Off the shelf gear in military a/c

"Bill Silvey" wrote in message m...
Hey all...

Has there been a move towards using consumer goods, particularly
electronics, on military a/c? I was watching something about the AWACS
recently and I thought to myself "I wonder how those systems are all
networked." - which set the ball rolling and I began to wonder if indeed
there were coax or RJ45 connectors someplace underneath all of that leading
into 10/100 or 10BaseT network cards.

ISTR reading about a roll-on/roll-off communications/network support
package designed for use on the KC-135, allowing it to serve a dual
role in theater as both tanker and data relay, and IIRC the racks were
specified to enable upgrades to take advantage of
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technology. I also recall that there
was talk of refitting the Navy's S-3B's with COTS computers; not sure
if anything came of it. Though not in the aviation vein, I do know
that our heavy division's tactical network (TACWEB) used plain old
Ethernet cards back in 2000, tied into the Mobile Subscriber Equipment
(think of a fusion of FM and cellular phone tech in a big green box)
system as a backbone, and a number of Army units were using various
civilian software packages to support their tactical needs (we used
Explorer on our TACWEB and purchased ArcView GIS for use in our
engineer HQ, and XVIII Airborne Corps/30th Engr BN (Topo) used
commercial GIS software for a lot of their mapping/battlefield
visualization support).

Brooks

In article , "Bill Silvey"
wrote:

Hey all...

Has there been a move towards using consumer goods, particularly
electronics, on military a/c? I was watching something about the AWACS
recently and I thought to myself "I wonder how those systems are all
networked." - which set the ball rolling and I began to wonder if indeed
there were coax or RJ45 connectors someplace underneath all of that leading
into 10/100 or 10BaseT network cards.

Yes and No.
For systems intended for transport platforms where the environment is
fairly benign, ruggedized commercial or even pure commercial
may work. These systems do not usually meet long-term reliability
and life requirements though, and are usually larger and heavier than
purpose-built military systems.
For pointy nosed aircraft, it's rare to see COTS. The environment is too
severe, and space and power constraints too much.
Lots of co-ax, but usually better performing connectors than commercial
RJ45s.
From a functionality standpoint, networks need to be much more secure
that commercial hardware and software can provide. Often the airborne
networks and NICs are high-rel, secure derivatives of commercial
hardware and software. If you can get a copy of the Fibrechannel
Avionics Environment spec, you can see that it is a subset of the commercial
Fibrechannel set of specs, which defines those functions necessary for
avionics and military use that are not necessarily present in the
commercial version. We had to work with the commercial guys for years
to make sure certain things were in the commercial specs so we could
use them in the avionics spec, even though the commercial guys didn't think
they needed them. I mention FC because it is the most widely used high-
bandwidth network going into military fighters.
Real time performance and deterministic behavior are also crucial in
avionics applications. Much of what passes for "real time" in commercial
networks is woefully inadequate for military or even commercial avionics
use.
This is a huge subject with many details.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

For systems intended for transport platforms where the environment is
fairly benign, ruggedized commercial or even pure commercial
may work.

According to the superlative "The March Up" (by Bing West), the
marines in Iraq actually preferred the commercial GPS units to the
military variety.

Not in that book, but probably on TV or in the WSJ, I recall that one
U.S. officer had his mother mail him a store-bought GPS unit.

I recommend The March Up. www.warbirdforum.com/marchup.htm

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Off-the-shelf stuff is attractive, at first glance, as it tends to be MUCH
cheaper and lighter than mil-spec equipment.

But the stuff at CompUSA wll tend to degrade and eventually die when
operated under your typical harsh mil conditions.
Your typical Dell laptop will eventually fail when subjected to the
temperature extremes, vibration, bumps, cable tugs, sand and dust that
equipment encounters in the field.

The mil-spec equipment will instead have 1/4 inch thick aluminum or
tuitanium cases, cables and cable connectors that you can tow a jeep with,
and lots of o-ring seals around every sliding or rotating part to keep out
sand, dust, and water.

So the $150 GPS's your mom sent will be wonderful to use for a while, but
after it has been dropped 20 times, onto rocks, sand, water, had 9mm rounds
bounce off it, you might want to pull out the clunky old mil-spec GPS, which
will still work after all that.

In article zUxgb.704095$uu5.115935@sccrnsc04, "George R. Gonzalez"
wrote:

Off-the-shelf stuff is attractive, at first glance, as it tends to be MUCH
cheaper and lighter than mil-spec equipment.

Not in fighter aircraft applications. COTS is neither cheaper nor lighter.
It's a common mistake made by those who are beguiled by falling
prices on commercial computers, and only look at the initial
purchase price.

But if you look at the problem as the amount of resources you need
to solve the problem, i.e. how much processing you need to do to
get the result you need for the mission, you will discover that mil
packaged electronics, being far more densly packed than commercial
stuff, is lighter and takes up less space, and is more reliable.
If you throw in the cost of airframe mods to fit the bulkier and
heavier COTS, and take into account the extra fuel to lift the heavier
system, and the lower reliability across the airframe life, and the
extra maintenance required for a less reliable system and the extra
spares in the pipeline, suddenly COTS doesn't look as attractive.

In those applications where space and weight are less critical, such
as transport aircraft, or converted transport aircraft, or where
high vibration and temperature extremes and condensing water
are not a factor, then COTS becomes a player.
Trouble is, people look at a successful insertion of COTS in an E-2C
(say) and think it can also be done in an F-16. Not likely.
My 2 cents.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"George R. Gonzalez" wrote in message news:zUxgb.704095$uu5.115935@sccrnsc04...
Off-the-shelf stuff is attractive, at first glance, as it tends to be MUCH
cheaper and lighter than mil-spec equipment.

But the stuff at CompUSA wll tend to degrade and eventually die when
operated under your typical harsh mil conditions.
Your typical Dell laptop will eventually fail when subjected to the
temperature extremes, vibration, bumps, cable tugs, sand and dust that
equipment encounters in the field.

Odd. Last big (corps level) exercise I played in the Dells were
predominant in the various tactical headquarters (previous Compaqs
indeed had not stood up very well, even under harsh *office*
conditions). Most of the laptops now purchased by the military are
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS); the day of the old "cram eight pounds
of computer into sixty pounds of military packaging and paint it
green" died with those laughable US Army SIDPERS boxes that few could
use, and even fewer bothered to actually lug out of the office and
into the field.


The mil-spec equipment will instead have 1/4 inch thick aluminum or
tuitanium cases, cables and cable connectors that you can tow a jeep with,
and lots of o-ring seals around every sliding or rotating part to keep out
sand, dust, and water.

Not when it comes to computers, at least not for the most part
anymore. NCO's and junior officers are becoming increasingly reliant
upon the commercial PDA's, and laptops have been going the commercial
route for years now.


So the $150 GPS's your mom sent will be wonderful to use for a while, but
after it has been dropped 20 times, onto rocks, sand, water, had 9mm rounds
bounce off it, you might want to pull out the clunky old mil-spec GPS, which
will still work after all that.

I seriously doubt that the issue GPS (PLGRS) receiver we received
would withstand a 9mm shot, either. It was heavier by far than the
civilian models, though it also was more accurate; but it was also a
pain to operate. The military has too often been guilty of the "gotta
have it developed exclusively for us" mentality; hence the Army battle
command software that required oodles of specialized training, and was
then cumbersome as all get out. Much better to take advantage of the
skills that the troops have already picked up elsewhere (i.e., use of
HTML and commercial browsers--worked great at the division level for
my old division, after being developed by a few troopies in the 3rd
ID(M)).

The silver lining, of sorts, is that the DoD still runs the COTS
competition every year, where various commercial products are proposed
for military use; it and other COTS programs have resulted in a few
nice things for the military services (like a commercially
manufactured panel bridge being used by the Army from the Mabey Bridge
folks in the UK). Without spending ten billion dollars for superfluous
R&D. Good deal.

Brooks

In article , Cub Driver
wrote:

For systems intended for transport platforms where the environment is
fairly benign, ruggedized commercial or even pure commercial
may work.

According to the superlative "The March Up" (by Bing West), the
marines in Iraq actually preferred the commercial GPS units to the
military variety.

Not in that book, but probably on TV or in the WSJ, I recall that one
U.S. officer had his mother mail him a store-bought GPS unit.

I'll take a look at the book, Dan.
I was directing my comments at aircraft electronics though.
Handheld GPS isn't aviation. (not purposely anyway)

regards

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

I was directing my comments at aircraft electronics though.
Handheld GPS isn't aviation. (not purposely anyway)

Oh, I appreciate that! I didn't mean to suggest that an F-15 pilot
punch the scroll button on a Garmin III+.

(As it happens, the Garmin III+ is what I use for navigation. But at
2900 feet and 60 knots, I have a perfectly adequate fail-safe
mechanism in the sectional chart on my right thigh.)

See www.pipercubforum.com/garmin.htm for the high-tech rig.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote:

(As it happens, the Garmin III+ is what I use for navigation. But at
2900 feet and 60 knots, I have a perfectly adequate fail-safe
mechanism in the sectional chart on my right thigh.)

See www.pipercubforum.com/garmin.htm for the high-tech rig.

all the best -- Dan Ford

Dan,

Like the setup. I've got a Garmin GPS III with over 2000 hours on it
and love the thing. Little easier for me to pull over and check the map
at 70 mph and ground level if I get lost though.

Leaving today for business with the garmin on the dashboard. My Wall
Street G3 will be coupled to it for a moving map. 9+ hours of music in
my itunes library for decent music during the trip.

Hoping to locate some derilict military aircraft in NW Missouri if time
allows. (There's my link to a RAM topic)

MAH