Hacker News Reader

Comment by a3n | Hacker News Reader

> Mission “data load” software is also causing concern. This software is loaded on a mission-by-mission basis, working in conjunction with the permanent systems, to operate sensors and respond to conditions for a particular battleground (Aviation Week gives identifying hostile radars as an example).

"Damn, they have radars here. We'll have to go back and do a software reload, sorry guys."

I've never been in the military aviation community. But I'd assume that ID'ing radars is so basic that you'd want to carry it around with you all the time. You know, just in case.

It does everything. Eventually. Not all at once. And maybe not even when you need it.

View on HN

Military flight computing hardware isn't designed to carry everything you might possibly need, for a variety of reasons.

It is technically possible to input your flight plan and everything else you might use later from the in-cockpit keypad, but that means you will be either sitting on the ground for a long time or doing the aerial equivalent of texting while driving.

So what typically happens is that the military commissions a custom bit of software to translate the output of a common flight planning program into the specific format that aircraft uses. Then they carry that file to the aircraft and upload it.

Military avionics now has a ridiculous amount of required data, with dozens of different kinds of navigation points and a bazillion radios and sensors and weapons system modules.

So in order to write the custom data file creating software, you need the hardware spec. And you need to translate data from the flight planning software's format into the specific form that the flight computer expects. As you might expect, they never quite match up, because all the software is divided up among a gazillion contractors, who aren't allowed to publish a common standard or share code because some stuff is classified.

So it's not a matter of loading all the radars. The code to load even one radar probably hasn't even been written yet, because the contractor is still working on the module for the radios.

This problem would be much less severe if the military could hire software pros directly at anywhere near fair market value.

> This problem would be much less severe if the military could hire software pros directly at anywhere near fair market value.

I think this is a big piece of it, and we see this at NASA too. It's hard to convince experienced software engineers to start out in gov't service at ~$50k (roughly a GS-9 master's graduate degree level), and there is very little that individual agencies can do to pay more reasonable market rates.

Turning to contractor companies is one option, but the overhead tends to be massive.

I would think Lockheed Martin would be able to hire whoever they need, do they really have to be actual military staff?

No, but it's likely they all need to be cleared for Top Secret / SCI. Those don't exactly grow on trees, and a lot of them are former military.

You would think so, but just like everyone else, hiring the right people is very difficult for LM. Note that this is not saying anything about how successful they are at hiring.

If you had to have a computer for 20-30 years, you would definitely want to be able to load new data. Even if we could fit all the current radar data into the computer, as weapons change we would need new data. And there is much more to mission data than just radars. You can’t fly around with all of google earth.

And this doesn’t even account for the general crappiness of military aviation technology. People assume the latest fighter jets are cutting edge, but the F-35 technology is probably already 10 years old. Flying F-18s from 2002-2012, the max number of GPS points we could store was something like 256. We had “bricks” the size of a brick that could hold kilobytes. We updated to cards that could hold a MB. This is when thumb-drives where moving into GBs.

Cheaper, specialized aircraft, both man and un-manned is critical for our national defense. Aircraft that are more expendable and can be upgraded with new tech quickly and at less cost. The industry, however, just builds what they want and then the Generals and Admirals get board seats so everyone is happy. When I left, the F-35 was pretty much considered a turd by most pilots, but a hand-full of senior leaders where pushing hard and based their careers on it.

> Aircraft that are more expendable and can be upgraded with new tech quickly and at less cost.

I'm just a putz in an armchair, but I've been reading a lot of the think tank docs about this stuff recently. We could get a ton of value out of a simple platform. My guess of what it looks like:

  * 2 seat, enough cabin for long manned missions
  * optional autonomous or remote piloting features
  * primarily subsonic, but perhaps with a dash capability
  * no expectation of high speed high g maneuvering
  * oversized electrical generation
  * bomb truck for 16+ SDB's
  * missile truck for enough AIM-120's, etc to defend itself
  * open platform designed for continuous upgrade of radar, EW, EO, etc
  * only low cost stealth features
  * enough fuel capacity to loiter in theater

Something like this could be pretty cheap to fly and provide a lot of flexible capability as a truck for state of the art electronic systems and the emerging generation of smart munitions. It'd still be relevant in an increasingly drone dominated future as an optionally manned node in the "flying network". Leave the missions that require more extreme capabilities to more specialized aircraft. Do all the basic stuff with something cheap.

I’m not 100% sure how I’d tackle this problem, but the plane you described could play a roll. It’s not poorly thought out by any means. Generally, I’m a fan of a diverse set of assets for survivability and cost. Focus on specific missions instead of trying to do everything. For Air-to-Air the Mig-21 Bison is an interesting example of upgradable lower tech aircraft.[1] Currently, I think the ability to go fast is still an asset to defeat missiles and would be a severe limitation of a slower platform (okay if it’s unmanned and cheap though). High tech stealthier fighters with lower tech fighters and drones in support. Mainly all working as missile trucks or targeting platforms.

For a mission such as Close Air Support the perfect tools are the AC-130 [2] and the Super Tacano. [3] For Strike I think drones, cruise missiles, and JSOW [4] are the main way to go. As for Air-to-Air, a mix of assets is critical so defeating one doesn’t defeat others, and they can’t all depend on one commonality such as GPS. Would probably keep a few high tech and more lower tech manned bombers available and ready too.

Complicated, interesting problem with strategy, logistics, and politics all involved, but the bankrupt the country super weapons definitely is the correct course in my opinion.

[1] http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?121375-MiG-21-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon

Sounds like a next gen A10 warthog

> I've never been in the military aviation community. But I'd assume that ID'ing radars is so basic that you'd want to carry it around with you all the time. You know, just in case.

You do carry that basic capability around all the time. Without going into too much detail, what is causing concern is the development of files that accurately describe areas of operation. It's the difference between having a general ability to identify things and having detailed knowledge of what you can expect.

> I've never been in the military aviation community.

Most people haven't, which is why this all looks and seems so strange to them.

Presumably something that would tell the avionics that:

'Radar system X (location ...), working on frequencies (...), using these waveform patterns (...), is effective out to range Y, is only effective above altitude Z'

Which would prompt the pilot with a warning if it's detected in operation (as you can detect radar before it can detect your return signature) to reduce altitude if needed?

>> ... you can detect radar before it can detect your return signature.

That's old thinking. Cutting edge radar tech involves transmitting in way that is very very hard to detect. It's basically a strong signal spread thin across a wide band so it looks like background noise to the target. The radar receiver then relies on a massive, literally heavy, computer system to differentiate the returns mathematically from the background. I've even heard this called "encrypted radar" as it adds creates an asymmetric situation not unlike public key cryptography. The days of assuming that the target will always hear the radar before detection are over.

This works particularly well for aircraft viewed from the ground. They, looking down at the ground, see a much noisier background than those looking up at them against the sky.

Also, much work is being done on very long wavelength radars, with the possibility that an aircraft might not be able to carry a dish large enough to detect the incoming signal while remaining stealthy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-frequency_radar

True, but if you know you're fighting in Florida and they have 3 radars... you probably don't need to load the two radars which are known to only exist in Alaska. The world is a big place with many kinds of radars. Or maybe, yesterday, you received new information about the three Florida radars. Wouldn't it be good to be able to bring that new information when you head out today?

Sure, unless your ship's negative encounter with said radar and associated weapons is what provided the new information.

You seem to be describing a circumstance in which no new information about the radar was available at the time the mission began. Regardless, would it not also be good to be able to record that new information so your friends can take advantage of it?

It does not sound as they would only load data, for me this sounds as if they would load software modules, which would result in a untestable mess.

I think it's less "software modules" than tables of data.

Having the correct data load is the difference between the RWR telling the pilot, "Something with the capability to track you with high enough resolution to shoot at you is painting you" and "An SA-6 is painting you".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com