F-22 Becomes a Reality

[isochar]

I don't believe outsourcing everything is even possible in this scenario. I imagine stealth aircraft are considered top secret technology and thus every employee requires such clearance. Right now there is a backlog for getting clearance, so I can't even imagine how long it would take to clear all the employees, and then begin the separate projects once all employees in each department were cleared.

[GT98]

Originally posted by DukeP

It works for the automobile industri - and dont tell me that a modern car isnt 3 times as technical as that assold plane.

Normally takes 30-36 months for a car to reach production from a drawing to manufacturing (from scratch) if your lucky. Sooner if its based on a existing techongly.

Assold? whats that?

Also add in that compairing a car to a airplane is pretty diffucult...it takes several years to test fly an airplane vs a couple months for a car.

[GT98]

Originally posted by isochar
I don't believe outsourcing everything is even possible in this scenario. I imagine stealth aircraft are considered top secret technology and thus every employee requires such clearance. Right now there is a backlog for getting clearance, so I can't even imagine how long it would take to clear all the employees, and then begin the separate projects once all employees in each department were cleared.

Heheheh I worked my current job for over a year without a clearnance, but we didnt do any classified exerises here

The other factor is that there isn't as many companies with the know how of designing an aircraft vs. say an automobile.

[DukeP]

First time for everything, I say.


Its just a reminder about what happend to Matrox. If your developping schedule is too long, your master project ends op being ass-old from the day its available.

Look at the X-prize competition.
How long have it taken these guys to put together a SPACEplane..


~DukeP~

[Wombat]

Originally posted by DukeP

Look at the X-prize competition.
How long have it taken these guys to put together a SPACEplane..


~DukeP~

A one-off prototype, with no weapons capability, and very few constraints.

Even just comparing the time to develop the F-22 compared to a civilian plane like the Boeing 777, it takes years to produce the plane on the line. It took 7 years just from concept to first pseudo-plane.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_milestones.html

[DukeP]

Pffff..
Boeing is boring. Same old technique.

New! Bright! Future!

Anything that takes more than 4 years to design and mass produce, is going to be laughed at on release.

Just checkout computergames.


~DukeP~

[GT98]

Originally posted by DukeP

Look at the X-prize competition.
How long have it taken these guys to put together a SPACEplane..


~DukeP~

From http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/faq.htm

The concept dates back to April 1996. Design work and some limited testing was started 3.5 years ago. The full development program began in May of 2001.

Took 5 years of development work before they made anything.

When is the first Private flights into Space supposed to start? Another 4-5 years?

[Wombat]

Originally posted by DukeP
Pffff..
Boeing is boring. Same old technique.

New! Bright! Future!

Anything that takes more than 4 years to design and mass produce, is going to be laughed at on release.

Are you trolling? Or do you just have no idea what real product development is like?

I have a friend that worked on the AMD K8, he was on it in 1999 when it was already in development for a few years. I won't even talk about how long some of my projects had been in development.

Just checkout computergames.

No problem! Oh look, here's where Carmack publically announces Doom 3 development. June 2000, and they had been working on it for a while before that.

http://doom-ed.com/blog/2000/06/01/the-birth-of-doom-3

[UtwigMU]

I think the problem is not so much being dated, I think the problem is more by change of requirements or direction competition is taking.

This plane has been designed when anticipated conflicts were different. As per it being advanced enough - only a war can test that. If you look at various wars* throughout history, you'll see that within a year of war weapons progress more than within decade or two of peace time.

*by war I mean total confrontation by two or more leading powers armed with most contemporary weapons.

[DukeP]

Wombat, Off course Im trolling.


But I AM serious as well.

I think much could be done smarter, with smaller development cycles.

I dont think theres a country in the world, that cant show off one example or another, where a project toke SO long (for various reasons) to complete, that it was outdated and pretty much just a waste of space, on completion.

One of the pretty examples on how one CAN do things both fast and good, is the pentagon. It took, what 2 years? 3 years? to build? From scratch. 7 days to plan, if my memory serves me right.

It worked good enough that it was used in 50 years, before undergoing major renovations - thats longer than anyone expected.

Think about the time and cash saved.

~~DukeP~~

[Wombat]

Originally posted by DukeP
Wombat, Off course Im trolling.


One of the pretty examples on how one CAN do things both fast and good, is the pentagon. It took, what 2 years? 3 years? to build? From scratch. 7 days to plan, if my memory serves me right.

And it was built during a war, which has a certain unbelievable accerating effect on War Department projects. And it took 13,000 workers at its peak, and $80 million (about $1 billion adjusted) dollars.

Think about the time and cash saved.

~~DukeP~~ [/B]

[DukeP]

Ah, but thats the point!
I dont think it would have been cheaper, if it was build in a nonwar period, on the contrary.

(Yes, using 13.000 workers would be impossible today, but this was a looong time ago).

Build today, it would be cheaper, off course. Technology have improved leaps and bounds since the 1940'ties.

~~DukeP~~

[Dr Mordrid]

Brian R. said;

The Raptor's electronic brain is based in part on a 32-bit Intel processor, made in the 1990's and now discontinued.

DukeP said;

Not only are they using an obsolete chip (what, x386?), they are prob running in under MS dos 5.0

WRONG!!

The F-22's actually uses the Intel 960 and PowerPC processors (depending on the required function) in redundant systems. The i960 is a 32 bit RISC processor, still very much in production, that can do process scheduling in hardware and many other things that emphasize both speed and efficiency.

The F-22's also use military spec'ed multitasking software written in Irvine Ada, which goes hand-in-glove with the capabilities of the i960 and PPC in what's now called CIP; the F-22's Common Integrated Processor avionics package.

The F-22 has two CIP boxes, each with space for up to 66 CPU modules for signal and data processing. CIP 1 has 19 open slots and CIP 2 has 22 open slots to provide for future expansion along with space and power for a third CIP.

Each CIP module is also limited by design to using only 75% of its capabilies so there is a 25-30% growth capacity with no change in equipment.

Uppance: anyone who suggests that the F-22 is lacking in modern processing power has been smoking something other than tobacco.

CIP also is set up in an interesting manner. Example: the F-22 normally uses no discrete radios, navigation gear like TACAN, instrument landing system or radar boxes in the traditional sense.

All these functions can be dynamically programmed into the CIP's various modules on the fly. This provides device redundency if a given CIP module, say the "radio" or "radar", fails.

Tactically rather than use its own radar the F-22 CIP supports all signal and data processing for all sensors and mission avionics using data obtained passively from other planes and/or satellites.

This means that the F-22 has very little in the way of RF emissions, letting it stay stealthy while other planes in the rear or on the flanks or satellites provide the data it needs for attacking multiple targets simultaneously from the point (or almost any other) position.

That said many planes still do use the 80386 and even the 80286 in their avionic systems.

That such processors are still used shouldn't be a suprise. They're cheap, reliable and have been flight certified many times over around the world, which keeps the implementation costs down....way down. They're often used in dual CPU boards that serve both as bus controllers for other electronics and as basic avionic systems.

In such a configuration are the 80286/80386 still fast enough to figure out how to get from A to B, handle passing data from one more powerful platform to another or other such functions?

HELL YES!!

Just ask anyone running DOS or Unix on a dualie 386. They can handle numeric data fast, and you don't need a jackhammer to pry the lid off a jar of peanut butter.

Most of the systems on the 747-400 were flight certified when the it was developed; around 1987, and the feeling is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Airbus and many other European aerospace companies are no different. Yup...they've used 'em too.

Dr. Mordrid

[Marshmallowman]

Properly designed embedded systems don't need excessive power,just enough to get the job done efficiently and reliably...if an 8086 does the job its good enough,that does not explain the crash every hour or 2....

I think that 75% utilisation will probably remain at that level for reliabilty and worst case safety margin...but still crashing every hour or 2?

PS internal electronics are (almost) easily upgraded. As long as the basic plane and actuators are well designed, that is the important thing.

[Dr Mordrid]

Computer crashes doesn't mean the computer itself is bad. Timed crashes like that could, and most likely do, come from the power or cooling system. Either way it's fixed by now since the F-22's passed their endurance tests.

Dr. Mordrid