Lockheed Martin Selects Linux for Missile Defense

m3lt writes "Business Wire is reporting that Concurrent announced today that Lockheed Martin Space Systems has selected RedHawk(TM) Linux as the operating system for their United States Army Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program." From the article: "Lockheed Martin selected RedHawk for the THAAD program due to the precision and guaranteed response time of Concurrent's RedHawk Linux real-time operating system. Only RedHawk Linux was able to ensure the high frame rates required in their HIL simulation without frame overruns, thereby ensuring the highest quality of system test."

Comments

Arms

[Anonymous Coward]

So we like big arms companies now?

Re:Arms

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Yes, ofcourse we do.
Arm developers are a very important industry. Without it we wouldn't have realistic weapon models in our games. No sir, if it wasn't for the arm companies we would have shitty weapon models that weren't even near realistic. We should thank our deity for those marvelous people of the weapon factories, without them we wouldn't be were we are today.

Re:Arms

[C 12]

If you value survival, you do. Not that I advocate war or anything, but I would like the baddies to believe I have a reasonable ability to kick their ass.

Re:Arms

[Anonymous Coward]

who is we?
anyone can use linux weather "we" like them or not.

Re:Arms

[hey!]

ARM is the last RISC CPU standing. Oh, wait.

Re:Arms

[TheLink]

Old men debating whilst young boys die? Well how about this:

If political leaders wish to send troops to battle for _offensive_ (not defensive[1]) purposes, they have to put their own lives at risk as well.

This could be done in the following manner:
A referendum is held. If there is an insufficient majority, the proposers' lives are forfeit. They are put on deathrow.

If there is actually a majority, there could be a "redemption" referendum, and their lives depend on the results.

A similar referendum is also held if at any time it is found that a politician caused the public to be deceived/misinformed (even unknowingly) and "justify" a war or similar military action.

If a leader's life is not successfully redeemed, but later it is found the war was justified, the leader will get the equivalent of a "purple heart".

The idea is that even leaders who have no qualms about lying about "caring about the lives of soldiers" would then actually think twice about sending soldiers to risk their lives. Even amoral people without a conscience would be inclined to take things a bit more seriously when it's not just a matter of losing the next election, or going to jail for a few years.

After all if a leader thinks it is worth risking the lives of soldiers and civilians, that leader should also be willing to risk his/her life. That's only fair right?

Also, if >= 66% of Nation A thinks it's worth attacking Nation B, then it might be easier for people in Nation B to decide whether to kill people in Nation A or not.

[1] Defensive wars are different of course.

Re:Arms

[demachina]

This is an interesting problem.

Yes it is good to have enough weapons to deter someone bad from attacking, invading or destroying you. There are bad people in the world, and there are people who good or bad don't like what you do or stand for.

A problem today is certain American enemies know full well that they can't go toe to toe with the U.S. in conventional or strategic war. They don't and can't squander $500 billion on weapons, the military and intelligence a year, much of that money borrowed by the way. So they don't even try and don't need to.

What do the do? Well they use hijacked jetliners, suicide bombers, IED's, propaganda and other forms of asymmetric warfare. They have proved in Iraq that they can spend millions of dollars on asymmetric weapons and tie up the U.S. military in knots, which is spending billions a month, and which has hundreds of billions of weapons most of which are useless in urban guerrilla warfare. They can launch attacks that costs millions of dollars, if that, that cause, billions of dollars in economic damage to the U.S.

THAAD is in a lot of ways a good weapon if it works. Its main goal is to keep someone with ballistic missiles from killing people weather they are civilian or military.

There are other classes of weapons which unfortunately are dual use, and can be used both offensively and defensively. There have been times when American's have shunned foreign adventure and aggressive warfare. During those times our defense department was really for defense, to deter attack and counter ruthlessly when attacked.

Sadly political and military elites have at various times forgotten the basic difference between defense and preemptive or aggressive warfare. Preemptive and aggressive warfare is something only bad people, like the Nazi's did. Well not ture, The U.S. for example launched the Spanish American war largely under false pretense and to cover a large colonial expansion in the Carribean and the Phillippines. In the Phillippines there was an entire, lengthy, bloody war in the early 1900's never taught in American history classes where the U.S. ruthlessly killed civilians in a largely vain attempt to suppress an insurgency that didn't appreciate decades of American colonial occupation. It holds a lot of parallels to Iraq today, and probably could teach some lessons if we hadn't pushed it out of our collective conscious because it was so ugly.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm all for paying for enough weapons to defend the U.S. but the U.S. military is completely beyond that today. Its is a cold war relic turned in to an preemptive, offense tool for dominating the world and that flies in the face of what many people want the U.S. to be. What's worse it isn't even any good to deal with terrorist attacks or insurgencies like the ones in Vietnam and Iraq which are far more likely than a conventional war today.

You also need to look no further than the Duke Cunningham case yesterday to realize the Pentagon is mostly just a vast corrupted mechanism for funneling vast quantities of money from tax payer's pockets in to the pockets of largely corrupt defense contractors.

There is irony that China may well dominate the U.S. militarily and economically in the near future because the U.S. is squandering its wealth on excessive defense spending, and watching its economy wither in the face of globalization, budget and trade deficits. The Chinese might well win World War III without firing a shot. They will win it with a steady stream of containers ships to the U.S. and of U.S. dollars to China. The U.S. spends billions developing new weapons technology and the Chinese spend thousands to steal them. The Chinese will soon have all the manufacturing base to make weapons and the U.S. wont be able to make any without importing them from China.

Re:Arms

[C 12]

The Iraq war is different, I think, because it is a war waged for one [set of] reason[s], justified with another, funded with yet another, and finally morphed into something altogether different. It's also irritating how much false information, from all sources, is floating around there, so the citizenry cannot form a coherent picture of what's going. The result: anger and a growing desire to flee, which would be disasterous for all parties involved.

Some straight talk from the politicians would be in order. But we will never get that.

Re:Arms

[demachina]

"The Iraq war is different..."

Its not really that different. Its one in a long string of regime changes where the U.S. seeks to take down people it doesn't like, people who don't do what the U.S. says, people that thumb their noses at U.S. corporate interests, who challenge the U.S. on the world stage. The goal is to prop up friendly puppets who defend U.S. business interests and kowtow to U.S. demands.

Its been long established that the surest way for a sovereign leader of any state to be taken down by the U.S. is to have oil reserves and to not sign them over to the control of American/British/Dutch oil companies. The U.S. military and intelligence agencies have spent most of the last century insuring Allied oil companies control of the world's oil fields. The U.S. toppled the government of Iran, and installed a ruthless dictator, the Shah, precisely to put its oil fields in to the hands of American oil companies.

The U.S. has tried unsuccessfully to topple Chavez in Venezuela pricesly for the same reason, to get its oil reserves in to the hands of friendlies.

The only things really different about Iraq is the blatantness of the aggression, the blatantness of the lieing and the fact that it failed badly. Taking down Noriega in Panama was very much the same kind of war, its just it was much better executed and there wasn't the deep ethnic division that there is in Iraq, which is fueling the civil war there. Taking down the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, very similar, its just the war was much more covert and used largely indigenous guerrillas with CIA handlers. American's didn't die much in Nicaragua so American's mostly didn't care, even when the Reagan Administration tore down the Constitution by waging a war Congress forbad. The never ending series of coups in Haiti, pretty much the same thing. The U.S. gets tired of leaders there that don't play by U.S. rules so they arm bands of right wing thugs in the Dominican Republic and their CIA handlers send them to do their bidding.

I wish Iraq really was different but in fact its just how power politics is played. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R did it most of the last century and killed millions of people in assorted third world countries around the globe fighting proxy wars. In the process they created the cauldrons that brew terrorism. Somalia is the hell hole it is thanks to decades of proxy wars to control the horn of Africa. Afghanistan likewise became the base for Al Qaeda thanks to a proxy war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R there. The U.S. is just seeking to shape the world out if its own self interest, and the harvest it is reaping is very, very ugly.

Re:Arms

[demachina]

"most evil or idiotic think that Khomeini, Hussein, and Chavez"

Khomeini came to power THANKS to the U.S. The Mossadegh government the U.S. toppled originally was in fact a pretty progressive government, the only thing they did wrong is they got fed up with the fact British oil companies, who got their foothold in the middle east thanks to colonial expansion from World War I, were taking the lion's share of their countries wealth so they nationalized Iran's own oil fields. The British whined to the U.S. to do something, they did, the CIA overthrew a sovereign government, oh and then they screwed the British too and gave the oil fields to U.S. companies. How did the U.S. put Khomeini in power? They put the Shah in power and he and his secret service were one of the most brutal regimes in the middle east, they were every bit Saddam class, disappearing, torturing and killing their opponents. The Iranian people hated the Shah so much they viewed Khomeini and Islamic fundamentalism as an improvement. Many Iranians hate the U.S. with a passion to this day thanks to the Shah.

As for Chavez he has been demonized by the U.S. as is the U.S. way when they want to topple someone, Kaddafi, Castro, Noriega, Saddam etc. Notice who since Khaddafi started kissing American and British boots, and opening his oil fields to them, they don't demonize him any more? Same guy, trust me. Chavez isn't perfect but the dynamics in Venezuela come down to two groups vying for power which is true of just about every country, especially in the Central and South America. A wealthy plutocracy where a few percent have all the wealth and power, and 90+% who are in grinding poverty and powerless. Chavez is popular with the 90+% who have nothing. He like Castro does some great things the U.S. always forgets to mention:

A. They insure universal access to quality health care for everyone, not just those who can afford it

B. They insure universal access to education, especially university education, again based on need and merit not ability to pay. Cuba turns out huge numbers of doctors for example that provide health care to poor areas around the globe who would have no health care if left to the whims of capitalism

C. They seek to distribute wealth more evenly versus having a few percent who are filthy rich and comfortable while everyone else is starving, illiterate and die young due to absence of basic health care.

Unfortunately Socialism is flawed just like Capitalism. People get drunk on power in both systems and abuse it. Socialism means big government and big government tends to be bad no matter what political philosophy it prescribes to. Socialism tends to trample individual liberties and freedom, but so does Capitalism. Capitalism just uses more carefully crafted and better concealed means to rob you of your freedoms.

Problem with people like you sir is you buy in to the propaganda the U.S. spews and think the only bad leaders in the world are the ones the U.S. hap
Problem with people like you sir is you buy in to the propaganda the U.S. spews and think the only bad leaders in the world are the ones the U.S. decides to demonize. The Shah was every bit as bad and probably worse than your list of three, so was Marcos in the Phillippines, Papa Doc in Haiti, Diem in Vietnam Pinochet, and a cavalcade of other ruthless dictators the U.S. has propeed up over the years to the misfortune of the people who suffered under them

The problem with people like you sir are you are suckers for the U.S. propaganda, and their list of people they demonize on a given day, and you buy it hook like and sinker. The Shah of Iran was every bit as bad and probably worse than your list of three, so was Marcos in the Phillippines, Papa Doc in Haiti, Diem in Vietnam, Pinochet and a cavalcade of other ruthless dictators the U.S. has propped up over the years to the misfortune of the people who suffered under them.

Tux with a rocket launcher!

[LiquidCoooled]

M M M M M MULTI-KILL!

I wonder if the selected distro includes tic-tac-toe ?

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[cHALiTO]

It should! I believe the Global Thermonuclear War package lists tic-tac-toe among its dependencies ;)

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[KiloByte]

Here.

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[parasonic]

How about a nice game of chess?

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[zerocool^]

Double Kill!
Multi Kill!
Mega Kill!
Ultra Kill!
M M M MONSTER KILL (kill kill)
Ludicrous Kill!
HOLY SHIT!!


Why, yes, I do play UT2004. A lot.

Red is the colour

[ettlz]

Red Hat Linux, then Red Flag Linux, and now RedHawk Linux. What next, Red Light Linux bundling a GPL alternative to Leisure Suit Larry?

Re:Red is the colour

[binkzz]

The next release will be to run the military helicopters, BlackHawk Linux(tm).

I was killed by Linux

[flowerp]

hmm, Linus Thorvalds to the rescue! No killing people with the Linux kernel, please!

Re:I was killed by Linux

[hackstraw]

If its a missile defence system, surely the point is to SAVE lives, not take them? ;)

A system that takes away fences is more likely to HURT lives.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[gatzke]

My dad works on this stuff.

Just like patriot, they shoot stuff out of the sky.

Pretty freaking amazing.

Thad is the medium range system, patriot is the small range system. There is a ICBM system that is now deployed, I think they have two intercepters in Alaska.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[hey!]

Well, it's probably best not to let what you call these things limit your thinking about them. Looked at from the other side of the chessboard, many "defensive" systems clearly have offsensive implications. There may be offensive applications for many components (e.g. shooting down satellites). Even if a system is purely defensive in nature, one of the limiting factors in offensive action is the way it exposes you to harm.

This is why many peaceniks are against defensive systems: because they create the illusion that we can attack others with impunity. As we're finding out in Iraq now, it's not enough just to have the military strength for victory. There are bound to be consequences outside your planning framework.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[portforward]

I know several engineers who work on the missle defense project. They have performed several tests. Basically someone fires a ballastic missle, the radar detects it and the interceptors knock them down.They have had some sucessful tests, although some people question if the tests are realistic.

I tell you though, what these guys can do does almost seem like magic. What they do is really impressive. Kind of like tracking and shooting a bullet out of the air fired from someone elses rifle. The collision speeds are huge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defe nse

Re:I was killed by Linux

[LWATCDR]

So?
1 The USSR fielded and tested satellite killers in the 70s so the ability to take out a satellite is not new.
2 The missile defence system doesn't have to use Linux but wouldn't you prefer it to use an Open Source system to a closes source system?
3 I thought GPL was all about freedom? I have heard all sorts of rants on Slashdot when people where trying to stop PGP because terrorists could use it. A new clause in the GPL you can use it only if we agree with your political aims? The no killing clause... So abortion clinics, Assised suicide advocates, and Pro-Choice groups can not use GPL software?
4 This is a system that if it works will shoot down missiles not kill people. Most of those missiles will be aimed at civilian population centers since they are currently not accurate enough to hit military targets.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[hey!]

What an assinine statement. This was well known, by EVERYONE involved, well before the war started.

Alas, this is 20/20 hindsight. Sure, people paid lip service to this. There was lot of talk of "hard work", but not an inconsiderable amount of verbiage about "low hanging fruit" as well. By in large, most people were deluded as to the extent of our post-war involvement. Present company excepted of course.

If you recall, Mr. Lindsey lost his job a White House economic advisor because he predicted the war would cost in total as much as $200 billion, which we now know to be a gross underestimate. The White House said the war would cost between $50-$60 billion. I think it's fair to say the difference between these estimates is the cost of the aftermath of the initial campaign -- the part that cannot be accomplished with military strength. You can do a 2x2x2 matrix and place yourself in it: for the war then/against the war then. For the war now/against the war now. Underestimated the cost of victory/correctly estimated the cost of victory. I'm against/against/correct. Perhaps you are a for/for/correct, but I think there's quite a few people in the for/against/underestimate box, as well as the for/for/underestimate box.

I don't think we've done a bad job in Iraq, though no doubt things could be better. Remember, it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.

Indeed. However since I protested the war before we went in, I believe that I have a bit of a right to say "I told you so" to the people who were for it then and against it now. Those people have no right in my opinion to say they were duped. As you say, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think this was going to be easy, and right now it's going very nearly exactly as I expected it would.

Naturally, if you were for it then and are still for it, you might be able to justifiably claim that you knew this all along, that you were a for/for/correct. However, I believe you wouldn't have much company in that box. But you'd have problems establishing your bona fides. Everybody who is for/for wants to say they they knew all along, just as the for/against want to say they underestimated the costs because they were lied to.

BTW, I hope you realize that much of the criticism of postwar Iraq mirrors criticism of postwar Germany after World War II...and look how that turned out. ;-)

Ah, I see. You're suggesting that Iraq is going to end up carved into two or more states who are mortal enemies. That they'll spend decades facing each other over frozen battle lines. That the fate of the region will remain in balance only through a combination of exhaustive militarization on either side of the line with the added threat of global nuclear conflict? I'd say then that you are most prescient.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[hey!]

I believe you are missing the point.

1 The USSR fielded and tested satellite killers in the 70s so the ability to take out a satellite is not new.

Relevant to my point, but not a good counter example. It's always been possible. It's never been practical. Making the impractical practical is one definition of technological advancement. Furthermore, you ignore the strategic implications. If the Soviets attacked our satellites, it would be an act of war. They could not engage in an act of war without risking it going nuclear. However, if you had a missile defense systme you believed in that could also destroy satellites, you could believe it possible to deny the other side the ability to counterattack, either by conventional means (by hampering their communications) or by nuclear strike. You'd be foolish to believe so, but it's foolish to predicate your defense on either the competence or incompetence of your enemy.


2 The missile defence system doesn't have to use Linux but wouldn't you prefer it to use an Open Source system to a closes source system?


Irrelevant to my point. I don't think it makes any difference. The system vendor will get source on this kind of contract if it needs it, along with whatever kind of rights it thinks is necessary. Since it only has one customer to worry about, the OS vendor will be happy.


3 I thought GPL was all about freedom? I have heard all sorts of rants on Slashdot when people where trying to stop PGP because terrorists could use it. A new clause in the GPL you can use it only if we agree with your political aims? The no killing clause... So abortion clinics, Assised suicide advocates, and Pro-Choice groups can not use GPL software?


True but irrelevant.


4 This is a system that if it works will shoot down missiles not kill people. Most of those missiles will be aimed at civilian population centers since they are currently not accurate enough to hit military targets.


Now we're back on track. This is like saying that having your king well protected or not is irrelevant to your ability to capture your opponent's pieces in chess. Naturally a well defended position is easier to attack from. An apparently well defended position is a good way to lose a game through overconfidence. Furthermore in life, the game never stops, nor is it played on a single board by two sides according to strict rules.

No, I don't think such a system automatically and necessarily limits civilian casualties, even on our side, although it clearly does so in some potential scenarios. Technology is a tool, not a solution.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[MarkGriz]

My dad works on this stuff.

Just like patriot, they shoot stuff out of the sky.

Pretty freaking amazing.

Well, hopefully not just like Patriot

Re:I was killed by Linux

[LWATCDR]

"irrelevant to my point, but not a good counter example. It's always been possible. It's never been practical."
They fielded the system. It was in service so it was and is practical.

I do understand that a strong defense can be used as an offensive asset. The Grumman F4F of WWII is a prime example. The Japanese Zero could out turn it, out run it, and out climb it. The F4F only strengths where it could out dive it and had better armor. The F4F had a good record against the Zero because the pilots had a much better chance of getting home.

My main grip is with the whole line of using Linux for this is wrong and needs to be stopped. I hope that THADD has roughly the same military history as the Nike system, B-36, and B-47 did.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[iocat]

Right, you're citing wikipedia for unbiased views on a military system?

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Chris Burke]

What an assinine statement. This was well known, by EVERYONE involved, well before the war started.

Then why didn't our worthless defense secretary actually have a plan for the post-military-ass-kicking part of the invasion?

If he knew that the post-invasion would be this difficult, but did not develop a serious plan, then he is negligent. If he didn't know, he is incompetent and less qualified than you or I to hold his post.

I don't think we've done a bad job in Iraq, though no doubt things could be better. Remember, it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.

Monday morning? What about Saturday Afternoon?! Many of the problems we are having were predicted in advance by established members and ex-members of the military and they were ignored by the administration as being biased and politically motivated. Because of course the admin. isn't...

Saturday
      Asst. Coach: If you don't change your play book, you're going to lose.
      Coach: Everything will be fine. You're only saying that because you don't like me.
Sunday:
      [horrible loss]
Monday:
      Asst. Coach: You should have changed your play book.
      Coach: It's easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback!

There is nothing more infuriating than hearing people say that the problems and mistakes in Iraq could not have been known in advance and it's all post-facto criticism, because it means they weren't paying attention in the first place.

BTW, I hope you realize that much of the criticism of postwar Iraq mirrors criticism of postwar Germany after World War II...and look how that turned out. ;-)

If more U.S. soldiers had died "post-war" in Germany than "during-war", this point would be meaningful in the slightest. Clearly, we are not "post-war" in Iraq.

And I hope you realize that much of the criticism of during-war Iraq mirrors criticism of during-war Algiers and Vietnam -- and look how those turned out.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Wyatt Earp]

It was the ASAT system launched from F-15s, the Air-Launched Miniature Vehicle (ALMV)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/almv.h tm

The Russians had one too
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/m ini.htm

Theres been a host of other systems that bordered on or had ASAT capabilites over the years.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[flyingsquid]

I don't think we've done a bad job in Iraq

Then you're a drooling, lobotomized idiot.

It is basically impossible to travel anywhere inside the country without body armor and a squad of mercenaries. I mean, look at the threats you have to deal with. Kidnappings by organized crime. Assassinations of intellectuals and government officials. Sunni insurgents. Islamic suicide bombers and mortar attacks. Shiite militias. Guys in Iraqi military uniform, who may be Iraqi military, Shiite militia, or both, hauling people off who later show up dead, with holes in the skull from bullets and power drills. Jumpy marines with M-16s.

That's just the personal safety side of the issue. You've got intermittent power and water, the Sunnis didn't participate in the first round of elections so they are largely left out, the Kurds may split off and form their own state, a bunch of Shiites are trying to set up an Iranian-style theocracy in the South, and corruption in the government. We've gotten rid of Saddam with his torture rooms and death squads, and now we've got a new government with torture rooms and death squads.

If this is success, God help us if we encounter failure. This war may still be winnable. But right now, most signs suggest that we're losing it.

w00t!

[Penguin Follower]

I hadn't heard of RedHawk Linux until this news blurb, so at first I thought I had read it as "RedHat" and just about choked on my coffee!

Re:w00t!

[Anonymous Coward]

RedHawk Linux is used in some high-end applications. It is provided by Concurrent, a company which also offers several different hardware solutions that work with the Linux offering.

Re:w00t!

[wde]

Our group has one of the Concurrent "iHawk" systems on order. They're pretty sweet. Essentially, RedHawk is a Concurrent-licensed version of Montevista's HardHat Linux modified to have its scheduler driven by a Concurrent-custom hardware interrupt card (the "RCIM"). You program your interrupt frequency, tie your task to be driven by the card, and determinism goes through the roof. The computer itself is COTS server-grade stuff. Presently Concurrent is using Dells I believe.

Doom 3

[Reducer2001]

Linux was able to ensure the high frame rates

It looks like the military gets better frame rates running Doom 3 under Linux also. :)

Someone give these guys a Nobel Peace prize !

[Thomas Miconi]

Now managing, configuring and upgrading missile system will be so complicated and time-consuming that missile-based wars will become essentially impossible ! Three cheers for Lockheed-Martin and Linus !

To all the naysayers...

[porkThreeWays]

There was this story on slashdot a couple of months ago and was detracted by many as opterons being out of place in the real time market. I guess we see it does have use =P

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux will be used to *test* the system not run it.

"Lockheed Martin will use RedHawk real-time Linux in hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) simulation testing of strategic missile defense subsystems. HIL simulation is a critical product development process that provides for thorough testing of components in a virtual environment in which other subsystems are replaced by mathematical models."

Other factors

[vmxeo]

"Lockheed Martin selected RedHawk for the THAAD program due to the precision and guaranteed response time of Concurrent's RedHawk Linux real-time operating system.

That, and the fact that the Windows-based missle kept blowing up mid-flight...

First Target

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Linux can now really start targeting Redmond...

Go, Tux, go in your little toboggan!

[AEton]

Only you can stop the incoming missiles, Tux Racer!

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[LiquidCoooled]

Unfortunately you cannot have free software if you place arbitary restrictions upon who can use it or what it can be used for.
Its an embedded Operating system for use in a monitor and control system - not unlike the automatic cars we just cheered on around the desert or the bots on mars, just because it may have several tonnes of high explosives taped to its back doesn't make it any different.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't be "free knowledge" then, would it? In restricting the GPL/BSD whatever for certain uses, the basic fundamental freedoms in the spirit of those licences would disappear. Don't like it? Publish your work under a different licence!!!

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[ettlz]

Don't be stupid. The GPL states that Linux may be used for any purpose the user sees fit. That can be good or bad. Things to note:

1. People do bad things using Linux on a daily basis including cracking, handling violent or child pornography, sending spam, and writing unpleasant messages to people.
2. War happens so get over it. Kernels don't make war, human nature and the tendency of agressors to wind up in positions of power do. If Linux provides better accuracy that allows us to moderate destruction and keep it to strategic targets, then that is a good thing.

You really cannot be serious "all the people who ... have taken part in building weapons that kill". They didn't build weapons, they built general purpose software. They can have completely clear consciences about this. Don't let one application of this software politicise Linux or the Free Software movement in this way.

TROLL ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent post is a troll. The realtime kernel Lockheed Martin is using WAS designed as a true realtime OS in the likes of QNX. It is different than the vanilla Linux kernel you're running on your desktop and has advanced QoS and realtime features that they required.

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[KiloByte]

Right... but somehow, I'm afraid of hippies shouting "make bzImage not war".

Still important however

[porkThreeWays]

This is still important however. From their wording it looks like they will be replicating hardware via "mathematical models". I think it shows a lot in that linux can provide a real time software drop in for various missile guidance hardware.

Does this mean that...

[jonwil]

You are entitled to the source code to the missiles that just landed on your head under the terms of the GPL?

Re:Does this mean that...

[Theolojin]

You are entitled to the source code to the missiles that just landed on your head under the terms of the GPL?

Yes; a CD with the source code will be included with each missile.

Re:Does this mean that...

[Glock27]

You are entitled to the source code to the missiles that just landed on your head under the terms of the GPL?

Not only that, you get free hardware! lol

Re:One day

[YrWrstNtmr]

One day we will. Unfortunately, not anytime soon.

More info on RedHawk?

[acordes]

Does anyone have any more information on RedHawk Linux? I went to their website and it appears they modified the stock Linux kernel to make it hard realtime. I'm a little skeptical after following kernel developments over the years. Even with the preemptible kernel patch, Linux is still nowhere close to being able to claim hard realtime response. Any ideas on how RedHawk is able to make these claims?

Re:More info on RedHawk?

[TrekkieGod]

Well, if you're interested on hard real-time simulations in general, check these guys out: RTAI. They've been around for a long time too, so you shouldn't be so scheptical of the linux kernel being modified to be hard real-time.

It's free (as in freedom AND beer), and it works pretty well, especially with I/O cards that are supported by comedi drivers, which are designed with real-time use in mind.

We use them for our real-time HIL simulations at my department, and we're happy with the results.

HWIL = Hardware In the Loop

[everphilski]

Hardware In the Loop testing is where a missile is put basically in a 3 axis gyroscope mount so it is able to maneuver freely. In front of it is put a projection screen where RADAR images are being projected. The seeker on the missile then sends a signal to the fins to move but instead of moving fins that signal is hijacked and an algorithm figures out how the missile would have rotated in space and instead rotates the gimbal (the gyro mount) instead. A computer program tracks how the missile would have really moved in space. A RTOS comes in handy for these kinds of simulations. HWIL testing is an important step between pure software simulation and firing the actual beast because you can start to see lags in the system and test indvidual subsystems non-destructively without ever firing a missile.

-everphilski-

Re:HWIL = Hardware In the Loop

[florescent_beige]

Gosh.

...a missile is put basically in a 3 axis gyroscope mount...

The THAAD missile it 20 ft long and weights a ton, putting it in a gymbal would be expensive and pointless because...

...projection screen where RADAR images are being projected...

This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, how does one "project" a radar "image"? Second of all, the THAAD radar is ground-based, not part of the missile. The vehicle is steered to the projected intercept point by commands from the ground. The kill vehicle steers itself to the intercept with an IR seeker.

Maybe the KV hardware test article is gymbal mounted but again, how does one "project" an IR "image" on a "screen"?

...sends a signal to the fins...

THAAD is exoatmospheric. Fins would be useless. It uses vectored thrust.

...A computer program tracks how the missile would have really moved in space...

See now, if you are modeling the dynamics of the vehicle, why bother actually physically moving it? In this case, you aren't testing the vehicle dymanics, you are imposing them, the only purpose of which would be to exersize the seeker mechanisms (of which the missile has none.) Why not simply vary the seeker's simulated target signal (what you call an "image" projected on a "screen" but which is probaby purely electronic)?

Modded +5. Lordy.

Re:HWIL = Hardware In the Loop

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

First of all, how does one "project" a radar "image"?

That's classified.

Re:HWIL = Hardware In the Loop

[Sinical]

I make HILs.

You don't need the whole missile. You need the guidance electronics and the seeker. I've seen THAAD's HIL.

Yes, you absolutely can project IR imagery. Look for the word "mirror". You can make mirrors that are RADAR transparent. I've seen them.

I don't the details of THAAD, but for the lower stages (since they simulate from launch), you intercept fin commands and use that information within a simulation to calculate updated attitude and position information. This is then used in returning data to the missile (altering IR imagery, etc.).

For the upper stage, they can detect the commands to set off the little "poppers", and they jitter the image with a high-speed mirror. They adjust the position, too.

For my missile, we don't feel a HIL is necessary: we will inject everything, including the video, and fully simulate the inertial measurement unit (IMU). But what if the Army wants to take a missile out of its container and test it? You can't tell them to take the whole damn thing apart, but you can usually get them to take the motor off. Then it goes in the table. It's not strictly necessary, since you can provide modes and still simulate everything, but they have millions of dollars and it gives them warm fuzzies, and they are the customer.

For THAAD, they may have rate sensors on their seeker that need to be fooled by putting them on a table. They may want to combine real and synthesized IMU data (real data for rates, synthesized data for unsimulatable acceleration (gravity, thrust)). Javelin and AIM-9x have to do this for various reasons: I'm not sure of them all. I think Javelin has *no* IMU: because it's lock-on before launch, you can figure out how you're moving based on how the seeker gimbals are pointed. Something like that.

You do HIL tests to make sure things work. For the early models, you want to make damn sure your seeker is good before you shoot off a $1 million missle in a test that costs $30 million (range time is *damn* expensive, and THAAD can only use White Sands cuz they shoot so far). In general, including as much of the flight hardware as you can is good. If you can't mount the CAS on the 3-axis (or whatever: I've seen up to 5-axis (3 for missile, 2 for target (no roll)) table, then you can put it on the floor in a test fixture and apply torques to the fins to simulate pressures and stresses. Depends upon what your requirements are.

In general, though, you use what we call a CIL: Computer-in-the-loop. No seeker: imagery is all injected, no IMU: all simulated, etc. This is purely for flight software and electronics hardware check out. I make these, too.

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[zerocool^]

And the tree-huggers reminding us to all "make clean"...

Now if they shoot a missile...

[Vo0k]

If they shoot such a missile at my rocket, I may demand them to send me the source code. After all, they just distributed open source software. All over the area...

Re:One day

[finkployd]

It is certainly not popular to point out, but war is generally what advances civilization in terms of discovery, invention, etc. Historically at least, killing others and keeping yourself from being killed has been the primary motivating factor in becoming better, smarter, and stronger.

Not that I am advocating war, and certainly not the current farce.

Finkployd

Re:But what if...

[amliebsch]

What if the system were to fail?

What the - you sound like George McFly. "What if the system were to fail? I just don't think I could handle that kind of rejection!"

"To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing."
- Elbert Hubbard

Yes! Best thread ever!

[lbrandy]

1. Combine a major company using Linux for all it's excellent benefits with an obvious usage of war....
2. Slap on that flamesuit and logical-fallacy-inducing tinfoil hat
3. Watch the collective mind of slashdot swirl around these conflicting emotions
(4. Profit.)

This is gonna keep me entertained all day...

Er, Um, do we want to link Linux to a real luser?

[Ancient_Hacker]

THAAD is not exactly a real winner. Pls see : Looooser

It's been in the works for over a decade now, with no deployment in sight.

Pick a group...

[Glove d'OJ]

That would not be a good thing. Let's see where it would lead...

#1 : All military contractors and personnel would suddenly stop contributing to any OSS efforts.
#2 : Any non-popular group would then be given a "free for non-(non-popular group) use" statement / clause.

Fundamentalist Christians could be placing a "free for non-gay use" clause in their releases. African Americans could place a "free for non-white use", Lesbian Americans a "free for non-straight use," and Left-Handed-Americans a "free for non-right-hand use" clause.

Slippery slope, my friends. Free is free.

Oh, and wouldn't you prefer the finite number of tax dollars available to be spent as wisely as possible? Sorry... I forgot that Anonymous Cowards typically don't pay taxes.

Re:Pick a group...

[Kadin2048]

Exactly -- I was going to say the same thing, but you beat me to it.

The flip side to having Free software is that you have to be prepared to let some people that you might not exactly like or agree with use your work. On the other hand, people who might not like you very much have to do the same.

The community would really be shooting itself in the foot if they put some sort of clause like that into OSS licenses, because basically it would be throwing away all the millions of dollars of R&D money that government contractors can and do put into software development, and which might trickle down into OSS projects. Plus, there are a lot of companies out there that you wouldn't think would be affected, that might shy away from OSS after a restriction like that was added, just because they don't want to limit their future business. IBM, for instance, probably wouldn't want to write itself out of the defense sector because some hippies thought it would be cool to ban military uses of Linux, and they're one of the biggest contributors. The NSA, if I remember correctly, has a secure distribution of Linux that's provided some useful things back to the community, and you'd be throwing that away as well. With the exception of RedHat and a few other Linux-only shops, a lot of money comes from companies that sill have proprietary OS options sitting around. If they start to feel that Linux is a hindrance instead of an advantage, there's nothing stopping them from going back and pulling the plug on their OSS ventures.

Overall, it's a foolish and dangerous idea to consider such limitations in licensing, and I think it's important that we put that idea down quickly before it gains any mindshare. It would quite literally be the end of the corporate deep-pocket support of Linux that we've enjoyed until today.

Linux not just for Steve the supervillian

[saha]

Linux not just for Steve the supervillian (Flash animation). We've known all along Linux is not just for THAAD missles, but also for powering a beowulf cluster of atomic supermen, orbiting brain lasers, genetical engineered cybergoats, henchmen with bad teeth and gorgeous fembots...

This is better than the Swedish military using Windows NT 4.0 to power their warship a year.

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[Soybean47]

Actually, this isn't a WMD, it's a missile defense system, which stops missiles from killing people.

The missiles, being launched by evil people, probably run Windows. That's because Linux is free, and as we all know, these people hate freedom.

I have tested it for you !

[Jacquouille]

I can tell you that the killall command is very powerful on this system.

Re:the right tool for the job?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Linux isn't really a realtime OS.

You are wrong. Linux is a hard realtime OS (and you can get soft realtime without making a big effort) when you have the right hardware and the right scheduler. This Linux OS has independent timers and a special scheduling system, which makes it run realtime with granularity of microseconds in the simulation. Now you will ask how I know that... Ill tell ya, I work with this product, as a control engineer, and help desk for this product.

The difference of this version Lockheed purchased is that its not an Operating System, but a full HIL/MIL (hardware in the loop, man in the loop) system, which means the software, the computer, special acquisition I/O cards, the special timer system AND a special set of realtime debugging tools that are the hottest thing available. I could try to explain you what these tools are all about, but i) people would tell Im doin marketing bla bla bla and ii) I doubt you understand industrial simulation, so I must assume you are some student repeating like a parrot that QNX this, vxworks that. But just to prove Im not lying, these tools are able to hot patch a running code without stopping the process (when you have the source available, in C, C++, Fortran and ADA), kernel intrumentation, graphical view from the scheduler taks, execution time of process and syscall, cpu isolation to run a dedicated simulation in a certain cpu, you can monitor critcal vars and setpoints in a GUI, so you can run the simulation and check they are never out of the sweetspot, running distributed simulations in high speed deterministical networks, etc, etc.

But goin back to the topic, these debugging tools are amazing and a great add-on to the package. Im not surprised of the choice, the product is very good. And its something the RTLinux (from FSM Labs) and Wind River versions (of Linux - ya, they are doing linux too, or even its VxWorks doesnt have).

The reason Linux is not so popular is that these guys are really really traditional people, and they dont change very often their tools, its hard to break the stablishment. In the other hand, some simulations users loves using Linux in their simulation systems. Others are using other solutions for years, and dont feel the need of changing them, no matter how painful it is to run old/legacy applications.

So just to finish my point. This is a full simulation system that can do the job even better than other proprietary solutions, and with a better cost-benefit. Its not "clever trick". The people who make this product are not newbies (they are playing this games for decades, check their history), neither their users. They didnt pick up this solution because they are cheap, or they look beautiful, or they like tux. They picked because its the finest one available.

>Something that was...well, designed to do RT, and designed so you can easily take >out all the stuff you're not using (think less room for bugs).

You can do that with Linux OS. FSM Labs has versions that can boot in 300 miliseconds to full operational status and as small as some kbytes. If you use google a little, you will find some harcore realtime systems with linux

> I haven't even thought about mission critical yet!
> I love Linux as much as the next geek, but tools for jobs folks.

You obviously does not work with that.

Re:the right tool for the job?

[Vo0k]

but it wasn't built for RT from the ground up.

And that's why it won here.
This distro IS true Realtime OS, with kernel modified to work in realtime. In this it's equal with all the other available RTOSes, or even a bit below, because the support for realtime operation is young and not fully-featured. But while other RTOSes focused on adding more features, making it more stable and such, while neglecting actual efficiency, plain vanilla linux was developed to be a speed monster, with all that extra schedulers, optimizations, support for custom architectures, SMP and all the stuff that just made it a very FAST OS. Then the RealTime extension was added.

Make no mistake, Realtime doesn't mean fast. On normal systems, no matter how much CPU power, you can't guarantee some thread won't be stalled for longer than X miliseconds. On RTOS, given certain hardware speed and certain software load you can -guarantee- some threads will be given time within some fixed time. Often longer than they usually get on non-RTOS, but never longer than certain X miliseconds.
Now thing is, how much can the X be, and what does it depend on? Well, certainly on amount of $$$ you put in the hardware, more CPU power = more spare CPU power that can be given sooner. So theoretically: Give enough CPU power, have arbitrarily short guaranted response time, down to time of one loop over the kernel procedures. In reality: You have just as much hardware, and the kernel of the RTOS eats up most of the resources, and due to all the failsafe checks, runs quite slowly in fact. True, at a constant safe pace that allows for granted 20 frames per second of input sensors analysis. But if you want 30, sorry, it starts crubmling, CPU overloaded, failsafes launched, frames lost. As long as you tell it to grab 20 frames a second, it won't fail, ever, no matter what though (as opposed to non-RTOS, which may lose a few frames just because it needed to swap out some memory or run a cron job in the background).
All RTOSes do this. x MIPS, y RAM, m miliseconds for response, n miliseconds when the thread must finish or it will be forced to finish. Plus costs, reliablity and all the standard issues with any generic OS.

Now, given certain speed of hardware, what speed can you guarantee? Depends on the OS, and the faster the OS, the better the speed. And while Linux is really very fast, others aren't so. Writing a system that GUARANTEES 50 fps instead of 20 fps is damn hard. But writing a normal system that does 90fps on the average, without lowest speed guarantee? Well, possible, not so hard. Just keep it optimal. Then throw in the extra bits that make it a RTOS, and you notice that even after the RTOS overhead it never gets below 70fps. Check most pessimistic scenarios and you see it will never drop below 50fps.

THAAD

[Karrde712]

First point. THAAD is actually "Terminal High Altitude Area Defense" and is being developed concurrently between Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.

I worked on the THAAD project for Raytheon from 1999-2000. Here is the unclassified description of how it functions:

Upon radar detection of an incoming missile (such as a SCUD) the THAAD missile is launched against it. Unlike earlier technologies for missile defense (such as the PATRIOT*), the THAAD missile does not contain any explosive warhead, instead using the available space and weight for a more sophisticated guidance system. The THAAD warhead contains an active guidance system that will seek the incoming missile and collide with it, destroying the incoming missile with its own warhead.

Earlier technologies relied on a wide-area warhead that would be detonated once the missile was within a certain diameter about the target, relying on the concussion wave and shrapnel to destroy the missile. This was unsatisfactory as in some circumstances the missile would destroy only the target's propulsion system and allow the undamaged warhead to fall to the ground, resulting in collateral damage.

*The PATRIOT missile was not designed as an anti-missile weapon, it was in fact designed as an anti-aircraft weapon, but was retasked during Operation: Desert Storm to shoot down SCUD missiles. It was considered very impressive that it worked at all, considering it was designed for use against much slower-moving targets.

Re:Yeah, but it's still a stupid waste of money

[Kadin2048]

You do realize I hope that this system, THAAD, is a theater missile-defense system, not a global "Star Wars" hemisphere-defense one.

It's designed to protect strategic assets from medium range, single warhead ballistic missiles, which are exactly the thing that China, N. Korea, and other ex-Soviet client states have in spades (and are significantly easier to put together than an ICBM). The intended use is to place them as a spot defense over a high-value target, as the farthest reaches of a layered system that includes short-range defenses like Patriot, etc.

This is not an ICBM shield for the U.S. in the manner that I think you are thinking it is, that would really have any effect in the event of a global thermonuclear war. The preventative measure against that is still MAD. However when you step down from that scenario (and terrorism), the next most likely case of a nuclear weapon being used against us is with a theater ballistic missile against a strategic target like a foreign city, aircraft carrier, or air base. In a situation like that, a defensive system like this makes a lot more sense.

Not necessarily a violation

[Kadin2048]

Yeah I was looking at the same thing also. They have some OSS stuff there for download (and helpful instructions in case you want to upload your changes -- I mean who wouldn't want to contribute at no charge to their friendly local defense contractor?) but no source.

This by itself doesn't mean anything though. Remember that the GPL doesn't require you to make your code available online to just anyone, it just says that you have to distribute it along with the software. So it could be something as simple as a /src directory on systems they sell, or on the CDs or however they distribute it.

They can't prohibit you from buying the product and redistributing the source code, but it doesn't mean they have to go out of their way to make it particularly easy for you to do so. The only real way to tell if they're breaking the license would be for somebody to buy RedHawk Linux in whatever form is closest to a "retail box" and see if it comes with source, or a written offer to provide it. I believe those are the requirements of the GPL.

The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[s20451]

For those who oppose missile defence, I ask: The only other thing protecting you from nuclear attack is the fact that the United States is willing to commit an act of genocide to avenge your death. Does that make you sleep better at night? Especially since this does not protect you against mistakes, malfunctions, or insanity.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[hey!]

For those who oppose missile defence, I ask: The only other thing protecting you from nuclear attack is the fact that the United States is willing to commit an act of genocide to avenge your death. Does that make you sleep better at night?

Well, it's a very nice sounding argument, but very poorly thought out in my opinion. The question then is not do I sleep soundly when the only thing that keeps nuclear armageddon in check is mutually assured destruction? The question is am I justified in sleeping more soundly after we deloy a missile defense system? I think it is all to common to examine only one side of the coin -- the intended outcome -- and not the other.

The way the missile defense would work in an idealized world is that (1) it would operate well enough to significantly reduce damage, (2) enemies would not adjust their tactics to avoid the systems strengths and target its weaknesses and (3) our leaders would not place undue faith in the system's ability to protect us from the consequences of their actions.

Now, suppose that another hypothetical world that (1) the system while somewhat effective nonetheless lets enough through to do severe damage (2) enemies adjust their technologyt o reduce the system's effectiveness or choose other delivery systems such as cruise missiles launched from off our coasts or shipping container bombs and (3) our leaders act as if the system is a complete and flawless defense despite the prior two points.

Now, should I sleep better at night in that hypothetical world?

Especially since this does not protect you against mistakes, malfunctions, or insanity.

I think this is a reasonable target for technological counter measures, provided we don't delude ourselves, which we're all to prone to do.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[sickofthisshit]

Strawman argument. Missile defense is not protecting us against any of those things in a realistic sense.

Missile defense has not proved anything near the ability to prevent an attack by multiple advanced missiles, particularly those which would use even relatively simple anti-simulation decoy techniques.

For the newbies to missile defense, "decoys" are typically large mylar balloons which inflate in space to create radar targets as large or larger than a warhead. They are extremely cheap and light, so anybody able to make an ICBM can afford to put many decoys in their missiles. "Anti-simulation" means you put the warhead in a balloon, or in some other way make it look very similar to the cheap, plentiful decoys.

Now your putative missile defense system has to somehow deal with dozens of things that all look like cheap decoys, but only a handful are actually warheads.

The missile defense folks will hem and haw about how their system is not meant to deal with a sophisticated enemy, which is code for "we think North Korea can't really make fancy warheads that maneuver like we think Soviet warheads can" but ignoring the fact that mylar balloons are not sophisticated. Or that it is only meant to handle single isolated launches, like might occur by "accident." Or they'll say they are only deploying the system to provide the opportunity for more realistic testing. Or that they really need a launch-phase system (before the decoys get a chance to deploy), which needs to be very near the launch site, so you need to post sailors or soldiers very near North Korea (because you can't get close enough to China or Russia's launch sites without invading their territory) whenever you think a launch is probable, and keep them ready enough to respond in minutes.

As opposed to sitting around in Alaska waiting for a single warhead, with at most a few decoys, to come sailing up from North Korea, and hoping that North Korean missile designers never heard of mylar balloons. Then you get to see if the *many* billions of dollars we've spent on this system pay off or not.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[s20451]

I agree that point (3) is a problem. Points (1) and (2) are technological issues that can be solved with time.

I think the "cruise missiles and container bombs" argument makes no sense, because these two delivery systems do not have the same potential as ICBMs. A cruise missile is basically a jet aircraft, and we already know how to shoot those down. They also take a relatively long time (i.e., hours) to arrive at their target, giving plenty of warning. As for container bombs, you could use them to attack a city, but you could never get one close enough to a hardened military installation to do significant damage. It would be an effective tool for terrorists, but totally worthless as a military strike. And it would be almost impossible to co-ordinate more than a few simultaneous container-bomb attacks.

By contrast, ICBMs can be used to attack any target in the world, take around 45 minutes from launch to impact, can be used in co-ordinated attacks of unlimited size, and cannot be stopped with existing technology.

The promise of missile defence is to make massive nuclear attack obsolete as a weapon of war. I think that is a worthwhile goal.

Stability & Speed a Key in Defense Systems

[trygstad]

People can debate the morality of this all day without really accomplishing anything, but as someone who operated technically sophisticated weapons systems, I can speak from experience as to the value of having an OS that is rock-stable and fast. As a long-time anti-submarine warfare helicopter pilot, the last thing I want ever want to see on my center console screen would be a blue screen of death, because in a shooting war, the "death" part might be far more literal than figurative. The morality of the use of technologies for war is a debate for politicians and academics; for those who are at the cutting edge of the spear--who are all volunteers and are there defending your right to even have this debate--the only thing that really matters about a technology is does it work now, and will it work without fail every time it is needed. Personally I'd go with Linux with a great deal of confidence. And if the political will of a nation is going to ask some citizens to lay their lives on the line to protect the bulk of the people, don't those folks on the cutting edge deserve to have the very best tools to do their job?

Frames. State of the art real-time. NOT!!!

[kt0157]

Jeez. After DECADES of research (much sponsored by the USN) into real-time scheduling we get real-time Linux running "frames". Also known as "a big loop of code run as fast as possible". Makes me want to retch.

K.

Way Back When

[jmichaelg]

I worked on an air defense system back in the 70's. It was built for the King of Morroco so he could show off to the other despots in North Africa. It wasn't as if Morocco was seriously threatened by anyone but I guess that having been overrun by the Germans, French and the occasional American task force rescuing a Greek who claimed to be an American, the king was a little concerned. The system consisted of two radars parked on a couple of mountaintops talking to a single cpu which updated a couple of consoles and huge wall screen. Whereas the consoles got the standard cryptic designators for each plane, the wall screen got elaborate detailed descriptions since they were for the king to read. The cpu was the fastest cpu of the time, a 16 mhz behemoth that filled a room.

The guy I reported to was one of the smartest people I've ever met and fortunately for the project, he was responsible for the software. He'd come into our offices (the only people that worked in cubicles back then were HP employees) and see how we were doing. He'd frequently find us waiting on a compile as the machine was hard pressed to have 30 or so developers using a single computer to compile with. It began to bother him quite a bit because he'd read the design spec which called for the system to handle a couple of 1000 radar returns each minute. As he was technically capable, he sat down one day and wrote a radar simulator that fed radar packets to a "processor." All the processor did was count the number of packets it received and all the radar simulator did was send empty packets. Not a very complicated piece of software but it was enough to show the hardware wasn't going to meet the spec. It couldn't do that simple task, let alone process the packets, draw positions on the controller screens etc.

He wrote a memo and sent it up the chain. A week passed and no response so he wrote another memo saying the same thing but he changed the memo title. The new title was "I know you're out there - I can hear you breathing." That got his bosses moving and the problem was addressed.

I'm not surprized at all

[ChrisA90278]

I used one of the "real-time modified" linux kernels in my work too. I can see why LM selected it. For those who don't understand "real time" is does not mean "runs fast" it means that if I need a task to run once every 100 miliseconds it does just that. If you are doing something like controling a radar transmitter you need _exact_ timming. For jobs like running a web browser a real-time OS may seem unresponsive and "not smooth" They will likely need access to the kernel source code if they are fielding a military system. These systems have long (25 years plus) lifetimes and you need the ability to repair the OS 20 years from now. I used a real time Linux inside an astronomical CCD camera to generate the waveforms that shift the charges acros the rows and out to the amps and digitiziers. the camera moved relative to the target and the charge was shifted in sync with the moving image. Linuix was great. The hard real time stuff could be done with interrupts disabled inside a kernel level driver and the data was written to disk by a user land process. Standard tols and debugers could be used to develope the camera controller. I'm not surprized at all that LM went this way. But the "Linux" they are using is NOT the "linux" you see when you get Ret Hat or Debian.

Hardware In the Loop: Been There

[cmholm]

The parent for this thread probably doesn't have any first hand experience with HWIL, but s/he has the basic ideas down. Lemme hit the previous bullets:

Gyroscopic mount: typically, the seeker for the missile (radar, ir, video, whatever) in question is mounted on the gimbals. The rest of the guidance section is in a nearby rack. The reactions of the rest of the missile (fins, motor, body) is simulated in the kinematic codes running on the HWIL simulation computer(s).

Projection screen: a jargon problem. For Radar: an array of radio frequency feed horns are mounted on a wide hemispheric frame about 50 to 100 feet in front of the seeker, which is at the focal point of their output. By varying the frequency, power, and polarity of the energy from each feed horn, one or more targets can be represented. The simulation computer usually takes care of the radar pulse delay to represent range. Simulated changes in target angle are handled by moving the seeker on it's gimbals.

IR projection: a "hot" video display, to my experience using an led array no bigger than a laptop display a few feet in front of the seeker. Video: to my experience, either a large front or rear video projection system, or a tv display a few feet in front of the seeker.

Fins/vectored thrust: in a HWIL system, the aerodynamic controls are usually simulated. The control computer intercepts the commands from the guidance section, and feeds them into the kinematic software for use in the virtual environment.

Movement in 3D space: Why move the seeker at all? Because it's cheaper than moving the display mechanism (whether radar, ir, or video). The seeker is built to withstand intense shock and vibration, small, and usually weighs anywhere from a few tens to hundreds of pounds. The display system is usually custom built, touchy, and too unwieldy to move in angle or rate in degrees per second needed to represent how a target might present itself. Depending on the scenario, the simulated target may well start 'waaaaaaay off to the side of the seeker's POV. So, throw the seeker on gimbals and move it.

Before moving into an expensive HWIL lab, the guidance software, or guidance computer and s/w, will have been put thru it's paces on a computer-in-the-loop simulation, where nothing moves except logic states. HWIL is the final stage of integration testing before trying the whole missile out on a test range.

Just between you, me, and the lamp post, I believe Lockeed won the THAAD contract on price, and the Army has been paying the price for what, twelve years? If (my previous employer) had won this, I assert we'd have a deployable system by now.

layered defence

[r00t]

All layers, and I really do mean all layers, are flawed. It is incredibly irresponsible to skip a few layers. The layers include...

• nuclear non-proliferation treaty
• economic cooperation (carrot)
• economic non-cooperation (stick)
• cultural export
• implied threat of nuclear return fire
• diplomacy, including explicit threats
• intercept of suspicious boats and trucks near borders
• intercept of ICBMs at launch (sabotage, airborne laser)
• intercept of ICBMs in space (smart rocks, X-ray laser)
• intercept of warheads reentering (radar-controlled heavy machine gun)
• bomb shelter, good building codes, iodine and calcium supplements

It looks like you want to rely on the first few layers alone. Note that the first 4 have already failed several times. No thanks dude, I'll have all the other layers too please.

Re:Er, Um, do we want to link Linux to a real luse

[gatkinso]

The author is "sort of" right. THAAD was floundering badly in the 90's and was completely restructured in 1996. The battle management and sensors were fine, but the interceptor was a flop and completely redesigned.

He speaks of the old system, you of the new. The only thing in common between the two systems is the acronym, but even the first Word in it has changed.

Not to worry, the THAAD interceptor will probably be replaced with the SM-3 (the missile that the Aegis BMD system is based on). However the radars and C3BM will remain the same.