Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Military Aircraft To Get All-Fiber Network Gear

Posted by timothy on from the network-coriolis-effect dept.

coondoggie writes "Looking to significantly reduce weight, improve on-board communications and make it easier to upgrade avionics, the US military is developing prototype phonic gear for use in all aircraft. Behind such a drastic shift is a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency project with an ungainly moniker: Network Enabled by Wavelength division multiplexing Highly Integrated Photonics (NEW-HIP)."

144 comments

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

    Now our military has more stuff, we might be able to stand a chance against another military for the first time in a long time!

    1. Re:Horray by DWMorse · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hah. And here -I- was excited that fighter jet pilots would finally be able to watch YouTube and download torrents are amazingly high speeds with low latency, while doing those boring maneuvers.

      --
      There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
    2. Re:Horray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U.S. military won't be satisfied until it can weather an attack by all other nations on Earth, and come out unhurt and victorious.

    3. Re:Horray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't they just drop the two-war doctrine?

      Oh yeah they did
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7140418/Pentagon-abandons-two-war-doctrine.html

    4. Re:Horray by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hah. And here -I- was excited that fighter jet pilots would finally be able to watch YouTube and download torrents are amazingly high speeds with low latency, while doing those boring maneuvers.

      Sounds likely since most of them will be flying UAVs.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    5. Re:Horray by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      But they can.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    6. Re:Horray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not fighter jets, transport jets.

      There was a transport flying with a fighter escort. After many hours, the fight pilot called over to the transport pilot and said, "Watch this!" and proceeded to do some acrobatics.

      The transport pilot watched and then retorted, "Oh yeah! Watch this!"

      So the fighter pilot sat and watched. And watched. And watched. Then after 20 minutes, the fighter pilot called over again and said, "I'm still waiting to see what you can do?"

      The transport pilot said, "I did it. I got up, stretched my legs, went back for cup of coffee and talked to the flight engineer, went to the john -sitting down, grabbed another cup of coffee and walked back here."

      A young boy tells his father, "Dad when I grow up, I want to be a fighter pilot!"

      The father asks, "So, which is it?"

    7. Re:Horray by Cwix · · Score: 2

      Ohh IDK about that.

      If some of the other western countries who often have some high tech gear of their own teamed up with some of the countries that have massive amounts of troops and resources. (Think England and France for the western countries, and China and India for the population size) I think we might have a heck of a problem.

      Not to say China doesnt have alot of high tech military gear, just that I think the sheer number of boots on the ground they could deploy is their big thing.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    8. Re:Horray by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      The US controls the high ground. They have the best orbital remote sensing and the best air force, by far. Their only limitation is their reluctance to slaughter civilians. Apart from a few lapses over the years it is still possible to beat them in a guerrilla campaign.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    9. Re:Horray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean "the reluctance of most fighting men in the US armed forces", and may god (or whoever) bless them and keep them safe for being decent people.

    10. Re:Horray by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      The US already has committed atrocities during a guerrilla campaign (look at the Philippine-American war; the highest estimates put the number of civilian dead at around 1.4 million; resistance continued for at least a decade. The result? Delayed independence). You can even argue that they committed them in Vietnam (just look at those civilian death tolls), yet they still lost.

      --
      SSC
    11. Re:Horray by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      China has nukes. The US has nukes. Any war would continue only so long as both sides believe they have a good chance of winning without the need to resort to such desperate measures. As soon as one or the other had a decisive advantage, the opposing side would feel nuclear force to be the only way to protect their own existance.

    12. Re:Horray by Cwix · · Score: 1

      I chose not to pose the nuke question. If a nuke is involved then I dont think you could classify it as "winning" at all

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    13. Re:Horray by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wEURyjB3Lc#t=03m21s
      ( The Adventures of Bill and John )

      --
    14. Re:Horray by timeOday · · Score: 2

      The US and China aren't going to be invading each other for a fight to the death any time soon. At minimum, there would be many decades of proxy wars in outlying areas first, and as yet there's no real reason to think even those will occur.

    15. Re:Horray by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Now our military has more stuff, we might be able to stand a chance against another military for the first time in a long time!

      Well, read the article... there is no claim of increasing lethality here, it is all about sustainability:

      "Converting a fixed point-to-point cable infrastructure of tactical aircraft to a reconfigurable fiber-optic network that remains for the life of the air frame has the potential to save the Defense Department billions of dollars over the lifecycle of an aircraft fleet," said Adel Saleh, DARPA program manager in a statement.

      The agency said modern military aircraft typically feature miles of heavily shielded copper wire cables that connect a multitude of components. "This cabling is heavy and subject to deterioration due to harsh environmental conditions encountered in normal flight operations. In addition, cables needed for carrying analog radio frequency signals are expensive, fragile and difficult to install and replace.

      I think this is a good direction for us to take. We need to think about how to maintain our military strength as much as possible while diverting more of our resources to today's battlefield - the global economy (by which I really just mean cutting government expenses to reduce the tax/inflation burden).

    16. Re:Horray by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The CIA will play the long game. China will be messed with in Tibet, along its local trade routes, in Africa and back at home.
      The smarter and more connected China becomes, the more the CIA can infect the next generation.
      Young people in China at the top level study very hard and are kept away from many creative aspects of life. The CIA understands this and can pump in free music, fun books/movies, deep cults, free porn, drugs, a blend of green/freedom/faith based/independence spreading NGO's.
      As for nukes read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marshall_(foreign_policy_strategist). The US has some great new ideas :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    17. Re:Horray by couchslug · · Score: 1

      That's a logical benchmark.

      By the way, dear readers, ALL the current tech advantages we have cannot be presumed permanent.

      Fiber flight control cables etc are much less vulnerable than copper wiring to EMP, and weigh less. Soon everyone will have UAVs and otherwise catch up with our current tech, and it is naive to think nation-state wars are over as it was to believe the League of Nations would bring peace to Europe.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    18. Re:Horray by Nutria · · Score: 1

      So, an 89 year old has been running the same defense office for 37 years?

      I call BS.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    19. Re:Horray by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      We didn't really lose Vietnam. We gave up on it. This was due to political pressure back home and it was clearly obvious that politics played a large role in why Vietnam was such a clusterfuck throughout the campaign. Even the french made the same mistakes before we took over.

    20. Re:Horray by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Try http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/marshall.html
      http://www.uky.edu/PR/News/Archives/2002/July2002/AndyMarshall.htm

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    21. Re:Horray by Phoghat · · Score: 1
      World of Warcraft 5.0

      At least they don't worry about RPGs too much

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    22. Re:Horray by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      As always it's the ground soldier grunts who have to mop up

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    23. Re:Horray by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      And JFK seemed like such an intelligent man, but he was just another pretty face. As usual though those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    24. Re:Horray by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      China has nukes. The US has nukes.

      Hell, all god's children have nukes, not just US and China. What will we do if one of THOSE little piss ants start throwing atoms?

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    25. Re:Horray by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      I don't think China is going to invade its neighbors any time in the near future. Unless the US gets much more imperially adventuristic in Asia, China won't be much of a military problem.

    26. Re:Horray by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      You lose a war when you give up. We gave up in Vietnam (thank God!).

    27. Re:Horray by Cwix · · Score: 1

      My response was only stating *IF* the US was attacked by every other country in the world, that we would not be victorious, and would not emerge unscathed.

      Never said the world WOULD.

      Anyways, out of the four countries I listed you chose the one who would be the most likely to end up on the other side of a battle?

      I doubt were gonna fight France or England any time soon either.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    28. Re:Horray by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You lose a war when the enemy beats you. There is a difference. Giving up and going home isn't exactly losing a war. It's not a win, but it's not losing
      either.

      The problem was we weren't fighting a war to begin with and the American public saw that with all the news footage of the war streaming into their living rooms. We were only attempting to help a country maintain control of it's territory.

      And you say thank god as if that was a good thing. Tell me, was it a good thing to allow tons of people to get murdered in for the ideals of communism? Was it a good thing to allow millions basically become slaves to an ideal they didn't support?

    29. Re:Horray by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      We bombed Vietnam more than all our bombing in WWII. We defoliated the jungles and resettled people (who didn't want to go) into "secure hamlets." Thousands of noncombatants died. When the war was over the horror of Cambodia resulted. We fought there WAY longer than we fought in WWII, and we still couldn't "win." Only an absolute fool would want to keep fighting in Vietnam any longer.

      What did Vietnam have that we need? Absolutely nothing. Not a god damn thing.

      We intervened in a civil war taking place in one country--Vietnam. There was no "South Vietnam" except insofar as it was created by the Allies after WWII. It was all one country. The leaders of "South Vietnaam" were crap. Have you ever read about Bao Dai or Ngo Dinh Diem? They were awful. When we ramped up the war (because WE wanted to), we had to depose Diem and replace him with more pliant generals. The "leaders" of South Vietnam didn't want to prosecute the war aggressively--WE DID.

      The idea that we were fighting for the people of Vietnam was nonsense. We were fighting a war against "Communism" while the Vietnamese were fighting a civil war.

      We were fighting against an "idea." That was so stupid. You shouldn't fight wars against ideas. You're then killing people to change their mind. That is ridiculous.

      I haven't seen anything that indicates that the people of Vietnam are "slaves to an ideal." As far as I can see, Vietnam is doing better and better postwar.

      I get your point--that a capitalist free market economy is something that we should be forcing at gunpoint upon other countries. I just reject it.

    30. Re:Horray by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      We bombed Vietnam more than all our bombing in WWII. We defoliated the jungles and resettled people (who didn't want to go) into "secure hamlets." Thousands of noncombatants died. When the war was over the horror of Cambodia resulted. We fought there WAY longer than we fought in WWII, and we still couldn't "win." Only an absolute fool would want to keep fighting in Vietnam any longer.

      Did you see where I said we didn't go into the war trying to win? You attempt to bring a comparison to WWII but fail because in WWII, we not only bombed Germany and the Axis home front, we invaded and destroyed their ability to make war. When we took an area in WWII, we held it until the lines passed so far in front of it, that it wasn't necessary. In Vietnam, we wasted most of those bombs and shells on the people transporting supplies. We bombed the north but nothing substantial as a lot of their ability to wage war was created in other countries. And we certainly didn't invade the north in order to seize their government ordering the war.

      They are two completely different beasts and the differences, some of which you pointed out, support my concept.

      What did Vietnam have that we need? Absolutely nothing. Not a god damn thing.

      lol.. So are you attempting to say that because we had no use for anything in Vietnam, we should overlook a communist take over that would have also taken over most of Europe had NATO not stepped in and told Russia to stop?

      In the very least, how are we going to get anything we want from any country that does have something we need if we sit back and ignore the cries for help from those countries that don't have anything we need?

      We intervened in a civil war taking place in one country--Vietnam. There was no "South Vietnam" except insofar as it was created by the Allies after WWII. It was all one country. The leaders of "South Vietnaam" were crap. Have you ever read about Bao Dai or Ngo Dinh Diem? They were awful. When we ramped up the war (because WE wanted to), we had to depose Diem and replace him with more pliant generals. The "leaders" of South Vietnam didn't want to prosecute the war aggressively--WE DID.

      It was not a civil war. I wish you idiots would learn some real fucking history. That is unless you count 1 million people sneaking across the border, staging, then attempting to overthrow the government a civil war. the rest of your drivel is more obsolete BS surrounding your incorrect assumptions on history.

      Vietnam was a French territory from 1885 or so up until 1954 with the exception of about 6 months in 1945 when it was under control of the Japanese. Communists in the north had resisted the french and gained support from the communists of the world in about 1941 and broke free from french control. The south remained a colony of France until 1954 when France gave out as their colonial administration was dissolved in the Geneva Conference of 1954. Vietnam was in effect, two separate countries at this time and was not a country at all for almost 100 years prior. The UN recognized both countries as separate entities, both with separate and independent sovereignty.

      With support from Russia and China (after Comecon orchestrated the communist overthrow in china), They funded and armed North Vietnam with the intent of expanding into south Vietnam in an attempt to expand communism.

      Now here is the part you should pay particular attention to. Communism, if created from the inside out at the will of the people, is fine and dandy. But you cannot say it is the will of the people who outsiders come into the country and take arms in order to force a revolution. It's little more then the idiot communist who attempted to overthrow the US government back in 1919. And how did we stop that? We deported members of the communist part USA who were not natural born citizens.

      Your entire concept is polluted with ignorance and re

    31. Re:Horray by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      And why didn't we invade the North? Maybe because we didn't want another Korea . . .? There were limits imposed upon the USA that Johnson and Nixon had to recognize.

      We simply couldn't take Hanoi with ground troops. We never tried that because we NEVER could have done that. That was never realistic. Nobody, except the crazies, thought that was a viable option at the time.

      Your suggestion that Russia and China were communist allies is also invalid. There was no communist monolith. Examine the Russo-Chinese border "incidents" of the 1960s.

      We got enmeshed in Vietnam and the Russians and the Chinese worked to make it worse and worse for us. It got to the point where we were fighting in Vietnam simply because we were fighting in Vietnam.

      Ho Chi Minh may have "forced a revolution," but he was no "outsider." He was home grown all the way and he was no puppet to the Chinese. Examine the China-Vietnamese border incidents.

      You are just arguing that we had to destroy Vietnam in order to save it from evil Communism.

      The war was "lost" because the ARVN wouldn't fight. We tried and tried, but we couldn't get the ARVN to fight. If we can't get the ARVN to fight and we can't rip out the heart of the North, then there was NO WAY WE COULD WIN. That's why we were in Vietnam for ten years.

      We never should have "escalated" in the first place. Eisenhower never would have buried us there. A few advisors, and that should have been it. We never should have let ourselves get entangled propping up a South Vietnamese regime that never could sustain itself.

      It was a stupid war.

    32. Re:Horray by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And why didn't we invade the North? Maybe because we didn't want another Korea . . .? There were limits imposed upon the USA that Johnson and Nixon had to recognize.

      Lol.. Don't act like I don't know this. However, knowing this doesn't change the fact that we didn't prosecute the Vietnam war anything like WWII or any other war we have won.

      Your suggestion that Russia and China were communist allies is also invalid. There was no communist monolith. Examine the Russo-Chinese border "incidents" of the 1960s.

      I didn't say Russia and China were allies with each other. I said they were backing North Vietnam and did so over a period of years that caused the north to be split from Frend Indo China which caused the two nations. I was hoping you would read what I wrote and be clever enough not to add to it from your own biases. I must have been mistaken.

      We got enmeshed in Vietnam and the Russians and the Chinese worked to make it worse and worse for us. It got to the point where we were fighting in Vietnam simply because we were fighting in Vietnam.

      Actually, it got to the point we were fighting the Chinese in Vietnam. And yes, it happened because we didn't fight it like a real war. In fact, a lot of the same mistakes were made in early Iraq which was changed and became a lot more successful later in the operations.

      Ho Chi Minh may have "forced a revolution," but he was no "outsider." He was home grown all the way and he was no puppet to the Chinese. Examine the China-Vietnamese border incidents.

      Lol.. OK, revision history all you want. He had support from the same communist parties that caused the Chinese communist revolution. You brought up the Russo-Chinese border "incidents" of the 1960s, do you think they were completely separate from this?

      You are just arguing that we had to destroy Vietnam in order to save it from evil Communism.

      I am not arguing anything of the sort. Stop imagining things and attributing it to me.

      We never should have "escalated" in the first place. Eisenhower never would have buried us there. A few advisors, and that should have been it. We never should have let ourselves get entangled propping up a South Vietnamese regime that never could sustain itself.

      Actually, wasn't that Kennedy who started the escalation? Anyways, we should have been there, if nothing more but for our own experiences with communism and how they attempted to overthrow the US government and what it caused in Europe and Eurasia.

      You act as if communism wasn't a threat at the time. I'm also dumbfounded on how anyone can call it a revolution or a good thing when a fraction of the people, supported by outside forces, end up over throwing the legitimate government and imprisoning the entire population to their pet ideology.

      It was a stupid war.

      This I can agree on. Probably not for the same reasons as you think so. I already stated why I didn't like it though.

  2. Hm... by atari2600a · · Score: 0

    What weighs more...a thousand super-light CAT5e cables, or two-thousand optic modems + one thousand strands of fiber...

    1. Re:Hm... by wizardforce · · Score: 2

      Current prototype digital integrated transmitters are designed to support tuning over 32 wavelength channels, each carrying 10 gigabit-per-second data rates. The associated digital receiver can support the selection of any combination of four simultaneous outputs from the 32 channels.

      Assuming that a typical Cat5e cable can do about a Gbps, each of these cables are equivalent to about 30 cat5's. So unless these things weigh over 30 times what a cat5 does, they'll be significantly lighter.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Hm... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't forget that the copper cables need to be shielded against interference, while fibre is much more robust.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    3. Re:Hm... by billyswong · · Score: 1

      You are assuming the system can and will saturate 30 cat5 cables, which may or may not be true.

    4. Re:Hm... by thue · · Score: 2

      I would imagine that the shielding has to be especially robust in military equipment, as it should be EMP resistant.

    5. Re:Hm... by vikisonline · · Score: 2

      I dont know. Vibrations, fatigue? Unless they use some plastic fibers and not glass, Im not sure how well it would resist fracturing compared to metal wires. It will also raise costs like crazy. Although hey its the military. They dont have budget problems like NASA.

    6. Re:Hm... by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Shielding the hundreds of miles of wire on a small fighter like the F-16 would add thousands of pounds to the unloaded weight of the aircraft, reducing available payload for fuel or ordnance. In aviation- and more specifically, military aviation- there is a constant struggle between weight and strength/redundancy. Panels are chemically milled to thin out areas with lower stress concentration, a process that saves only a few grams or ounces per panel. The airframe is built to be just strong enough to fly between 300-400 hours without disintegrating in midair, whereupon it must be taken apart and have many parts replaced. The manufacturer and the AF decided that it was worth the extra maintenance costs to have an airframe that can turn x degrees-per-second faster, or take off from a runway that is y feet shorter, than a stronger, heavier airframe.

      The point is- these aircraft are not built like a long-haul commercial passenger fleet, nor are they built like the heavily defended flying fortresses of yesteryear. Modern fighters are built and equipped for very specific missions, and afaik none of those missions include surviving major emp. You can ask about nuclear warheads, but the simple answer is that the fighter fleet is not an 'anti-nuclear' force. An F-16 doesn't need to be nuclear hardened because an F-16 close enough to a nuke to have its circuits fried will almost certainly be a loss anyways. The base I work at was once a primary target for soviet ICBMs due to nearby silos and our nuclear munitions. It would be laughable to expect the planes on the ground to scramble after a nuclear detonation or hope to land on the glowing crater where the runway used to be.

      tl;dr- non-rf cables aren't shielded except in areas of the aircraft where it is absolutely necessary.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    7. Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you people talking about cat5e. 1999 called and they want their cable back. Try Cat 6A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10GBASE-T#10GBASE-T .

    8. Re:Hm... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      These systems were created in the 80's and 90's. They likely wouldn't be spec'ed for anything newer then cat5 and repair crews on the ground know better then to just put something that looks similar in place on something that can cost lives if it fails.

      It's most likely cat5 shielded with some sort of covering to protect against EMP or radio frequency jamming. SO by using fiber, they are likely going past the simple weight advantage of replacing cat5 (even cat 6 or 7) and forgoing some of the weight from the shielding too.

    9. Re:Hm... by DougF · · Score: 1

      Military aircraft certified for nuclear ops are EMP certified, for instance, all the bombers, the F-15E, etc.

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
    10. Re:Hm... by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Citation needed.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    11. Re:Hm... by DougF · · Score: 1

      Personal knowledge of the F-15 and F-111 weapons systems (13+ years); Two quick sources on a quick search, you'll have to find the rest. 1) MIL-HDBK-516A, para 7.4.3 (for engines); 2) http://www.wrcoc-aic.org/Archive/RS/RS06/RS06_7.pdf (Note: Summary states that the B-52 is required to be hardened against EMP).

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
    12. Re:Hm... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      The high bandwidth cables don't need to go everywhere. Only on the busses between the FADECs, FLCCs, radar systems, and perhaps any other sensors that would benefit from a high bandwidth low latency connection.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  3. Prototype *phonic* gear?? by Snorbert+Xangox · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the summary: "prototype phonic gear" - are they going back to speaking tubes like the ones on old ships?

    --
    -Snorbert, somewhere in the antipodes
    1. Re:Prototype *phonic* gear?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, they meant photonic gear.

      dom

    2. Re:Prototype *phonic* gear?? by wizardforce · · Score: 2

      Yeah they pretty much just copy-pasted that right out of TFA without doing any editing. The summary even managed to misspell it despite it being part of the acronym in the summary its self.

      Network Enabled by Wavelength division multiplexing Highly Integrated Photonics

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:Prototype *phonic* gear?? by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      Yep, voice controlled..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  4. Will it cut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on EMP susceptibility ?

    1. Re:Will it cut down by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Fiber optic cables in of themselves are immune to EMP but the equipment used to manipulate the data sent through the optical cables is not. That is, unless it is specifically shielded against EMP using twisted wires and proper grounding. This would probably be on the list of things that the military would be smart to insist upon in their aircraft.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Will it cut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Fiber optic cables in of themselves are immune to EMP but the equipment used to manipulate the data sent through the optical cables is not. That is, unless it is specifically shielded against EMP using twisted wires and proper grounding. This would probably be on the list of things that the military would be smart to insist upon in their aircraft.

      Especially the ones that drop nuclear bombs.

    3. Re:Will it cut down by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      With all its volume, the box is comparatively easy to shield

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:Will it cut down by Nutria · · Score: 1

      proper grounding

      Besides the obvious, snarky answers, how do you electrically *ground* an aircraft?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    5. Re:Will it cut down by DougF · · Score: 2

      Not sure what you're asking, but each military aircraft has several grounding points that use a standard RCA jack for the aircraft and an alligator clip (OK, a big one) on the other end of the wire that grounds the aircraft to a common ground in the concrete. As for in the air, there are electro-static dischargers on the trailing edges that help dissipate charges that build up, but in the case of a lightning strike, well, just about anything goes...

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
    6. Re:Will it cut down by Nutria · · Score: 1

      As for in the air, there are electro-static dischargers on the trailing edges that help dissipate charges that build up

      That's what I was asking... :)

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  5. Oh they just called it that... by JimboG · · Score: 2

    Oh they just called it that so they could say: "This plane needs a HIP replacement!"

    1. Re:Oh they just called it that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      If they had had more fiber in the first place, they wouldn't need new hips.

    2. Re:Oh they just called it that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like a million little fibers..

  6. Great, phonics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First the government takes over our grammar, and now spelling too?

  7. EMP immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fiber cables running between Faraday cages perhaps? Fascinating idea.

  8. I think you mean... by m6ack · · Score: 1

    "photonic" -- not "phonic"

  9. robust enough!?!?! by wintermute000 · · Score: 1

    Given that fibre will fail even if say the cable is a kinked too much I have to say is it going to be robust enough?!?!?! Ditto with the transceivers, how many GBICs fail compare to good old ethernet ports (gigabit or 10BASET its all good).

    Further what about repairs. You don't need complex equipment or training to splice copper together, but different story with fibre. Theres a reason why telco techs who work on fibre have to do special courses and use protective equipment.

    1. Re:robust enough!?!?! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      Once your fibre cable is installed without kinks it should be okay. As for training I worked for our road transport agency where we ran our own fibre network for CCTV signals. We sent our techs away for training on how to handle splicing, etc and they handled it okay.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:robust enough!?!?! by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Given that fibre will fail even if say the cable is a kinked too much I have to say is it going to be robust enough?!?!?! Ditto with the transceivers, how many GBICs fail compare to good old ethernet ports (gigabit or 10BASET its all good).

      Further what about repairs. You don't need complex equipment or training to splice copper together, but different story with fibre. Theres a reason why telco techs who work on fibre have to do special courses and use protective equipment.

      What make you think the material medium will be standard in today's fiber?

    3. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the tests they do on military hardware for the US DoD? The stuff doesn't cost a zillion dollars because of $300 hammers but because of testing and retesting.

      Everyone that touches this equipment will have been trained, the stuff will be tested and all the bends will be measured just right.

      You know Cat-5 fails from kinks and has minimum bends too right? And in many places (government, education, health care) you need a electrician to touch anything in the wall or at the patch panel.

      I worked in a public school district and we weren't allowed to move any cable over 2 meters long, nothing in the dropped false ceiling, couldn't fix a cable, splice or crimp Cat-5 because of code.

    4. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I worked in a public school district and we weren't allowed to move any cable over 2 meters long, nothing in the dropped false ceiling, couldn't fix a cable, splice or crimp Cat-5 because of code."

      Which is precisely the kind of thing that so pisses off citizens and causes them to complain about the costs of schooling. You make it sound like a hardcore Union shop... which in a way it probably is.

      Those kinds of rules are BS. Tenure is BS. Top-heavy administrations are BS. Federal interference in curriculum and school lunch programs is BS. The list goes on...

    5. Re:robust enough!?!?! by eL-gring0 · · Score: 1

      I know nothing of what the military specifies for their aircraft or these types of equipment, I'll assume it's of a higher grade than I need in my corporate LAN.

      Regardless, fiber is tough enough to run through conduit, can be bent around corners (not right-angle turns, perhaps) and for my use, can be spliced together in the field with a piece of plastic worth about a dollar and some inexpensive tools. The military can afford to wrap the fiber in something protective to prevent kinks or breaks if they wanted, and maybe even design connectors and transceivers that will stand up to more shock or abuse than your typical switch/router patch cables and transceivers. Point being, it's a robust technology that's been in use for a fairly long time (relative to computer tech).

      From TFA, it sounds like they're multiplexing a lot of logical connections into a few single physical connections. How many different systems are required for an F22 to fly at combat readiness? How many of those systems have interconnected parts requiring their own communications? Running entire systems' electronic conversations over (relatively) few fiber cables sounds incredibly more scalable, and if the initiative works, reliable than point-to-point or -multipoint copper for each device. I suppose "a lot" is an understatement.

      How'd you like to see the book of checklists for a system that has miles of potentially faulty copper? You can troubleshoot that one, I'll do the one with a bundle of fiber I can count the number of strands on. :)

    6. Re:robust enough!?!?! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      "I worked in a public school district and we weren't allowed to move any cable over 2 meters long, nothing in the dropped false ceiling, couldn't fix a cable, splice or crimp Cat-5 because of code."

      Which is precisely the kind of thing that so pisses off citizens and causes them to complain about the costs of schooling. You make it sound like a hardcore Union shop... which in a way it probably is.

      Those kinds of rules are BS.

      Electrocution is not bullshit. A little bit of cable in isolation should be okay for an amateur to pull, but you have to combine it with power in the false ceiling, water pipes, different sorts of networks.

      Say one amateur electrician shorts active to a metal strap and another tapes some CAT5 to it, then a child plugs it into a PC...

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    7. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      It wasn't about the Union, it was because of updated state code for a school in a earthquake area.

      Tenure is crap, there are too many administrators, but curriculums need to be standardized and poor kids need a school lunch program.

      The Local and State school organizations shouldn't get any say in curriculum other than what books they are going to to buy to meet Federal requirement. A standardized curriculum is the only thing that's going to end the asshattery of the Creationists and shore up standards so American Public Schools can compete with the EU and Asia.

    8. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I can see how it's worth writing thousands of pages of regulations to cover something that has probably happened more or less zero times in the history of electricity.

    9. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      If power is run improperly or unsafely in the ceiling, then it is indeed the fault of the electrician. If an electrician shorted hot to a metal strap, then the pipe or ceiling fixture attached to that strap is electrified, an inherently unsafe condition. That has next to nothing to do with pulling low-voltage cable.

    10. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1
      I didn't say it was union, I said it was like a Union shop.

      I don't agree that curricula need to be standardized on the Federal level. In fact, in my opinion, that is one of the problems with schools today. Same with lunches. States and municipalities are capable of doing those on their own. Will that cause discrepancies in education? Yes. Of course it will. It's just that I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. I agree that lunches should be adequate but I very much do NOT believe it takes a Federal government to do that properly.

      "The Local and State school organizations shouldn't get any say in curriculum other than what books they are going to to buy to meet Federal requirement. A standardized curriculum is the only thing that's going to end the asshattery of the Creationists and shore up standards so American Public Schools can compete with the EU and Asia."

      Again, I disagree very much. Don't misunderstand: I do agree that there is a great deal of asshattery, but as it stands states are still in charge of curricula, except for a few Federal standards. These Federal rules been in place a while now and have not removed, or even slowed down, the influences of the ass- and tinfoil-hat crowds.

      Our goals are similar, we just disagree on the solution. Personally, I believe letting local (state, county, whatever) school systems handle their own affairs will foster competition, eventually resulting in the schools run by the asshats failing, with resulting economic hardship, while the others thrive. Which is how, IMHO, things should be.

    11. Re:robust enough!?!?! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      If power is run improperly or unsafely in the ceiling, then it is indeed the fault of the electrician. If an electrician shorted hot to a metal strap, then the pipe or ceiling fixture attached to that strap is electrified, an inherently unsafe condition. That has next to nothing to do with pulling low-voltage cable.

      It does because lots of different services have to coexist.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    12. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      To put my point a different way: one of the big problems I see today is the refusal of the Federal government to just let failures fail. Look at the bailouts if you want examples.

      As long as the companies -- and schools -- that are failing are propped up by the efforts and money of those that aren't, the failures will never stop failing, and the overall quality will continue to go down.

    13. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      If the electrician improperly grounded a hot wire, then those services are NOT co-existing! No matter who pulls the cable.

    14. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be so sure on that. Some of the first "wire jerkers" were plumbers, because cables were run in conduits (pipes) and plumbers were the only people allowed to run pipes in housing. There's your stupid government regulations for you.

    15. Re:robust enough!?!?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, forget about repairs. They will simply replace the piece of fiber. We're talking about multi-million (in some cases -billion) aircraft here. A new nut for mounting the turbine wheel comes individually wrapped in bubble wrap and its own cardboard box.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:robust enough!?!?! by hitmark · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUBRjiVhJTs

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    17. Re:robust enough!?!?! by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      Speaking as a licensed electrical engineer that did the network cabling for my office, a matures shouldn't be doing it above the ceiling.

      Code issues: You need proper, dedicated support wires for the cables. Do you have Powder activated anchor gun... and proper training? Are you using plenum cables in the ceiling? Are you keeping the cables off the ceiling tiles?

      Practical issues: Are you pulling against any MC cable that you could pierce the armor and insulation with enough force? Are you going to cut yourself on any sharp metal? Are you wearing a hard hat and safety glasses above the ceiling so you don't get stabbed by other anchor wires? Can you spot asbestos?

      There are even simpler things... do you know how to safely use a ladder?

      Unfortunately, between workman's comp, risk of a lawsuit, and even general good practice, it doesn't really make good sense to have non-professionals pull cables. Now, if it wasn't for warranty issues, having your own tech do the terminations would be fine... but then how do you hold the other guy accountable for a pinched cable?

      There are rational limits, but those are hard to define at an organization level.

    18. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The bailouts that have turned into a profit for the United States Government were a failure? By what metric?

      So School District X is a failure, what is the government to do? Only thing I can see is end all the contracts of teachers and administration at the end of the year, have an out of state Ed Department come in and accept applications and do complete staff rehires.

    19. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I worked in a public school district and we weren't allowed to move any cable over 2 meters long, nothing in the dropped false ceiling, couldn't fix a cable, splice or crimp Cat-5 because of code."

      Which is precisely the kind of thing that so pisses off citizens and causes them to complain about the costs of schooling. You make it sound like a hardcore Union shop... which in a way it probably is.

      Those kinds of rules are BS. Tenure is BS. Top-heavy administrations are BS. Federal interference in curriculum and school lunch programs is BS. The list goes on...

      I have re-cabled an entire school district where the staff has run their own cable. They had run cable through fire dampers, cut pathways through fire and smoke walls without resealing them and violated numerous other codes that are in place to protect the children and teachers. If there had been a fire in one of those schools it would have been devastating. If you can't afford to do something right the first time, especially when it comes to safety, don't do it at all.

    20. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Ah... nice. Profit. For government. While businesses who had friends in government were propped up, and others (some in better financial shape) were not.

      The government may have profited, but the taxpayers did not. They paid, and will keep paying, big time. Need I remind you that taxpayers (citizens) are the only reason for the government to exist at all? Government debt has skyrocketed, government borrowing from the Fed has skyrocketed, which will in the long run eventually make inflation go up. The government may count its returns as "profit", but none of those indirect costs to society and taxpayers are counted in that "profit".

      Again, I don't agree that government -- especially Federal government -- is the solution to problems such as the school situation you mention. If school district X is a failure, then that community, maybe that state, will lose economically, big time. That is a lesson they need to learn: good schooling is an investment in the future. I assert, once more, that if they don't learn that lesson, quality of education will continue to erode. People will move to the states that have good education. That's the way things work.

      Yes, it means temporary disaster for some. But if that's the only way they'll learn, then let it be so.

    21. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      If the Federal Government makes money on that investment, then the People don't have to deal with more unemployment, higher taxes or even more deficit.

      If the Federal Government had let GM and Chrysler fail, for one example, it would have destroyed the new auto parts industry, automotive supply chain, dealership system and a large chunk of the US, Canadian and Mexican heavy industry sector. In the United States putting at least another 600,000 to 1.6 million people out of work.

      That would have also greatly impacted the rail industry, steel, embedded electronics, long-haul freight, military and commercial transportation.

      Did you want that to happen?

    22. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "If the Federal Government makes money on that investment, then the People don't have to deal with more unemployment, higher taxes or even more deficit."

      Sometimes. But that isn't so if the government "makes money" at even greater expense to the taxpayer, as (I assert) happened in this situation.

      "If the Federal Government had let GM and Chrysler fail, for one example, it would have destroyed the new auto parts industry, automotive supply chain, dealership system and a large chunk of the US, Canadian and Mexican heavy industry sector. In the United States putting at least another 600,000 to 1.6 million people out of work."

      And those sectors will likely continue to fail, over and over again, until they learn that "the people" won't bail them out. Again, a point I already made.

      "That would have also greatly impacted the rail industry, steel, embedded electronics, long-haul freight, military and commercial transportation."

      Yep.

      "Did you want that to happen?"

      Yep. According to many economists, if it had, recovery would have been much faster than it has been.

      Failing businesses need to fail. That is the American way (yes, I am serious). That is Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. It works. Provably. It worked for hundreds of years, until the government started to actively interfere in the economy. It worked better.

    23. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      In the 2008 financial crisis we aren't talking about business failing, we are talking about entire sectors failing.

      Once again, had GM and Chrysler failed it would have not just been GM and Chrysler failing, it would have been industry wide, from Detroit to Stuttgart to Oshawa to Hiroshima to Seoul, thousands of businesses failing or downsizing hundreds of thousands of employees.

      Example - Had GM failed factories from Detroit to California to Mexico to Germany to Sweden to South Korea to China would have closed along with dozens of suppliers in each of those countries.

      Its not like the 1950s when Packard/Studebaker failed and someone was there to buy up their factory and dealerships and build something new, the failure of GM alone would have had as dramatic impact as Sherman's March to the Sea had on Georgia's economy.

    24. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Did you want that to happen?

      Wrong question.

      Since people still need/want to buy cars, another company or two would have purchased the GM & Chrysler assets and life would go on.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    25. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      At that time, with no large banks issuing loans, which is way GM needed the Federal aid, and no major automakers had the capital to buy them.

      Who the hell was going to buy out GM? Chrysler was one thing, FIAT wanted to go bigger than Chrysler was/is a fraction of the size of GM or Ford.

      Not only is capital an issue, so are foreign ownership issues and monopoly.

    26. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      And your point is? Ford -- and a few smaller companies -- weren't hurting. They would grow to fill the niche.

      Look, I understand what you are saying. I understand that large business sectors would fail. What * I * am saying is that I disagree with the "solution".

      It's called progress. It's called "evolution". That's how changes come about. Businesses fail, and new and better businesses arise to take their places. It happens all the time.

      There is no such thing as "too big to fail". If it's too big, it needs to fail.

    27. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Ford, Honda, Toyota, VW Group, Hyundai and other smaller companies would have survived, but they couldn't have expanded to fill the niche because the collapsing banking sector meant there was no capital in the form of loans to expand, first time that happened on a global scale since 1937.

      Furthermore, with the collapse of GM globally (Opel, Holden, Daewoo, GM China, GM North America, Vauxhall, Saab, etc) thousands of parts makers who had less chance at credit than a Fortune 500 would have gone away within weeks.

      The loss of car loans (which were a pain in the ass to get as late as July 2009) meant from October 2008 to summer 2009 Ford, Toyota and those "few smaller companies" were hurting and hemorrhaging money because no one could buy cars.

      Its not "progress", its not "evolution", its called protecting a core industrial sector of the global economy, the United States did alot of the protection this time around because the United States is one of the key countries in vehicle production and parts supply.

    28. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Ford, Honda, Toyota, VW Group, Hyundai and other smaller companies would have survived, but they couldn't have expanded to fill the niche because the collapsing banking sector meant there was no capital in the form of loans to expand, first time that happened on a global scale since 1937."

      Somebody would, eventually.

      "... its called protecting a core industrial sector of the global economy, the United States did alot of the protection this time around because the United States is one of the key countries in vehicle production and parts supply."

      And you are making the same kind of arguments that were made to justify the New Deal way back when. Which even mainstream economists today believe prolonged full recovery from the depression for 10 or more years.

      I have made my arguments, you have made yours. We disagree. Let's leave it at that. This will be my last reply in this thread. Wait... I will throw in one more thing. A quote. You may think it's off the subject but it really isn't. This is not "conspiracy theory" either, it was from someone who should know, a respected member of Congress, in his testimony before same, in 1933. There are a LOT of parallels between then and the last few years.

      "[The Great Depression resulting from the Stock Market crash] was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence....The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as rulers of us all." - Louis McFadden (1876-1936), US Congressman (R-PA) (1915-1935), Chairman of House Banking and Currency Committee. Source: testimony before Congress in 1933. Shortly afterward, there were at least two attempts on his life by gunfire. McFadden died of poisoning after attending a banquet in 1936.

    29. Re:robust enough!?!?! by ResidentSourcerer · · Score: 1

      As a NON electrical engineer -- as someone who was only a sysadmin geek, I did the entire upgrade 10Base2 to 100BaseT at the university math department.

      I checked with the computing and network services department as to standards.

      1. Plenum rated cable was only necessary if you were running substantial lengths IN a plenum.

      2. The ceiling already had solidly set anchors for the T-bars. Reusing them was acceptable.

      3. No I didn't wear a hard hat. The only thing loose up there was dust.

      4. I did wear my glasses while working there.

      The current safety obsession is not rational. Workman's compensation insurance costs roughly 2% of pay, and in our province it is a net money maker for the province. If you were going to be rational about it, you would not enforce standards that made your employees more than 2% less productive.

      Oh, yes. I also did a home reno to my laundry and bath that included doing both electrical and plumbing and carpentry, and tile setting work. I didn't even have a permit! I did work through the electrical code, asked an electrician some of the why's behind some of the rules.

      I'm not a total scofflaw. Lots of the rules make sense. I own a hard hat. And I use it where appropriate. I also own chainsaw pants and use them when cutting firewood.

      Parent poster is correct. It's hard to do in an organizational setting. Safety is much more a mindset, rather than a set of rules. But what happens is that the safety officer fusses at you, and raises a flap about the rules, that workmen are 'trained' to be contemptuous of the rules. Some of the better SOs will ignore breaches of the rules that don't make sense, point out better practices even if there are no rules about them in situations that merit them, and generally work hard both to make the workspace truly more safe, and to get people realizing that ultimately they are responsible for their own actions. I have a lot of respect for these guys.

      But here's how ridiculous it's gotten:

      I just renewed my St. John Ambulance First Aid.

      1. You are no longer trained to take a pulse. "It's too difficult to teach reliable pulse taking in a 16 hour course" A recent SJAFA graduate was present when a drowned boy was pulled from a local lake. Since the boy wasn't breathing, the first aider immediately started CPR. Chest compressions stopped the boy's heart and killed him.

      2. You are taught to recognize a probable heart attack victim. You are not allowed to give him an aspirin, even though it will vastly increase his survival chances. That is practicing medicine. (A small number of people are allergic to aspirin) If he has his own aspirin, you can help him take it. Open the bottle put it in his hand, put a glass of water to his lips. But you can't recommend the taking. That is practicing medicine. Nor are you allowed to use an epi-pen on a person who is suffering from anaphylactic shock.

      3. There is no practical exam. However, on the bandaging section, you are supposed to be checked that your knots are reef knots, (square knots) not granny knots. (On hard surface ropes, a granny knot will slip. On fabric it doesn't matter)

      4. All but one of the training videos uses standard splints, and standard kits, with very little emphasis on the need to improvise.

      5. Almost all of the training finishes with, "summon immediate qualified help" although the course is intended for oil patch workers where the hospital/ambulance is often hours away.

      6. The test is 70 question multiple choice open book, with a pass mark of I think 50.

      (In passing: If you need a real first aid course, take a Wilderness First Responder course. LOTS of emphasis on making do, lots of emphasis on maintenance while waiting for the medics. I'm in the process of reviewing my coursework for that one to get the bad taste of this one out of my mouth.)

      The H2S alive course is a similar piece of crap. Nominally an all day course, I spent an hour reading the book, asked if I could take the test, and aced it.

      --
      Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
    30. Re:robust enough!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fiber is actually pretty easy to splice, while i am technically not qualified yet i have spliced a few cables and all it takes is a couple minutes explanation, patience and steady hands as well as the right equipment which isn't that expensive for the us air force.

  10. EMP be gone! by PacRim+Jim · · Score: 1

    Immune to EMP?

    1. Re:EMP be gone! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      Not immune to visible light (which is also electromagnetic) but if the light is strong enough to scramble your data I suspect the crew may have more pressing problems.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:EMP be gone! by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 1

      the network cables might be but none of the other stuff is - EMP hardening is a long gone requirement left over from the cold war - EMP requirements are rarely seen anymore !

    3. Re:EMP be gone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are non-nuclear EMP weapons. See EMP weapons on wikipedia.

    4. Re:EMP be gone! by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 1

      that is true but they are so limited in range and hard to build that they are of little concern to weapons systems designers - there are still some EMP hardened designs but they are only uses on the most high end and expensive systems

  11. A little deeper in is this tibit. by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    The research is part of DARPA's Information in a Photon program which is looking to discover and take advantage of the basic information content carrying capabilities of a photon and exploit this information capacity for imaging/sensing and communications applications, the agency stated.

    I'm thinking, Oh great, they're rediscovering daylight, pen and paper.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  12. No NEW-HYPE? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    Surely, they could have been more creative, and backronymed whatever that they are doing into NEW-HYPE instead of NEW-HIP.

    Reduce weight on an airplane? I'd start with the passengers. The last few times I have flown anywhere, I have been amazed how many people are overweight. But I guess military folks are in better shape then the general population.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:No NEW-HYPE? by jlar · · Score: 1

      And I guess future combat aircraft won't even have pilots onboard.

      Agent Smith: Never send a human to do a machine's job.

    2. Re:No NEW-HYPE? by CitizenCain · · Score: 1

      >Reduce weight on an airplane? I'd start with the passengers. The military's done this already. UAVs.

      And the predictions are that the next generation of fighter jets (like the F-35s - jets currently in the pipeline, but not in production) are going to be the last ones flown by people sitting inside them. We've reached the point where the pilot is the limiting factor on how fast we can accelerate or alter a jet's flight path (too many G's, the pilot passes out), and it shouldn't be hard to figure out what an advantage one side would have in aerial combat if their jets can execute a 180 degree turn on a dime and accelerate at 20 Gs, and the other side can't. Not to mention who'd have the cooler airshows. :D

    3. Re:No NEW-HYPE? by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      And I guess future combat aircraft won't even have pilots onboard.

      Nope, they'll have holographic autopilots!

      (points to F-35) "NEW HIPness..."

      (points to F-14) "Old and busted."

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  13. Re:A better solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for sharing this crowning moment in your life.

  14. phonics by djlemma · · Score: 1

    Huked awn fonix wurked four me!

  15. Fiber is vulnerable by Iffie · · Score: 1

    optic fiber becomes opague when there is a nuclear explosion nearby. So these planes build in a major vulnerability to tactical nukes on the battlefield..Its just the military wanting to make more money..

    1. Re:Fiber is vulnerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that they shouldn't use fiber because it makes the planes more vulnerable to nuclear attack? More vulnerable than what, "OHSHI-"?

    2. Re:Fiber is vulnerable by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      Darkening of glass comes from ionization. I have no idea at what radiation levels this will become a problem for data transmission though, and if the pilot would have a chance to still be alive at these levels.
      I agree that this is probably just for getting more money. Wavelength multiplexing, to transmit multiple analog and digital data streams in parallel? What is wrong with a classical network structure doing serial transfers? why dont they build that one first, with fibres?

    3. Re:Fiber is vulnerable by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      The next generation of aircraft need something called "sensor fusion" - and you end up with a whole shitload of data coming into the flight computers. I could certainly see why they would consider using fiber on the bus interconnects!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  16. NEW-HIP? Really? Realllly??? by CitizenCain · · Score: 1

    Who ever it was who decided that every bill, program and project the government undertakes has to have its title mangled into some moronic acronym needs to be taken out back and and shot to death, starting at the toes and working up from there.

    And what a dumb acronym this is too, making the data channels in our military jets conjure up images of feeble old ladies who fall down in the shower and need bone replacements. Gah.

  17. Why optical over single-copper? by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 3, Informative

    The F-22 and F-35 already use IEEE-1394 (aka "FireWire") as their primary data carriers between parts of the aircraft, over shielded copper wires. Is optical cabling really that much lighter that this matters?

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
    1. Re:Why optical over single-copper? by maroberts · · Score: 2

      Copper is more expensive than glass and degrades. A case can be made for fiber being more reliable and (probably) you need less cables.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    2. Re:Why optical over single-copper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh yes.
      Small plastic fibre vs. multiple foiled/shielded twisted copper pairs.

    3. Re:Why optical over single-copper? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      A wire is an antenna. A piece of copper isn't. Military electronics are hardened and then you attach a big antenna to them that can carry noise into your device. This is at least as much about protecting against anti-vehicle electronics as it is about saving weight.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Why optical over single-copper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they replaced each wire one to one with a fiber, probably not a lot of weight saved. However, they are talking about replacing multiple cables with a single fiber (that's the wave division multiplexing), which does offer the potential saving of a lot of weight and a lot of cost.

    5. Re:Why optical over single-copper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The F-22 and F-35 already use IEEE-1394 (aka "FireWire") as their primary data carriers between parts of the aircraft, over shielded copper wires. Is optical cabling really that much lighter that this matters?

      TFA said that there were "miles" of cable, so I guess so. Each one has to be fairly well shielded as well, which probably makes it heavier than your standard PC FW cable. FireWire is also the entire stack, and the upper layers don't care what medium the bits travel over. Currently they're working on "IEEE 1394d" which would allow define a physical interface over single-mode fibre.

    6. Re:Why optical over single-copper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The F-35 Uses a fiber optic variant of IEEE-1394. This helps with shielding, vibration, and weight.

    7. Re:Why optical over single-copper? by Gleapsite · · Score: 1

      both a wire and a piece of copper are antennas. maybe not good ones, but still it'll pick up much more EM waves than a strand of fibre.

      --
      face the world with eyes of fire.
    8. Re:Why optical over single-copper? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Er, you caught me failing, I meant to say "a piece of fiber."

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Why optical over single-copper? by feufeu · · Score: 1

      Either you're totally kidding or insane. I'd bet my ass that (aerospace grade !) fiber is at least as expensive as the copper wires already in use. The price of copper or any other raw material like it can't ever measure up to production, quality testing etc. associated costs.

      Furthermore i'd supect that it'll be much more difficult to design, produce and use properly working connectors between the different parts of the aircraft with optic fiber. IMHO it's not practical to run every length of cable/fiber uninterrupted point to point.

    10. Re:Why optical over single-copper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The F-22 and F-35 already use IEEE-1394 (aka "FireWire") as their primary data carriers between parts of the aircraft, over shielded copper wires. Is optical cabling really that much lighter that this matters?

      There are many reasons photonic network gear is preferred over copper. Copper cables are in effect small transmission lines and each line is a small antennae. These antennae need shielding so they do not interfere with each other. As bit rates get higher, more exotic cables and shielding must be used.

      From a military point of view, all flight hardware is designed to tempest requirements. The electronics of military gear should not radiate signals that can be monitored by a listening device. Further, a signal from outside the craft should not be able to couple on to any of the cables and cause issue with the electronics.

      Main reason optical cabling is not used in aircraft is a problem with connectors. The normal vibrations of an aircraft will destroy any commercially available connector. Noticed the article said photonic network gear - not fiber optic cables. The other problem you have with optical cables is the bend radius. The bit error rate on a optical fiber goes to high if it is bent beyond a certain point - making it difficult to use in cramped areas.

    11. Re:Why optical over single-copper? by DougF · · Score: 2

      The real problem when installing this will be the LOSS of weight...specifically, the center of gravity for every single airframe will now have to be recomputed, and they will find that most of the wire is in the forward fuselage area (where most avionics are located). This means lead weights will have to be added to the forward section to balance out the loss of weight. I know, because I've already had to do it. We had a test F-111 in the early 90's configured with fiber optics. The conversion saved 650lbs of weight, but we had to add 400lbs of lead weights back in to preserve the CG.

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
    12. Re:Why optical over single-copper? by ResidentSourcerer · · Score: 1

      An optical link may have advantages for EMP protection.

      There may also be merit in having an optical bus through the aircraft. A device has a conventional wire of some form to the nearest bus stop.

      An optical data path means that damage can't short a power line to a data line. "Mayday" had one episode where a powerline chafing against a fuel tank fuel level sensor shorted to the sensor, causing a spark in the nearly empty fuel tank. Boom.

      --
      Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
  18. Highly Integrated Shark Photonics by sanman2 · · Score: 0

    When the frickin hell are they going to really modernize?

  19. Photonic swept away by a Simpson Tide ;-) by D4C5CE · · Score: 1

    It's just like nucular, you know. ;-)
    But if they shoot well, who cares how they spell...

  20. Captain! by mindwhip · · Score: 1

    We are taking damage! The ODN relays on deck 8 have overloaded!

    --
    [The Universe] has gone offline.
  21. Possible attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess this now means that 'imma firin ma lazor' will become a real attack against modern aircraft.

  22. Photonic? by scdeimos · · Score: 1

    The grandparent article is titled "Star Trek anyone? US sets out to build photon-based optical networks."

    Shouldn't they be building bio-neural networks then?

  23. I've seen it by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 1

    its going to be a long time before it is cost effective for your everyday UAV's and fighters - right now the technology is quite complex and costly, someday maybe - it is hard to beat the low cost of wire and the weight savings is less than you think - fiber is pretty fragile and has to be protected quite well (meaning heavy jacketing and such)

  24. Light Peak? by Henriok · · Score: 1

    10 Gbps over some new optical bus sounds like Light Peak to me.

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
    1. Re:Light Peak? by gcerullo · · Score: 0

      Shhhhhh! The military doesn't want to hear about commercial solutions that already exist. Otherwise how can they justify their multi-billion dollar budget.

  25. Say that five times fast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Network Enabled by Wavelength division multiplexing Highly Integrated Photonics

  26. 1553 to NEW-HIP adapters.... by gatkinso · · Score: 2

    Seems like a huge market out there.

    Because they sure as hell aren't going to redesign existing avionics.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  27. Been done before! by Runacta+Munac · · Score: 0

    Doesn't Chuck Yeager have a new hip? Wait ... maybe that's different ...

  28. making fun of /. editors is almost too easy by sribe · · Score: 1

    phonic |fänik|
    adjective
    of or relating to speech sounds.
      of or relating to phonics : the English language presents difficulties if a purely phonic approach is attempted.

    So... Fighter jets will be like the ship's bridge in old movies, the pilot will pull out some air-tube thingy and shout commands into it? Will there be speech recognition? Or will there be a person hunched up in cramped quarters down in the engine room?

  29. EMP fix? by AlleyTrotte · · Score: 1

    Could this be the fix for nuclear EMP. No wires to act as antenna. john

  30. Re:NEW-HIP? Really? Realllly??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, it's the new hip-hoppin' cool, bro.

  31. Optical Data Networks KILL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *Terrible* idea, military. Don't these people know that if the plane takes the slightest bit of damage the instruments will explode, killing anyone nearby?

  32. Decades? by drolli · · Score: 1

    China will be busy with settling internal Affairs (no - not Tibet and neither Taiwan; both are issues blown out of proportion by the US for political reasons.) and getting a stable modern country for another 50-100years. They are modernizing at an extreme rate, but in large parts of China there is still nothing (i.e. poor villages, no infrastructure, low income agricultural Jobs working like Farms in the US or in Europe would have 80 years ago).

    Chinas top problems:
    1) Stabilize the Demography of the cities
    2) Stabilize the social development (e.g. they introduced a social insurance system recently)
    3) Create better Jobs and increase the Salary of the poorer people
    4) Manage the ethnic and religious conflicts in the northeast of China
    5) Make the legal system working better (for Human rights reasons, but also for things like enhancing Trade and bigger investments from foreign countries)

    Oh - and by the way: Should China not manage this, we all have a problem. Why do you think that the West complains about Tibet, but not so much about other regions in China with similar problems? Yes - because Tibet is actually quit unimportant...

  33. About time. by Hasai · · Score: 1

    Crosstalk and EMI are big, big bugaboos in aircraft wiring. I installed a LAN in a large airframe once, and it was incredible how much trouble we had with electronic noise from other aircraft systems. Fiber would have been a godsend, not only for the LAN but for the avionics as well.
    :\

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  34. Already used in cars, B-1, B-2. MX missiles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I discovered the hard way that cars already use fiber when I had to replace a $600 component in my Beemer. I did a little research and apparently B-1, B-2, and MX missiles all have some fiber wiring.

    Don't know why with the aircraft, maybe EMP protection? Just a guess since they're all strategic (nuclear) programs...