It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
this does bring back the fault of the F16 blame the pilot when it was the Nav system that was to blame, the family should file suite to get to the bottom of this , the Ox sys might have a high alt fault where it shuts down do to extreme cold temps freezes up, a lack of Ox can kill, but how long would you be able to maintain awareness to dive to a safe alt to pull of your mask and breath ?
In December the Air Force released its findings from an intense, months-long investigation into the crash, concluding that even though an unknown malfunction caused Haney's oxygen system to shut down -- leaving Haney to experience "a sense similar to suffocation" -- it was Haney's fault that the plane went down.
"So by this logic, next the Army will say soldiers killed in action were in fact not killed but enemy gun fire [but] they died from a lack of blood volume and intact organs [and] were at fault for not seeking medical attention in a timely manner."
Originally posted by FawnyKate
I always assumed that the ejection seats would countain emergency oxygen, this can be turned on by the pilot without ejecting, maybe this is why he cops a bit of blame, for not using his Emergency o2.
This is all assumption on my part BTW,
F22 mishap or more that meeets the eye?
Originally posted by redoubt
My impression of the F-22 is that it is everything the F-16 was and everything the F-35 never will be; that is, a next gen air warrior that is so far ahead that by the time it may have ever reached full production, we would have become bored by its incredible abilities.
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by RichardPrice
If the F-22 is anything like the avionics of the YF-23; then the 'problem' is very simple. The F-23 operated on a scalable parallel processing architecture. The individual 'components' were all virtual, and a progressive failure system was in place to preserve critical functions in the event of hardware failures.
Basically, that means the 'cards' are all the same, and need only be replaced with their respective drop-in upgrades.
Again, presuming the F-22 and F-23 are similar, in that regard (it was the opinion of my source that Lockheed went with a very similar concept).
The upgrade is an architectural change, not just a capability update, so its not a case of just plugging in new cards containing the upgraded hardware.
Also, even the F-23 would have had task specific hardware, as dedicated processors are always faster than a distributed parallel processing architecture - DSPs designed for the task in hand will out perform while using less power, with lower cooling requirements, and a smaller physical package at the same time.
Even systems designed as you describe have run into major limits in upgrade capability, because once you have limited yourself to a bus, then you are limited by the capabilities of that bus. If you want faster interconnects, or more memory lines etc, you are hamstrung by your earlier decisions.
Originally posted by Aim64C
I suppose this would depend, highly, upon the specifics of the system and the nature of the upgrades.
Bus and socket technology have not really changed in computers over the past 15 years. They've simply gotten more creative with the I/O waveforms. In that case - it's really a matter of just how scalable your system is.
Yes, and no. Parallel distributed floating point processing is highly scalable and the RISC architecture makes all complex instructions virtual in nature. Task-specific hardware is, thus, unnecessary. All of the processes conducted by modern avionics are massively parallel in nature - from analysis of radar returns to stabilization and kinematics.
In short, the nature of RISC programming is that you customize the code to the function and not the hardware to the function.
It is not only more cost-effective, but more power-efficient, as well.
The F-23 had the vast majority of its avionics virtualized. This is, precisely, the trend that has been mirrored in the server industry 10-15 years later. Not to mention I have a face-to-face source on this.