Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by Arjen on Today at 01:37:04 am »
Ah. The joys of concurrent development and production.
2
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by Dragon029 on Yesterday at 08:14:17 pm »
This is nonsensical. Why go to the trouble and expense of engineering modules with TR1 processor when you know the final version of software for the end product (being the aircraft) will require a TR2 processor?
Because of the development length of the program; the performance per watt of TR2 tech just wasn't available 10 years ago.

I work in EE these days on vehicular electronics modules... Do you know the time and money it takes to change processors? It is huge! If this were my company, this would be called incompetence and waste. Even if the new processor is just a variant of the previous, the testing/validation/verification costs and time are the same as a totally new processor.
Maybe that's the case, but regardless they intend to do tech refreshes about every ~8 or so years - a TR3 is going to be part of Block 4.2 which will enter service by the end of 2023.
3
Military / Re: Boeing CHAMP Missile Completes 1st Flight Test
« Last post by TomS on Yesterday at 05:07:49 pm »
One would hope they were new-built airframes but you just know they retired a nuke for each one made.

The operational version is supposed to be based on JASSM-ER, so no loss to the ALCM inventory.
4
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by NeilChapman on Yesterday at 04:47:43 pm »
Why does it cost money to upgrade software from 2B to current_released code? We update modules routinely with new code for no cost to the end_user? Unless it is also hardware... But I don't think it is. Spending a couple hours re-flashing the ECUs is just hours*employee_hourly_rate. I don't get it...
Block 3 runs on the newer TR2 processor. Block 3i was Block 2B rewritten to run on the TR2 processor. Block 3i and later Block 3F can't be run on the older TR1 processor.

This is nonsensical. Why go to the trouble and expense of engineering modules with TR1 processor when you know the final version of software for the end product (being the aircraft) will require a TR2 processor? I work in EE these days on vehicular electronics modules... Do you know the time and money it takes to change processors? It is huge! If this were my company, this would be called incompetence and waste. Even if the new processor is just a variant of the previous, the testing/validation/verification costs and time are the same as a totally new processor.

They either didn't know or the "package" wasn't yet available.  Probably a combination of the two.  Recall the code is still being written.  What the F-35 does has never been done before in this way.  There just isn't a way to develop "knowing" how everything is going to work before hand.  e.g. You have to have the plane built to know how the software is going to "work" in the total package.

Everything gets upgraded.  There's going to be an engine upgrade in a couple of years.  It's not incompetence or waste.


5
Military / Re: Boeing CHAMP Missile Completes 1st Flight Test
« Last post by George Allegrezza on Yesterday at 03:55:37 pm »
Navy/USAF joint HPM strike effort now named HiJENKS.

https://twitter.com/jamesdrewnews/status/910550627398414337
6
The Bar / Re: 'UFO' sighting over Marseilles/Istres
« Last post by sublight is back on Yesterday at 03:31:11 pm »


Apparently these guys in Arizona have been seeing your mystery craft as well.
7
Aerospace / Re: NPL Research Biplane Design
« Last post by robunos on Yesterday at 02:24:59 pm »
That explains it, my copy is the later edition, printed on bond paper, and with lower print quality . . .

cheers,
          Robin.
8
Military / Re: Solid State Laser News
« Last post by fredymac on Yesterday at 01:50:49 pm »
Lockheed Athena fiber laser (30KW) vs UAVs.

9
The Bar / Re: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?
« Last post by TomS on Yesterday at 12:49:02 pm »
Pity he seems not to know they have only built one of them.  Poor sole.

Or that Full Operational Capability for QE isn't scheduled until 2020 (and F-35 FOC for the RN not until a couple of years after that).  These ships will not be doing FONEXs in the Pacific during Johnson's tenure as FM.
10
Aerospace / Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Last post by TomS on Yesterday at 12:40:16 pm »
Reminds me of this from the Right Stuff:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10