Slashdot Mirror
B-2 Stealth Bomber Gets Upgrade, Joins the '90s
WmHBlair writes "Flightglobal has a report about the upgrades being made to the B-2A Stealth Bomber, which include Pentium class processors, JOVIAL code rewritten in C, and fibre channel hard drives. The Register, as usual, makes light of this event with a tongue-in-cheek news item noting that the upgrade drags Stealth Bomber IT systems into the '90s."
but microprocessors that are designed to handle a nuclear EMP aren't blazing fast. But they are definitely not 90s technology.
I think the B-2 bomber will be fine unless its pilots require the extra computing power to play "punch the monkey" or the South Park Lemmiwinks game.
As was recently discussed about the current Mars lander mission, it's really just fine if something built to do a very specific job doesn't have support for this week's gamer-friendly video board, a hacked Wii controller, bluetooth, and a dozen USB ports. Hardened, reliable hardware and bug-free seems better than, say, some of the misadventures that some IT-intensive commercial aircraft have suffered over the last few years. It's OK to be one notch less cool when you're flying around with large weapons.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This is an interesting approach to security, use machines so old that no one can crack. Maybe that's why the Russians still use vacuum tubes in MiGs.
Well, considering they can get Linux to run on a toaster, you'd think that would be a no-brainer...
I'm not sure that replacing JOVIAL code with C code is actually progress. If JOVIAL is anything like ALGOL 60, it's arguably a better programming language than C.
What this article seems to overlook is that they DONT WANT new computers and new operating systems, new languages. They want older, stable, rpedictable, thoroughly vetted technologies.
They dont need a super computer to fly these, but what they do need os to know every quirk, every instability, and already have dealt with it so that NOTHING even remotely suprises them.
Thats why moving to C is a big step.
it may seem silly to us because we run all sorts of new stuff on our computers designed to run many things we may never use; These are VERY purpose built, need very little flexibility outside its designated purpose, and doesnt need to be overdone.
I may buy a PC system anticipating programs down the road that might be expanded, but for an aircraft, missiles, sattelites, even the space shuttle which runs EVRY old code, they just need it to do exactly what it needs too, and if that works fine with 256k, then thats what it will get, as long as its stable as all hell.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
avionics systems must be free of bugs, or people don't die.
That just means their development & testing cycle runs about 15 years. That doesn't seem terribly unreasonable given that reliability is paramount for a billion dollar piece of equipment.
I work on brand new industrial controls that are still using Z80 processors.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
With one MEGABYTE of ferris-core memory. Five redundant computers. The shuttle prgram was late getting started and they didnt want to changes the software.
"And they made fun of vacuum tube computers in MIGs."
Those of you who have read some about Intel's coming Larrabee GPU know that it consists of many Pentium cores. The thing is, these cores aren't as old as one may think.
When the Pentium core became obsolete, Intel gave the technology to the U.S. military, which in turn developed it further and added bug fixes. So it's not really technology from the 90's only, because it has been in development for quite some time.
Additionally, old technology has the advantage of being used so much that virtually everything is known about the chip, including bugs. Therefore, it is much safer to work with such a chip rather than going for the latest Core 2 Duo.
Full Tilt
The Stealth Bomber's mission is to deliver nuke bombs inside Soviet territory. It's not really that good at anything else. Though it does get used for other missions, since the US needs to justify spending $2.2 BILLION on each one.
Upgrading the B2 to the 1990s is just keeping a 1980s corporate welfare programme for another decade, even while letting it float a decade behind in technology. I guess someone's got to buy all those old Pentiums, or Intel might go out of business.
--
make install -not war
... or the wrong people die.
Just to point a small detail... flying a B2 is cooler than any computer out there. The large weapons just give you cause to giggle every time the news talks about "tensions". More serious note, all military electronic hardware feels primitive, from the GPS that belongs in an 80s sci-fi flick, to the palm pilot the size of a paperback we use to put crypto in radios, its all old. Reasons: A, beauracracy and change don't mix. B: Blowing the shit out of countries that didn't do anything to us just so we can rebuild them is kinda pricey. C: Ammo is expensive too. D: Our budget is mostly going to expanding a certain moron's oil empire. E: Usr=ID10T.
Never disregard the raw power inherent to stupidity... they call it "dumb luck" for a reason...
Probably all those who wish to understand the joke.
:-(
I would, very much, like to.
Riight, a revolution in physics and technology that would rival quantum mechanics and the USAF is sitting on it and using it to mildly enhance a score of strategic bombers.
Tell me another one!
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
While I agree that the the avionics system must be safe, your statement implies that these military avionics systems are old, well-worn, and safe. But the article quoted (from The Register) notes:
So moist sensors can crash a $2 billion B-2, but upgrading a 1MHz 25kB processor is too risky. I think you need to base your risk assessment on facts and statistics, rather than on black and white statements like old time-tested systems are safer than newer ones. It's possible that a newer system would have safety advantages from more modern language technology, like more type-safe, better error checking and handling, faster control loops, harder real-time, better simulation tools, etc.
I am aware that conservative groups like military ones are often more comfortable with "the devil they know," but they might not always be right.
Yes, because B-2 pilots surf random links posted on message boards mid flight all the time.
You must remember that weapons are not supposed to kill just anyone, just the people you want dead. An important distinction.
The other factor is that if a Pentium is fast enough, then there's no need for a faster processor. Real planes don't suffer from frame rate issues.
How many years is it behind the strategic bombers that our enemies, the "Terrorists" have?
Jayne: "These are stone killers, little man. They ain't cuddly like me."
98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smok
Point taken -- your ideal is more ideal than my ideal :)
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
This is /.
There is no need to explain the bug! ...I think!
I think you were joking... Perhaps? Not sure. But just generally on this subject...
There are a lot of people here who wouldn't know about those bugs. I personally study computer science (Or well, I'll start studying it in two months when the school starts again.) but have mostly done webmastering, PHP coding, Search engine optimization (as a job)... I would have no idea about some Intel Bug from the year 1994. For the record, I was 5 years old at the time.
So the audience of /. is a lot wider than many people assume and at this time of the internet, a lot of people are good in some aspects of computers (I am rather pleased in my skills at web developing) while having no clue about others (namely, hardware).
That said, ofcourse the point could could be made that if people just don't get a joke about old processor bug, they don't need to get it and it doesn't need to be explained...
Fine print: I work in internet advertising.
I made the same comment as the parent poster too.
Yes, since I am not an American I think it's probably preferable for the crew of the plane to die than for them to complete their mission and, for example, kill hundreds of women and children attending weddings. They have after all chosen to fight for their country and accepted they may die whereas their innocent victims have made no such choice.
The military isn't "behind" in development - the rest of us are behind in testing and quality.
Yeah, you laugh that they use CPUs an order of magnitude slower than your notebook. But they can't afford a BSOD, a floating-point error or any of the other nonsense that you put up with every day. Their processors might be slower, but I wouldn't bet that - taking all things into account - their total productivity is.
Software quality on the "bleeding edge", where most of us live, is abysmal, and that's putting it very nicely. Regular users are beta-testers, and that's if they're lucky. There is software being sold today that shouldn't qualify as an alpha version. When's the last time you bought a game, just for an extreme example, that did not already have a patch available before the box was on sale the first day?
That's nonsense you can't afford in a billion-dollar plane with nuclear weapons on board.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You must be new here.
+++OK ATH
... or the wrong people die.
There's no right people when it comes to death by thermonuclear bomb.
There was a time when the USAF decided that all air to air fighting would happen via missiles, and so, left out guns in the fighters. Korea showed that to be wrong thinking. While our current conflicts are low intensity and door to door, that doesn't mean that an old school throw down will never happen again. It would be naive to get rid of heavy bombers. Some day we might have an actual war to fight.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
i gave you the flamebait; criticizing the other branches for their service to the country is really tacky; you have some valid points, but you descended into some real BS too. Honestly, I'm in the USMC and you should see yourselves from our eyes (assuming you want to continue being viewing each other with closed minded stereotypes)
My wifes in the Navy, have had uncles in the Army and National Guard, a father in the Air Force, and cousins in the Coast Guard; everyone does what is right for them. Your complete lack of respect for others services flat out sucks.
You're insane if you think they're even remotely equivalent. Stealth is clever shapes and clever use of materials, mostly enabled by the vast increase in computing power which made it possible to model the radar characteristics of the aircraft more completely. (This is why the F-117 was shaped like a 1980s-era 3D rendering, all flat polygons and no curves: that was the best the computers of the time could handle.) Stealth has absolutely zero application outside of the military. On the other hand, electrogravitics would be an enormous revolution in fundamental physics as well as in applied technology, and would revolutionize nearly every aspect of our lives in the same way that quantum mechanics has.
It's plausible for an applied technology that has no use outside of the military to stay locked up in black programs for a while. It is utterly implausible for a massive theoretical breakthrough which changes a great deal of known physics to do the same.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Your ideas are all well and good right up until war is not based on tactical ground actions any more.
Sorry? I thought my entire point was that contemporary warfare is almost entirely tactical in nature.
I am in the air force and I agree that our role is ridiculously inflated, but we do play a role. I do not see, however, what would be gained by rolling the air force into the army or vice versa.
I never suggested that. My half serious, half facetious suggestion was that if the Air Force is so fixated on strategic bombing and doesn't want to provide CAS, maybe it ought to turn over its CAS assets to the Army, which has a strong personal interest in CAS and will make good use of those assets.
The AF has lots of ground troops and frankly I don't see them ever because I work on jets.
Indeed. I worked closely with several Air Force forward air controllers in Afghanistan. My views on the problem with CAS and the Air Force are derived mostly from their complaints about their own service!
If the army took over our c-130 assets, they would belong to an 'army aeronautical division' or something and functionally would very closely resemble the current situation.
Well yeah. The Army already has substantial aviation assets. My arguments assume nothing unusual.
Unless your idea is that 11 bravos would fix, fuel, load, and direct their own aircraft. That's not much different from the air force saying that IT ought to just have a private army of its own that understood the strengths and limitations of air power, etc.
Well no, it's distinctly different. The Army already has aviation assets in the CAS role, and the advantage of that is obvious to anyone who's ever seen an AH-64 or even an armed OH-56 in action. Again, I think you've misunderstood my point. The Air Force as described by the 1948 Key West Agreement is so strongly tied to the vision of its de facto founder, Curtis LeMay, that to this very day its leadership has difficulty seeing aviation in terms outside of strategic bombing. The trouble this causes with the Army is that the Air Force is also supposed to provide CAS for ground forces. Being a separate service, the Army has limited means to affect the direction the Air Force goes when questions of budgetary priority come up. CAS assets are routinely marginalized, while strategic assets of questionable necessity are emphasized. The reason the Air Force doesn't need "a private army of its own that [understands] the strengths and limitations of air power" is that the Air Force isn't interested in ground warfare, and that's the problem!
And btw the A-10 is not retired.
Friend, re-read what I wrote. I said they tried to retire the A-10 in the 90's. They were not successful, largely because their "replacement"--- the F-16--- was totally unsuited to the role.
If you can track down a copy of the july-august Airman magazine, A-10s in afghanistan are the cover story.
I don't need to. I watched three of them fly a racetrack pattern around a ridge in Paktia in SE Afghanistan, putting down ordinance. It's very impressive.
I personally work on f-16s and my base is one of only a few with some very advanced targetting systems and the pilot training to match. I would put our 16s against vanilla a-10s any day for recon and bomb drops.
See, this is the exactly the problem I'm talking about. Much of the Air Force leadership doesn't seem to understand what constitutes good CAS. It's not putting an Mk82 inside a 10' painted circle on a dry lake bed outside Nellis from 5000' AGL at 600 knots using CCIPP. Good CAS is being able to stay on station for a long time until a "bad guy" finally groundhogs up, at which point the FAC gets on the radio and say, "second ridge, 100 meters above th
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.