Radar Reboot



  • As Air Force F-35 Integration Office Director Major General Jeffrey Harrigian told Jane's, that flaw affects "radar stability—the radar's ability to stay up and running. What would happen is they'd get a signal that says either a radar degrade or a radar fail—something that would force us to restart the radar."


  • sockdevs

    Just what you need in a combat situation: CtrlAltDel



  • Who needs these human-powered airplanes in the world full of drones? I have a feeling they'll end up like WW1 horses in the next big encounter.


  • sockdevs

    @cartman82 said:

    Who needs these human-powered airplanes in the world full of drones?

    But what if all the drones blue-screen? At least having a person on board, they'd be able to turn it off and on again.



  • Can't you just have another system monitoring the first system whose only job is to reboot the first system though? A redundant mechanism that doesn't need life support and won't be knocked out by G forces.



  • @cartman82 said:

    Who needs these human-powered airplanes in the world full of drones?

    That's a major fight in the military right now. The Air Force top brass is almost entirely pilots, so you can imagine how that plays.


  • sockdevs

    Like a watchdog? But what happens if the watchdog crashes? So there'll need to be a watchdog that reboots the watchdog. But what if that watchdog crashes? You'll need a watchdog that reboots the watchdog that reboots the watchdog.

    It's watchdogs, all the way down!



  • If you can't trust JSFRADARMONROBOT, who can you trust?




  • sockdevs

    @boomzilla said:

    If you can't trust JSFRADARMONROBOT, who can you trust?

    ...Applejack?



  • @boomzilla said:

    If you can't trust JSFRADARMONROBOT, who can you trust?

    Paula Bean?



  • @RaceProUK said:

    Like a watchdog? But what happens if the watchdog crashes?

    You only need two watchdogs, each of them watching the flight system and the other watchdog. Like a Mexican standoff. That ensures you can recover from any one single failure. Add more watchdogs for higher simultaneous failure redundancy.

    Haha, a :whoosh: is more airworthy than the F35.



  • I think she's already busy programming the gun software. She says good progress is being made.



  • But I thought the US Army stopped using Windows after this incident :wink:


  • sockdevs

    Well, you know what they say about military intelligence...



  • @RaceProUK said:

    blue-screen? At least having a person on board, they'd be able to DIE

    Imagine being the officer who has to carry a flag to that fucker's mother:

    "What happened?"
    "IDK, BSOD LOL!"



  • The nice thing about (military) drones is that they still need pilots, but the pilot isn't in danger like they would be in a manned aircraft. So it's actually a good thing for the Air Force.



  • @ben_lubar said:

    The nice thing about (military) drones is that they still need pilots, but the pilot isn't in danger like they would be in a manned aircraft. So it's actually a good thing for the Air Force.

    I'd imagine the decision would ultimately come down to how well air superiority drones match up against air superiority fighters.



  • @boomzilla said:

    If you can't trust JSFRADARMONROBOT, who can you trust?

    Buckaroo Banzai?



  • @anonymous234 said:

    I think she's already busy programming the gun software. She says good progress is being made.

    Yeah, and she's experienced, too - she worked on the Patriot ABM system in the 1980s, and they never ever had problems like needing to be rebooted! It's was almost as impressive as her upgrade design for the Therac-25!

    Maybe we should assign Vair's niece to help her.



  • @ben_lubar said:

    The nice thing about (military) drones is that they still need pilots, but the pilot isn't in danger like they would be in a manned aircraft. So it's actually a good thing for the Air Force.

    You've never met any Air Force pilots, have you?



  • @anonymous234 said:

    >New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Fire Its Gun Until 2019 Ouch.

    Then something is actually ahead of schedule on that project(:interrobang:), because there is a video of it test-firing on the ground, and within the last couple of days I saw an article (I don't remember if it had video) that it had been fired in flight for the first time.



  • @Bort said:

    @RaceProUK said:
    blue-screen? At least having a person on board, they'd be able to DIE

    Imagine being the officer who has to carry a flag to that fucker's mother:

    "What happened?"
    "IDK, BSOD LOL!"

    Not quite as bad as "BSOD LOL," but imagine having to explain the pilot being killed by his/her own ejection seat. I can't find the article with the detailed explanation to link it, but pilots that weigh less than 135 pounds (61.2 kg) have a 1 in 4 chance of being killed and a 100% chance of serious neck injury when ejecting. The seat rotates during ejection, and the lighter the pilot, the more it rotates. The rotation causes the chute to snap the pilot's neck when it opens.


  • sockdevs

    Seems to me like there's two solutions:

    1. Redesign the ejector seat
    2. Get the pilots to put on weight

    ...well, OK, you could attach some ballast to the seat, I guess...



  • @RaceProUK said:

    Redesign the ejector seat

    Scheduled for 2018. The spec calls for the seat to accommodate pilots between (from memory; CBA to find the right article again) 103 and 248 pounds; obviously, it doesn't meet the spec.

    @RaceProUK said:

    Get the pilots to put on weight

    The AF has already put a temporary minimum weight restriction in place. (I may have gotten the numbers wrong in my earlier post. I think 135 pounds is the temporary minimum weight restriction; pilots above that limit but below some other number I don't recall have those probabilities of injury and death.)



  • @Kian said:

    Can't you just have another system monitoring the first system whose only job is to reboot the first system though?





  • THIS ... is EXACTLY what I was talking about in the Apollo computer thread. o_O


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    UUUUURGH

    @TimeBandit said:

    US Army

    !=
    US Air Force

    And, for that matter,

    @TimeBandit said:

    US Army

    !=
    @TimeBandit said:
    Navy-Smart-Ship

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    </rant type="military brat">



  • Since the article doesn't say so except in link form, that's not some boring radar system like a radar altimeter, that's the actual long-range targeting radar used to acquire targets.

    I mean radar's completely commodity now. My Ford has like 9 radars on it. (8 on the bumpers, 1 for the lane-following/collision warning system). Without knowing what the radar does, saying "it needs to be rebooted in flight" doesn't say much.



  • The latency's too high for dogfighting though. So there's some jobs drones can't do.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @boomzilla said:

    You've never met any Air Force pilots, have you?

    You know how you can tell there's a fighter pilot at your party?

    They'll tell you.



  • And if he's busy talking to other people, he's the guy "shooting" his watch.



  • @sloosecannon said:

    </rant type="military brat">

    Pffft. Who puts attributes on closing tags?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    The guy who only uses closing tags, not opening ones :smile:

    Or someone who wants to bait a bunch of webdevs :P


  • BINNED

    Gives new meaning to "Blue SkyScreen of Death"

    It seems like not a bad way of dying. Much better than dying on a keyboard in front of a blue screen while wanking.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The latency's too high for dogfighting though. So there's some jobs drones can't do.

    Here’s a thought: could a computer-controlled opponent beat a fighter pilot in a simulator, say, half the time? If so, a solution would be to let the ground-based operator tell the drone, “See that target? Go kill!”

    I have this feeling that solution won’t sit well with either the fighter-oriented mindset of the typical air force, or with people who ponder the ethics of using drones in war, though.



  • Better solution is to make the drone cheap enough that you can use one as a decoy while a second gets a missile lock.



  • How often does dogfighting even happen between modern jets, though? Aren't engagements basically resolved by whoever has the longer range missiles, or disabling the enemy's airbases first?



  • Last time we got rid of guns, with the F-4 Phantom II we found out the hard way that guns were still required, and they had to be retrofitted to include one.

    That said, there weren't any air-to-air kills with guns in the Gulf War (the closest was an A-10 that shot down a helicopter; A-10s aren't fighters, nor is their gun designed to combat helicopters), so maybe at this point missile technology has advanced to the point where the guns are no longer needed. Who knows. Until we actually do get into a fighting conflict with another technologically sophisticated opponent, honestly, fighter design is largely just guesswork. Seems like it to me at least.

    You also have to remember the "always fighting the last war" phenomenon, due to the fact that the leaders making the decisions by and large have experience from combat 30-years-ago and not 30-hours-ago.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @RaceProUK said:

    Seems to me like there's two solutions

    You're ignoring the obvious third solution, which is to abandon this project.



  • Warfare depends a lot on the level of AI you have. Yes, at some point you can just let the drone do everything itself, but that's still far away.

    Of course, we all know the risks of having a super-advanced airplane chock-full of weapons taking its own decisions, fully capable of evading any defenses... including your own.



  • I totally saw that movie. Jamie Foxx, right?

    EDIT: Stealth! That was the name of it. And the jet turned "evil" after it was struck by lightning, which is like a sci-fi trope from like 1940. (And was a joke in Short Circuit.) And they played it 100% straight in 2005.



  • I don't think there's really been a peer or near peers air war recently. Maybe the Turks shooting down the Russians is the closest thing, but that seems like the Russians weren't expecting to be fired upon. I imagine Defense of Formosa is the big scenario worrying US air war planners these days.



  • BTW I looked it up.

    The full cannon load, weapon and ammunition, on an F-35 is only 2.5% of the total weapons payload. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

    EDIT: also one of the reasons the F-4 was designed without a gun was because the vibration from a firing cannon would have wrecked the shit out of its delicate 1960 electronics components. Huh.



  • @sloosecannon said:

    bait a bunch of webdevs

    What did you call me?!


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @RaceProUK said:

    Like a watchdog? But what happens if the watchdog crashes? So there'll need to be a watchdog that reboots the watchdog. But what if that watchdog crashes? You'll need a watchdog that reboots the watchdog that reboots the watchdog.

    It's watchdogs, all the way down!

    Actually, you only need two watchdogs and the process. Each watchdog monitors the other watchdog and the process, so if either fails they can start them up again. It is very unlikely that more than one will fail at a time, and that the time required to restart the downed process is likely to have allowed another process to die within that period.

    Oh damn, :hanzo:'d by @Kian.

    Whatever, I'll post this anyway, already spent the energy to write it, might as well...

    @blakeyrat said:

    Stealth!

    Interesting. This context and name triggered a trivia entry. How is that still there? FFS my memory is so screwed up...



  • @Tsaukpaetra said:

    It is very unlikely that more than one will fail at a time

    Unless they both have the same bug. Better code them in different programming languages, just to be sure. :trolleybus:


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @anotherusername said:

    they both have the same bug

    I remember a story about that recently actually.
    Something to do with enterprise hard drive sync software that cascaded the changes that caused it to hard crash, that replicated throughout the entire system and crashed everything.



  • Yeah, it will be just one big dogfight.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.