team thats testing the
> F-22, where are you getting your figures from?.

And they then twisted them--read your own GAO report; their commentary
seemed to indicate that the $11 billion was required in order to give the
F/A-22 a strike capability, but the actual explanation of the breakdown of
that $11 billion made it plain that it was instead the total estimated cost
for the program's spiral development. It ignored the fact that the existing
F/A-22 coupled with JDAM (and later with SDB) is indeed capable of
performing the strike mission.

>
> What figures are you putting into this debate, whats your assesment of
> MTBAA??, Go on I'm interested.

Talk that over with Harry--he actually knows what he is talking about,
instead of spouting off acronyms he has recently read about. Oh, that's
right...you have not addressed Harry's comments about your claims, have you?

>
>
> >>
> >> "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."
>
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >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.
> >
> >All of that computing power helps it get to the target area so it can
drop
> >those "whohooo" JDAM's. And last i heard the JDAM was judged a
particularly
> >accurate and lethal munition. Now, I do believe you were crowing that the
> >F/A-22 is incapable of performing the ground attack mission? How do you
like
> >your crow, rare or well done?
>
> Listen Matey don't put words in my mouth, the F-22 can drop JDAM's, it
> can also strafe the ground with its cannon, But a ground attack
> aircraft it ain't, and won't be until an upgrade to the avionics
> occurs.

Listen up yourself, "Matey" (who the hell are you, Popeye?); you said quite
clearly that it is incapable of performing the ground attack mission, and
the fact that it can indeed deliver JDAM, in a stealthy manner to boot, and
the inherent accuracy of that munition, lays that particular claim of your's
to rest. Now what you *may* have meant was that the initial gestation of the
F/A-22 won't be able to handle independent retargeting while in-flight due
to its radar not being optimized for the terrain mapping role--but that is
not what you said, nor does that equate to not being able to conduct the
ground attack mission, period.

>
> My point is the super duper cray like performance that has be repeated
> touted can't hack a AtoG mission, don't you see anything wrong with
> this??? why 11.7 billion what that for then? if everythings fine and
> dandy why would you want to spend 11.7 billion on a perfectly capable
> AtoG aircraft.

The $11.7 billion is for spiral development; it includes upgrades to both
the air-to-air capability and the ISR capability as well. Reading
comprehension problem?

>
>
> >> 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.
> >
> >Gee, can't have any of that, huh? And why not?
>
> Because it would cost 11.7 billion to get it, If they pay they get it.
> (or at least some of it, I'm not that confident of their cost
> projections. Are you?.)

I am quite confident that we will continue to provide spiral development
funds to support F/A-22 during its lifetime; how many billions have we
dedicated in the past to further development of the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18
(heck, in the latter case we even developed the Super Bug...)?

>
>
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >
> >Have they now? rafale was in production while its ground attack
capability
> >was in the pure ghostware stage--which is why the French Navy went to sea
> >with them being capable *only* of performing air-to-air missions. The RAF
> >wants to retune the Typhoon to perform in the multi-role strike manner
> >before they had originally planned--meaing that their aircraft were not
> >optimized for that mission when Typhoon went into production. Sounds a
bit
> >like the F/A-22, doesn't it?
>
> Planned being the operative word here, they planned to have an Ato G
> capability for a number of years, they developed the systems as per
> that plan, and produced them.
>
> The fact that they can pull forward the requirements to an earlier
> date seems to prove the systems are capable of doing the job,
> Actually _Doing_the_Job_ and not - 'give us 11.7 billion and we will
> see what we can do'..

Uhmmm... you think those programs did not require additional R&D funding,
and won't require additional future R&D fundiing, to bring them to actual
fruition? Take a gander at that whole Nimrod R&D program and its costs...

>
> >> I'll ask you again How would you describe they F-22 process??
> >
> >Like most current advanced aircraft projects--that you still can't see
that
> >is hardly surprising, given your obvious bias and reliance upon the *GAO*
as
> >your primary source.
> >
> >>
> >> 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?
>
> Your evading the question!!!, whats its score?.

Only you want to play this ridiculous "give it a score!" game. You want a
score? OK. The USAF is fielding the most advanced and capable fighter
aircraft in the world--how do you score that?

>
>
> >
> >Yes, it is amazing--you, Cobb, and Tarver are the only ones gifted enough
to
> >realize what a true dog it is, huh? All of those blue-suited folks being
too
> >darned dumb to figure it out, right?
>
> Some of those blue suited folks are questioning its utility, stop
> trying to evade the real question by comparing my opinion to others,
> Is the F-22 program value for money? and if you think it is (why
> bother to ask I thinks to myself) at what point in your mind does it
> become too expensive to field?. dollar values are fine by me!.

I have seen only one former blue-suiter come out against the F/A-22--and his
record is a bit spotty, as he seems to have a certain well-demonstrated bias
towards "lightweights only". Name of Ricconi, IIRC.

>
> >Again, thank goodness you are not in the decisionmaking chain.
>
> From your view point I can see why you said that, but that doesnt mean
> your view point is correct.
>
> The F-22 program is in trouble, the system is very very expensive,
> the system has been so long in development that the ambitious system
> it pioneered have become obsolete, the program needs addition funds
> and also input from the JSF program to make it more reliable and
> update its avionics.

That would be the same JSF program that you have also attacked? It appears
there is only one advanced fighter program that truly meets your approval,
and that is Typhoon...

Brooks

>
> I could equally say the Nimrod AEW project would have been the best in
> the world if only the Software would run and the equipment had of
> worked, But then again I know that having the software run and the
> equipment work is the 'project'.......
>
> 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

Kevin Brooks

April 3rd 04, 05:43 PM

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > Actually, any protestations "too much" are due to trying to correct the
> > ridiculous assertion that it has *no* air to ground capability as is. I
> > understand fully that the optimization of that capability requires
> > money--which is why there is a spiral development plan in place.
Recently in
> > this NG we have seen folks try to claim the $11 billion estimate was
solely
> > directed at turning the F/A-22 into a strike platform; not the case, as
it
> > also includes air-to-air upgrades, ISR upgrade, etc. IMO, the F/A-22
does
> > indeed have its share of problems, chief among them being the change in
the
> > nature of the threat it was originally intended to counter; I went on
record
> > supporting a 180 aircraft buy before that number even became fashionable
in
> > the DoD rumor mill. Currently I'd support a 200-220 number. Nobody has
(with
> > any factual basis) accused me of being a rabid supporter of the
program--but
> > I don't think there is any point in making up negative points about it
> > either, which is largely what we have been seeing of late.
>
> So let's make lemonade here.
>
> Give the F/A-22 as close to the same sensors, computers and software as
> the F-35 as possible so that not only is the JSF kickstarted but also
> the F/A-22 will have an upgrade path in the future as improvements are
> made to the JSF.

Yah, and just restart the development prgram for the F/A-22 all over again
while you are at it, too, huh? I don't think so.

Brooks

>
> -HJC
>

Paul F Austin

April 3rd 04, 06:33 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > Actually, any protestations "too much" are due to trying to correct
the
> > > ridiculous assertion that it has *no* air to ground capability as is.
I
> > > understand fully that the optimization of that capability requires
> > > money--which is why there is a spiral development plan in place.
> Recently in
> > > this NG we have seen folks try to claim the $11 billion estimate was
> solely
> > > directed at turning the F/A-22 into a strike platform; not the case,
as
> it
> > > also includes air-to-air upgrades, ISR upgrade, etc. IMO, the F/A-22
> does
> > > indeed have its share of problems, chief among them being the change
in
> the
> > > nature of the threat it was originally intended to counter; I went on
> record
> > > supporting a 180 aircraft buy before that number even became
fashionable
> in
> > > the DoD rumor mill. Currently I'd support a 200-220 number. Nobody has
> (with
> > > any factual basis) accused me of being a rabid supporter of the
> program--but
> > > I don't think there is any point in making up negative points about it
> > > either, which is largely what we have been seeing of late.
> >
> > So let's make lemonade here.
> >
> > Give the F/A-22 as close to the same sensors, computers and software as
> > the F-35 as possible so that not only is the JSF kickstarted but also
> > the F/A-22 will have an upgrade path in the future as improvements are
> > made to the JSF.
>
> Yah, and just restart the development prgram for the F/A-22 all over again
> while you are at it, too, huh? I don't think so.

Although F-35 hardware may be rolled into F-22 production as a block change
later. F-35 benefits from F-22 development and vice versa.

Tarver Engineering

April 3rd 04, 06:53 PM

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > > Actually, any protestations "too much" are due to trying to correct
> the
> > > > ridiculous assertion that it has *no* air to ground capability as
is.
> I
> > > > understand fully that the optimization of that capability requires
> > > > money--which is why there is a spiral development plan in place.
> > Recently in
> > > > this NG we have seen folks try to claim the $11 billion estimate was
> > solely
> > > > directed at turning the F/A-22 into a strike platform; not the case,
> as
> > it
> > > > also includes air-to-air upgrades, ISR upgrade, etc. IMO, the F/A-22
> > does
> > > > indeed have its share of problems, chief among them being the change
> in
> > the
> > > > nature of the threat it was originally intended to counter; I went
on
> > record
> > > > supporting a 180 aircraft buy before that number even became
> fashionable
> > in
> > > > the DoD rumor mill. Currently I'd support a 200-220 number. Nobody
has
> > (with
> > > > any factual basis) accused me of being a rabid supporter of the
> > program--but
> > > > I don't think there is any point in making up negative points about
it
> > > > either, which is largely what we have been seeing of late.
> > >
> > > So let's make lemonade here.
> > >
> > > Give the F/A-22 as close to the same sensors, computers and software
as
> > > the F-35 as possible so that not only is the JSF kickstarted but also
> > > the F/A-22 will have an upgrade path in the future as improvements are
> > > made to the JSF.
> >
> > Yah, and just restart the development prgram for the F/A-22 all over
again
> > while you are at it, too, huh? I don't think so.
>
> Although F-35 hardware may be rolled into F-22 production as a block
change
> later. F-35 benefits from F-22 development and vice versa.

God bless BAE Systems.

John Cook

April 3rd 04, 11:09 PM

>> 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 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.

>> 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.

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

>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.

>
>
>> 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...?.

>
>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.

Why is the Raptors Software so troubled?.

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

Tarver Engineering

April 4th 04, 01:46 AM

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

> >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.

And so, as predicted, the actual transfer of technology is from the F-35 to
the F-22.

I wonder if Oz has that check ready for a couple of squadrons ... :)

Russell Waterson

April 4th 04, 01:37 PM

I will always maintain that I think us Aussies would be better off with
Typhoons
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
>
> > >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.
>
> And so, as predicted, the actual transfer of technology is from the F-35
to
> the F-22.
>
> I wonder if Oz has that check ready for a couple of squadrons ... :)
>
>

Brian

April 4th 04, 03:14 PM

"Russell Waterson" > wrote in message
u...
> I will always maintain that I think us Aussies would be better off with
> Typhoons

Why not buy F-16's instead? The Typhoon doesn't offer much more that what a
modern F-16 does...If the Aussies were smart, they dump the JSF and buy
Gripens.

Kevin Brooks

April 4th 04, 04:34 PM

"Brian" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Russell Waterson" > wrote in message
> u...
> > I will always maintain that I think us Aussies would be better off with
> > Typhoons
>
> Why not buy F-16's instead? The Typhoon doesn't offer much more that what
a
> modern F-16 does...If the Aussies were smart, they dump the JSF and buy
> Gripens.

Why? I believe if you compare the combat radius of the JAS-39 to that of the
F-35A, or especially that of the F-35C, you will find that the F-35 has a
substantially greater range, something that the Aussies would in particular
find useful. Plus, by the time the RAAF is ready to purchase new aircraft
(still a few years away), the Gripen will no longer be able to be called a
"new" aircraft, having been in service since 1996 with the Swedes; methinks
the RAAF would like to have the latest cutting edge technology, since they
will likely be flying it for a looong time to come. Pricewise the two sound
like they will be competitive. So you think they should buy a
shorter-legged, older aircraft, at about the same price? I don't think so.

Brooks

>
>

Kevin Brooks

April 4th 04, 04:37 PM

"Russell Waterson" > wrote in message
u...
> I will always maintain that I think us Aussies would be better off with
> Typhoons

Yeah, buying the more expensive (both in terms of purchase and operating
costs), shorter range (on internal fuel), and much less stealthy Typhoon
would be a real wise move for the RAAF...

Brooks

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "John Cook" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >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.
> >
> > And so, as predicted, the actual transfer of technology is from the F-35
> to
> > the F-22.
> >
> > I wonder if Oz has that check ready for a couple of squadrons ... :)
> >
> >
>
>

Brian

April 4th 04, 07:16 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brian" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "Russell Waterson" > wrote in message
> > u...
> > > I will always maintain that I think us Aussies would be better off
with
> > > Typhoons
> >
> > Why not buy F-16's instead? The Typhoon doesn't offer much more that
what
> a
> > modern F-16 does...If the Aussies were smart, they dump the JSF and buy
> > Gripens.
>
> Why? I believe if you compare the combat radius of the JAS-39 to that of
the
> F-35A, or especially that of the F-35C, you will find that the F-35 has a
> substantially greater range, something that the Aussies would in
particular
> find useful. Plus, by the time the RAAF is ready to purchase new aircraft
> (still a few years away), the Gripen will no longer be able to be called a
> "new" aircraft, having been in service since 1996 with the Swedes;
methinks
> the RAAF would like to have the latest cutting edge technology, since they
> will likely be flying it for a looong time to come. Pricewise the two
sound
> like they will be competitive. So you think they should buy a
> shorter-legged, older aircraft, at about the same price? I don't think so.

My point was if you are going to ditcht he F-35, then the Typhoon is not a
wise choice. The Gripen is available today, is much cheaper, and just a
better airplane. I don't see where a Typhoon would be much better than a
Gripen.

Peter Kemp

April 4th 04, 08:06 PM

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 14:16:54 -0400, "Brian"
> wrote:

>
>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Brian" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >
>> > "Russell Waterson" > wrote in message
>> > u...
>> > > I will always maintain that I think us Aussies would be better off
>with
>> > > Typhoons
>> >
>> > Why not buy F-16's instead? The Typhoon doesn't offer much more that
>what
>> a
>> > modern F-16 does...If the Aussies were smart, they dump the JSF and buy
>> > Gripens.
>>
>> Why? I believe if you compare the combat radius of the JAS-39 to that of
>the
>> F-35A, or especially that of the F-35C, you will find that the F-35 has a
>> substantially greater range, something that the Aussies would in
>particular
>> find useful. Plus, by the time the RAAF is ready to purchase new aircraft
>> (still a few years away), the Gripen will no longer be able to be called a
>> "new" aircraft, having been in service since 1996 with the Swedes;
>methinks
>> the RAAF would like to have the latest cutting edge technology, since they
>> will likely be flying it for a looong time to come. Pricewise the two
>sound
>> like they will be competitive. So you think they should buy a
>> shorter-legged, older aircraft, at about the same price? I don't think so.
>
>My point was if you are going to ditcht he F-35, then the Typhoon is not a
>wise choice. The Gripen is available today, is much cheaper, and just a
>better airplane. I don't see where a Typhoon would be much better than a
>Gripen.
>
IIRC the Aussies, like the Canadians prefer two engines minimum due to
the distances involved. That rules out the F-16, the F-35, and the
Gripen.

Considering the likely local opposition to the RAAF, high grade
stealth is unlikely to be necessary for a hell of long time.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

John Cook

April 5th 04, 01:20 PM

<snip all the personal slights and fluff>

This is getting silly, were getting away from the major points with
little headway being made and sniping at each other is childish - What
exactly are we arguing about....

What I say..

Tthe F/A-22 program is too expensive for the uility it provides, and
has severe problems with software and avionics, and is struggling to
survive the review.

It requires several updates to software forcing an upgrade to the
hardware, which also increases costs.

I have provided sources for my assertions, (you have rubbished the GAO
credability),. while you have provided no quotable sources to rebutt
my assertions, you ignore facts, and provide no alternative but your
unsubstanciated opinion.

What You say

The F-22 is the most capable fighter in the world, its development is
comparable to a normal fighter program, there are no major problems,
its all being taken care of.

Issues of reliability, cost, obsolecence are all figments of
someones imagination.

The F-22 has JDAMS cleared for operation use, (something I wasn't
aware of!, how long ago was it cleared for the F-22)

You don't like GAO assesment of the program.

Now for some of those side issues

Ok sources - how about LM, take a look here:-

http://lean.mit.edu/Events/workshops/files_public/PLN_032204_Handel_FA22Raptor.pdf

Page eleven- 2.1 for the airframe 3.1 for the engines.

This gives an overall score to the airframe development ie 1 lowest
to 5 highest.

or Jon Ogg on obsolete systems

Try googling " ogg stsc crosstalk " I'm sure you'll find that
interesting. especially the bit about :-

"Q: Why does it cost so much to migrate to new hardware considering
that electronics technology has decreased from five-year cycles to one
year or less?

Ogg: Many of the current architectures are unique and make software
dependent on hardware. So when hardware changes, you have to redo
software at an enormous cost.

Today there is a big push on open systems and to insulate or isolate
the hardware from the functional/program software. At some future
point, the hardware component technology will change. Open systems
minimize the dependency of executing software on the underpinning
hardware. The focus is on making the system more adaptable to future
change.

In addition to the F-22 standing out as an example of this problem, we
had the F-15, F-16, B-1, C-5, and C-130 -- multi-billion-dollar
programs -- all slated for modernization. The end-user [warfighter]
wanted enhanced capabilities and functionality that couldn't be
accommodated with existing avionic architectures. So we were faced
with modernization that typically spans four to six years due to the
need to rebuild existing software for hardware technology that was out
of production."

I like the bit about the end user myself.... capability...
functionality.... can't be done on existing avionics architecture...
Sounds familier to me....

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

April 5th 04, 01:39 PM

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??

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

Kevin Brooks

April 5th 04, 02:20 PM

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 14:16:54 -0400, "Brian"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Brian" > wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >> >
> >> > "Russell Waterson" > wrote in message
> >> > u...
> >> > > I will always maintain that I think us Aussies would be better off
> >with
> >> > > Typhoons
> >> >
> >> > Why not buy F-16's instead? The Typhoon doesn't offer much more that
> >what
> >> a
> >> > modern F-16 does...If the Aussies were smart, they dump the JSF and
buy
> >> > Gripens.
> >>
> >> Why? I believe if you compare the combat radius of the JAS-39 to that
of
> >the
> >> F-35A, or especially that of the F-35C, you will find that the F-35 has
a
> >> substantially greater range, something that the Aussies would in
> >particular
> >> find useful. Plus, by the time the RAAF is ready to purchase new
aircraft
> >> (still a few years away), the Gripen will no longer be able to be
called a
> >> "new" aircraft, having been in service since 1996 with the Swedes;
> >methinks
> >> the RAAF would like to have the latest cutting edge technology, since
they
> >> will likely be flying it for a looong time to come. Pricewise the two
> >sound
> >> like they will be competitive. So you think they should buy a
> >> shorter-legged, older aircraft, at about the same price? I don't think
so.
> >
> >My point was if you are going to ditcht he F-35, then the Typhoon is not
a
> >wise choice. The Gripen is available today, is much cheaper, and just a
> >better airplane. I don't see where a Typhoon would be much better than a
> >Gripen.
> >
> IIRC the Aussies, like the Canadians prefer two engines minimum due to
> the distances involved. That rules out the F-16, the F-35, and the
> Gripen.

Odd then that the Aussies have bought into the JSF program. Guess they have
a habit of investing in programs that are "ruled out"?

>
> Considering the likely local opposition to the RAAF, high grade
> stealth is unlikely to be necessary for a hell of long time.

What "likely local opposition"?

Brooks

>
> ---
> Peter Kemp
>
> Life is short - drink faster

Kevin Brooks

April 5th 04, 02:37 PM

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> <snip all the personal slights and fluff>
>
>
> This is getting silly, were getting away from the major points with
> little headway being made and sniping at each other is childish - What
> exactly are we arguing about....
>
>
> What I say..
>
> Tthe F/A-22 program is too expensive for the uility it provides, and
> has severe problems with software and avionics, and is struggling to
> survive the review.
>
> It requires several updates to software forcing an upgrade to the
> hardware, which also increases costs.
>
> I have provided sources for my assertions, (you have rubbished the GAO
> credability),. while you have provided no quotable sources to rebutt
> my assertions, you ignore facts, and provide no alternative but your
> unsubstanciated opinion.

You forgot your infamous, "Can't do ground attack as is" garbage.

>
>
> What You say
>
> The F-22 is the most capable fighter in the world, its development is
> comparable to a normal fighter program, there are no major problems,
> its all being taken care of.

Nope-that reading comprehension problem of yours is evidencing itself again.
Of course there are development problems--just as there have been problems
in the development of the F-100, F-15, F-16, Typhoon, etc. Where we disagree
is as to whether to get our shorts all tied up into a knot over the
problems.

>
> Issues of reliability, cost, obsolecence are all figments of
> someones imagination.

Nope again. Cost is a major concern, which is why the choice of the right
number of aircraft to procure is critical. Reliability is a key concern--but
then again, reliability during the initial fielding phase is usually none
too great--witness the F-15 when it was first fielded. Where do you purchase
your blinders--over the counter, or are they specially fitted?

>
> The F-22 has JDAMS cleared for operation use, (something I wasn't
> aware of!, how long ago was it cleared for the F-22)

Talk to the USAF; they are the ones saying it is indeed capable of carrying
it. Not that this would be much of a surprise. And unlike you, I understand
that the mating of JDAMS with a stealthy penetration platform like the
F/A-22 means increased lethality and increased survivability, not to mention
versatility--kind of hard to have the F-117 switch from a pure strike role
to taking out an air-to-air threat that pops up unexpectedly.

>
> You don't like GAO assesment of the program.

I know enough not to take the GAO's assessment of *any* program as being
gospel; asking a bean-counter to make a pronouncement on advanced military
hardware is a bit like asking your accountant to select the best flyrod for
your personal use--kind of a shot in the dark.

>
>
>
> Now for some of those side issues
>
> Ok sources - how about LM, take a look here:-
>
>
http://lean.mit.edu/Events/workshops/files_public/PLN_032204_Handel_FA22Raptor.pdf
>
> Page eleven- 2.1 for the airframe 3.1 for the engines.
>
> This gives an overall score to the airframe development ie 1 lowest
> to 5 highest.

Did you bother to read the entire slideshow, and what it is aimed at
accomplishing? Geeze, talk about taking things out of context... This is NOT
a rating of the aircraft itself, but of the development *approach* and
methodology. Think of it as internal critical analysis--a good thing, by the
way.

>
> or Jon Ogg on obsolete systems
>
> Try googling " ogg stsc crosstalk " I'm sure you'll find that
> interesting. especially the bit about :-

>
>
> "Q: Why does it cost so much to migrate to new hardware considering
> that electronics technology has decreased from five-year cycles to one
> year or less?
>
> Ogg: Many of the current architectures are unique and make software
> dependent on hardware. So when hardware changes, you have to redo
> software at an enormous cost.
>
> Today there is a big push on open systems and to insulate or isolate
> the hardware from the functional/program software. At some future
> point, the hardware component technology will change. Open systems
> minimize the dependency of executing software on the underpinning
> hardware. The focus is on making the system more adaptable to future
> change.
>
> In addition to the F-22 standing out as an example of this problem, we
> had the F-15, F-16, B-1, C-5, and C-130 -- multi-billion-dollar
> programs -- all slated for modernization. The end-user [warfighter]
> wanted enhanced capabilities and functionality that couldn't be
> accommodated with existing avionic architectures. So we were faced
> with modernization that typically spans four to six years due to the
> need to rebuild existing software for hardware technology that was out
> of production."

Gee, he notes that the F-15 and F-16 faced the same kind of problems. When I
pointed this out to you, you scoffed--but the famous Mr. Ogg (whoever he is)
says it and you worship at his feet--amazing. And thanks for butressing my
point.

Brooks

>
>
>
> I like the bit about the end user myself.... capability...
> functionality.... can't be done on existing avionics architecture...
> Sounds familier to me....
>
> 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

Chad Irby

April 5th 04, 06:13 PM

In article >,
John Cook > wrote:

> In addition to the F-22 standing out as an example of this problem, we
> had the F-15, F-16, B-1, C-5, and C-130 -- multi-billion-dollar
> programs -- all slated for modernization.

This is normal. When we build new planes, and create new systems, older
planes get upgrades from the lessons learned on the new ones.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

John Cook

April 5th 04, 11:44 PM

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 17:13:34 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> John Cook > wrote:
>
>> In addition to the F-22 standing out as an example of this problem, we
>> had the F-15, F-16, B-1, C-5, and C-130 -- multi-billion-dollar
>> programs -- all slated for modernization.
>
>This is normal. When we build new planes, and create new systems, older
>planes get upgrades from the lessons learned on the new ones.

I absolutley agree, the only difference being the F22 isn't yet in
service, and its avionics are already in need of a major overhaul,
something the program doesn't need to be highlighted while under its
present scrutiny.

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

April 6th 04, 12:11 AM

>
>You forgot your infamous, "Can't do ground attack as is" garbage.

I like the bit about the end user myself.... capability...
functionality.... can't be done on existing avionics architecture...
Sounds familier to me....

Cite please, where the evidence?.

>Gee, he notes that the F-15 and F-16 faced the same kind of problems. When I
>pointed this out to you, you scoffed--but the famous Mr. Ogg (whoever he is)
>says it and you worship at his feet--amazing. And thanks for butressing my
>point.

Take a good look at who he is...its at the beginning,
The difference is those systems have been fielded and used, the F-22
is still in development and test (and not doing too well at the mo) So
you now have an obsolete and flakey system, Hmm. spend money trying to
rectify it or hide the fact till the new system arrives..

>
>Nope again. Cost is a major concern, which is why the choice of the right
>number of aircraft to procure is critical. Reliability is a key concern--but
>then again, reliability during the initial fielding phase is usually none
>too great--witness the F-15 when it was first fielded. Where do you purchase
>your blinders--over the counter, or are they specially fitted?
>

Theres a difference between initial fielding problems and something
that just can't be feilded in its present form.

>> The F-22 has JDAMS cleared for operation use, (something I wasn't
>> aware of!, how long ago was it cleared for the F-22)
>
>Talk to the USAF; they are the ones saying it is indeed capable of carrying
>it. Not that this would be much of a surprise. And unlike you, I understand
>that the mating of JDAMS with a stealthy penetration platform like the
>F/A-22 means increased lethality and increased survivability, not to mention
>versatility--kind of hard to have the F-117 switch from a pure strike role
>to taking out an air-to-air threat that pops up unexpectedly.

They state its going to be one of its weapons, I couldn't find a
reference that it had been cleared, I only found that dummies had
been dropped, and the weapons bay had been enlarged to accomodate
them...

Perhaps you can find something....

>http://lean.mit.edu/Events/workshops/files_public/PLN_032204_Handel_FA22Raptor.pdf
>>
>> Page eleven- 2.1 for the airframe 3.1 for the engines.
>>
>> This gives an overall score to the airframe development ie 1 lowest
>> to 5 highest.
>
>Did you bother to read the entire slideshow, and what it is aimed at
>accomplishing? Geeze, talk about taking things out of context... This is NOT
>a rating of the aircraft itself, but of the development *approach* and
>methodology. Think of it as internal critical analysis--a good thing, by the
>way.

Exactly right, the development approach!, did you note the score, or
what that score actually meant?

I tell you... 2.1 for the airframe equates to :-

2 = General awareness, informal approach deployed in a few areas with
varying degrees of effectiveness and sustainment

3 = a systematic approach/methology deployed in various stages in
most areas: facilitated with good metrics; good sustainment.

You'll need level 4 to make real progress, or level 3 to get by...

The engine has actually slipped from 3.2 in 2002 to 3.1 in 2003.

>but the famous Mr. Ogg (whoever he is)
>says it and you worship at his feet--amazing. And thanks for butressing my
>point.

Rember were talking about two seperate things in service aircraft that
have grown obsolete and in development aircraft that shouldn't be in
the pickle there in right now.

BTW Mr Ogg was chief engineer for the F-22 Program for nearly a decade
and now a director in the ASC, bio as follows:-

"Ogg is a member of the Senior Executive Service and director,
Engineering and Technical Management Directorate, Aeronautical Systems
Center (ASC), Air Force Materiel Command, Dayton, Ohio. He provides
overall management guidance for the development of systems engineering
programs for ASC with annual expenditures of more than $10 billion. He
ensures the proper allocation and expenditure of fiscal and personnel
resources and provides engineering tools to the program offices.

Ogg entered federal civil service as a project engineer with the
Flight Systems Directorate in 1975. He is recognized as the Air
Force's leading authority on integrity for programs propulsion and
power systems. He spent 15 years in propulsion and has been involved
with every phase of a system's life cycle on nearly all gas turbine
engines in the Air Force inventory. In addition, Ogg has provided
technical and programmatic support to many ASC weapon system programs,
including as chief engineer for the F-22 Program for nearly a decade.
He has led numerous reviews spanning acquisition strategies, request
for proposal preparation, independent cost estimates, technical risk
assignments, and flight certification. He helped pioneer the current"
integrated product process development and product team approach on
the F-22 program."

Thats whoever he is...

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

Kevin Brooks

April 6th 04, 04:41 AM

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> >You forgot your infamous, "Can't do ground attack as is" garbage.
>
> I like the bit about the end user myself.... capability...
> functionality.... can't be done on existing avionics architecture...
> Sounds familier to me....
>
> Cite please, where the evidence?.

USAF. Do your own Google.

>
>
> >Gee, he notes that the F-15 and F-16 faced the same kind of problems.
When I
> >pointed this out to you, you scoffed--but the famous Mr. Ogg (whoever he
is)
> >says it and you worship at his feet--amazing. And thanks for butressing
my
> >point.
>
> Take a good look at who he is...its at the beginning,

At the beginning of what? Your last post provided no site info, just
launches int a "Mr. Ogg says..."

> The difference is those systems have been fielded and used, the F-22
> is still in development and test (and not doing too well at the mo) So
> you now have an obsolete and flakey system, Hmm. spend money trying to
> rectify it or hide the fact till the new system arrives..

You keep coming up with the "obsolete" kitsch. Anybody else out there (or at
least anyone with *some* kind of credibility) claiming the F/A-22 is
"obsolete"?

> >
> >Nope again. Cost is a major concern, which is why the choice of the right
> >number of aircraft to procure is critical. Reliability is a key
concern--but
> >then again, reliability during the initial fielding phase is usually none
> >too great--witness the F-15 when it was first fielded. Where do you
purchase
> >your blinders--over the counter, or are they specially fitted?
> >
>
> Theres a difference between initial fielding problems and something
> that just can't be feilded in its present form.

Which is your claim. Apparently the USAF does not share your view, as they
are fielding the F/A-22--the first ones have already gone to the folks at
Tyndall. Odd how that system that "can't be fielded"...is being fielded. And
even non-USAF senior leaders support the program: "The F/A-22 Raptor will
deliver quantum air power improvements with great relevance in the Pacific
theater. Combining stealth, high speed, and precision weaponry, Raptor will
buy back battlespace and increase warfighting options for the joint force
commander. We need your support to fund and field this aircraft." ADM Thomas
Fargo, USPACOM, speech before HASC, March 31, 2004. Seems he thinks this
"obsolete" system is pretty neat and valuable--but you know more than he
does, right?

>
>
> >> The F-22 has JDAMS cleared for operation use, (something I wasn't
> >> aware of!, how long ago was it cleared for the F-22)
> >
> >Talk to the USAF; they are the ones saying it is indeed capable of
carrying
> >it. Not that this would be much of a surprise. And unlike you, I
understand
> >that the mating of JDAMS with a stealthy penetration platform like the
> >F/A-22 means increased lethality and increased survivability, not to
mention
> >versatility--kind of hard to have the F-117 switch from a pure strike
role
> >to taking out an air-to-air threat that pops up unexpectedly.
>
> They state its going to be one of its weapons, I couldn't find a
> reference that it had been cleared, I only found that dummies had
> been dropped, and the weapons bay had been enlarged to accomodate
> them...
>
> Perhaps you can find something....

"In addition, the F/A-22 has inherent ground attack capability, as it can
carry two 1,000-pound-class GBU-32 joint direct attack munitions (JDAM)
internally. The F/A-22 will also have provisions to carry other weapons in
the future." You'll note the difference in how they address *current* versus
future capabilities.

www.lmaeronautics.com/products/ combat_air/f-22/weapons.html

Or, as the USAF puts it: "Two AIM-9 Sidewinders; six AIM-120C Advanced
Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); one 20mm Gatling gun; and two,
1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)."

www.af.mil/airpower/features.asp

>
>
>
>http://lean.mit.edu/Events/workshops/files_public/PLN_032204_Handel_FA22Rap
tor.pdf
> >>
> >> Page eleven- 2.1 for the airframe 3.1 for the engines.
> >>
> >> This gives an overall score to the airframe development ie 1 lowest
> >> to 5 highest.
> >
> >Did you bother to read the entire slideshow, and what it is aimed at
> >accomplishing? Geeze, talk about taking things out of context... This is
NOT
> >a rating of the aircraft itself, but of the development *approach* and
> >methodology. Think of it as internal critical analysis--a good thing, by
the
> >way.
>
> Exactly right, the development approach!, did you note the score, or
> what that score actually meant?
>
> I tell you... 2.1 for the airframe equates to :-
>
> 2 = General awareness, informal approach deployed in a few areas with
> varying degrees of effectiveness and sustainment
>
> 3 = a systematic approach/methology deployed in various stages in
> most areas: facilitated with good metrics; good sustainment.
>
> You'll need level 4 to make real progress, or level 3 to get by...

No, you don't; stop trying to read stuff into it that is just not there. It
is an internal review of how they think they *are* doing (at present; note
the different "past" results), and how they can improve. You are
*******izing it to suit your own narrow-minded view.

>
> The engine has actually slipped from 3.2 in 2002 to 3.1 in 2003.
>
> >but the famous Mr. Ogg (whoever he is)
> >says it and you worship at his feet--amazing. And thanks for butressing
my
> >point.
>
> Rember were talking about two seperate things in service aircraft that
> have grown obsolete and in development aircraft that shouldn't be in
> the pickle there in right now.

And thanks again for mentioning that most aircraft development programs have
experienced similar development problems.

>
> BTW Mr Ogg was chief engineer for the F-22 Program for nearly a decade
> and now a director in the ASC, bio as follows:-
>
<snip *fascinating* bio sketch, but...>

Wonderful. Note he does not claim that the F/A-22 is "obsolete", nor does he
indicate it is incapable of ground attack operations, as you have done. So
your point would be...?

You really need to get off of your "Typhoon is wonderful in all regards, and
all US advanced aircraft are trash" kick; it is getting monotonous, and as
we have seen, you neither fully comprehend what these aircraft are capable
of ("What?! The F/A-22 *can* conduct precision attacks against ground
targets?! With JDAM?! Well, that *really* doesn't mean anything..."), nor
the nature of the normal development hurdles that modern aircraft have to
negotiate. You continue to bury your head in the sand when it is pointed out
to you that other past programs, now very successful indeed, have
demonstrated similar early fielding challenges. And to top it all off, you
have now told us that we "can't" field an aircraft...that is being fielded
even as you compose your next biased attack.

Brooks

>
> Cheers
> John Cook
>

John Cook

April 6th 04, 08:07 AM

>> 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.
;-)

>> The difference is those systems have been fielded and used, the F-22
>> is still in development and test (and not doing too well at the mo) So
>> you now have an obsolete and flakey system, Hmm. spend money trying to
>> rectify it or hide the fact till the new system arrives..
>
>You keep coming up with the "obsolete" kitsch. Anybody else out there (or at
>least anyone with *some* kind of credibility) claiming the F/A-22 is
>"obsolete

The avionics are obsolete, and apparently everyone is aware of it
apart from you...

>>
>> Theres a difference between initial fielding problems and something
>> that just can't be feilded in its present form.
>
>Which is your claim. Apparently the USAF does not share your view, as they
>are fielding the F/A-22--the first ones have already gone to the folks at
>Tyndall. Odd how that system that "can't be fielded"...is being fielded.

Very odd, The only reason I can find is someone is very scared of a
cancellation and is rushing these into semi-service.

>And
>even non-USAF senior leaders support the program: "The F/A-22 Raptor will
>deliver quantum air power improvements with great relevance in the Pacific
>theater. Combining stealth, high speed, and precision weaponry, Raptor will
>buy back battlespace and increase warfighting options for the joint force
>commander. We need your support to fund and field this aircraft." ADM Thomas
>Fargo, USPACOM, speech before HASC, March 31, 2004. Seems he thinks this
>"obsolete" system is pretty neat and valuable--but you know more than he
>does, right?

I've heard that all before, until they deliver that capability, its
just a speech, in fact if it were true then full rate production
would have already started, If what there saying is correct why hasn't
it started???, why does it need support to fund it??. it seems Mr
Fargo is drumming up support for it, I wonder why...?

>>
>>
>> >> The F-22 has JDAMS cleared for operation use, (something I wasn't
>> >> aware of!, how long ago was it cleared for the F-22)

>> They state its going to be one of its weapons, I couldn't find a
>> reference that it had been cleared, I only found that dummies had
>> been dropped, and the weapons bay had been enlarged to accomodate
>> them...
>>
>> Perhaps you can find something....
>
>"In addition, the F/A-22 has inherent ground attack capability, as it can
>carry two 1,000-pound-class GBU-32 joint direct attack munitions (JDAM)
>internally. The F/A-22 will also have provisions to carry other weapons in
>the future." You'll note the difference in how they address *current* versus
>future capabilities.
>
>www.lmaeronautics.com/products/ combat_air/f-22/weapons.html
>
>Or, as the USAF puts it: "Two AIM-9 Sidewinders; six AIM-120C Advanced
>Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); one 20mm Gatling gun; and two,
>1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)."
>
>www.af.mil/airpower/features.asp

There just saying that it will be used in the future...

Which means Its not cleared yet.... is it ;-),

I wonder why not, and where did you get the idea it had been cleared
for use or even tested....?

>Wonderful. Note he does not claim that the F/A-22 is "obsolete", nor does he
>indicate it is incapable of ground attack operations, as you have done. So
>your point would be...?

No-one here claimed the F-22 was obsolete, just the avionics, which
are to be replaced hopefully by 2007, now you tell me why they would
do such a thing to such a robust and upgradable system thats not yet
out of development, is it because they had some spare cash they wanted
to spend, and couldn't find anything else to spend it on.

>
>You really need to get off of your "Typhoon is wonderful in all regards,

I've never said Typhoon was wonderful in all regards, I know it has
several problems, and I'm willing to talk about them to without trying
to score points or blindly ignoring the bleeding obvious...

Which problem would you like to talk about?, just start another
thread.

The late and overbudget Pirate system, thats so expensive that not
all aircraft may be fitted with them?.

The DASS which is also expensive and only has rudimentary capability
eg chaff and flares for tranche 1.

The tranche 2 negotiations which are well overdue and will lead to a
production gap if not signed soon.

I'm aware of the problems, and it doest hurt to talk about them in a
rational manner.

>and
>all US advanced aircraft are trash" kick; it is getting monotonous, and as
>we have seen, you neither fully comprehend what these aircraft are capable
>of ("What?! The F/A-22 *can* conduct precision attacks against ground
>targets?! With JDAM?! Well, that *really* doesn't mean anything..."),
>

Show me one instance of it, or even a test flight.... 'rudimentary'
now seems like a compliment.

> nor
>the nature of the normal development hurdles that modern aircraft have to
>negotiate. You continue to bury your head in the sand when it is pointed out
>to you that other past programs, now very successful indeed, have
>demonstrated similar early fielding challenges. And to top it all off, you
>have now told us that we "can't" field an aircraft...that is being fielded
>even as you compose your next biased attack.

Fielding an aircraft takes more than just hooning around the sky, with
their cellphone* at the ready, these reported problems are not
fielding problems, they are development problems, big difference.

Unless they really get a move on in the next two months (and I mean
like never before in its development) it may well be cancelled despite
the grand speeches and promises of unmatched performance.

(*I read that a test pilot at Edwards AFB reportedly said that they
take cellphones aloft with them to be able to talk to the tower
when it BSOD on them.)

As your not very good with references or Cites etc. can anyone else
confirm JDAM is cleared for use on the F-22.

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

Kevin Brooks

April 6th 04, 03:23 PM

"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.

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.

> ;-)
>
>
> >> The difference is those systems have been fielded and used, the F-22
> >> is still in development and test (and not doing too well at the mo) So
> >> you now have an obsolete and flakey system, Hmm. spend money trying to
> >> rectify it or hide the fact till the new system arrives..
> >
> >You keep coming up with the "obsolete" kitsch. Anybody else out there (or
at
> >least anyone with *some* kind of credibility) claiming the F/A-22 is
> >"obsolete
>
> The avionics are obsolete, and apparently everyone is aware of it
> apart from you...

"Obsolete"? I don't think so, and you have been rather sparse in terms of
providing any other reputable source that describes the F/A-22 as
"obsolete".

>
> >>
> >> Theres a difference between initial fielding problems and something
> >> that just can't be feilded in its present form.
> >
> >Which is your claim. Apparently the USAF does not share your view, as
they
> >are fielding the F/A-22--the first ones have already gone to the folks at
> >Tyndall. Odd how that system that "can't be fielded"...is being fielded.
>
> Very odd, The only reason I can find is someone is very scared of a
> cancellation and is rushing these into semi-service.

LOL! First you claim they can't be fielded, now you are weaseling around it
when it is pointed out that it already *is* being fielded. Geeze.

>
> >And
> >even non-USAF senior leaders support the program: "The F/A-22 Raptor will
> >deliver quantum air power improvements with great relevance in the
Pacific
> >theater. Combining stealth, high speed, and precision weaponry, Raptor
will
> >buy back battlespace and increase warfighting options for the joint force
> >commander. We need your support to fund and field this aircraft." ADM
Thomas
> >Fargo, USPACOM, speech before HASC, March 31, 2004. Seems he thinks this
> >"obsolete" system is pretty neat and valuable--but you know more than he
> >does, right?
>
> I've heard that all before, until they deliver that capability, its
> just a speech, in fact if it were true then full rate production
> would have already started, If what there saying is correct why hasn't
> it started???, why does it need support to fund it??. it seems Mr
> Fargo is drumming up support for it, I wonder why...?

More whining? Yes, the F/A-22 is in production, even as your fervently seek
to besmirch it. It is getting ready to enter its operational test program in
the next couple of months IIRC. Production will continue while that is
underway. The question on the board now is how many we will produce, not
whether it will be produced--production aircraft have already been
delivered.

>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> The F-22 has JDAMS cleared for operation use, (something I wasn't
> >> >> aware of!, how long ago was it cleared for the F-22)
>
> >> They state its going to be one of its weapons, I couldn't find a
> >> reference that it had been cleared, I only found that dummies had
> >> been dropped, and the weapons bay had been enlarged to accomodate
> >> them...
> >>
> >> Perhaps you can find something....
> >
> >"In addition, the F/A-22 has inherent ground attack capability, as it can
> >carry two 1,000-pound-class GBU-32 joint direct attack munitions (JDAM)
> >internally. The F/A-22 will also have provisions to carry other weapons i
n
> >the future." You'll note the difference in how they address *current*
versus
> >future capabilities.
> >
> >www.lmaeronautics.com/products/ combat_air/f-22/weapons.html
> >
> >Or, as the USAF puts it: "Two AIM-9 Sidewinders; six AIM-120C Advanced
> >Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); one 20mm Gatling gun; and two,
> >1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)."
> >
> >www.af.mil/airpower/features.asp
>
> There just saying that it will be used in the future...
>
> Which means Its not cleared yet.... is it ;-),

Is that a simper that follows your habitual whine...?

>
> I wonder why not, and where did you get the idea it had been cleared
> for use or even tested....?

It is capable of carrying the JDAM. You want to argue that, go talk to the
USAF. personally, I put a hell of a lot more stock in what they say than I
do in your drivel.

>
> >Wonderful. Note he does not claim that the F/A-22 is "obsolete", nor does
he
> >indicate it is incapable of ground attack operations, as you have done.
So
> >your point would be...?
>
> No-one here claimed the F-22 was obsolete, just the avionics, which
> are to be replaced hopefully by 2007, now you tell me why they would
> do such a thing to such a robust and upgradable system thats not yet
> out of development, is it because they had some spare cash they wanted
> to spend, and couldn't find anything else to spend it on.

Yawnnn...you need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths. Are you done
whining yet?

>
>
> >
> >You really need to get off of your "Typhoon is wonderful in all regards,
>
> I've never said Typhoon was wonderful in all regards, I know it has
> several problems, and I'm willing to talk about them to without trying
> to score points or blindly ignoring the bleeding obvious...
>
> Which problem would you like to talk about?, just start another
> thread.
>
> The late and overbudget Pirate system, thats so expensive that not
> all aircraft may be fitted with them?.
>
> The DASS which is also expensive and only has rudimentary capability
> eg chaff and flares for tranche 1.
>
> The tranche 2 negotiations which are well overdue and will lead to a
> production gap if not signed soon.
>
> I'm aware of the problems, and it doest hurt to talk about them in a
> rational manner.
>
> >and
> >all US advanced aircraft are trash" kick; it is getting monotonous, and
as
> >we have seen, you neither fully comprehend what these aircraft are
capable
> >of ("What?! The F/A-22 *can* conduct precision attacks against ground
> >targets?! With JDAM?! Well, that *really* doesn't mean anything..."),
> >
>
> Show me one instance of it, or even a test flight.... 'rudimentary'
> now seems like a compliment.

More whining...argue it with the USAF.

>
> > nor
> >the nature of the normal development hurdles that modern aircraft have to
> >negotiate. You continue to bury your head in the sand when it is pointed
out
> >to you that other past programs, now very successful indeed, have
> >demonstrated similar early fielding challenges. And to top it all off,
you
> >have now told us that we "can't" field an aircraft...that is being
fielded
> >even as you compose your next biased attack.
>
> Fielding an aircraft takes more than just hooning around the sky, with
> their cellphone* at the ready, these reported problems are not
> fielding problems, they are development problems, big difference.
>
> Unless they really get a move on in the next two months (and I mean
> like never before in its development) it may well be cancelled despite
> the grand speeches and promises of unmatched performance.

It is being fielded NOW to the folks at Tyndall. You don't like that
fact--too bad.

You can have the last (negative) word in regards to the F/A-22; it has
become patently obvious that you can't see past your bias about it, or the
JSF. You can claim you don't have an anti-US aircraft bias all you want, but
your many posts critical of the F/A-22 and F-35 (when was the last time you
had something positive to say about either?), concurrent to your "everybody
should buy Typhoon" stuff kind of points the way towards reality. Have a
great day.

Brooks

>
>
> (*I read that a test pilot at Edwards AFB reportedly said that they
> take cellphones aloft with them to be able to talk to the tower
> when it BSOD on them.)
>
> As your not very good with references or Cites etc. can anyone else
> confirm JDAM is cleared for use on the F-22.
>
> 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

Harry Andreas

April 6th 04, 05:05 PM

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 disclosure: 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 MX was the military version that had the 33rd bit for security, which
was unique among the other processors and is one of the reasons the
i960 was selected in the first place.

(rest of off-topic stuff snipped)

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Harry Andreas

April 6th 04, 05:10 PM

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.

SAR updates to pre-programmed INS settings have been used since the
early 90's to improve the accuracy of GPS aided munitions.

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.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Harry Andreas

April 6th 04, 05:20 PM

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.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Paul J. Adam

April 6th 04, 06:22 PM

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 MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Harry Andreas

April 6th 04, 06:28 PM

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

Tarver Engineering

April 6th 04, 06:30 PM

"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.

Tarver Engineering

April 6th 04, 06:37 PM

"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 disclosure: 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>

Harry Andreas

April 6th 04, 06:38 PM

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

Tarver Engineering

April 6th 04, 06:38 PM

Harry Andreas

April 6th 04, 06:51 PM

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

Tarver Engineering

April 6th 04, 06:53 PM

"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.

Tarver Engineering

April 6th 04, 07:05 PM

"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.

Kevin Brooks

April 6th 04, 07:19 PM

"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/crosslink/summer2002/05.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

Kevin Brooks

April 6th 04, 07:27 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> 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?

Ask the USAF. I trust them a bit further in this regard than I do the peanut
gallery. 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. Let's see--software is in
place, dummy tests have been conducted...yep, seems like it is indeed
capable of delivering the puppy. 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.

Brooks

Tarver Engineering

April 6th 04, 09:51 PM

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Handheld GPS on the dash?

John R Weiss

April 6th 04, 09:54 PM

> Uhmmm...Harry, what GPS guided munitions were in service during the "early
> 90's"?

SLAM. OT&E was courtesy of Desert Storm.

Harry Andreas

April 6th 04, 10:15 PM

In article >, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

> "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 disclosure: 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>

Well John, I was there. Funny, I didn't see you name listed on the IPT.
Mine was.

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. 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.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Tarver Engineering

April 6th 04, 10:33 PM

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

> 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.

Harry Andreas

April 6th 04, 10:39 PM

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.

Ummm, let me check....yep, one of my radars is on the F/A-18E/F, and it
uses COTS parts. Oh, and the new AESA radar is on the F/A-18E/F, and it
uses COTS parts, too.
Digging a little deeper; yep, I worked on the F-14D's APG-71 and that
one uses Mil-spec parts.
And, of course, I worked on ATF and F-22 back in the day.
And JSF currently.

You're trying to teach me what exactly?

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.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Harry Andreas

April 6th 04, 10:50 PM

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/crosslink/summer2002/05.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.

> > 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?

> > 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) 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.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Paul J. Adam

April 6th 04, 10:54 PM

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 elsewhere: 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?

I know this for sure: all "capable" means is "has not been proved
impossible".

>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.

"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".

>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 MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

April 6th 04, 10:58 PM

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"?

>> 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)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Harry Andreas

April 6th 04, 11:06 PM

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.

>
> > 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.
BTW, you're giving me way too much credit, but thanks anyway. I was part
of a very large multi-discliplinary team that fulfilled the contract design
parameters.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Tarver Engineering

April 6th 04, 11:06 PM

"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.

Tarver Engineering

April 6th 04, 11:20 PM

"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>

Kevin Brooks

April 7th 04, 12:25 AM

"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
>

Kevin Brooks

April 7th 04, 12:45 AM

"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/crosslink/summer2002/05.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:

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.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

Kevin Brooks

April 7th 04, 12:58 AM

"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 elsewhere: 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 sure: 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 MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Kevin Brooks

April 7th 04, 01:06 AM

"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

John Cook

April 7th 04, 08:21 AM

> 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/highmach/2003/oct9/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

John Cook

April 7th 04, 08:39 AM

>
>> >> 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

John Cook

April 7th 04, 08:45 AM

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

Tarver Engineering

April 7th 04, 04:53 PM

"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)

Paul J. Adam

April 7th 04, 07:28 PM

In message >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> "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.

It absorbed various Navy and USAF projects like GAM and IAM, however
(GAM was flying captive-carry in 1989, IIRC)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Kevin Brooks

April 7th 04, 08:05 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Kevin Brooks
> > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "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.
>
> It absorbed various Navy and USAF projects like GAM and IAM, however
> (GAM was flying captive-carry in 1989, IIRC)

Odd--nothing I have found via Google indicates GAM being around (in any
form) before about 1996 at the earliest, and IIRC 1998 was when it was
introduced to the B-2 force.

Brooks

Paul J. Adam

April 7th 04, 11:40 PM

In message >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> 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.

"The USAF who will fly and fight the aircraft", or "the USAF press
releases and contractual acceptance schedules"? Big difference.

>> I know this for sure: all "capable" means is "has not been proved
>> impossible".
>
>I don't think so. Must be Brit-speak, huh?

British and several other nations, including the US.

>> 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?

I have. Release certification and clearance to carry and drop the live
weapon.

So far all that's been published is some wind-tunnel model work. Nowhere
near actual operational utility.

That's "capable" according to some contracts: but for actual real-world
utility, unless you can persuade the enemy to occupy the relevant
wind-tunnel right under the model aircraft it's not much use.

>> "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-

Where would you suggest?

>-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.

Been there, done that, seen the pencil-whipping. Give me a single F/A-22
JDAM warshot drop. There must be _some_ news article _somewhere_ to
report an event like that.

Or is it "fully operational" except that the first actual live-fire test
will be in combat? Yeah, *that* has worked really well in the past.

>That you are not is not going to cause me any
>loss of sleep, OK Paul?

I'm not paying for the 'A' designator and it's not my military trusting
that 'capability' will mean 'can actually put warheads on target'.

Pause and think, Kevin. The F-22 is, airframe versus airframe, the best
fighter in the world. But that tells you nothing about its air-to-ground
capability, and the notional ability to fit munitions into internal bays
means very little if you have not thoroughly tested the ability to get
the munitions _out_ of those bays (a thousand-pound blivet that doesn't
fully separate can thoroughly wreck a modern fighter) even before you
worry about presetting and arming.

You think it's easy and already handled? Then you're not paying
attention.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

April 7th 04, 11:50 PM

In message >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> It absorbed various Navy and USAF projects like GAM and IAM, however
>> (GAM was flying captive-carry in 1989, IIRC)
>
>Odd--nothing I have found via Google indicates GAM being around (in any
>form) before about 1996 at the earliest, and IIRC 1998 was when it was
>introduced to the B-2 force.

AIWS kicked off in March 1987: IAM went public in 1988 and in 1991
Friedman was speculating about how its accuracy could be improved if GPS
were used as a complement to inertial guidance. (IAM, not GAM, was
flying before 1991 - my mistake)

IAM definitely wants a good targeting sensor, though: GPS will fly to a
gridref, IAM didn't care where 'here' or 'there' is but started from
launch and went where it was told. Less dependence on satellite
navigation, but much more need for the launch aircraft to tell the
weapon "you are now HERE, and your target is HERE+INCREMENT, go kill!".

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Harry Andreas

April 8th 04, 01:23 AM

In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

> > 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.
>

Sorry if I was not more clear. My statement was meant to cast aspersion
on the statement that SAR is somehow needed, so I was actually agreeing
with you.

> > > > 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.

Say, rather the mid 90's. I know that work was being done earlier, but the
engineering world usually predates the operational world by quite a lot.
Sometimes it's hard to keep straight.

> > > > 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:

My statement is intended to counter your statement that
"dramatic improvement of JDAMS appears to be dependent upon use of a
secondary IR imaging"
Dramatic improvement does not depend upon IR imaging if you have
a high accuracy SAR aboard.

> > > (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.

Remember that the further away you are, the more range error you accumulate.
If you want a high accuracy solution, you need either a very high powered
SAR system (more than an E-8) or need to be closer. Closer brings it's
own jepardy.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Paul F Austin

April 8th 04, 01:47 AM

"Harry Andreas" wrote
> "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.
>
> Ummm, let me check....yep, one of my radars is on the F/A-18E/F, and it
> uses COTS parts. Oh, and the new AESA radar is on the F/A-18E/F, and it
> uses COTS parts, too.
> Digging a little deeper; yep, I worked on the F-14D's APG-71 and that
> one uses Mil-spec parts.
> And, of course, I worked on ATF and F-22 back in the day.
> And JSF currently.
>
> You're trying to teach me what exactly?
>
> 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.

I doubt we could build AESA and associated
systems_without_commercial-heritage parts. The USG just doesn't have that
kind of money. My company builds fiber-optic and other high speed serial
networks for avionics and space and there is no way to build them without
commercial heritage Serializer-Deserializers and switch chips as an example.
The die are repackaged and screened to meet military quality requirements
but we live with the temperature limits. The reality of the relative size of
the commercial semiconductor industry and the military electronics
business-guarantees-that most die used in military systems will be built on
fab lines whose primary business is the commercial market.

Tarver Engineering

April 8th 04, 02:12 AM

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Harry Andreas" wrote
> > "Tarver Engineering" wrote:

> >
> > 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.
>
> I doubt we could build AESA and associated
> systems_without_commercial-heritage parts. The USG just doesn't have that
> kind of money. My company builds fiber-optic and other high speed serial
> networks for avionics and space and there is no way to build them without
> commercial heritage Serializer-Deserializers and switch chips as an
example.
> The die are repackaged and screened to meet military quality requirements
> but we live with the temperature limits. The reality of the relative size
of
> the commercial semiconductor industry and the military electronics
> business-guarantees-that most die used in military systems will be built
on
> fab lines whose primary business is the commercial market.

Mil-spec 883 does it all these days.

Kevin Brooks

April 8th 04, 03:51 AM

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
>
> > > 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.
> >
>
> Sorry if I was not more clear. My statement was meant to cast aspersion
> on the statement that SAR is somehow needed, so I was actually agreeing
> with you.
>
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> Say, rather the mid 90's. I know that work was being done earlier, but the
> engineering world usually predates the operational world by quite a lot.
> Sometimes it's hard to keep straight.
>
> > > > > 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:
>
> My statement is intended to counter your statement that
> "dramatic improvement of JDAMS appears to be dependent upon use of a
> secondary IR imaging"
> Dramatic improvement does not depend upon IR imaging if you have
> a high accuracy SAR aboard.

Which is why I had the *or* in the original statement, mentioning AMSTE,
which does indeed use radar. DAMASK and AMSTE appear to offer "dramatically
improved" accuracy, IMO (to the point that the latter can engage a mobile
target). Use of SAR with "vanilla" JDAMS does improve the accuracy, but I am
not sure if that level of improvment merits the moniker "dramatic"--the
JDAMS without SAR but with a decent INS/GPS update prior to release
apparently offers pretty good accuracy as is.

>
>
> > > > (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.
>
> Remember that the further away you are, the more range error you
accumulate.
> If you want a high accuracy solution, you need either a very high powered
> SAR system (more than an E-8) or need to be closer. Closer brings it's
> own jepardy.

Eh? The E-8 is operating at that range--you think that the range error of
the E-8's ISAR itself increases significantly through the depth of its
coverage? The platform doing the weapons release would have to be about on
top of the target. This configuration, using AMSTE, was credited with a
successful strike in its first test drop, from what I have read. Of interest
would be how much the E-8 "sees"--can it also pick up the aircraft dropping
the munition (regular JDAM in this case)(as I believe the follow-on E-10
will be able to do)? If so, then it would appear to offer the dropping
aircraft the same accuracy enhancement that its own SAR would afford--the
E-8 would have the target and the delivery platform in the same frame of
reference, so any ranging error would be largely negated?

Brooks

>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

Kevin Brooks

April 8th 04, 03:59 AM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Kevin Brooks
> > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> 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.
>
> "The USAF who will fly and fight the aircraft", or "the USAF press
> releases and contractual acceptance schedules"? Big difference.

In your mind.

>
> >> I know this for sure: all "capable" means is "has not been proved
> >> impossible".
> >
> >I don't think so. Must be Brit-speak, huh?
>
> British and several other nations, including the US.

I don't think so.

>
> >> 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?
>
> I have. Release certification and clearance to carry and drop the live
> weapon.

Good on you--you go keep those USAF types in line, Paul; God only knows how
we have managed to muddle through thus far without your editorial input to
the folks who fly these things and fight in them.

>
> So far all that's been published is some wind-tunnel model work. Nowhere
> near actual operational utility.

Tell it to the USAF. Go ahead--tell them they just HAVE to delete any
reference to the F/A-22 being JDAM capable when it enters front-line service
'cause you say so...

>
>
> That's "capable" according to some contracts: but for actual real-world
> utility, unless you can persuade the enemy to occupy the relevant
> wind-tunnel right under the model aircraft it's not much use.
>
> >> "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-
>
> Where would you suggest?

Do a google.

>
> >-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.
>
> Been there, done that, seen the pencil-whipping. Give me a single F/A-22
> JDAM warshot drop. There must be _some_ news article _somewhere_ to
> report an event like that.
>
> Or is it "fully operational" except that the first actual live-fire test
> will be in combat? Yeah, *that* has worked really well in the past.

Note that it has yet to enter into front-line combat unit service; those
fielded thus far are either at Edwards or joining the conversion/opeval unit
at Tyndall.

>
> >That you are not is not going to cause me any
> >loss of sleep, OK Paul?
>
> I'm not paying for the 'A' designator and it's not my military trusting
> that 'capability' will mean 'can actually put warheads on target'.

Who really cares at this point. USAF says it will be JDAM capable when it
enters operational service--you say it won't be. Most folks will accept the
USAF version unless you can prove they are lying. Kind of hard for you to do
at this point.

Brooks

>
> Pause and think, Kevin. The F-22 is, airframe versus airframe, the best
> fighter in the world. But that tells you nothing about its air-to-ground
> capability, and the notional ability to fit munitions into internal bays
> means very little if you have not thoroughly tested the ability to get
> the munitions _out_ of those bays (a thousand-pound blivet that doesn't
> fully separate can thoroughly wreck a modern fighter) even before you
> worry about presetting and arming.
>
> You think it's easy and already handled? Then you're not paying
> attention.
>
> --
> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Kevin Brooks

April 8th 04, 04:01 AM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Kevin Brooks
> > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> It absorbed various Navy and USAF projects like GAM and IAM, however
> >> (GAM was flying captive-carry in 1989, IIRC)
> >
> >Odd--nothing I have found via Google indicates GAM being around (in any
> >form) before about 1996 at the earliest, and IIRC 1998 was when it was
> >introduced to the B-2 force.
>
> AIWS kicked off in March 1987: IAM went public in 1988 and in 1991
> Friedman was speculating about how its accuracy could be improved if GPS
> were used as a complement to inertial guidance. (IAM, not GAM, was
> flying before 1991 - my mistake)
>
> IAM definitely wants a good targeting sensor, though: GPS will fly to a
> gridref, IAM didn't care where 'here' or 'there' is but started from
> launch and went where it was told. Less dependence on satellite
> navigation, but much more need for the launch aircraft to tell the
> weapon "you are now HERE, and your target is HERE+INCREMENT, go kill!".

So we are back to the fact that we have not seen any GPS guided rounds
(minus that SLAM sort-of-GPS-guided-but-with-a-separate-terminal-seeker)
flying around until the latter part of the nineties.

Brooks

>
> --
> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

April 8th 04, 11:08 AM

In message >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> AIWS kicked off in March 1987: IAM went public in 1988 and in 1991
>> Friedman was speculating about how its accuracy could be improved if GPS
>> were used as a complement to inertial guidance. (IAM, not GAM, was
>> flying before 1991 - my mistake)

>So we are back to the fact that we have not seen any GPS guided rounds
>(minus that SLAM sort-of-GPS-guided-but-with-a-separate-terminal-seeker)
>flying around until the latter part of the nineties.

Fielded in 1996 (GAM) and production hardware delivered in 1998 (JDAM)
means flying for a few years before that.

Flight trials of the GPS Guidance Package for JDAM started in 1993 as
far as I can tell (INTEGRATED INS/GPS TAKES OFF IN THE US, INTERNATIONAL
DEFENSE REVIEW, February 1993)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

April 8th 04, 11:18 AM

In message >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> "The USAF who will fly and fight the aircraft", or "the USAF press
>> releases and contractual acceptance schedules"? Big difference.
>
>In your mind.

And to the operators.

>> British and several other nations, including the US.
>
>I don't think so.

Based on what experience? Is this your informed opinion from experience
in the field, or a knee-jerk reflex?

>> I have. Release certification and clearance to carry and drop the live
>> weapon.
>
>Good on you--you go keep those USAF types in line, Paul; God only knows how
>we have managed to muddle through thus far without your editorial input to
>the folks who fly these things and fight in them.

So, when have they flown a warshot, or released even an inert training
round? Nothing published, nothing announced that I can find: just some
scale model wind-tunnel work.

That's not "editorial input", that's reality.

>> So far all that's been published is some wind-tunnel model work. Nowhere
>> near actual operational utility.
>
>Tell it to the USAF. Go ahead--tell them they just HAVE to delete any
>reference to the F/A-22 being JDAM capable when it enters front-line service
>'cause you say so...

Why? It's an accepted convention that "capable" means "should be able to
accept once there's time and money to get the clearances". That you're
spinning that into a complete operational clearance is your error of
understanding, not mine.

>> Been there, done that, seen the pencil-whipping. Give me a single F/A-22
>> JDAM warshot drop. There must be _some_ news article _somewhere_ to
>> report an event like that.
>>
>> Or is it "fully operational" except that the first actual live-fire test
>> will be in combat? Yeah, *that* has worked really well in the past.
>
>Note that it has yet to enter into front-line combat unit service; those
>fielded thus far are either at Edwards or joining the conversion/opeval unit
>at Tyndall.

In other words, again, "capable" doesn't actually mean "cleared to carry
and use".

>> I'm not paying for the 'A' designator and it's not my military trusting
>> that 'capability' will mean 'can actually put warheads on target'.
>
>Who really cares at this point.

The pilots and planners might have some views on the subject.

>USAF says it will be JDAM capable when it
>enters operational service--you say it won't be.

It's "capable" now, it just hasn't been reported as cleared to carry and
use the weapon.

Don't you understand the difference?

"Capable" means the weapon should fit and nobody can see any good reason
why it can't be persuaded to work safely.

"Cleared" means it's been tested and confirmed that the weapon and its
interfaces fits, remains secure through the flight envelope, and can be
safely released (and jettisoned) without getting hung up or recontacting
the airframe.

>Most folks will accept the
>USAF version unless you can prove they are lying.

You do realise that both versions can be correct? It certainly *should*
be "capable" but that tells you very little about its actual ability to
deliver warshots.

>Kind of hard for you to do
>at this point.

Never once claimed they were lying, just that they haven't done (for
example) store separation tests yet.

Airframe 4003/91-4003 is intended to carry out the JDAM integration
testing: point being "intended", meaning that testing lies in the future
rather than the past.

Or to quote John Manclark, director of test and evaluation at US Air
Force Headquarters:
"IOT&E exercises will assess a four-ship employment of Raptors in likely
combat scenario. The 31-week evaluation will focus on four key
capabilities: global deployment; effectiveness in counter-air missions;
survivability in an air-to-air and surface-to-air environment; and
sortie-generation. It will culminate in a sortie surge demonstration.

IOT&E will identify areas for improvement before the aircraft achieves
its initial operational capability milestone that is expected before the
end of 2005. Before IOC, the service will conduct follow-on operational
test and evaluation to validate JDAM release from the Raptor."

Again, the F-22 is 'capable' - just not certified or cleared yet. That's
not my opinion, that's a current statement from the USAF.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Kevin Brooks

April 8th 04, 01:58 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Kevin Brooks
> > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> AIWS kicked off in March 1987: IAM went public in 1988 and in 1991
> >> Friedman was speculating about how its accuracy could be improved if
GPS
> >> were used as a complement to inertial guidance. (IAM, not GAM, was
> >> flying before 1991 - my mistake)
>
> >So we are back to the fact that we have not seen any GPS guided rounds
> >(minus that SLAM sort-of-GPS-guided-but-with-a-separate-terminal-seeker)
> >flying around until the latter part of the nineties.
>
> Fielded in 1996 (GAM) and production hardware delivered in 1998 (JDAM)
> means flying for a few years before that.
>
> Flight trials of the GPS Guidance Package for JDAM started in 1993 as
> far as I can tell (INTEGRATED INS/GPS TAKES OFF IN THE US, INTERNATIONAL
> DEFENSE REVIEW, February 1993)

But gee, Paul, if you can't show, on the web, where there were by-golly
*release* trials, etc., at that time, then you have...nothing! They might as
well not exist! That is your argument elsewhere, right?

Brooks

>
>
> --
> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

April 8th 04, 05:13 PM

In message >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> Flight trials of the GPS Guidance Package for JDAM started in 1993 as
>> far as I can tell (INTEGRATED INS/GPS TAKES OFF IN THE US, INTERNATIONAL
>> DEFENSE REVIEW, February 1993)
>
>But gee, Paul, if you can't show, on the web, where there were by-golly
>*release* trials, etc., at that time, then you have...nothing! They might as
>well not exist! That is your argument elsewhere, right?

No.

Development of a weapon's sensor requires captive-carry flight early in
development, with carriage and release trials of the all-up round later.
The contention was that GPS-aided weapons weren't flying until late last
decade: in fact development work and flight trials of the guidance unit
started about five years before that, leading to fielded weapons by 1997
or so.

However, integration of a weapon onto an aircraft isn't complete until
you've demonstrated fit, function and safe separation, and got whoever
your equivalent of DOSG is to certify it fit for live carriage.

Different discussions, different criteria.

At this rate I'm going to have to charge you for lessons.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Harry Andreas

April 8th 04, 06:14 PM

In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

> Eh? The E-8 is operating at that range--you think that the range error of
> the E-8's ISAR itself increases significantly through the depth of its
> coverage? The platform doing the weapons release would have to be about on
> top of the target. This configuration, using AMSTE, was credited with a
> successful strike in its first test drop, from what I have read.

What weapon was used? A 2000lb bomb with it's large blast radius is easy
to use to claim a kill. Doing the same thing with the 500 lb version is much
more difficult and requires higher accuracy and better systems.
See the point? The reason for developing AMSTE and other systems of the
type is to use smaller weapons so more can be carried, or the a/c has longer
range. That requires the development of high accuracy GPS, INS, and
targeting systems.
It's like deer hunting. If you're a really expert shot you can use a .223 and
take head or spine shots. If you're not so good you use a cannon and try
to hit him wherever you can. (not good sportsmanship though)

> Of interest
> would be how much the E-8 "sees"--can it also pick up the aircraft dropping
> the munition (regular JDAM in this case)(as I believe the follow-on E-10
> will be able to do)? If so, then it would appear to offer the dropping
> aircraft the same accuracy enhancement that its own SAR would afford--the
> E-8 would have the target and the delivery platform in the same frame of
> reference, so any ranging error would be largely negated?

Seeing something is not good enough for targeting.
Resolution matters, and resolution is linear with distance.

There are a lot of variables to consider, and frankly, due to my job,
I'm not comfortable running through the whole thing in an open forum.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Kevin Brooks

April 8th 04, 09:43 PM

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
>
> > Eh? The E-8 is operating at that range--you think that the range error
of
> > the E-8's ISAR itself increases significantly through the depth of its
> > coverage? The platform doing the weapons release would have to be about
on
> > top of the target. This configuration, using AMSTE, was credited with a
> > successful strike in its first test drop, from what I have read.
>
> What weapon was used? A 2000lb bomb with it's large blast radius is easy
> to use to claim a kill. Doing the same thing with the 500 lb version is
much
> more difficult and requires higher accuracy and better systems.
> See the point? The reason for developing AMSTE and other systems of the
> type is to use smaller weapons so more can be carried, or the a/c has
longer
> range. That requires the development of high accuracy GPS, INS, and
> targeting systems.

I'd think a three meter miss would likely be good enough for the 500 pound
variant; an inert 2000 pounder achieved that level of accuracy in a test
with a single E-8 providing the targeting fix:

"In the July 24 test, an Air Force E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack
Radar System (Joint STARS) provided target data to an F-16 equipped with an
inert, 2,000-pound, seeker-less, data link-equipped JDAM. The F-16, flying
at 20,000 feet, released the weapon nearly six miles away from the target.
Joint STARS directed the JDAM to a point where it engaged the truck, which
was traveling at 23 mph, shortly after the truck passed another vehicle at
an intersection. The weapon struck within three meters of the target, well
inside the lethal zone of a live JDAM."
www.capitol.northgrum.com/press_releases/ ngpress081203.html

Using two separate SAR inputs (one from an E-8 operating some one hundred
klicks away, the other from a JSF radar mounted on a test airframe some
thirty-five klicks distant), a 2000 pound live munition acheived a direct
hit on a moving M60 MBT target in a cluttered environment:

www.spacedaily.com/news/gps-03zzh.html

Av leak indicates that the reason for using the two radars is not related to
ranging problems:

"The reason Amste uses two radars is that Ground Moving Target Indication
Radars produce very accurate range estimates, but less precise estimates in
azimuth. By overlaying two simultaneous radar observations, a process called
bi-lateration, accuracy of azimuth is improved."
www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/ awst/20021202/avi_stor.htm

And I disagree with you as to why AMSTE was developed. While it will allow
the use of smaller weapons, it mainly was developed to give JDAM a
capability against moving targets, which the vanilla JDAM does not really
have.

> It's like deer hunting. If you're a really expert shot you can use a .223
and
> take head or spine shots. If you're not so good you use a cannon and try
> to hit him wherever you can. (not good sportsmanship though)

No, in this case the program is designed to give you an assurance of hitting
and killing a running deer--while the vanilla approach is more like having
your rifle set in a fixed mount which is fine for killing Bambi while she is
motionless but not-so-fine for killing her while she meanders around or
bounds for cover.

>
> > Of interest
> > would be how much the E-8 "sees"--can it also pick up the aircraft
dropping
> > the munition (regular JDAM in this case)(as I believe the follow-on E-10
> > will be able to do)? If so, then it would appear to offer the dropping
> > aircraft the same accuracy enhancement that its own SAR would
afford--the
> > E-8 would have the target and the delivery platform in the same frame of
> > reference, so any ranging error would be largely negated?
>
>
> Seeing something is not good enough for targeting.
> Resolution matters, and resolution is linear with distance.

Seems to have worked OK during that E-8 only test. I believe that Av leak
source indicates the resuloution on the E-8 as is is some 12 feet, and the
folks at Northrup have supposedly tweaked it a bit via the software to have
an even lower resolution.

Brooks

>
> There are a lot of variables to consider, and frankly, due to my job,
> I'm not comfortable running through the whole thing in an open forum.
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

John Cook

April 8th 04, 11:31 PM

Call me an old cynic

But it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see a news release (in
the next week or so) about F/A-22 and JDAMs testing from the USAF....

Now would't that be completly froody!!.

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

Peter Stickney

April 9th 04, 01:41 AM

In article >,
John Cook > writes:
> 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.

Well, my German's about as rust as you can get, and still order Beer,
but what I make of the above is that he's commenting on the high level
of integration of ancilliary systems, and that it's tough for
Third-Party (Not on the System Prime) team to integrate their stuff
into the aircraft. I don't read "unten telefonieren" as Cell Phone
though. In context, and allowing for what appears to be a bit of
circular translation, it's more like a "backup voice radio" than
anythig else. Which could be anything from a standard UHF/VHF set in
the panel to a handheld in the Pilot's Pubs Bag. (Which is pretty
much the norm - when I've been flying things that need a radio, I
always bring a handheld, just in case, and whe my brother's off in his
767, he's got a handheld in his Jepp Case. (Along with a Maglite, the
appropriate sectionals, etc.) Which would just be prudent.

Think about it - in this context, an Aviation Band transceiver makes
much more sense than a cell phone.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

sid

April 9th 04, 02:12 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
>
> Eh? The E-8 is operating at that range--you think that the range error of
> the E-8's ISAR itself increases significantly through the depth of its
> coverage? The platform doing the weapons release would have to be about on
> top of the target. This configuration, using AMSTE, was credited with a
> successful strike in its first test drop, from what I have read. Of interest
> would be how much the E-8 "sees"--can it also pick up the aircraft dropping
> the munition (regular JDAM in this case)(as I believe the follow-on E-10
> will be able to do)? If so, then it would appear to offer the dropping
> aircraft the same accuracy enhancement that its own SAR would afford--the
> E-8 would have the target and the delivery platform in the same frame of
> reference, so any ranging error would be largely negated?
>
> Brooks
>
You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assets
in a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Meanwhile, suppliers to potential adversaries are realizing a market
to counter tactics you are postulating...
http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/paris/paris_03/pd1agatpg85.html
"If used on a long-range missile airframe, the ARGS-PD could give an
opposing air force the ability to take out strategic targets at
distances outside of the normal interception envelopes of U.S. or
other NATO fighters. Boeing E-3 AWACS or E-8 JSTARS aircraft–platforms
that U.S. forces depend heavily upon in time of conflict–would be
vulnerable as never before."

The long range missle airframes are in development as well, despite
your
"facts(?)"...
"Russian guided-weapons builder Novator is continuing to work, albeit
slowly, on an ultralong-range air-to-air missile, with a version on
offer for export to a select customer set.
Designated article 172, the weapon was included on a model of the
Su-35 derivative of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker, on display during the
Dubai air show.

Ground based threats also exist and are proliferating as well. Imagine
a cagey foe with some of these puppies who take real umbrage to
emitting aircraft wishing to do them harm...
http://in.news.yahoo.com/031020/43/28nkk.html
"Islamabad, Oct 20 (IANS) A Chinese missile termed an 'AWACS killer'
is to play a key role in Pakistan's strategy to counter the airborne
Phalcon radars that India is acquiring, media reports said Monday."

So which is it brooks? Either C4ISR assets are *never* put in harms
way? Or will we use them in hot tactical scenarios to target
ordanance?

Your "facts(?)" are mutually exclusive here.

Henry J Cobb

April 9th 04, 02:52 AM

sid wrote:
> You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
> saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
> ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
> "The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
> assets
> in a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Naw, the F/A-22s will be the bomb droppers with Super Hornets providing
targetting and air to air cover and Growlers doing the jamming.

-HJC

Kevin Brooks

April 9th 04, 04:48 AM

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> sid wrote:
> > You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
> > saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
> > ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
> > "The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
> > assets
> > in a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."
>
> Naw, the F/A-22s will be the bomb droppers with Super Hornets providing
> targetting and air to air cover and Growlers doing the jamming.

Henry, how on earth can you be a big fan of the Super Bug, with all of its
shortcomings? You don't like the F/A-22, you don't like the F-35, you
ridicule the USAF in general...yet you think the Super Bug is the creme de
la creme? It'd take three tankers to keep the Bugs within radio range of the
F/A-22...

And the gent (mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the
bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff
distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8, which
gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of the
threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform this
kind of support).

Brooks

>
> -HJC
>

Henry J Cobb

April 9th 04, 05:25 AM

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> Henry, how on earth can you be a big fan of the Super Bug, with all of its
> shortcomings? You don't like the F/A-22, you don't like the F-35, you

I like the F-35.

> ridicule the USAF in general...yet you think the Super Bug is the creme de
> la creme? It'd take three tankers to keep the Bugs within radio range of the
> F/A-22...

Given that your jammer options are EB-52 or G-18, who you gonna call?

-HJC

John Cook

April 9th 04, 06:15 AM

My rather poor translation went something like this

>> 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.

Test Pilot: Given the timeframe - when considering that the first
flight was in 1990, have now already lost 3-4 years.

>>Und das was ich sehe und was ich höre...

And from what I see and hear...

>> Letzten Sommer war ich in Edwards, wo wir Probeflüge gemacht haben für
>> unser Helmdisplay in einer F-16.

last summer I was in Edwards, where I was test flying a helmet
displays for the F-16's

>>Und da haben die Amerikaner so in
>> bisschen über Raptor gesprochen.

and there the Americans spoke a little about the Raptor.

>> Und die müssen extreme Probleme
>> haben.

and they must have extreme problems

>> Die haben halt in das Flugzeug alles integriert über einen
>> einzigen Computer

They have halts in the aircrafts fully intergrated main computer

>> - da ist so ein riesen Computer drinnen der ausser
>> Flugsteuerung eigentlich alles macht.

There is a large computer inside which controls everything except the
flight controls.

>>Und da bin ich eigentlich sehr
>> froh über unsere Avionikarchitektur. In diese "fünf Familien" ist sehr
>> viel Redundanz eingebaut.
And there I'm pleased with our (different) avionic architecture,its
split into five familiys with lots of redundency built in.

>>Wenn uns etwas ausfällt, dann übernimmt ein
>> anderer Computer die wesentlichen Funktionen des defekten Systems.
If ours fails then another computer takes over the major fuctions of
that defective system.

>> Die Amerikaner haben halt das Problem,
>>dass wen dieser Computer
>> abstürzt oder Fehler hat, dann geht alles unter - inklusive
>> Kommunikation, Navigation und allem.
The Amercans have to stop the problem. that when there computer fails
or (software) errors, every thing goes down inclusive of
Communications, Navigation, everything.

>>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

The pilots have be told they have inserted a device in the cockpit so
that the pilot can telephone ( or Communicate) when nothings working.

>>. Da muss ich sagen, was wir bei uns haben ist ein serienreifes
>> Flugzeug und in USA ist das immer noch im Prototypenstadium.

There I must say, what we have with us is a series ready airplane and
in the USA are still in the prototype stage.

>Well, my German's about as rust as you can get, and still order Beer,
>but what I make of the above is that he's commenting on the high level
>of integration of ancilliary systems, and that it's tough for
>Third-Party (Not on the System Prime) team to integrate their stuff
>into the aircraft. I don't read "unten telefonieren" as Cell Phone
>though. In context, and allowing for what appears to be a bit of
>circular translation, it's more like a "backup voice radio" than
>anythig else. Which could be anything from a standard UHF/VHF set in
>the panel to a handheld in the Pilot's Pubs Bag. (Which is pretty
>much the norm - when I've been flying things that need a radio, I
>always bring a handheld, just in case, and whe my brother's off in his
>767, he's got a handheld in his Jepp Case. (Along with a Maglite, the
>appropriate sectionals, etc.) Which would just be prudent.
>
>Think about it - in this context, an Aviation Band transceiver makes
>much more sense than a cell phone.

Ah, that said - Cell phones are nice and small:-), I really have
trouble with some German colloquial sayings and translating it into
English, one classic example of English to German springs to mind
"out of sight ,out of mind" got translated to "invisible maniac"

Thanks for your help.

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

Gernot Hassenpflug

April 9th 04, 07:16 AM

John Cook > writes:

> My rather poor translation went something like this

a few small corection to clarify... your translation is good!

>>> Und die müssen extreme Probleme
>>> haben.
>
and they must be experiencing some serious problems

>>> Die haben halt in das Flugzeug alles integriert über einen
>>> einzigen Computer

They've gone and integrated all systems into a single computer,...

>>> - da ist so ein riesen Computer drinnen der ausser
>>> Flugsteuerung eigentlich alles macht.

..., so there's this monstrous computer inside which controls
bascially everything except the flight control (here he means the
really basic direction setting an manoevering that the pilot
decides).

>>>Wenn uns etwas ausfällt, dann übernimmt ein
>>> anderer Computer die wesentlichen Funktionen des defekten Systems.

If something in one of our systems fails then another computer takes
over the major fuctions of the defective system.

>>> Die Amerikaner haben halt das Problem,
>>>dass wen dieser Computer
>>> abstürzt oder Fehler hat, dann geht alles unter - inklusive
>>> Kommunikation, Navigation und allem.

The Amercans have this problem now that when there computer fails
gives errors, everything goes down including of Communications,
Navigation, everything.

(`halt' used in the above few situations is a colloquial term, similar
in meaning to 'gone and [done]', an indication that the thing that is
talked about is kind of wishy-washy or lackadaisical, not so well
thought out, or could be better)

> >>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

The pilots now have an installation for a `handy' (the German word
for mobile phone in the cockpit so that the pilot can phone the blokes on the
ground when nothing works anymore. [Ooh boy, this sounds fun!]

>>Well, my German's about as rust as you can get, and still order Beer,
>>but what I make of the above is that he's commenting on the high level
>>of integration of ancilliary systems, and that it's tough for
>>Third-Party (Not on the System Prime) team to integrate their stuff
>>into the aircraft. I don't read "unten telefonieren" as Cell Phone
>>though. In context, and allowing for what appears to be a bit of
>>circular translation, it's more like a "backup voice radio" than
>>anythig else. Which could be anything from a standard UHF/VHF set in
>>the panel to a handheld in the Pilot's Pubs Bag. (Which is pretty
>>much the norm - when I've been flying things that need a radio, I
>>always bring a handheld, just in case, and whe my brother's off in his
>>767, he's got a handheld in his Jepp Case. (Along with a Maglite, the
>>appropriate sectionals, etc.) Which would just be prudent.

OK, maybe it isn't in fact a cellphone... who knows. Can you ask?

>>Think about it - in this context, an Aviation Band transceiver makes
>>much more sense than a cell phone.

Yeah, but so do backup systems in the computer system :-)

> Ah, that said - Cell phones are nice and small:-), I really have
> trouble with some German colloquial sayings and translating it into
> English, one classic example of English to German springs to mind
> "out of sight ,out of mind" got translated to "invisible maniac"

Great stuff, these translators, huh!
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

s.p.i.

April 9th 04, 04:32 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message > And the gent (mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the
> bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff
> distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8, which
> gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of the
> threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform this
> kind of support).
>
> Brooks
>
Its a shame you didn't see the links that refute your precious
"facts(?)" brooks. In the interests of fair play...Choke on this
one...

You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
"The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
assetsin a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Meanwhile, suppliers to potential adversaries are realizing a market
to counter tactics you are postulating...
http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/paris/paris_03/pd1agatpg85.html
"If used on a long-range missile airframe, the ARGS-PD could give an
opposing air force the ability to take out strategic targets at
distances outside of the normal interception envelopes of U.S. or
other NATO fighters. Boeing E-3 AWACS or E-8 JSTARS aircraft–platforms
that U.S. forces depend heavily upon in time of conflict–would be
vulnerable as never before."

Since the E-10 is nearly stillborn, the MP-RTIP equipped UAV is the
way to go.

Alan Minyard

April 9th 04, 06:05 PM

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:52:54 -0700, Henry J Cobb > wrote:

>sid wrote:
>> You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
>> saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
>> ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
>> "The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
>> assets
>> in a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."
>
>Naw, the F/A-22s will be the bomb droppers with Super Hornets providing
>targetting and air to air cover and Growlers doing the jamming.
>
>-HJC

And the F/A-18G will be along shortly.

Al Minyard

Tarver Engineering

April 9th 04, 07:05 PM

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > Henry, how on earth can you be a big fan of the Super Bug, with all of
its
> > shortcomings? You don't like the F/A-22, you don't like the F-35, you
>
> I like the F-35.
>
> > ridicule the USAF in general...yet you think the Super Bug is the creme
de
> > la creme? It'd take three tankers to keep the Bugs within radio range of
the
> > F/A-22...
>
> Given that your jammer options are EB-52 or G-18, who you gonna call?

Reliability -> Availability -> Revenue

Kevin Brooks

April 9th 04, 08:07 PM

"s.p.i." > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message > And the gent
(mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the
> > bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff
> > distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8,
which
> > gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of
the
> > threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform
this
> > kind of support).
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> Its a shame you didn't see the links that refute your precious
> "facts(?)" brooks. In the interests of fair play...Choke on this
> one...
>
> You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are
> saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting
> ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)":
> "The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those
> assetsin a situation of undue risk is patently obvious."

Whoever you are, you silly little cretin...go back and read the thread. The
E-8 was 100 klicks away, and has been credited with a maximum effective GMTI
range of some 200 plus klicks in an open source (FAS). Now where does that
require the E-8 to journey into a zone of "undue risk"? It can loiter fifty
klicks to the rear of the FLOT and still support engagements 150 klicks the
other side of the FLOT, you idiotic ninny.

Brooks

Scott Ferrin

April 9th 04, 10:37 PM

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:54:10 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>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 elsewhere: 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.

Just my own opinion but I'd be surprised if they dropped them and
*didn't* make a big tado about it. There are photos out there of it
launching -9s and -120s but none with JDAMS that I've ever seen.
Maybe they feel the JDAM thing is a no-brainer and have too many other
more difficult problems to solve so it's priority is low?

Paul J. Adam

April 9th 04, 11:06 PM

In message >, Scott Ferrin
> writes
>On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:54:10 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>I've checked their website and searched elsewhere: 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.
>
>
>Just my own opinion but I'd be surprised if they dropped them and
>*didn't* make a big tado about it. There are photos out there of it
>launching -9s and -120s but none with JDAMS that I've ever seen.
>Maybe they feel the JDAM thing is a no-brainer and have too many other
>more difficult problems to solve so it's priority is low?

The other issue is that the F-22 is a hardcore air-supremacy machine,
with the 'A' designation an afterthought.

The USAF is buying the F-22 because it needs a stealthy superfighter to
replace the F-15. It is certainly not short of platforms able to drop
JDAMs. If the F-22 has problems in its declared intended air-to-air
role, is anyone going to be convinced by "okay, but it can carry two
whole JDAMs!" when even the A-10 is being bruited as a JDAM-dropper?

As I said: it's "capable" because nobody's got proof it can't use them.
At some point it'll be cleared to actually fly with the weapons and use
them in action - just not yet.

Not knocking the F-22's capability in its designed role: it might be
expensive, it might have assorted problems, but it's still the best at
what it does ('A' designator accepted as a tacked-on afterthought). The
concern then is how many can be bought... doesn't matter how good your
airframes are, if there aren't enough to intercept the enemy raids.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

s.p.i.

April 9th 04, 11:09 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
>Whoever you are, you silly little cretin...go back and read the
thread. The
>E-8 was 100 klicks away, and has been credited with a maximum
effective GMTI
>range of some 200 plus klicks in an open source (FAS). Now where does
that
>require the E-8 to journey into a zone of "undue risk"? It can loiter
fifty
>klicks to the rear of the FLOT and still support engagements 150
klicks the
>other side of the FLOT, you idiotic ninny.

Sorry to disturb your cozy little world of "facts(?)" brooks...Well,
on second thought, no I'm not.
Ever hear of the S-300PMU brooks? S-400? What are their ranges brooks?
No wait, let me answer that for you brooks since I don't want reality
clouded by your "facts(?):
200km for the S-300 PMU and the S-400 400km. Thats f-o-u-r
h-u-n-d-r-e-d kilometers brooks.
How about the FT-2000 brooks?
Your head is too locked up in the Cold War set-piece scenarios of the
last century brooks. Your Korean Glory Days are H-I-S-T-O-R-Y brooks.
A more plausible-and troubling scenario is outlined below...Learn
something new brooks:
http://www.uscc.gov/researchreports/2004/04fisher_report/6missleandspace.htm

If your artery-hardened peabrain absorbed that material. Try this one:
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/R.20030520.Meeting_the_Anti-A/R.20030520.Meeting_the_Anti-A.pdf
[T]he more worrisome challenge lies in so-called double-digit SAMs
such as the Russian S-300PMU-2 Favorit (the export version of the SAM
NATO codenamed the SA-10) and S-400 Triumph (codenamed the SA-20).12
To give a sense of the area-denial potential of these systems, the
S-300PMU-2 (or SA-10D) is credited with a maximum range of some 109
nautical miles (nm) (200 kilometers) using the 48N6E2 missile, and the
Russians have advertised that, with a new missile, the S-400 will have
a reach approaching 400 kilometers.

A related operational risk is that double-digit SAMs such as the SA-20
are designed for rapid relocation. In 1999 the Serbs, drawing on Iraqi
experiences in 1991, had considerable success using periodic
relocation of their SAMs over short distance to deny
precision-targeting information to NATO aircraft. In a full-blown AD
contingency involving advanced SAMs, one would expect that the use of
such tactics could result in F/A-22 pilots suddenly finding themselves
inside the burn-through distances of individual sites that had moved
while they were en route to their target areas. Without precise,
real-time surveillance of all existing SAM sites, which may well be
difficult to achieve, pop-up SA-10s or SA-20s could lead to unexpected
attrition, even of F/A-22s.

This prospect raises the broader issue of achieving persistent,
wide-area surveillance—especially against deep targets beyond the
range of the E-8C Joint Surveillance and Target Attack System
(JSTARS). Because JSTARS is hosted on a Boeing 707 airframe, it cannot
risk operating inside hostile or denied airspace. Using a standard
racetrack pattern located some 90 kilometers inside
friendly airspace, JSTARS can track moving targets to maximum depth of
less than 100 nm inside enemy territory.57 There is no reason,
however, why mobile launchers for ballistic missiles designed for AD
against US power-projection capabilities cannot be located deeper in
enemy territory. Further, combat experience in Iraq as well as
analytic simulations since 1991 have argued that near-continuous
surveillance over large areas is essential to have much chance of
targeting mobile-missile launchers after they have fired a missile,
much less of destroying them before they have fired at least once.

John Cook

April 9th 04, 11:28 PM

veil Dank!

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

s.p.i.

April 9th 04, 11:36 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >
> Henry, how on earth can you be a big fan of the Super Bug, with all of its
> shortcomings? You don't like the F/A-22, you don't like the F-35, you
> ridicule the USAF in general...yet you think the Super Bug is the creme de
> la creme? It'd take three tankers to keep the Bugs within radio range of the
> F/A-22...
>
> And the gent (mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the
> bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff
> distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8, which
> gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of the
> threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform this
> kind of support).
>
> Brooks

Your "fact(?)" based assumption that the E-8 (and other "support"
aircraft) will *always* remain safely ensconsed in airborne
sanctuaries is not borne out by recent history brooks:
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=&article=15157&archive=true
To fly that many combat missions, pilots relied on Air Force tanker
aircraft to keep their planes juiced.

Air Force strike planner Col. Mace Carpenter said one of the war's
"real heroes" were the air tankers that kept fighters and bombers
fueled to penetrate deep into Iraq and drop ordnance.

Army units moved so fast that fighters were having problems going from
Saudi Arabia, where the tankers were, to south of Baghdad to destroy
the Iraqi forces. So commanders made the bold decision to move tankers
over Iraq to make sure the fighters could fuel up.

Many of the lumbering tanker aircraft were fired at by both artillery
and surface-to-air missiles. Carpenter said that commanders were
willing to risk a tanker and its crew to get the fighters to Baghdad
and protect the fast-moving ground forces.

Pilots flew vulnerable tanker aircraft with no radar-warning
equipment, chaff or flairs to evade missiles.

"These guys were gutsy," Carpenter said.

Commanders expected to lose at least one tanker, but none of them was
hit.

....Given the limited numbers of C4ISR aircraft that will be bought,
and the even fewer that will be available to be deployed in any given
AOR, their vulnerability may well make them a real albatross for a
commander instead of a real asset.

Brian

April 10th 04, 12:35 AM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> And the F/A-18G will be along shortly.

Shortly? Last I saw the first deliveries will be around 2009.

Alan Minyard

April 11th 04, 09:17 PM

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:35:42 -0400, "Brian" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> And the F/A-18G will be along shortly.
>
>Shortly? Last I saw the first deliveries will be around 2009.
>
Hey, for us retired folks that *is* shortly :-))

Al Minyard

John Cook

June 9th 04, 11:32 AM

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 08:31:44 +1000, John Cook >
wrote:

>Call me an old cynic
>
>But it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see a news release (in
>the next week or so) about F/A-22 and JDAMs testing from the USAF....
>
>Now would't that be completly froody!!.
>

Ah Haa.... Froody ALERT!!! not bad it was 3 weeks...

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007616

On the 30 april 2004

"Edwards officials will continue to develop the Raptor design,
focusing more on developing air-to-ground attack capabilities, General
Pearson said.

"With the recent successful drop of the first bomb from the Raptor's
weapons bay, Edwards will continue to expand this line of testing
until we have successfully developed the required ground-attack
features," General Pearson said.

Operational testers have already started planning for the follow-on
test and evaluation phase of the Raptor, which includes JDAM release
testing, Colonel Freeman said."

Which means they might have dropped a JDAM by now!, but I have not
found any reference to it yet. Can anyone help?.

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

June 12th 04, 12:43 PM

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 02:23:27 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"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).

See
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.mhtml?d=59037

"Northrop Grumman Begins Flight-Testing New Radar for F/A-22 Raptor
BALTIMORE, June 11, 2004 -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC)
has successfully conducted the first flight test of a new,
fourth-generation variant of the AN/APG-77 active electronically
scanned array radar for the U.S. Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor air
dominance fighter aircraft.

The new design is intended to reduce the production and maintenance
costs of the Raptor's third-generation radar by adapting the design
that was implemented successfully in the AN/APG-81 radar for the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter and the AN/APG-80 for the Block 60 F-16 fighter.
This newest variant requires significantly fewer parts than the
third-generation, and the production line relies on a greater degree
of automation.

In addition, Northrop Grumman's Electronic Systems sector is
developing software for the new radar that will enable it to perform
high-resolution mapping of ground targets. This will permit true
all-weather, precision strike capability that will transform the air
dominance fighter into a multi-mission asset.

"We are proud to have developed this new capability for the F/A-22,"
said Jerry Dunnigan, director of F/A-22 Radar Programs at Northrop
Grumman. "We believe that the transformational capabilities of
high-resolution ground-mapping and automatic target cueing will ensure
that Raptor pilots have all the information they need when they go in
harm's way."

Based on current Department of Defense plans, Northrop Grumman will
deliver approximately 203 of the new radars. These include retrofits
for some of the third-generation radars already in service on
operational aircraft. Northrop Grumman is conducting the flight-test
program aboard one of its BAC 1-11 flying testbed aircraft. The
company produces the radar under contract to The Boeing Company's
(NYSE:BA) Integrated Defense Systems unit, which has responsibility
for integrating the avionic systems for the F/A-22 program, which is
led by Lockheed Martin's (NYSE:LMT) Aeronautics Company. Raytheon
Systems of McKinney, Tex., is a joint-venture partner on the radar. "

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

Kevin Brooks

June 12th 04, 01:40 PM

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 02:23:27 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"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).
>

None of the above was from me, so why did you leave me in the poster list?

Brooks

>
> See
> http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.mhtml?d=59037
>
> "Northrop Grumman Begins Flight-Testing New Radar for F/A-22 Raptor
> BALTIMORE, June 11, 2004 -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC)
> has successfully conducted the first flight test of a new,
> fourth-generation variant of the AN/APG-77 active electronically
> scanned array radar for the U.S. Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor air
> dominance fighter aircraft.
>
> The new design is intended to reduce the production and maintenance
> costs of the Raptor's third-generation radar by adapting the design
> that was implemented successfully in the AN/APG-81 radar for the F-35
> Joint Strike Fighter and the AN/APG-80 for the Block 60 F-16 fighter.
> This newest variant requires significantly fewer parts than the
> third-generation, and the production line relies on a greater degree
> of automation.
>
> In addition, Northrop Grumman's Electronic Systems sector is
> developing software for the new radar that will enable it to perform
> high-resolution mapping of ground targets. This will permit true
> all-weather, precision strike capability that will transform the air
> dominance fighter into a multi-mission asset.
>
> "We are proud to have developed this new capability for the F/A-22,"
> said Jerry Dunnigan, director of F/A-22 Radar Programs at Northrop
> Grumman. "We believe that the transformational capabilities of
> high-resolution ground-mapping and automatic target cueing will ensure
> that Raptor pilots have all the information they need when they go in
> harm's way."
>
> Based on current Department of Defense plans, Northrop Grumman will
> deliver approximately 203 of the new radars. These include retrofits
> for some of the third-generation radars already in service on
> operational aircraft. Northrop Grumman is conducting the flight-test
> program aboard one of its BAC 1-11 flying testbed aircraft. The
> company produces the radar under contract to The Boeing Company's
> (NYSE:BA) Integrated Defense Systems unit, which has responsibility
> for integrating the avionic systems for the F/A-22 program, which is
> led by Lockheed Martin's (NYSE:LMT) Aeronautics Company. Raytheon
> Systems of McKinney, Tex., is a joint-venture partner on the radar. "
>
>
> 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