It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Microprocessor used in jet fighter

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I try to find the information about type of microprocessor uesd in fighter like JAS-39 or F-16. But I found nothing.

How can I know those information? Is there illigal to release? If not, How can I find it? (especially in gripen).

Thank you.




posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
The F-22's must run into many gigahertz, they use very powerful computer systems, but they can probably not be compared to a PC's processor.

They probably use different processors for different functions too, I'd ask Off_the_Street and Intel_Girl



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Here is an interesting thought, considering the reliability of technology does not necessarily increase with speed. NASA uses 486 laptops!

Laptops on the Shuttle: "Age Does Not Matter"

In all, 18 laptop computers are aboard the Discovery spacecraft now orbiting more than 300 miles above Earth, more computational firepower than on any earlier space mission. While the five main avionics computers that control the shuttle's flight are closer to the technology of the 1960's than to that of the 1990's, the laptops are similar to those that anyone stuck on terra firma can buy at a local computer store.

To keep costs down, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has shifted to using off-the-shelf products as much as possible. So NASA bought dozens of I.B.M. Thinkpad computers and one Epson Stylus Color 800 printer to send into space with the shuttle fleet and the new international space station. Assembly of the space station will begin next month, and more than 40 Thinkpads are expected to be aboard when it is completed in about five years.

Two printers will be aboard the space station. They will come in handy for homesick astronauts, who will be able to print photo-quality pictures snapped on Earth with digital cameras to keep them current on soccer games and family gatherings and in touch with loved ones. The other day, astronauts aboard the Discovery were reported to be delighted when mission control sent and automatically printed a picture showing them their own launching, which took place a week ago.

One laptop on Discovery is equipped with an Intel Proshare video card that allows the astronauts to hold private video conferences with their families and their doctors, on Earth.

Most of the computers aboard Discovery are older Thinkpad 755C's -- not that anyone on this mission thinks that there is anything wrong with sending older models into space. The 755's are based on the Intel 486 microprocessor, which Intel replaced with the Pentium chip several years ago. They use Windows 95 as the operating software, which Microsoft stopped making this year.

Comment:On another score the problem in space is radiation, cosmic rays reduce reliability in newer computers because they are getting down to 9 microns.

"Although they lack the dense circuitry and greater speed of modern processors, the antiquated chips used on the main ship computers are hardened to withstand radiation. "The newer and faster chips are more susceptible to cosmic ray events up in space that can lock a computer up," said Matt Karklins, a Boeing engineer. "We can't afford to have one lock up when we're flying."

Comment: So the problem is not to put game ready PCs and processors on miltary aviation, but perhaps hardened 486 chips since the cosmic ray issue occurs at any altitude. Reliability is the main consideration.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Here is an interesting thought, considering the reliability of technology does not necessarily increase with speed. NASA uses 486 laptops!


For actual flight control systems and the such, they are even more basic - 286 processors. There reason is pretty simple - modern processors do not act 100% guaranteeably predictable because they are orders of magnetudes more complex.

Basically, the more complex/modern a processor is, the more transistors there are on the chip. These transistors are susceptable to cosmic radiation flipping them at random (it can and does happen in desktop processors a LOT - they are built to withstand it). Also, the more complex a processor is, the less capable a human is of understanding all the paths through it, so the more hidden bugs there are.

Upgrading the main computers of a shuttle is a lot more difficult than jsut replacing the hardware - you need to make sure that the software can handle any number of issues that crop up with more complex hardware.

THe F-22 contains 3 600mhz systems with 128mb ram each from Intel - bare in mind that these systems were appropriated in 1998.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
F-22 procesors are completely upgradeable, so what was true some time ago, must not be true now. The whole CPU unit can be quickly replaced if necessary. The prototype was using only 286, I think. However they are not supercomputers (todays standarts), they are just normal, reliable, slightly modified intel procesors.

[edit on 17-2-2005 by longbow]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
F-22 procesors are completely upgradeable, so what was true some time ago, must not be true now. The whole CPU unit can be quickly replaced if necessary. The prototype was using only 286, I think. However they are not supercomputers (todays standarts), they are just normal, reliable, slightly modified intel procesors.

[edit on 17-2-2005 by longbow]


Standard processors are anything but reliable
Thats why there are three of them, CIPs (Conditional Instruction Processors). The current production F/A-22s have 600mhz systems in them, as nothing else has yet passed certification.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Standard processors are anything but reliable
Thats why there are three of them, CIPs (Conditional Instruction Processors). The current production F/A-22s have 600mhz systems in them, as nothing else has yet passed certification.


I meant that some of them are more reliable (or proven) than others. That's the reason, why are they s using older intel, not high end AMD for example.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I remember NASA making a public appeal for the older chip-sets (as the spares aren't made anymore) a while back.

So this begs the question, if more modern processors are unreliable in space, are they having custom lower-tech ones made specifically for them now or do they face a future where they run out of usable stuff?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I remember NASA making a public appeal for the older chip-sets (as the spares aren't made anymore) a while back.

So this begs the question, if more modern processors are unreliable in space, are they having custom lower-tech ones made specifically for them now or do they face a future where they run out of usable stuff?


They are having custom designed and hardened chips built - see the Mars rovers, they use a chip designed by BAe (or a subsidiary) in the UK specifically for computationally intensive tasks in harsh conditions.

Another method around it is the software route, through use of Real Time OSes, multiple voting computers, dual core/multiple core processors with result overlay, and the such (ask if you want anything explained!).



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
The F-22's must run into many gigahertz, they use very powerful computer systems, but they can probably not be compared to a PC's processor.

They probably use different processors for different functions too, I'd ask Off_the_Street and Intel_Girl


You guys seems to think you need WAY more CPU power than you really do to fly an airplane


As a software engineer I can tell you this. Running in a pure embedded environment a pair of 486s could fly an F-22. The reason you need so much power in your PC is the pretty pictures and sounds.. For embedded flight control, CPU power isnt' a problem. Hell the shuttle only uses 486s and it flys MUCH faster..

All the signal processing would be handled by dedicated DSPs and the target tracking for radar ops, is again rather simple. I mean think about it, that plane only has to worry about it's own physics.. your PC can simulate the phsyics of hunders of planes in any of the high-end flight/fighter sims.

Steve



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by otlg27

You guys seems to think you need WAY more CPU power than you really do to fly an airplane




You seem to underestimate what these systems are doing
These systems onboard the F-22 arent for the flight control systems.

In this case, the signal processing isnt being done 100% by DSPs as you suggest, its all directed through a central data management system, which is actually a paired set of computers. This is because its better to send raw data to other aircraft or to ground systems, rather than process them yourself from your point of view. The signals processing systems use FPPGA (Field Programmable Pin Gate Array) chips, and there are 4 of them per computer, being reprogrammed to do whatever is at hand.

THe main reason for faster computers is to get a finer processing slice, so you can process data, inputs and outputs better in near realtime - you cant do that with the 486.



As a software engineer I can tell you this. Running in a pure embedded environment a pair of 486s could fly an F-22. The reason you need so much power in your PC is the pretty pictures and sounds.. For embedded flight control, CPU power isnt' a problem. Hell the shuttle only uses 486s and it flys MUCH faster..


Im a software engineer too! And yes, in a pure embedded environment, a pair of 486s can and do power flight control systems - but you want more realtime slicing as I said before, which will give you better access to data gathered and shared.

I wouldnt raise the Shuttle as an example here, it has to deal with very simple, planned and precomputed scenarios - infact much of its control system uses data that NASA crunches on the ground and then uploads to the Shuttle before it performs a manouever.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Modern fighter jets generally don't use off the shelf items. Instead, low 'speed', larger 'scale' RISC processors with advanced real time operating systems are used. The problem in most aircraft is not speed but durability and survivability. What's the point of having the worlds most advanced jet if it crashes when it flies above a satelite link.

The Shuttle uses a complex of 5 IBM AP-101B flight computers to negotiate the flight. These systems are slow, well known systems based off 60's technology. With the recent upgrades the human/machine interface was updated with digital equipment run by a number(3 i believe) off the shelf 80386s.

The reason for using low clock speed processors is that in order to increase clock speed, you need to reduce power consumption and heat. To do that you refine the manufacturing process to decrease the size of the processors internal parts. The problem with this is that as the scale decreases, the more sensitive the processor becomes.

For the shuttle, the system was based off already well known systems made by IBM for the space programmes in the 50's, 60's and 70's and had to be compatible with these systems which were known to be rugged and adequate for the shuttle system.

Andy



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join