Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F-22 To Receive New (Open) System Architecture

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • F-22 To Receive New (Open) System Architecture

    The F-22 Program Office is talking about introducing an open system architecture to the F-22 to 1) reduce cost of upgrades and 2) allow future upgrades to be bid and performed by companies other than LM, possibly opening the door for all sorts of upgrades that might not have been possible otherwise. Could the earlier than expected flights of competitors have accelerated upgrade plans? Either way, this is a very interesting development in the story of the F-22.

    F-22 Getting New Brain - Defense News

    "It has proved so difficult and expensive to upgrade the F-22 Raptor, whose stealthy body contains sensors and electronic brains, that the U.S. Air Force may take the unprecedented step of threading what amounts to a second central nervous system into a fighter jet."

    "Once the new architecture is installed, "if we want a new capability on the airplane, we can go out to industry with an RfI [request for information] and say, 'You all got good ideas; can you make it work with this architecture?'" Weber said.

    The ultimate goal is to allow systems such as new radars to be "plug-and-play," as a printer might be to a desktop computer, he said.

    This might allow the Raptor to use technology developed for the F-35 Lightning II without time-consuming and expensive integration work, Williams said"
    No One Kicks A$! Without Tanker Gas

  • #2
    This concept has been used (or at least started) on other platforms. That's probably more likely a cause than the T-50 or J-20.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
      This concept has been used (or at least started) on other platforms. That's probably more likely a cause than the T-50 or J-20.
      Yeah, I guess Navy ships would be one example. Is that what you're referring to? There aren't many aircraft as integrated as the F-22 that I can think of that have had this sort of upgrade (there aren't many aircraft as integrated as the F-22 period). I work in the avionics field, specifically integrated systems, and it sounds like this would be a major task. Has something of this scale been tried on other aircraft? With a requirement to be in service until 2030 (2040?), I've always been surprised the the F-22 was not designed with an open system architecture from the onset. Better late than never I suppose. I'm interested to see what upgrades this brings in the future (if it gets funded).
      No One Kicks A$! Without Tanker Gas

      Comment


      • #4
        AWACS is (FINALLY) getting a mostly-COTS Windows-based system to replace the 1960s era computer. But yeah larger platforms have been using or at least starting to receive these types of upgrades for a long time and it's only now bleeding into the smaller platform/higher number communities. I agree, it's surprising the F-22 didn't come that way from the onset (or at least since around 2000). What's the story with the F-35, was it similar to the Raptor's outgoing system?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
          What's the story with the F-35, was it similar to the Raptor's outgoing system?
          I don't think so. The F-35 architecture makes much more use of COTS hardware and is more open and upgradeable than that of the F-22. As far as I have read, the F-35 and F-22 actually have VERY different system architectures, which also surprises the heck out of me (since they're both from LM). I think LM did a lot of things with the F-35 that should have been done with the F-22 from the start.

          Military & Aerospace Electronics Forum Conference Detail

          "Designers of the avionics systems for the F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft are using commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) avionics wherever and whenever possible throughout the advanced fighter's cockpit. Lockheed Martin engineers found success with COTS technology mostly because they have been able to successfully manage the obsolescence headaches that accompany COTS, particularly through their proprietary middleware, which enables COTS hardware and software to be upgraded without overhauling the software code. This presentation will discuss how Lockheed Martin integrated COTS hardware and software into the most advanced fighter jet ever built."

          Avionics Magazine :: F-35 Integrated Sensor Suite: Lethal Combination

          "The F-35 pilot receives unprecedented situational awareness from a mission systems package that incorporates modular open systems architecture, object-oriented design and, as often as possible, common commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) processors. Combined with onboard precision weaponry--missiles, smart bombs and a 25-mm cannon--the F-35 is meant to "compress the kill chain," a U.S. military goal emphasized by Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper, who has stated that he wants the U.S. military to attain the capability of destroying targets "within single-digit minutes" of their detection."

          F-35 avionics: an interview with the Joint Strike Fighter's director of mission systems and software

          "Q: What is Lockheed Martin's strategy for integrating COTS electronics throughout the Joint Strike Fighter's avionics?
          A: Most COTS electronics within the F-35 occur at the component level; there are no COTS subsystems. At the component level we make extensive use of military or industrial parts throughout the system. There are few custom ASICs (application specific integrated circuits) or other parts that don't decompose to parts out of the commercial industry. There are of course exceptions where the commercial market does not have applications to yield the parts we need. Our use of COTS also extends into the software arena where we use COTS operating systems and software development tools."
          No One Kicks A$! Without Tanker Gas

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Phoenix10 View Post
            I don't think so. The F-35 architecture makes much more use of COTS hardware and is more open and upgradeable than that of the F-22. As far as I have read, the F-35 and F-22 actually have VERY different system architectures, which also surprises the heck out of me (since they're both from LM). I think LM did a lot of things with the F-35 that should have been done with the F-22 from the start.
            Well, you have to remember, there's probably a good 10 to 15 years between the F-22 and the F-35 in terms of "freezing" the design; I believe the F-22 design was "frozen" around 1990, whereas the F-35's design was probably frozen around 2000. Yes, it would've been nice to have the open architecture on the F-22, but that probably would've delayed the program a good 5-10 years, minimum. There will always be trade-offs, in terms of what would be nice, and what's doable in a reasonable amount of time. The reason the Avenger A-12 got killed was McDD/GD tried to do too much too fast; they "bit off more than they could chew", so to speak. At a certain point, you need to cut your losses and go with with what works.
            "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

            Comment


            • #7
              The F-22 changed radically in the mid 90s. I would guess it was frozen around 96 or so.

              Comment


              • #8
                The basic design was frozen in dem/val late 1990. Exterior lines didn't change much after that.

                I was proving out production spars in 1994.

                But ongoing design changes took place through Lot 6 which was the FY2007 batch, so it's kind of a fuzzy definition to actually say when the design was "frozen".

                Technically you could say 2006, because there weren't any major changes after that. The basics stayed the same from the approved emd configuration, but there were a lot of changes that ended up being backfitted- forward boom metallurgy, some structural retrofits, landing gear mods, canopy mods, and so on.
                Last edited by highsea; 02 Jun 11,, 03:36.
                "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by highsea View Post
                  The basic design was frozen in dem/val late 1990. Exterior lines didn't change much after that.
                  This must be subjective...I can see enormous differences in the 1990 YF-22 design and the 1997 F-22 design.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
                    This must be subjective...I can see enormous differences in the 1990 YF-22 design and the 1997 F-22 design.
                    Yes, there are HUGE differences between the YF-22 and the production F-22A, the most obvious of which is the changes to the airframe (smaller wing, larger horizontal stabilizers, smaller vertical stabs, repositioned cockpit and intakes). However, the interior architecture didn't change that much between 1990 and, say, 1995; the long lead-time components were more or less frozen by 1995. Significant changes at this point would've caused a major redesign of the avionics fit.
                    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
                      This must be subjective...I can see enormous differences in the 1990 YF-22 design and the 1997 F-22 design.
                      The YF-22 was known as configuration 1132, that design was frozen in May 1988. The leading "1" in the number designates a prototype design.

                      There were five major design evolutions between 1998 and 1990, which moved the cockpit aft, changed the forebody shaping, horizontal and vertical stabs, clipped the wings and changed the sweep angle, and chopped two feet off the overall length. There were also a lot of changes to the avionics specifications, but those aren't something we can see by looking.

                      The final two design changes were made in 1990, one in the early part of the year and one at the end of the year. They were known as configurations 638 and 645.

                      Configuration 645 was the one chosen for EMD, and those exterior lines are the ones we see in the production aircraft.

                      So yes, it is subjective to say when a design is "frozen" because as I mentioned there was an ongoing evolution through 2006. But they weren't changes that affected the exterior lines, they were mainly structural and mechanical.
                      "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by highsea View Post
                        The YF-22 was known as configuration 1132, that design was frozen in May 1988. The leading "1" in the number designates a prototype design.

                        There were five major design evolutions between 1998 and 1990, which moved the cockpit aft, changed the forebody shaping, horizontal and vertical stabs, clipped the wings and changed the sweep angle, and chopped two feet off the overall length. There were also a lot of changes to the avionics specifications, but those aren't something we can see by looking.
                        Ok, that's actually what I was talking about...I thought it had happened much later.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          You were right about the differences Jimmy, it's just that it takes so long between finalizing the drawings and building the jet.

                          The article in the OP is kind of misleading. The current upgrade path is to bring 83 frames to block 35 configuration, which is the tape 3.2. This increment has been split into 3 parts because it was taking too long, and the final portion is the open architecture part.

                          So even if it goes according to plan (lol), it's a decade out and only covers half the fleet.
                          "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by highsea View Post
                            You were right about the differences Jimmy, it's just that it takes so long between finalizing the drawings and building the jet.

                            The article in the OP is kind of misleading. The current upgrade path is to bring 83 frames to block 35 configuration, which is the tape 3.2. This increment has been split into 3 parts because it was taking too long, and the final portion is the open architecture part.

                            So even if it goes according to plan (lol), it's a decade out and only covers half the fleet.
                            Is this open architecture upgrade going to involve those early frames that are not combat coded at the moment?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Zinja View Post
                              Is this open architecture upgrade going to involve those early frames that are not combat coded at the moment?
                              No as far as I know.

                              It's an ADA language interface that was part of the block 35 package. So it was only ever intended for 83 frames.
                              "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X