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)."

29 of 144 comments (clear)

  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 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
    3. 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?"

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

  2. 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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...

  9. 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 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.'"
    3. 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!
  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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!