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.

 

F-22 Fun Facts

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Link 1


* the computing power of the f22 raptor is 100 times more than that of the f-15,f-16 and su-27 and its upgrades

* if we had our computer internet connection at the f22's conncetion speed we would have been able to transfer 3000 pictures per second. Thats like downloading 10 full game CD's of Counter Strike in 1 second. (i wish)

* its capability is anywhere from 80 mb per second to 100 mb per second data transfer...........thus the pilot gets instant reports

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by Laxpla]




posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
That's why I can't wait to buy one myself... someday.

But really, more believably, I have also been told that the cockpit of such a beautiful aircraft is highly classified and entirely automated by computers. Estimating on this premise, it may even be possible for such aircraft to be piloted by remote or Artificial Intelligence in the case of a crippled or compromised pilot.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Interesting. Maybe one day computers will go that fast. F-22's are amazing machines. My life dream is to fly one of those birds.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Please note that there are some current ongoing Computer problems with the F-22, as such:

"As with the Su-37 having TVC, so will the F-22. Difference? The F-22's TVC is controlled by a supercomputer, and the F-22's high thrust to weight ratio (1.5-20), and the reduce of drag propel's the aircraft with great agility. The F-22 just doesn't rely solely on it's TVC to give it outstanding agility. Also keep in mind that the F-22's going to have better TVC controls than the Su-37....why? The F-22's TVC is controlled by a supercomputer, compared to that of the Su-37 with it's AL-37FU turbofans which is controlled by it's hydraulics system, and the MKIs AL-31FP are controlled by it's fuel system.
Further more, the F-22 has more then 1 main CPU (CIP) capable of more then 10.5 BILLION ops per second while the Su-3x's, that are 'just' coming off the assembly line, are being called technologically advanced and only having 486 class CPUs capable of only around 50 Thousand ops per second (50MIP's--for chrimmy's sake, the Nintendo GameBoy Advanced rivals a Sukhoi's at computing power). Thats almost more then a 20 years difference in computing technology IMHO. Also, the US NAVY's F/A-18C's, are shipped with 100+Mhz PowerPC CPU's (CIP's).... and last but not least, the F-22 has Phase Array Radar while the Su-3x's have, you guessed it, standard analog radar. This results in the F-22 being the only TRUE sensor-fused system, all of the avionic's and aircraft operations are run through the same 3 computers, and compiled into one picture."

SU-37 computer?




seekerof

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Cool facts.

I wish I had a link that that to my car. No real need, but the cool factor alone!


dz

posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Ya I've heard the same thing about their cockpit being classified, although I have seen a picture of it.

The plane truly is a beauty.



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   
The computing power may be awesome, the programming inspirational, but they still can't get it to fly 3 hours without a software crash. Meanwhile, the EF2000 is being delivered to the RAF as we speak. Sadly, I feel another Comanche disaster may be looming.



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Thats pretty awesome...good facts


Thing is amazing..great addition to the U.S. arsenal...

-wD



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   
so, he could download packman 4 those long missions lol



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 12:28 AM
link   
F/A-22 computers are actually doing well:




At 49,000 feet and 1,400 miles an hour, an F/A-22 Raptor soars above the test range at Edwards Air Force Base in California and executes an inverted roll before diving 22,000 feet and launching an air-to-air missile at 1,200 miles an hour.



"Nobody else can do that," Air Force Maj. Gen. Doug Pearson Jr. said last week at a Pentagon update on the Raptor's status, a year and a half before the Defense Department is scheduled to decide whether to start building hundreds of the $200-million-per-copy stealth fighter.

"I've flown about 60 airplanes in my career, mostly fighters, and the F/A-22 is the absolute most-awesome killing machine I have ever, ever flown," said Pearson, commander of Edwards' Flight Test Center. "We have near operational capability today. We have a weapons system that can detect the threat. It can fly at supersonic speeds. It's the most agile fighter ever built. It will maneuver from near-zero air speeds all the way out to Mach 2, and outmaneuver any other fighter that it will face as a threat, and any other free world fighter that will be built for years to come."

But what really sets the F/A-22 apart is its ability to process data on air and ground targets using its own onboard radars and sensors, as well as those on other aircraft. The airplane is, essentially, an extremely advanced carriage loaded with computers running 2 million lines of software code.

This explains why Pearson and two Air Force brigadier generals, Mark A. Welsh III and Richard B.H. "Rick" Lewis, spent the better part of an hour explaining dramatic progress made in the area of "avionics stability," which has plagued the Raptor program and produced cost overruns and scheduling delays.

To the layman, avionics stability means computers that don't crash during flight. As recently as February, test pilots were spending an average of 14 minutes per flight rebooting mission critical computer systems, such as those processing data from onboard radar. Now, reboot time is down to an average of just 36 seconds per flight.

"What we're in the process of doing right now is integrating the last 7 percent of that software," said Welsh, the director of global power programs for the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisitions. "Now, admittedly, it's critical software. This is the 'let's go kill people' software. It's the mission essential portion of the airplane. It's the sensor fusion, the integration of data from on board sensors and external sources, it's the stuff that's going to allow you to be successful in combat."

Teaching pilots to fly the airplane, Pearson said, really involves teaching them how to use all the data flowing into the cockpit. "It's an extraordinarily easy airplane to fly," Pearson said. "They learn very quickly to fly it, and we are teaching them how and they are teaching themselves how to employ it, and that's different. How do you use the information you have in the cockpit to go and kill somebody and stay alive and execute your mission."



www.washingtonpost.com...
From:



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
But really, more believably, I have also been told that the cockpit of such a beautiful aircraft is highly classified and entirely automated by computers. Estimating on this premise, it may even be possible for such aircraft to be piloted by remote or Artificial Intelligence in the case of a crippled or compromised pilot.


almost all planes now are flown basically by computer... from fighters to airliners, and even more so now with lighter aircraft. for instance, in newer airliners all the pilots have to do is taxi the aircraft and get it airborne. from then until landing it's all on autopilot... they're just there to make sure nothing goes wrong.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Well I get to work on the F-22 and its the coolest aircraft I've ever worked on. Any questions about it?



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
486 class CPUs

as IF they're going to have 486 class cpus in thier most modern war plane. They will probably have some home brand cpu as they do have a lot of manufacturing facilities for cpu's over there in russia ya know....



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
It's an Aircraft.

Having a Supercomputer on board is ridiculous.

IT is nearly impossible to actually have as much data going through the ships systems that would actually necessitate a multi Gflop CPU.

Seriously.

Lets take a look at what systems the computer would control:

Avionics (Flight stability, Fuel loading, micro aerodynamics)
Sensors (Radar, Ladar(?), etc)
Navigation
Weapons Guidance

None of these systems will require the sheer processing power that a Multi Gflop processor can push out.

Really.

The Avionics merely balances the fuel in the wings.

The sensors keep track of all radar signatures (Not that demanding a job)

Navigation can be handled by dedicated GPS hardware.

And the weapon guidance system is just a handshake from Radar to the on board Weapon Guidance system during launch.


ITs completely unnecessary.

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
More "fun"facts about the F-22.


It’s been known for a long time that the F-22 jet fighter had serious problems. The military aircraft has been involved in a series of accidents, and the cost of its development and production has far exceeded what was promised. Its mission is also doubtful, having been designed in the 1980s, in order to take part in a massive air war against the Soviet Union.



Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates is opposed to adding 60 more F-22s to the fleet, believing the 183 already purchased are beyond sufficient. “The reality is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater.” Gates says, the F-22 Raptor “is principally for use against a near-peer in a conflict, and I think we all know who that is.” The near-peer that Gates is referring to is China. It is no accident then, that the defense industry would lobby for continued production of weapons that are virtually useless but that are technological marvels, as they would reap enormous benefits if the United States decided to escalate into a veritable arms race with China.


How would they fare against the Chinese?



The RAND Corporation’s famous “Pacific Vision 08” study did echo Sprey and Stevenson regarding limited expectations for thee performance of air-air missiles. That has implications for the ability of a small force to beat a large one, and its most telling point also traced back to the numbers equation. RAND’s Taiwan Strait scenario assumed perfect combat defense by the F-22s, and 100% kill ratios for every missile an F-22 launched. Assumptions that RAND itself acknowledges as wildly unrealistic, but which are used to make their central point: every F-22 still died, due to their limited numbers. The available Raptors on station ran out of missiles before the Chinese ran out of planes, whereupon the Chinese fighters simply shot down the aerial tankers that the F-22s needed, in order to return to Guam.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by calcoastseeker
How would they fare against the Chinese?


The question should be how the Chinese will fare against it. Don't let RANDs motivated study which only examines one slice of the pizza throw you off.


And you can tell Robert Gates that Ohio class boomers have not launched a single SLBM into Afghanistan to hunt the Taliban.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by WestPoint23]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Only post in this thread worth reading is Edricks.


The rest of you have been fed the PR bull and believe it.


The F-22 EMD program would have been froze mid 90s. It is at absolute best using DX4 486 equivalent technology.


Anyone that has any comprehension of the process of certifying software and its associated hardware as fit for use in mission and even survival critical systems will know how conservative they are in design.


The processing unit for the tactical sensors (CEP?) can be slightly more agressively designed, as it won't result in break up of the aircraft if it fails. But it still will be measured in Mega FLOPS.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
486 class CPUs

as IF they're going to have 486 class cpus in thier most modern war plane. They will probably have some home brand cpu as they do have a lot of manufacturing facilities for cpu's over there in russia ya know....


Well you might be surprised there... Quite often the consideration is not getting the maximum processing power possible rather how robust you can make your system.

You see with a 386 or a 486 era chip the tolerances that all that microscopic circuitry inside are built to is actually much greater - all the electrical pathways are bigger, all the tiny components are just that little bit - bigger, more robust.

When you look at the systems on the space shuttle, or satellites etc - they will go for a chunkier chip because they are very likely to have to encounter some very strong electromagnetic forces up there in space... Your latest and greatest chip is very delicate in those circumstances - just think you can screw up a processor with the slightest touch of your finger if you are carrying a static charge on your body/clothes...

So what with the Russian tradition of building chunky over engineered hardware - it really does not surprise me that they would design the computers in that way.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Edrick did forget to mention ECM (electronic countermeasures) and EW (electronic warfare), both of which i think contribute to a significant workload on the F-22's CIP. the AN/APG-77 is quite enough to handle the integrated sensors and avionics and the IFDL (inter/intra flight data link) handles how one F-22 communicates with other F-22s, but how's the pilot supposed to handle that much data all by himself?

So let's try this hypothetical scenario:

while flying over enemy territory, the AN/APG-77 informs the pilot that there's an enemy plane out there and its possible that the enemy plane is equipped with an AESA radar. in this scenario we expect the pilot to program the F-22's AN/APG-77 to go into LPI mode and at the same time jam all ground-based radars in order to maintain stealth, while remembering all the encryption keys he would need to authenticate himself when he communicates with his wingman; and he still has to fly the plane.

what i'm trying to say is, all those 486-class CPUs on the F-22 are absolutely necessary for it to be the awesome fighting machine that it is.



F-22 Avionics



The CIP is the equivalent of two Cray supercomputers and is a little larger than a 20-inch television.


HowStuffWorks

and the job starts to become more demanding when one takes into consideration the possibility that the AN/APG-77 might be capable of functioning as an EW platform by frying all airborne enemy radars in the vicinity. it sure makes one wonder, doesn't it?

[edit on 11.9.09 by toreishi]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by toreishi
 



Edrick did forget to mention ECM (electronic countermeasures) and EW (electronic warfare), both of which i think contribute to a significant workload on the F-22's CIP.


Well, all in all, you only really have 2 forms of countermeasures.

One form is the Flare/chaff that are decidedly non computer intensive operations (Weapon lock warning; Chaff for Radar, Flares for IR missiles.)

The second, is your Electronic warfare... and that is hardly Processor intensive.

It is merely a transmission of "Static" at the effective transmission frequency of the Radar to be jammed.

Specific frequency, or full spectrum... its just a radio transmitter.



But that does not really matter.

Military hardware are not designed to be "Multitasking" one size fits all machines.

They are completely dedicated pieces of hardware, whose design mirrors its specific function.

Todays modern desktop computers can handle more operations per second than military hardware...

But the military hardware is dedicated solely to its task.

There is no multitasking, or parallel threads in Avionics computer systems.

One Bus per function.

The primary reason for this design, is redundancy (Which I think has been mentioned before)

Bottom line, you just don't NEED that kind of raw "Horsepower" out of military grade electronic hardware.

But, it MUST be able to function WELL above what is required for Commercial or Private use (Speaking of stability of the overall system)

And, as Now_Then has stated.... the smaller circuit sizes of the newer processors make them notoriously unreliable (And thus, completely useless for military apps.)


And this is one of the reasons that Russian military hardware is On par with American military hardware.

It is not MEANT to be bleeding edge tech.

IT is meant to be ROCK SOLID tech.


When you are designing a military, you want to build weapons that WORK, not nessecarily the most expensive and complicated thing that you can.

Just take a look at the kalashnikov for example...

All technological indicators would place the M-16 as the best broad use assault weapon in the world...

But it is more complicated to manufacture, it is heavier, it jams more frequently, requires more maintenance, etc, etc, etc...

I mean... the F-22 needs 3 hours of maintenance per hour of flight time, it IS a technological marvel of military engineering... but does it FUNCTION?

Does it WORK?

-Edrick



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join