F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[JSFfan]

Milo, I was refering to "but there will already be microprocessors flying on the F-35 that are stockpiled by the supplier because they are obsolescent, or about to be obsolescent."
The f-35 processors/design aren't like the others and will hit the wall for upgrades, for example. One of the design criteria was that the f-35 would spiral upgrade without hitting hardware walls. Block 3 has the first 'computer' upgrade for all the planes, there is no block obsolescence as if found on existing planes

[Milo Minderbinder]

"One of the design criteria was that the f-35 would spiral upgrade without hitting hardware walls"

I interpret that as you saying that all future software upgrades will run on the current hardware. Or plugin replacements for the existing hardware
Do you realise how conceptually nonsensical that is?
Do you realise how limiting that is? Basically you are saying the aircraft was designed with processors which will still be a valid design in 40 years time.

Two words
Utter bollox

[cokecan]

one of JSF's design criteria was that all three airframes would have 80% parts comonality, it would cost $60m, it would out-perform an F-16, and it would be in service by 2006.

hows that working out?

[ORAC]

If it's not Open Architecture, then they've ****** up.....

[kbrockman]

As far as I can tell, the ICP is upgradable, through software upgrades,
but don't worry , it's really good ,LM says so themselves !

Quote from a LM whitepaper

We are simply upgrading the computers in order to run the next block of software.

Here’s an example we can all relate to: you buy a new laptop and you know the moment you buy it’ll be obsolete in six months. There’ll be something better by then. So what if the seller said, “In order to preserve your edge let’s plan on installing a better processor six months from now. We’ll make it as good as the one we’re going to sell in six months.” You would say, “Yea, that makes sense” because otherwise, as a consumer, you’d keep waiting in anticipation of a better laptop in six months.

That is exactly what the F-35 program did.

That sounds worryingly a lot like 'the ICP is so vital to the whole EWF package that it will be virtually impossible to use a whole new design once it becomes too obsolete to upgrade solely by giving it a software upgrade.

[JSFfan]

Milo, you can interpret it as you like, but given that I have already said there will be software upgrades every 2 years and hardware upgrades every 4 years, I think you are playing with me.

[Two's in]

I'll just add that there are some very swanky military aircraft flying today that have a team of logisticians figuring out 24/7 how to source replacement processors for the remaining life cycle. If LM claim to have cracked the code (pun intended) on how to avoid that particular conundrum, I have a bridge the JPO might be interested in buying...

[MG23]

Originally Posted by Two's in

If LM claim to have cracked the code (pun intended) on how to avoid that particular conundrum, I have a bridge the JPO might be interested in buying...

I worked for a chip company years ago and sudden military orders were always nice because a box of obsolete chips on a shelf that had previously been worth nothing would suddenly be worth many thousands of dollars. It was even more expensive when we had to do a new production run of half a dozen wafers specifically for them.

But there's no reason why you can't replace the hardware as well as the software, so long as the aircraft is designed to make that easy. The problem is the amount of testing you need every time you do so; I guess the question is whether that costs much more than the testing you'd need to do for pure software upgrades.

[Heathrow Harry]

JSFfan wrote

"I have already said there will be software upgrades every 2 years and hardware upgrades every 4 years"

I think you mean PLANNED upgrades - if there is no cash around in 4 years time there won't be no upgrade

[ORAC]

The F-22 was designed with plenty of room for avionics growth and change, but weight wasn't a major issue.

The F-35 is designed without the expandability, but using COTS components with the ability to swop them out and replace with later generation components by using LM proprietary middleware [ (think in terms of the Windows Kernel having a Hardware Abstraction Level).

I just wonder at the cost and complexity of recertifying 24M+ lines of code at each change. Windows is a lot less complex, and I'd hate to end up with a BSD at 40K feet at night.

[glad rag]

You are spot on as I see it, that the costs are avionics, processors and software driven and not the oil leak, as you said.

Quoted for posterity

[Milo Minderbinder]

"The middleware enables systems designers to refresh key COTS components such as the Freescale PowerPC processors........."

Ah I see how it works now......the processors are a technological dead end so there won't be any significant upgrades available........

[JSFfan]

MG23, thanks for a bit of reason injected into this, for those that have their eyes shut, fingers in ears, yelling eurocannard. I think they are a bit miffed that europe is soon to be out the market of building their own tier 1 fighters.
The only thing I would point out to you is from ORAC's link below your post, that they didn't or refused to understand.
" the real key for the F-35 program is a Lockheed Martin-designed software middleware that enables experts to upgrade COTS hardware and software without rewriting millions of lines of code. “We built the middleware to protect us so we can make changes without overhauling the software code,” Branyan says."

[mike-wsm]

Avionics components are always obsolete. By the time an aitcraft gets into service the permitted components have long been superseded, sometimes incrementally but all too often by a quantum leap.

One of the worst cases was in a uk missile system which standardised on a 4½V logic family which was quickly superseded by 5V logic. Reluctant to update the entire system, the gw manufacturer went on buying the old logic family, and when it became unavailable had to buy a silicon foundry and go on making long since obsolete chipware.

The US does it differently, a good old warhorse like the B-52 gets new electronics fits as often as once a decade. Dave purchasers should provision for frequent total system refit costs.

[Two's in]

Not wishing to play duelling hyperlinks, but there is great non-sequitur in the 2 links provided by ORAC that shed some light on why software and systems remain problematical in Defense Procurement.

The F-35 Marketing blurb says...

Lockheed Martin also requires all software code to be written in the C++ programming language, which is the most common code in use today and enables faster code development, Branyan says.

While the F-22 Marketing blurb says...

90% of the software is written in Ada, the Department of Defense's common computer language. Exceptions to the Ada requirement are granted only for special processing or maintenance requirements.

Now both of these statements are true, but it perfectly illustrates how information needs to be read in context before a reasoned analysis can be made - just because it's on the interwebs doesn't make it true.

But back to middleware - the concept of putting a software "wrapper" around more complex or ageing applications is not new and has found some effective uses. But it doesn't make the problem go away, it simply migratges and transforms it. All the middleware in the world will not improve the throughput or thermal stress of some gasping wheezy system that is being asked to do more and more at every upgrade. Eventually the piece inside the "wrapper" will need to be replaced. As Milo remarked, Moore's Law applies no matter how decoupled or federated you think your design is.

I'm not actually arguing that the F-35 is anything than a major technological leap forward, I'm just saying that you can't reinvent the Laws of Physics through design. And you certainly can't do it through the gift of some very expensive and clever marketing material and some LM lobbyist provided soundbites.

[JSFfan]

As I understand it, middleware is software that interacts with the core software which is unchanged, it's like loading a program on your computer, load, plug and play.
The hardware is upgradeable as needed, there is no block obsolescence and it is across the whole fleet

[ORAC]

As I understand it, middleware is software that interacts with the core software which is unchanged

But the core software runs on PowerPC chips, which have been abandoned by Apple in the commercial market and losing out to ARM chips elsewhere. Which means, at some stage, the core hardware will need replacing with an alternate more advanced type of chip - and the core software rewritten with a new OS - making the use of the middleware at best a temporary solution.

[eaglemmoomin]

Core OS?

It's a military combat aircraft it's not likely to be running Windows for its sensors or avionics. It'll either be some flavour of VXWorks or some massaged version of linux with a real time kernel and customised libraries and it'll be distributed across several procesors. Most likely that middle ware LM is talking about will be buildable for several different 'OS's and the 'core' software as you call it will be going via that middle ware thus reducing the amount of rework to the API that interfaces to the 'OS'.

[JSFfan]

as per wiki
PowerPC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given that powerpc chips are still the market dominant server chip, you may be writing the architecture off a bit quick.
I'll make an obvious guess and assume the unknown future 'new' quantum leap chip architecture will be backward compatible to the many OS that run on powerpc chips.

I honestly don't know if the 'whole' software will need to be rewritten in the future. I hope not, it sounds expensive

edit eaglemmoomin, you sound like you know what you are talking about, from what you know, do you think there is a problem that LM and the major air forces have missed?

[goates]

Originally Posted by ORAC

But the core software runs on PowerPC chips, which have been abandoned by Apple in the commercial market and losing out to ARM chips elsewhere. Which means, at some stage, the core hardware will need replacing with an alternate more advanced type of chip - and the core software rewritten with a new OS - making the use of the middleware at best a temporary solution.

Apple was a small player in the PowerPC world and were just about the only ones using it for desktop machines. The embedded market, servers and consoles are where PowerPC chips are most used. Every Xbox 360, PS3 and Nintendo Wii has a PowerPC CPU inside, and the next generations of these consoles will probably use them too.

If the LM middleware is similar to Java or .NET, then it is entirely possible to swap out the underlying hardware and OS with only minimal impact on the software running on top. Nothing with software is ever perfect, but it shouldn't require a massive re-write for every upgrade. And 24 million lines of code is not uncommon anymore. Windows passed that mark with the release of Windows 2000, which ran on multiple hardware platforms.