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

"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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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)

In article , "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

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


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

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

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

Intel has agreed to provide mil-spec i960s, thanks to a very fat check from
USAF. The new processor has already failed to be integrated, due to a loss
of tracability. (ie scrap)

That has nothing to do with the avionics architecture, which is
not changing. Plus the whole point of writing all the OS and AS in Ada
was
to be as platform independent as possible, so that upgrades to the CIP
could be relatively painless and not force re-flight testing of the A/C.
Ideally, one would not re-write the code, but re-compile the code for
the new platform, then do a LOT of integrity checks, and take it from
there...

They have to go with a more COTS based system (similar to, if not the
same as the JSF), which they are working on now, for fielding in (very
optomisticlly) in 2007.

Other than using commercialy available processor chips, what is "COTS"
about it?
Hint - nothing.

Wrong. Name for us the one and only modern processor that is mil-spec,
Harry.

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

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

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

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


The usual process since the early 90's.

You are way behind the power curve Harry. Have a look at the fleet
numbers
for reliabilty for the F/A-18E vs the F-14s. Think about how the F-22's
target number compares.

snip of non-sequiturs

You're trying to teach me what exactly?

Even if the F-22 were to hit it's target it would remain inferior.

Been there, done that, doing it presently, with COTS and high reliability.
BTW, the current system I'm working has a reliability number higher
than the airframe life.

COTS in a vacuum is a disaster waiting to happen. Do you mean that your
application of my RPL model is driving your COTS application, as it is
everywhere outside USAF and even with the F-35, or do you mean you are just
making the numbers up? The sample of Mil-Hbk 217F is dependant on certain
procedures and processes, as are all of the related datum.

"Harry Andreas" wrote
"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.