In-Flight Reboot?

steelem writes "The Washington Post is running a story about how the F-22 Raptor's software requires in-flight reboots. Apparently the 2 million line software project is 93% done. Knowing most projects I've been on, it'll stay that way for another few years."

Comments

Hah

[B3ryllium]

Welcome to Microsoft Airlines, your Stewardess today will be Steve Ballmer.

Re:Hah

[Areeves]

Good lord I can picture it now, MS Air Flight 223 exploded shortly after take off today, the cockpit recorder was recovered, unfortunately the only sound audible is a single frantic voice chanting, "developers, developers, developers" shortly before the plane exploded. All MS Air flights have been grounded for what Microsoft calls a "service pack update"

Re:Hah

[680x0]

What?!? No one's made reference to the new pilot nicknames which are becoming popular... like Colonel Panic.

Is this really Slashdot? :-)

Re:Hah

[los furtive]

Its Major Panic, BTW. Here are some other popular ones:

• Major Disaster
• Captain Kaboom
• General Chaos
• General Dissaray
• Major Disorder
• General Motors
• General Electric
• General Mills
• Coporal Punishment
• Corporal Feliac (think about it)
• Major Minor
• Sargent Major
• Private Parts

And the list goes on and on...

Re:Hah

[680x0]

When a Unix computer crashes, it's often due to a kernel panic... the Unix equivalent of a "blue screen of death" (Windows).

Yeah, I know, if I have to explain a joke, it's not funny. Oh well...

Re:Hah

[sharkey]

your Stewardess today will be Steve Ballmer

Better him than Clippy. Which would you rather hear? "Peanuts, peanuts, peanuts!" or "It looks like you're barfing! Would you like some tips on ways to hold your bag?"

Re:Hah

[B3ryllium]

It's okay, I found it humorous. General Protection-Fault really needs to start explaining his actions, however.

Re:Hah

[clbyjack81]

The article stated that the reboots were for subsystems, not the fly-by-wire systems or the navigational system. The main problems have been in the sensor-weapon integration. This is one reason why the plane is not yet in full-scale production.

Re:Hah

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Oh god. The terms "Blue Screen of Death" and "System Crash" suddenly take on a much deeper meaning.

LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[DeathPenguin]

This is an ideal application for LinuxBIOS. The article says an average of 14 minutes per flight were spent rebooting computers. Even 36 seconds per reboot is too much, and would be totally unacceptable if it were say, a navigation computer on a 737 with a hundred civilians on-board.

Nasa has an interesting project called FlightLinux specifically geared for this sort of application. Unfortunately, they have yet to release code (export restrictions), but they supposedly use LinuxBIOS for their system.

Of course, having software that never crashes (no pun intended) would be best, but it never hurts to have a system that can boot up in just a couple seconds anyway.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[cperciva]

Even 36 seconds per reboot is too much, and would be totally unacceptable if it were say, a navigation computer on a 737 with a hundred civilians on-board.

What makes you think that it takes 36 seconds to reboot their systems? That's an average time spent per flight -- we don't know how many times the systems are crashing per flight.

Also note that this covers all their computer systems, not just the actual flight control. Some systems are obviously more important than others; it probably doesn't matter if the target identification system fails for a few seconds.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[marauder404]

The article doesn't say that it takes 36 seconds to reboot the computers. It says 36 seconds per flight are spent rebooting the avionics. It doesn't say how long the reboots take. The total reboot time per flight could have been reduced by quicker reboots or less reboots or both.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[Eneff]

By reboot, I'm thinking they mean from "press button" until "I can use again."

That means running the program and getting all necessary information from the hardware so that pilots can make decisions from it.

The BIOS is insignificant in this case.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[pfleming]

"Some systems are obviously more important than others; it probably doesn't matter if the target identification system fails for a few seconds." Unless you're on the wrong end of the target id system. We have enough 'friendly fire'(although who cares how 'friendly' it is when you're dead?) problems already. I don't care what OS it's using, it needs to be fixed.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[Yokaze]

> and would be totally unacceptable if it were say, a navigation computer on a 737 with a hundred civilians on-board.

AFAIK, civilian flight systems are three times redundant. Written by three different isolated teams in three different programming paradigms, from three different cultures to avoid similar faults due to "contamination" by other teams, or simlar faults due to similar paradigms.
(Airbus 340 (3M LOC), Boeing 777 are said to have employed such techniques)

And IRC, they don't fly with at least two redundant fully functional systems.

It makes me wonder why the military has less stringent requirements.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[JDWTopGuy]

IMNSHO, it's basically common knowledge that these things CAN NOT be flown without computers regulating all the doohickeys. We're not talking about Cessnas (sorry if I spelled that wrong), we're talking about extremely complex jets flying at high speeds.

Granted, some things (ejector seats, cupholders, maybe even bomb-dropping aparatus) don't need computer control, but all those wing flaps and engines, etc. do, at least in a vehicle this complex.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[cperciva]

That's a training issue. Pilots need to learn that "cannot identify target" means *wait*, not *shoot now*.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[Tingler]

In order to make the planes more maneuverable, they need to make them less stable. A simply analogy would be a school bus is more stable & less maneuverable than a bicycle. I have read that flying a modern fighter aircraft without computers would be like steering a bicycle backwards while sitting on the hood of a car at 60 miles an hour.

Very unstable yet very maneuverable.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[jimbolaya]

But has the pilot of that unidentified target, who might be foe, learned that he's not supposed to shoot the guy 'cause his system is rebooting?

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[Laur]

It makes me wonder why the military has less stringent requirements.

There is a world of diffeence between a civilian plane which only has to fly from point A to B and the F/A-22. The F/A-22 is the most advance fighter jet in the world and can literally do things that no other plane can do. There is no way they can develope three separate software suits for a system this complex. But trust me, there is plenty of redundancy built in. Besides, the F/A-22 hasn't finished testing yet, it is not a finished product and so of course still contains bugs.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[Loligo]

Sure, it's considered unsportmanlike to shoot someone with the ";) ..." over the cockpit.

-l

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[Chess_the_cat]

A mechanical device that can manage and acquire targets? Run the Nav system? Run Communications? I'd like to see that.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[ksheff]

Given the cost of one of these things, they are certainly not going to trade safety and reliability. Military systems are designed to have redundant systems because they will be deployed in harsher conditions than civilian aircraft.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[Slime-dogg]

Yeah, 36 seconds a flight. Considering that most of the programming and everything is probably kept in solid state memory, a reboot maybe takes a second or two at most.

The language used for all of this is ADA, which is one devious language to program in. Everything requires exception handling, and every exception needs to be handled. The 2 million lines of code is surprising, not because it seems like a lot, but because it seems like so little.

I'm quite sure that every computerized portion of the aircraft has at least one redundant system too. The aircraft has already been through it's "X" stage. It's been officially given a fighter designation, and they do have a flight of them somewhere. The military isn't going to stick pilots in a rickety plane. If the craft didn't have redundant systems, and the flight suit went out for a couple seconds during a 9 G turn, the pilot would be out. Soon after, the plane would be gone.

The fact that they are still working on the stability is a cool thing. If I were piloting, I'd want my main system to be rock solid and never crash, but I'd also want all of my redundant systems to be rock solid and never class.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[PetoskeyGuy]

I don't think the military has less stringent requirements, although I honestly don't know. The article did mention this is an experimental plane still in development. Once the bugs are worked out the US may buy hundreds of them at $200,000,000 each.

Hopefully they will cut back on a few of those airplanes and put some money into our school systems. 5 planes = 1 Billion dollars! And one of the current stealth fighters lost it's tail after air show.

I guess it's tought to keep to a budget when you can print more money.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[JamMasterJGorilla]

I was on an airbus flight leaving Dulles to San Francisco in the middle of the dot com days. We hit maximum thrust on the runway the front wheel lifted off then the plane shutdown. The pilot had to "Reboot" the plane (his words). First we had to sit there for 15 minutes while the brakes cooled.... Then the best part cam, they called in the mechanics to fix the computers..... Now this plane was filled with computer people and only one got off. I was sitting in the first business class seat at the isle so I had a good view of the cockpit while the mechanics worked on the computers. They pulled several avionics parts out of the plane (about the size of a ammunition box) then replaced them while taking to the technicians in San Francisco. About 2 hours later we took off. I'm still alive today.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[Mr. Feely]

AFAIK, civilian flight systems are three times redundant. Written by three different isolated teams in three different programming paradigms, from three different cultures to avoid similar faults due to "contamination" by other teams, or simlar faults due to similar paradigms.
(Airbus 340 (3M LOC), Boeing 777 are said to have employed such techniques)

Not necessarily true. To certify software systems using the currently accepted civilian standards for software development (DO-178B), you need to show through analysis that the failure rate of the entire system is below some threshold. One way to attain that threshold is to use multiple, redundant systems that have a higher-than-threshold failure rate, such that the combined failure rate is below the threshold. There is no requirement to use redundancy; it just happens to be an effective way to meet the failure threshold.

I have developed avionics software for business jets and I can tell you that the system on which I worked was designed to be only two-times redundant, and it was redudant with another instance of itself, not a wholly independent system. That level of redundancy was sufficient to meet the required failure threshold.

Re: LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[Black Parrot]

> The language used for all of this is ADA, which is one devious language to program in.

Actually, I find Ada [sic] quite elegant to program in.

> Everything requires exception handling, and every exception needs to be handled.

Actually exception handlers are optional. But in avionics you probably do want to handle exceptions, regardless of which language you're using.

> The 2 million lines of code is surprising, not because it seems like a lot, but because it seems like so little.

Ada is somewhat verbose because it uses "begin" and "end" instead of "{" and "}", and a few other things along that line, but it's absurd to pass judgement on the size of a program without the slightest idea how many function points it implements.

In my experience, the more familiar I become with Ada the more lean and elegant my programs are. As with virtually every other programming language, you can set up abstractions and program at "a higher level" than Joe Noobie would do. Possibly the F-22 avionics were programmed by noobies or idiots, but somehow I doubt it.

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[a low-flying penguin]

I work as a pilot for a regional airline. And I can tell you that "rebooting" (we rather call it resetting) a computer during flight happens, causes no havoc whatsoever, and is well over 2 minutes. The operation is pretty straightforfard: whenever the "flight warning computer", which is watching all the rest, detects a failure in a computer : -Either it is _very_ important, and then you have sufficient redundancy to just leave it so (and you don't want to re-use a computer that failed once on something critical...in case the next failure goes undetected !) -Or you are on the ground with time on your hands, or in flight and it is some secondary stuff: you just pull the circuit breaker for that computer, count 2 minutes, then put it back on. The computer is then usually usable within a minute. For mission-critical system, such as flight control computers, which control the autopilot, everything is tripled. If two agree and one disagrees, the odd one is declared faulty. On such failures, the crew is often not advised while in flight, as there is nothing to be done. The failure is declared by the flight warning computer after landing, for the benefit of maintenance. Obviously, you can't take off again in that situation. And if the failure happens before takeoff, the rules are different: in case of a failure, and if the reset is ineffective, you check the remaining equipement against the minilum equipement list, which tells you if the remaining redundancy is sufficient or not. It can allow you to take off, sometimes with restrictions, or forbid the flight. As a rule, redundacy is such that the fault of a single computer or system (even an engine) is not a problem. Nice to know, isn't it ? ;-)

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[TheLink]

It could be 0-0. depending on how many frags you subtract for blue-on-blue aka friendly fire ;).

Re:LinuxBIOS in flight computers

[Suslik]

It's not quite that simple. :-) If you are running a safety-critical system such as the arming system or stores management system then safety and procurement regulations require you to use a high-integrity operating system / programming runtime. Given the four levels of integrity defined in RTCA DO-178B (the bible for USA avionics software), this sort of software runs at Levels A or B (high integrity); even cut-down and much-tested Linux is only really suitable for Levels C or D.

If you want software that does not crash during operation, you have to remove subroutine recursion and dynamic memory allocation so that you can guarantee an upper bound on the stack and pool usage at any time. If you're using multiple processes then you need some way of preventing deadlock and livelock. Whether you use C, C++ or Ada, you have to enforce these conventions in some way.
See the SPARK Ada site for an example of how you do this. But fundamentally, to write software that is crash free you cannot take an off-the-shelf language and off-the-shelf OS and simply hope for the best.

What do you expect

[gokubi]

when the contracting agency can't acocunt for $1 trillion? That's more than the rest of the world spent on their military last year. With that kind of accountability, I'm amazed any project gets over 80% done.

Re:What do you expect

[Uber Banker]

yeah... $200mn per aircraft... if it wasn't for these damn patents they could download them for free from Kazaa...

the 'let's go kill people' software

[Anonymous Coward]

damn, my job is so boring. I wish I was on the 'let's go kill people' software dev team.

Re: the 'let's go kill people' software

[Black Parrot]

> the 'let's go kill people' software

Yeah, but the pilot ain't the one that it's supposed to kill.

Found more on Google.

[Black Parrot]

The first hit on Google was this interesting take on the story.

Why reboot systems at all?

[BWJones]

Jeez, one would think that there would be built in redundancy so that if one system went down, it could be rebooted while the other system automatically takes over. Perhaps this is the way things are working, but the thought of rebooting during ACM makes me really nervous.

Re:Why reboot systems at all?

[sexylicious]

They do.

There are several redundant systems. Let's say for example that your FLCC has 3 identical systems. If one fails, the other two take over until the watchdog timer kicks in and restarts the third (in the case of a software fault).

Anything that is rated for piloted flight is this way, especially fly-by-wire systems or other mission critical components.

This claim is not surprising at all, since it happens all the time.

Re:Why reboot systems at all?

[White Manual]

There are several redundant systems. Let's say for example that your FLCC has 3 identical systems. If one fails, the other two take over until the watchdog timer kicks in and restarts the third (in the case of a software fault).

Not exactly. The watchdog timer is the one that decides some unit has failed and, only then, gives control to a redundant unit (in addition order a reboot of the failed one). For practical purposes, the reboot will be in the background, so the time it actually takes it not that important (as long as the Mean Time Between Failures is reasonable). Much more important is setting of the watchdog timer. If it is set too long, other connected units may be wasting cycles waiting for the failed unit. If it set too short, many unnecessary reboots will be happening... A bad combination of long and short settings will produce exactly the problem that is being reported in the article. This is not really a problem except to the eyes of the uninformed press; it merely shows that the whole system is not fine tuned yet. --

Re:Why reboot systems at all?

[the_ed_dawg]

It's called concurrent engineering. Obviously, the flight control systems are working within a level of tolerance to test the mechanical systems. Targeting and sensor systems are useless if there isn't a functioning platform. If they sat around waiting for the complete software package to be completed before testing the F-22's basic flight capability, they would be way behind their current state. Keep in mind that this is still in test, not production.

In flight Clippy

[niko9]

Hi there soldier! You seem to have lost power to both engines secondary to a software malfunction, over hostile territory. Would you like me to help you reboot Windows?

Re:In flight Clippy

[Trevalyx]

"I'm sorry, but the Escape function is disabled during reboot. Instead, you can change what I look like! Click F1 for more options."

Re:In flight Clippy

[FrostedWheat]

Hi there soldier! You seem to have lost power to both engines secondary to a software malfunction, over hostile territory. Would you like me to help you reboot Windows?

F-22 Raptor has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience. If you were in the middle of something, the information you were working on might be lost. Please tell Microsoft about this problem.

Re:In flight Clippy

[HillBilly]

It looks like you are about to die. Would you like help?

- Get help with dying
- I'll die on my own thankyou.

Re:In flight Clippy

[Tingler]

Warning: Ejector seat not found. Press F1 to continue.

Re:In flight Clippy

[interiot]

Here's one that appears to work.

Too easy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be too trollish to say this brings a whole new meaning to "The Blue Screen of Death"? Yeah, I thought so too.

Why is this a big deal?

[Illserve]

Software like this should be able to reboot midflight without a hitch.

Flight control software has been rebootable on the fly since the earliest days of the space program.

Re:Why is this a big deal?

[mnemonic_]

This isn't flight control software we're talking about. This is sensor fusion software. The flight control system is unaffected.

The sensor fusion software's task is to combine the data from all of the various sources (radar, RWR, multiple datalinks etc.) and redistribute it among the systems that could benefit from it. For example, a target detected by radar would show also up on the Horizontal Situational Display, and would also be re-transmitted via datalink to JSTARS and/or AWACS and any other datalink-capable aircraft. In addition, contact information can correlated for maximum accuracy. A target's radar emissions could be detected by the Radar Warning Receiver, and that information could then be used by the radar for Non Cooperative Target Recognition allowing the radar to display the type of target (though NCTR in the F/A-22 reportedly works differently from this). All of the numerous sensors on the F/A-22 have their resources and products pooled together, allowing for extremely effective target detection, tracking and ID. Sensor fusion is an incredible development in avionics and is one of the foundations of 5th generation fighter aircraft technology.

Re:Why is this a big deal?

[wondergibbon]

Well, of course it's going to reboot on the fly....

Ejection Seat

[rchatterjee]

If you're the test pilot you really got to hope they finished the code on the ejection seat at least, at 1,200 mph even a few seconds of reboot time is enough to turn you into part of the scenery at the test range.

Re:Ejection Seat

[Wyatt Earp]

A modern ejection seat does alot of stuff.

http://www.martin-baker.co.uk/

Propulsion System - an adaptive propulsion system is provided that performs to best suite the prevailing ejection conditions e.g. pilot boarding mass, ejection speed, aircraft attitude. This comprises the proven Mk16-type, self regulating ejection catapult design, and a new switchable under seat rocket motor that allows one of 4 modes/thrust levels to be selected, under the control of the seat microprocessor sequencer.

In F-22 they use the ACES II.

The seat picks the mode of ejection based on conditions, speed, G, etc. The seat automaticly picts the mode of parachute deployment. In a typical ejection the following happens.

Rocket-Catapult Fires
Drogue Deploys
STAPAC Ignites
Parachute Deploys
Drogue Releases from seat
Seat Releases from Crewman
Parachute Inflates
Survival Kit Deploys

This stuff happens automaticly and more stages can be added for things like firing pyros to destroy black boxes, restraining limbs during the ejection, firing transponders, auto deploying life vests and so forth.

Critical software

[limbostar]

"Now, admittedly, it's critical software. This is the 'let's go kill people' software."

Man, I need to get a new job.

Remarkably frank ...

[JonyEpsilon]

This is the 'let's go kill people' software.

Is it just me, or does this kind of talk disturb anyone ?

Re:Remarkably frank ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what kind of talk do you expect? The kind of talk that says "let's go sing happy Barney songs around the campfire with people who have been born and bred to hate us with every fibre in their being"? Get real. In my army, I want my solders to go out and kill the fucking enemy. And don't come home until he's dead.

Re:Remarkably frank ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It disturbs me in that it's the sharp end of the system. A military aircraft would be pointedly useless if during its whole developmental process everyone skirted around the objectives of the thing; that is, to blow stuff up over there, while you're sitting here, and come back. that does involve killing people quite often.

What disturbs me too is slashdot reporting. The article wasn't "about" the system needing reboots in flight, that was just one thing mentioned. The article was "about" a piece of military hardware nearing completion. The slashdot front page description and the real article may as well have been about two entirely different subjects for all they share.

Re:Remarkably frank ...

[Matimus]

It disturbs me that you are disturbed by the military talking about killing people. What exactly do you think the military does? Maybe they will make it open source and you can add some code for feeding orphans.

Re:Remarkably frank ...

[phyrestang]

Hey... At least it is the truth. For some reason you strike me as one of the people who has no problem eating beef, but gets uneasy talking about the slaughter house. Killing is what these machines were made for, why beat around the bush?

Re:Remarkably frank ...

[p2sam]

Frank and to the point, no sugar coating.

Or do you prefer languages like the Department of Homeland Security, which concerns with domestic spying, or the Department of Defense, which concerns with waging war?

Re:Remarkably frank ...

[AKnightCowboy]

Is it just me, or does this kind of talk disturb anyone ?

Why does it disturb you? What else do you think a $200 million stealth fighter is for? Fighters are for killing people and/or destroying their stuff. Hopefully this stuff will be ready when we go to liberate North Korea and China. :-)

Re:Remarkably frank ...

[bmajik]

it apparently disturbs you.

thats too bad, because it somewhat indicates you are uncomfortable with reality.

I pay a lot of tax money every year to guarantee that the united states has a highly effective group of people who only exist for the purpose of killing.

I fully support killing.

I am glad that I pay my government to refine the process of killing, to make it more efficient, and to have major universities dedicated to the art and science of efficient killing.

Without killing, some disagreements just cant be settled. Im glad someone is willing to do the killing for me, so every disagreement doesn't ruin my life. I'm glad that i have the option to let someone else stick up for my interests in these disagreements that can only be settled with killing. I'm glad that the killers i dont like don't get to roll over me according to their whims.

I support killing.

Re:Remarkably frank ...

[Some Dumbass...]

It disturbs me that you are disturbed by the military talking about killing people. What exactly do you think the military does?

Considering the context, maybe he's worried that they're referring to the _pilots_ of these planes? :)

Re:Remarkably frank ...

[fucksl4shd0t]

And by "our civilization" I don't mean the "kill 'em all" hicks that have suddenly made a comeback in the US. I'm talking about human civilization as a whole --- the thing that seperates us from mere animals.

I've got an ant farm you just have got to see. :)

Seriously, though, I'm all for respecting life, and I don't buy into this basic fact that sometimes you have to kill somebody. I think there's a better way. Besides that, I think the best way to depose Saddam Hussein would have been assassination. Why is assassination considered so dishonorable? Compared to thousands of innocents dying--the same innocents we were "liberating" I might add.

But showing respect for life and being direct about the function of a given subsystem on a plane aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. You don't like it, but how do you know the guy who said it doesn't have respect for human life? In my experience (not small), most soldiers have a respect for life in general. They just put American lives above others, for whatever reason (most common reason: Americans are their family, who they love and want to protect).

Re:Remarkably frank ...

[be-fan]

You're just restating the problem, without fundementally changing the situation. Why are your kids any more important than any other kids? Most importantly, why is it more important for you to have a toy (and you do buy toys, I'm sure) than for these children to have food? No matter how you approach it, you're justification comes out to "I'm a pussy-footed self-serving jackass" because, in reality, that's all our civilization lets us be.

Beyond grasp

[DigiShaman]

I've said it a hundred times and I will say it again. Software is getting way to complex for human management in developing bug-free code.

Cheetokiller hybrid couch

[fusion812]

2 million lines of code for 'lets go kill people' software. If they can do that, I wonder if I can get them to 'sponser' a new 'lets go eat some cheetos and then kill people' couch for my apartmet.

Re:I wonder...

[Kenja]

You just don't understand. Microsoft operating systems and ONLY Microsoft operating systems crash or require reboots. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just part of the vast conspiracy against me.

Timing

[SnowWolf2003]

Control: Destroy that incoming cruise missile. ETA 35 seconds.
Pilot: Got Radar Lock
Pilot: Hang on - just got to reboot. Will be ready in 36 seconds...

It may be normal...

[curtlewis]

for flight systems to reboot 'on the fly' but I consider that unacceptable for mission critical systems.

It's the mentality that feels that 'good enough' is good enough that brings us this type of warm and comfy software.

Good enough isn't. Stable code can be written. It merely takes talented engineers, design time to conceptualize and architech the product up front before coding it and giving QA what they need to test and committment to FIXING the issues that QA identifies. It's not the cheapest or fastest way to deliver a product, but if I want cheap and fast I'll go to Taco Bell, not a jet fighter.

Given how expensive these planes are, does it make sense to go cheap on the software and risk crashing not only the software but the multi million/billion dollar plane too?

Re:It may be normal...

[egomaniac]

Good enough isn't. Stable code can be written. It merely takes talented engineers, design time to conceptualize and architech the product up front before coding it and giving QA what they need to test and committment to FIXING the issues that QA identifies.

I'm curious -- do you do development? Have you ever worked on a 2 million line program? No offense, but anyone who uses the word "merely" in a paragraph like that strikes me as someone with a tenuous grip on reality.

I am a senior engineer at a very big company. Applications I have written are in use by literally millions of people. And I'm scared stiff by the idea of writing the kind of software that powers the F-22. Software of this scale is the single most complicated project humanity has ever undertaken, and to belittle the efforts of the engineers involved by suggesting that they don't know what they're doing or aren't following responsible development guidelines shows a serious lack of understanding. I promise you, the software on the F-22 has been subjected to more rigorous QA than anything you or I have ever touched, but that still doesn't make it easy.

Humans aren't perfect, and as long as that continues to be the case, writing a multi-million line chunk of software will always be a ridiculously expensive and difficult proposition with no guarantee of success.

Re:It may be normal...

[curtlewis]

I'm a Senior QA Engineer by trade, having worked at a couple major names in the valley, several startups and a few dot coms.

You're just used to not being given enough time to do your job really well. Everything in the industry is rush, rush, rush these days. And the end products show that. I don't blame you or fellow engineers, I blame senior management for all the rush jobs.

To do zero defect development requires alot more design time, alot more coding time and massively longer test cycles. It's usually cost prohibitive for most companies, but for a $220 million fighter and the life of the pilot I think the extra time and costs are justified. But then, I'm not a bean counter making the decisions.

Re:It may be normal...

[SlashdotLemming]

I'm curious -- do you do development? Have you ever worked on a 2 million line program? No offense, but anyone who uses the word "merely" in a paragraph like that strikes me as someone with a tenuous grip on reality.

I think where people get thrown is that they see houses and cars and bridges and think, "If we can build those, why can't we build software? Programmers must be lazy"
Well, is every 2x4 in a house the exact same length? Are all the boards perfectly flush? A crooked door in a house will usually cause no problems, but the equivalent in a piece of software can cause a crash. Even computer hardware is never perfect. Does every 2.0 GHz processor run at EXACTLY 2.0 GHz? Not even close, but they are good enough. The problem with software is that it needs to be perfect to be perfect, and people aren't perfect.
The beauty of the F-22 system is that the developers realize this, and they designed the system knowing there would be flaws and that the software would crash. When some of the software crashes, the jet keeps right on going, which is the sign of ultimate stability.

Editors, upon submission...

[WindBourne]

Please consider having Slashdot do a quick search, esp in the last 2-3 weeks. Even if this is done at the submittor level, then they could avoid this. I have no doubt that most submittors would prefer to avoid this.
Likewise, when viewing for submission, check the same search, so that you can see what the use saw
BTW, this is not really a problem with just /., but more indicative of the problem that stories keep getting retold on the same news. Sad really.

Re: Editors, upon submission...

[Black Parrot]

> Please consider having Slashdot do a quick search, esp in the last 2-3 weeks. Even if this is done at the submittor level, then they could avoid this. I have no doubt that most submittors would prefer to avoid this.

Au contraire, I would guess that every time a story hits Slashdot about 9000 clowns immediately submit it again in hopes of duping the editors into a dupe.

Yes, my young skywalker...

[bugnuts]

Now you shall witness the power of this Fully Operational Ba...

Your program has performed an illegal
operation and will be closed by Windows

What does reboot even mean in this context?

[Sean80]

I suppose I don't even know what 'reboot' means in this context. Do planes like this have operating systems? Or does the hardware directly run the code? Does the reboot simply reset the system state from somewhere it shouldn't have been? How fast is a reboot? The only context I have is the few minutes it takes my Linux box or my Windows box at work to reboot.

What's funny is I always thought the guys writing this sort of software were uber-coders, and never had this sort of problem. Throw those few extra hundred million dollars at the coding effort, and I just thought this sort of problem went away. It's worrying though - isn't code which ever needed to be rebooted fundamentally flawed? Can you ever really fix that sort of code, or are we just waiting for the day whenever another edge test case comes along mid-flight, and an F-22 falls out of the sky? Even one of this sort of error seems like impending doom to me.

Re:What does reboot even mean in this context?

[afidel]

Usually it means a watchdog timer ticked off without being cleared. At this point the secondary or tertiary systems are given controll and the failed system loads its software fresh from firmware and comes back up to speed on the current input data, depending on the design of the system controll may be handed back to the freshly rebooted system or it may become the new secondary/tertiary. Reboots for all software systems are averaging 36 seconds per flight (probably meaning one reboot per two flights). So one redundant system is encountering a non-recoverable error per two flights, not too bad but not stellar. This is however a great improvement over some previous system where the HARDWARE had problem rates almost this high (F-16 is what my memory is throwing at me, I believe a targeting related chip had an error that would cause problems pretty regularly so rather than create a new chip they just made it 4X redundant rather than the standard 3X)

This isn't a big deal

[realmolo]

The software required to run the Raptor is insanely complicated. The plane itself was ambitious, but the contorl systems are the real innovation. Give these guys a break. The fact that the thing flies at all is amazing. The fact that it does everything it was designed to do is unbelievable. So there are a few bugs to work out. That's how it goes. We're not talking about "normal" programming problems here- this is Real Life stuff.

Re:Distributed target tracking?

[phyrestang]

I'm really, truly, very sorry... But I just have to say it. How about a beowulf cluster of them?

Humorous

[mharris007]

In a sick, sick, way I find it humorous on how they actually brag or boast about how they decreased the reboot time of the computer.

Sounds sort of scary to me the such a critical component needs to be rebooted at all, boy, I'm glad I'm not a test-pilot.

This has been coming for a while

[sphealey]

First, this issue has been covered extensively by Aviation Week & Space Technology, if you have a library that keeps the back issues (web subscription very expensive).

Second, I have seen this coming for about 10 years now. In the 70s and 80s I worked with digital control systems. Not avionics, but similar. In those days the systems were expected to work right, every time, for years at a time. 2 years between system restarts was considered "acceptable". If a system did fail, the manufacturer was expected to get its collective butt out to the site, figure out why, and issue a (solid!) fix pronto.

In the last 5 years, I have repeatedly been on brand-new airplanes at the gate when the pilot comes on and says "we are having a little problem with the system - don't be alarmed if the lights go off" followed by what is clearly a "reboot" of the airplane! When the fsk did it become acceptable to fix problems in avionics by rebooting the airplane?

And if the system designers really think the Microsoft Rebooting Disease is an acceptable way to handle system faults, how long before one of those faults occurs in the air?

I guess I am just old and crusty, expecting life-critical systems to work to spec 100.0% of the time.

sPh

Apollo 11

[s20451]

Haven't read the article (typically of slashdot), but I do remember that the Apollo 11 computer nearly caused the first lunar landing to fail because it kept rebooting in-flight. Due to a configuration error that occurred shortly before flight, the computer repeatedly ran out of memory, but the software was designed so that the computer could reboot without catastrophe.

You can read more here.

The Onion

[chmilar]

The article reads like something from The Onion, not The Washington Post!

Lines like "$200-million-per-copy stealth fighter", "the F/A-22 is the absolute most-awesome killing machine I have ever, ever flown", "any other free world fighter", "14 minutes per flight rebooting mission critical computer systems", "the 'let's go kill people' software", and "kill somebody and stay alive and execute your mission" were cracking me up.

Are you sure this article isn't really from The Onion? They have some pretty imaginative writers.

Knights of the Sky

[anon*127.0.0.1]

During WWI, pilots would signal the enemy if their machine guns jammed. Then it was considered the gentlemanly thing to do for the opponent to wait until the pilot had cleared the jam before resuming the dogfight.

I wonder if modern day pilots are going to need a way to signal their opponent that their computers are rebooting?

Re:Knights of the Sky

[Anonymous Coward]

This is similar to the legend about gunfighters in the old west (usa) giving each other an even break.

At all times and places in history winners attack with duplicity deception underhandedness guile lies speed and overwhelming force.

Only losers buy into the lie about fair play in war. The winners always break any rule that suits them, bewails enemy tricks, and tells everyone how upright they are about the rules they do follow because it suits them.

Then the winners write the history books which read over and over how good guys beat bad guys. If the other side had won the history books would still be all about the good guys winning (jews.. indians..indians..jews..When genocide is complete enough there are too few to complain to make a difference).

And one more thing. Look in the mirror. Every living human is the result of successful parents, cultures, and societies that used the above tactics. No one has an ancestory free of this stuff; no nation ever became a nation without denying land to somebody else (even tiny mid Pacific islands have their old population versus new arrivals (e.g. immigrants from India) racial problems).

Furthermore.. oh god its 3am what the hell am i doing.. gotta go

Redefines 3-finger-salute

[SuperBanana]

How about giving a whole new meaning to the term "three finger salute"?

Not the first time

[PortWineBoy]

The original version of the A-6 Intruder had some sort of non-digital ballistics computer, the AN/ASQ-61. It evidently would freeze and require a reboot by kicking a certain area of the cockpit floor. The computer had a mechanical drum that actually got stuck and needed to be "booted" in order for it to get going again.

Told to me by a pilot, I can't verify via a quick google.

Re:Not the first time

[PortWineBoy]

Uh, no. The story was told to me by a pilot who served in 'nam. You should hang out at VFW bars too, you hear amazing stories. You can return to your Tom Clancy books now.

Must be running windows

[glen]

[_] Take off
[*] Land
[ok](cancel)

You must reboot your computer for the new settings to take effect...

written in ADA !

[Anonymous Coward]

F-22 software is written in ADA, by people with experience in designing these types of systems. It is a different breed of software engineering. There are a ton of issues coordinating all the software and hardware subsystems.

Cool!

[Dark Lord Seth]

I can already imagine the cockpit layout of a Raptor... Altimeter, speedometer, non-functional IFF indicator, roll indicator, yaw indicator, pitch indicator, three displays for tactical data, fuel indicator, HUD, control, alt, delete...

At least Windows would be fitting on an aircraft... It's easier to move a mouse cursor around with a joystick then to type "shutdown -r now" with it!

I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the pilots have to download security updates and delete mountains of spam as they fly, softly cursing script kiddies under their breaths? Will they get distracted by offers of remarkable penis enlargement and bomb friendly troops? And what happens when a remote attacker gets administrative priveledges to an F-22? Will he use it to serve pr0n, forward spam, or launch a bombing run on the evil Phrench? Ah the possibilities...

It's been 11 years since the F-22 last crashed...

[_Pablo]

It was 25 April 1992 when the F-22 oscillated it's way into the ground - due to (ahem!) pilot induced oscillation.

<B>Lockheed Martin Knowledge Base Article - Q000001</B>

<B>INFO:</B> F-22 impacts with the surface of the earth.

The information in this article applies to:

- F-22 Raptor for USAF

<B>SYMPTOMS</B>

When you slowly fly above the runway with full fuel, hit the afterburners and wiggle the stick the plane will go up...then down...then up...then down until the non-earth area is exhausted.

<B>RESOLUTION</B>

A supportad fix is now available from Lockheed Martin, but is only intended to correct the problem described in this article. Apply it only to aircraft which are experiencing this specific problem.

<A HREF ="http://www.lockheedmartin.com/downloads/Q000001_ F22_Raptor_EN.exe">http://www.lockheedmartin.com/d ownloads/Q000001_F22_Raptor_EN.exe</A>

<B>WORKAROUND</B>

Avoid taking off.

STATUS

Lockheed Martin has confirmed this is a problem with in the military hardware products that are listed at the beginning of this article.

Microsoft bashing

[jfengel]

I've just re-re-read the article, and I can't find any mention that the software on board was Windows based.

Yes, you're all very droll, but the Microsoft bashing seems a little knee-jerk. It's insanely complicated to write software like this (as a few other posters have said, and I'm posting only because I have no mod points for them).

I doubt these errors are OS-based at all. Real-time systems like this are built on top of extremely well-tested embedded OSes. They reboot because they're writing pretty close to the bare metal, and mistakes are punished hard. Best practices are applied (interminable code reviews, fascist levels of regression testing, ungodly coding style standards), but not always followed, and even best practices don't always work.

I'd like to see a gradual shift to languages which enforce best practices (i.e. not C and assembly). Meantime, these pilots are pretty damn brave. But it's probably not Microsoft's fault, this time.

Re:WHAT?!?!?!

[egomaniac]

Go build me a pyramid. Without any modern machines. In the middle of the desert.

With ten thousand workers to help, a government that doesn't give a crap about death tolls or reasonable working conditions, and enough funding to bankrupt an empire, I'm sure I could manage.

The pyramids were gigantic, backbreaking undertakings, but I maintain my stance that software is the most complicated endeavor undertaken by mankind.

Re:Avionic stability?

[mnemonic_]

The F/A-22 does not need IFF with datalink and NCTR. Some USAF aircraft are not currently even equipped with IFF (the F-16 for example) and they have done quite well.

The APG-77 has a terrain following mode. And the widely spread weak emissions from it are much harder to detect than those from a conventional radar.

The Martin-Baker ACES II ejection seat can save a pilot's life from zero feet of altitude (that's why it's called a "zero-zero" ejection seat- effective down to zero altitude and zero speed)

Welcome to F22 Raptor version 3.1

[TearsForFears]

Welcome to F22 Raptor version 3.1 (C)1990-2003 Microsoft Corp. Start Microsoft MiddleEast Explorer...Please Wait Target: Hussein, Saddam Located Would you like to: Copy/Delete/Return? Delete? Yes/Cancel Before you delete Hussein, Saddam, would you like to sign up for Microsoft .NET?

bsod

[TwistedSpring]

Brings a whole new meaning to the term "Fatal Exception".

More details from Code One magainze

[mnemonic_]

From the October 2003 issue of Code One magazine:

Avionics testing faces two major challenges: software stability and missile shots. "We are struggling with some stability problems," Tomeny says. "The problems are similar to a home computer freezing when a program is launched. The computer has to be restarted. When our software works, it works very well. When the software related to a particular system freezes, we have to deal with restarts for that system. We're getting the bugs out of the system so it starts correctly and works for the entire flight. These problems are encountered in every development program. We discover most of them in the lab and in the flying test bed. But other problems still crop up when we load software on the airplane. That, unfortunately, is the nature of software development."

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2003/art ic les/apr_03/fa22testing/index.html

Wrong

[efuseekay]

Trying to get a girlfriend to read /. is the most complicated endeavour undertaken by mankind.

A phone call to tech support...

[softspokenrevolution]

Pilot: (Dialing microsoft support services while cruising at mach 50,000) Come on, pick up, pick up.

Pre-recorder message: We're sorry, all circuitys are busy now. Your call is very important to us, please stay on the line until an operator is availible.

Pilot: (Over enemy territory and ready to drop payload, toggling switches like a madman) Damnit, pick up.

Tech Support Person: Hi, This is Candice, how are you today. Pilot: (Engine failure light flashing) Can you can the chatter, I'm cruising over Eastern Kreblenkistan about to die at Mach 40,000.

Candice: There's no need to be rude sir. First I'll need to confirm that you're not using a pirated copy of our software, so will you please refer to the key sticker located on your computer. Pilot: (Frustrated, going down) I can't do that, I'm sort of in a plane right now, can you just tell me how to reboot the thing.

Candice: I'm sorry sir, but we can't be responsible for the failures of pirated software... (transmission ends, big fiery explosion)

Cancel this project now

[DesScorp]

I'm an advocate for a strong defense, and always have been. And advanced weapons programs always have major bugs. I'm a veteran, and I follow defense issure pretty closely. With that said, now I say kill the F-22 program.

Why? It's a problem program. It's been plagued with an abundance of serious unforseen engineering problems from the very beginning. This is just the latest one made public. Past problems have included repeated instances of various parts of the fuesalage (especially some wing and tailparts) cracking. Cost overruns have become endemic. When the ATF program (Advanced Tactical Fighter) was first launched in the mid-80's to find a successor to the legendary F-15 Eagle, the Air Force set a goal of a flyaway cost of no more than 35 million per copy. The cost is now up 200 million a copy, and before it goes into production, the F-22 might cost a quarter of a billion dollars FOR A SINGLE FIGHTER. No matter how rich a nation is, no Air Force in the world can afford to buy such fighters in effective quantities. Not even other Stealth projects have spiraled this far out of control. The F-117 NightHawk stealth fighter (really more of a small bomber), with a small inefficient production run of 64 aircraft, topped out at 61 million per copy.

Granted, not all of the cost overrun problems are the fault of the Air Force or of Lockheed Martin. Congress keeps screwing around with the production schedule, and reducing the total buy, which drives up the cost per aircraft. But Congress has done so in large part for three main reasons:

1- They ask "Do we really need this, or can upgraded F-15's do the job?" This is a valid question as no other nation, friend or foe, has an aircraft that equals the Eagle, save for Russia's SU-27 series of fighters. These have been produced in such small quantities that Congress still debates the need for an Eagle replacement.

2- The number and seriousness of technical problems has made Congress reluctant to commit to the project fully. This crosses party lines, as in the past few years, several powerful Republicans have tried to kill the program on the grounds that the Raptor is a lemon. Democrats seeking money for non-defense programs have joined them.

3- There are serious doubts emerging that the Raptor's massive complexity can ever truly be managed in an efficient manner. There are concerns that, even if the aircraft becomes operational and initial bugs are worked out, the aircraft will be unreliable, becoming what the Air Force calls a "Hangar Queen"; it looks pretty on the floor, but if it can't go up in the air regularly, how good is it? The Air Force has had aircraft before that they REALLY wanted, but turned out to be so expensive and maintenance intensive that they had to be retired early. And excellent example is the B-58 Hustler supersonic bomber, which had impressive performance...when it wasn't broken down. It was retired after only 10 years of frontline service.

Re:Cancel this project now

[jjohnson]

Given the money already spent, is is at all plausible to shelve the program, write off the development costs, and come back in ten years hoping to make an economical plane using what was learned? Maybe the Raptor will cost a quarter billion, but surely the engineers have learned a hell of a lot and solved a lot problems no one foresaw.

In other words, don't buy Raptors: buy the engineers, and let them try again, the wiser for the experience.

Gentoo F22/Java F22/FreeBSD F22

[dotslashdot]

Java F22: Pilot: Firing on target... Computer: "Starting Garbage Collector. Please Wait." Gentoo F22: Pilot: Firing on target... Computer: "Compiling Sidewinder Missile..." FreeBSD F22: Pilot: Firing on target... Computer: "Sidewinder Missile is dying..."

Myth: Gentlemen. Reality: Never saw it coming

[AHumbleOpinion]

The vast majority of downed pilots, 80+% ?, never saw the attack coming. They were taken by surprise. The most successful aces avoided dogfights, they would try to surprise someone, if not they would disengage and look for someone else. Your account sounds like some romanticised story or an aberration that occurred in the earliest days of the war. WW1 pilots looked at battle the same way pilots do today. Give the other guy a chance and you may die, your wife a widow, your children fatherless.

Su-30 series or Quality/Quantity

[theolein]

By the time this thing ever gets into the air the only probable foes that it will ever face will be either SU-27 derivates or Mig-29 derivates, both of which cost far less than the F-22.

In pure features the Su-27 is an amazing plane. Anyone who has ever seen the Su-27 do the cobra manouver or the thrust vectored Su-30MKI or Su-35 do the 360 degree Kulbit manouver can attest to what these planes can do in close air combat. These are extreme manouvers that western planes cannot do for the simple reason that the engines in western planes receive no air at such high angles of attack and therefore often flame-out or stall. Not only this but the newer radars on the Su-30s and missiles are longer ranging than just about anything the west has with the exception of the F-14's AIM-54 Phoenix. As for stealth, newer Su-30's are coated with radar absorbant paint which reduce the advantages that a dedicated stealth fighter such as the F-22 would have in BVR combat.

In the hands of a good pilot I very much doubt that the Su-30 would automatically lose in combat. That however is the crux of the matter: Pilot training.

This has always been something that has been much better in the west with advanced simulators, top gun style combat training and long hours of aircraft experience. It is and has been a fallacy to believe that more modern high tech will always win the battle. It is almost always the quality of the pilots that decided the battle.

There is a good example of an air combat situation atht happened in the first gulf war. The only western plane to be shot down in air combat was an F-18 on an attack mission that was intercepted by an obviously experienced Iraqi Mig-25 pilot. The Mig-25 was already obsolete then in terms of technology but the sheer speed of the plane (Mach 2.8+) is unmatched by any other fighter. The Mig-25 went on after shooting down the F-18 to buzz an EF-111 raven that was providing ECM for the mission causing the raven to have to manouver to avoid the incoming missiles and drop back from the attack mission which was then unprotected by ECM and subsequently another F-18 was shot down by a SAM. No less than two F-15's and two F-16's all attempted to intercept the Mig-25, two of them firing missiles, but the Mig-25 used it's tremendous speed advantage to easily avoid the interceptors and reach its base.

This shows what a good plane , not necesserally the utterly most modern, can do in the hands of a good pilot. IMO the F-22 is an overexpensive white elephant.

Re:Su-30 series or Quality/Quantity

[Phanatic1a]

Anyone who has ever seen the Su-27 do the cobra manouver or the thrust vectored Su-30MKI or Su-35 do the 360 degree Kulbit manouver can attest to what these planes can do in close air combat. These are extreme manouvers that western planes cannot do

Um...bullshit.

The F-15 had to perform the cobra in acceptance testing. It's covered in 4.2 of Mil Std 1787. There are other aircraft that can also perform the maneuver. The cobra is nothing more than a pitch overshoot in response to a "stick snatch." It's part of routine acceptance testing, although it's usually performed at medium to high altitudes.

Some aircraft perform it easier than others. For still other aircraft, the manuever gets easier if you set the plane up for it, as they do with Su-27s at airshows (you've got to manipulate the cg and override the FCS).

Many aircraft simply aren't cleared to perform the maneuver, and it's not covered in pilot training, even with the Su-27. The reason for this is that it's a very showy maneuver that has no use in the practical or tactical realms. That "Goose, I'm gonna hit the brakes and he'll fly right by" is bullshit Hollywood crap; in a real dogfight, the guy behind you might overshoot when you dump that much speed that fast, but all that means if that now you're meat on a stick for his wingman.

The Mig-25 was already obsolete then in terms of technology but the sheer speed of the plane (Mach 2.8+) is unmatched by any other fighter.

Note that shortly after reaching that top speed, it needs new engines.

Re:Su-30 series or Quality/Quantity

[Tailhook]

"There is a good example of an air combat situation atht happened in the first gulf war. The only western plane to be shot down in air combat was an F-18 on an attack mission that was intercepted by an obviously experienced Iraqi Mig-25 pilot. The Mig-25 was already obsolete then in terms of technology but the sheer speed of the plane (Mach 2.8+) is unmatched by any other fighter. The Mig-25 went on after shooting down the F-18 to buzz an EF-111 raven that was providing ECM for the mission causing the raven to have to manouver to avoid the incoming missiles and drop back from the attack mission which was then unprotected by ECM and subsequently another F-18 was shot down by a SAM. No less than two F-15's and two F-16's all attempted to intercept the Mig-25, two of them firing missiles, but the Mig-25 used it's tremendous speed advantage to easily avoid the interceptors and reach its base."

The Mig-25 borders on a desparation weapon. It was designed specifically to counter high altitude bombers and spy planes that the United States routinely flew over Soviet airspace. In that it failed. It's fairly clear today that a Mig-25 could not sustain the speed or attain the altitude necessary to attack an SR-71.

The Soviet Union pawned off various models of the Mig-25 to the third world. Iraq had probably 15 Mig-25s at the start of the Gulf War (the first), of which perhaps 7 were operational.

The shootdown happened because the Mig was misidentified multiple times as it flew past an American strike package. Had it been identified, it would have been killed. The shootdown was more the result of tactics than technology. That Mig pilot was both brave and lucky.

The Mig was not moving at Mach 2.8. A Mig-25 can only do this at high altitude (70K+) and only for a short time. The shootdown happened between 25-30K, where the F-18's were operating. Flying at almost Mach 3 destroys the engines of a Mig-25. This isn't a problem if you're goal is to hit one high-value, high-altitude target and glide back to base. It does matter if you intend to engage in sustained warfare.

In 1976, a Soviet defector landed a 1976-built Mig-25 in Japan. A few interesting things were learned; with a full load of weapons and fuel a Mig-25 can handle only slightly more than 2Gs of force. At it's best it can handle about 5gs. This is no dog fighter. An F-4 can do better, much less any modern aircraft.

Re:Su-30 series or Quality/Quantity

[theolein]

I agree that the Mig-25 is not the state of the art and would be at a loss in a dogfight, but my point was about the pilots, not the aircraft. But, as i said in a post lower down, the Mig-31, which succeded the Mig-25 has done away with most of these problems. It has been exported to China and could theoretically see use there in some war with Taiwan.

For the record, I misquoted the story. Here's a link.

I quote: "Gulf War Experience -

Did you know that a MiG-25PD recorded the only Iraqi air-to-air kill of the Gulf War? It dropped an F-18C on the first night of the war--then went on to fire another missile at an A-6 and buzz an A-7, all while avoiding escorting F-14s and F-15s.

An isolated incident? How about the single Iraqi Foxbat-E that eluded eight sweeping F-15s then tangled with two EF-111As, firing three missiles at the Ravens and chasing them off station. Unfortunately, the Ravens were supporting an F-15E strike, and the EF-111's retreat led to the loss of one of the Strike Eagles to a SAM. Oh BTW, the Foxbat easily avoided interception and returned safely to base.

There's more. When F-15 pilots were fighting for the chance to fly sweeps east of Baghdad late in the war, itching for a chance to get a shot at an Iraqi running for Iran, they weren't expecting the fight that a pair of Foxbats put up. Two Foxbats approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles before the Eagles could get off shots (the missiles were evaded by the Eagles), then outran those two Eagles, four Sparrows and two Sidewinders fired back at them. Two more Eagles maneuvered to cut the Foxbat's off from their base (four more Eagles tried, but were unable to effect an intercept), and four more Sparrows were expended in vain trying to drop the Foxbats.

The Iraqis had a total of twelve MiG-25PDs at the beginning of the war, of which maybe half were operational at any given time. Imagine what trouble they would have caused if there had been more. The Foxbats, when well flown, proved capable of engaging allied fighters and avoiding them at will. Only the limitations of their weapons proved a problem."

Re:Su-30 series or Quality/Quantity

[azorka]

What about MiG 1.42 MFI Cheaper and better than F-22.

Fault-tolerant/robust system engineering

[nigelc]

I was reading somewhere (possibly Scientific American) about the building of systems (computer software or robots) which can tolerate a restart or failureof one or more of them and keep working.

Rather than the monolithic system which we all secretly love (which allegedly produces Blue Screens of Death when things go squiffy, although my own XP Home system has been thundering on with nary a problem for quite a while now), you build systems which can tolerate components restarting themselves. I don't care if you're RMS writing the purest code with GNU/Ada for the EFF Air Force, you're not going to write something that will never fail. Better to design and build an overall system which can tolerate minor interruptions, especially if you are going to be flying into a war zone.

In any case (I worked on some of the stuff on the fringes of the F22 program a long long time ago), there are a bunch of computers in the air vehicle; it's an airborne network. Saying "oh my god, I can't believe the plane is rebooting" is dissingenuous.(aside from the many Windows jokes). It's akin to "I had to power-cycle the printer twice today -- I can't believe the network stayed up for the 35 seconds it took the Lexmark to come back to life!".

Rebooting a subsystem computer works quite well in robotics too, which further leads into the concept of many small robots rather than one large beast screaming "Danger Will Robinson".

Quantum Gate

[runlvl0]

I think that you must be thinking of Quantum Gate: The Saga Begins... by HyperBole Studios. Essentially it boils down to Stargate SG-1 gone really bad. You go through this "quantum gate" to gather a mineral required to rescusitate Earth's ecology after... blah, blah... hostile aliens... blah, blah... we turn out to be the bad guys. If you're really interested in the story, there's actually a novelization available.

The "sequel that never happened" happened around 1995 and was called The Vortex: Quantum Gate II, it continued your adventures on the other side of the quantum gate. They actually released a soundtrack to this one.

WRONG

[kcb93x]

Wrong. My father actually lead the design team for the navigation box. He was one of three seperate COMPANIES doing this. (Box has 4 CPUs in it...all running at *exactly* the same time, regardless of difference in clock speed)

Besides, I'd love to see three sets of hardware (all totally different) run the *same* software. Without any modification.

Re:What's it written in?

[von Moltke]

Ada and assembly using the Tartan Ada compiler on VAX.

Rickety Planes

[core plexus]

"The military isn't going to stick pilots in a rickety plane.

Osprey? Harrier? And how many others?

-cp- (My .sig is rebooting)

Nothing new here

[dbrower]

When I started doing OS programming, there was a story going around about the then-new F-18's display computer. The symptom being reported was 'under such and such conditions, the display flickers'. It turned out it had gotten into some mode where it was rebooting nearly constantly. (AMD 2900 bit/slice processor, if I recall).

This was 1980.

It got fixed.

-dB

Re:Faulty specs

[Mr. Feely]

I used to work on avionics software and one of the biggest beefs of our main liason to the regulatory agencies was that there is currently no approved standard for generating system requirements. As a result there is no agreed-upon method for dealing with this single point of failure. In contrast, there is a well-defined and approved standard for software development: DO-178B.

This individual claimed that most of the mishaps she was aware of that were attributed to software were in fact due to faulty system requirements, and I have no reason to doubt her. Unfortunately I don't remember any specific cases that she cited.

Recorded radio chatter of the future

[nounderscores]

COMMAND: Red 1, you've turned off your targeting computer? Is everything all right?

Luke: Use the Force! Read the Source!

Re:Recorded radio chatter of the future

[buysse]

That would be "Red 5," my friend.

F22?

[johanges]

Strange, my keyboard only has F1 through F12...

Correct

[Crea]

Absolutely. The stability of the plane is in large part to do with the angle the wings make with the fuselage. Upward pointing dihedral wings are far more stable, but offer less maneuvrability. Anhedral wings, on the other hand, make the plane aerodynamically unstable, thus allowing it to turn far faster. It's pretty intuitive really. A dihedral (upward sweeping) wing, is lengthened horizontally when the plane turns (because it's tipped towards the horizontal) therefore generating more lift and righting the plane. An anhedral wing, on the other hand, is shortened when the plane banks, further reducing the lift on the banking side, and accelerating the turn. Anhedral winged planes are essentially impossible to control without computer aid. Hence they are restriced to fighter planes and such...

Press conferences of the future...

[El Camino SS]

"The State Dept. would like to report that it is doing its best to retrieve Lt. Col. John Bowers from enemy territory right now. Lt. Col. Bowers due to system failure, was forced to Ctrl-Alt-Del out over southern Liberia earlier this week."