Military Aircraft To Get All-Fiber Network Gear 144
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)."
Horray (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Horray (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Horray (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
At least they don't worry about RPGs too much
Re:Horray (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?"
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wEURyjB3Lc#t=03m21s [youtube.com]
( The Adventures of Bill and John )
Re: (Score:2)
Well, read the article... there is no claim of increasing lethality here, it is all about sustainability:
Re: (Score:2)
But they can.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You lose a war when you give up. We gave up in Vietnam (thank God!).
Re: (Score:2)
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 murd
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 becaus
Re: (Score:2)
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-Chine
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Decades? (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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 nuke
Re: (Score:2)
So, an 89 year old has been running the same defense office for 37 years?
I call BS.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.uky.edu/PR/News/Archives/2002/July2002/AndyMarshall.htm [uky.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Prototype *phonic* gear?? (Score:4, Funny)
From the summary: "prototype phonic gear" - are they going back to speaking tubes like the ones on old ships?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, they meant photonic gear.
dom
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, voice controlled [hookedonphonics.com]..
Photonic swept away by a Simpson Tide ;-) (Score:2)
But if they shoot well, who cares how they spell...
Oh they just called it that... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think you mean... (Score:1)
robust enough!?!?! (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, 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...
Re: (Score:2)
"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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 Ame
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 gove
Re: (Score:2)
"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 Invisib
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUBRjiVhJTs [youtube.com]
EMP be gone! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 !
Re: (Score:2)
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
A little deeper in is this tibit. (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.
No NEW-HYPE? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And I guess future combat aircraft won't even have pilots onboard.
Agent Smith: Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, they'll have holographic autopilots!
(points to F-35) "NEW HIPness..."
(points to F-14) "Old and busted."
Re: (Score:1)
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 o
phonics (Score:2)
Fiber is vulnerable (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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!
NEW-HIP? Really? Realllly??? (Score:1)
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.
Why optical over single-copper? (Score:4, 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?
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, you caught me failing, I meant to say "a piece of fiber."
Re: (Score:3)
Captain! (Score:2)
We are taking damage! The ODN relays on deck 8 have overloaded!
Photonic? (Score:2)
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?
I've seen it (Score:2)
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)
Light Peak? (Score:2)
1553 to NEW-HIP adapters.... (Score:3)
Seems like a huge market out there.
Because they sure as hell aren't going to redesign existing avionics.
making fun of /. editors is almost too easy (Score:2)
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?
About time. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
With all its volume, the box is comparatively easy to shield
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the obvious, snarky answers, how do you electrically *ground* an aircraft?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was asking... :)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Hm... (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget that the copper cables need to be shielded against interference, while fibre is much more robust.
Re: (Score:3)
I would imagine that the shielding has to be especially robust in military equipment, as it should be EMP resistant.
Re: (Score:2)
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 bet
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
-b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.