Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lockheed Martin Selects Linux for Missile Defense

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the defying-all-rules-of-government-spending dept.

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."

45 of 532 comments (clear)

  1. Arms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So we like big arms companies now?

    1. Re:Arms by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:Arms by C++12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Arms by demachina · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      @de_machina
    4. Re:Arms by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      @de_machina
  2. Tux with a rocket launcher! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

    M M M M M MULTI-KILL!

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

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Tux with a rocket launcher! by cHALiTO · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    2. Re:Tux with a rocket launcher! by parasonic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How about a nice game of chess?

  3. Red is the colour by ettlz · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  4. I was killed by Linux by flowerp · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    --- Eat my sig.
    1. Re:I was killed by Linux by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:I was killed by Linux by gatzke · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:I was killed by Linux by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:I was killed by Linux by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:I was killed by Linux by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. w00t! by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:w00t! by wde · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  6. Doom 3 by Reducer2001 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Linux was able to ensure the high frame rates

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

    --
    When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
  7. Someone give these guys a Nobel Peace prize ! by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 5, Funny

    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 !

  8. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."
  9. Other factors by vmxeo · · Score: 3, Funny

    "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...

    --
    Shameless plug for my photos on Flickr
  10. First Target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  11. Re:Free (not as in free beer) War by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  12. Re:Feel any good for building weapons? by ettlz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Feel any good for building weapons? by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  14. Does this mean that... by jonwil · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:Does this mean that... by Theolojin · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      Life is short; think quickly.
  15. HWIL = Hardware In the Loop by everphilski · · Score: 5, Informative

    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-

    1. Re:HWIL = Hardware In the Loop by florescent_beige · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    2. Re:HWIL = Hardware In the Loop by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      That's classified.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  16. Re:Feel any good for building weapons? by zerocool^ · · Score: 4, Funny


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

    --
    sig?
  17. Now if they shoot a missile... by Vo0k · · Score: 3, Funny

    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...

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  18. Re:One day by finkployd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  19. Re:But what if... by amliebsch · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  20. Yes! Best thread ever! by lbrandy · · Score: 3, Funny

    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...

  21. Pick a group... by Glove+d'OJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  22. I have tested it for you ! by Jacquouille · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  23. Re:the right tool for the job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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.

  24. THAAD by Karrde712 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    You may treat all information submitted above as wild speculation.
  25. Re:Yeah, but it's still a stupid waste of money by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  26. Stability & Speed a Key in Defense Systems by trygstad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  27. Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction by sickofthisshit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  28. Way Back When by jmichaelg · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

  29. Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction by s20451 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  30. Hardware In the Loop: Been There by cmholm · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.