F-16

[Valkerie]

what type of computer is used in an F-16?

 

[Shaggybrow]

In an F-16, you going to find a bunch of older processors. These are most likely to be 8 or 16bit fixed point processors.

 

[keeleysam]

80880

 

[itachi]

pft.. 80880?

the cpu is the pilot.. the air data processor was made by Sperry; the data bus is based mostly off the 1553 standard (MIL-STD-1553); communications interface- ky-58 for voice, arc-186 (vhf) and arc-164 (uhf) transreceivers, ibu by novatronics, apx-101/109/111/113 interrogator/transponder (101 used initially.. 113 used more recently); and the radar is based off the apg-66 for a/b and apg-68 for c/d models.

check out.. http://www.f-16.net
theres also an airforce page somewhere that lists some of the parts used for their respective interface.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: itachi
pft.. 80880?

the cpu is the pilot.. the air data processor was made by Sperry; the data bus is based mostly off the 1553 standard (MIL-STD-1553); communications interface- ky-58 for voice, arc-186 (vhf) and arc-164 (uhf) transreceivers, ibu by novatronics, apx-101/109/111/113 interrogator/transponder (101 used initially.. 113 used more recently); and the radar is based off the apg-66 for a/b and apg-68 for c/d models.

check out.. http://www.f-16.net
theres also an airforce page somewhere that lists some of the parts used for their respective interface.

I doubt modern computer systems would function very well at 5+ Gs anyways

 

[cryptonomicon]

obviously solid state?

 

[sao123]

All about the F16


The F16 doesnt have a "typical computer" onboard. These are specially designed single purpose individual electronic modules each for navigation, communications, flight control, radar, weapon dispension & targeting. your question somewhat becomes like "what type of computer is inside my toaster, vcr, car...etc"

 

[itachi]

Originally posted by: ariafrost
I doubt modern computer systems would function very well at 5+ Gs anyways

they should work fine.. temperature and sensitivity are the main issues. around 10 km the temperature drops down near -75 degrees Celsius. no modern computer can handle a temperature that low, or as high as military issue ic's are designed to handle.
they also need to be able to run under a wider range of supply voltages.

 

[f95toli]

I agree, AFAIK there is nothing special about the fabrication technology used to make the computers in military equipment. The circuits are designed to that they are as fault tolerant as possible and there are of course backup systems but other than that they are just normal ASICS.

 

[WildHorse]

Originally posted by: f95toli
I agree, AFAIK there is nothing special about the fabrication technology used to make the computers in military equipment. The circuits are designed to that they are as fault tolerant as possible and there are of course backup systems but other than that they are just normal ASICS.

The earlier F-16 primary flight control computer I worked on was designed & manufactured by Lear Siegler Astronics Div. in Santa Monica, California (now BAE Systems, moving out of Santa Monica). The current ones are by ???, perhaps Lockheed Martin General Dynamics in Ft, Worth, Texas.

Lear Siegler and a British company were racing to be first to have a fly-by-wire test systems into the air, and the Brits flew first by a day or two. However, the F-16 was the first to actually enter production.

The Lear Siegler F-16 primary flight control computer was quad-redundant (four independent computers inside one case); apparently later versions are triplex instead of quad.

There are many different "Blocks" of F-16 production, with various levels of modifications depending on the Block.

Generally, computers in military equipment are vastly more ruggedized than commercial equipment, with lots of engineering in areas of mass momentums, bracing, shock, vibration, pressure, humidity, temp, maintainability, etc.

The pilot isn't the cpu. The computer flies the plane.

 

[gbuskirk]

Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics are two very different companies; sometimes partnered and sometimes in competition. I believe the F16 used to use a Mil Std 1750 CPU for avionics flight control; maybe it's been updated. As Scott said, the pilot's flight controls are inputs to the avionics computer, which controls the plane's flight.

 

[Colonel C]

Some piece of crap from the 1970's. The F16 is quite old afterall. Its entering retirement soon too. The JSF and F-22 are replacing nearly every strike/fighter bomber in the airforce (the U.S airforce that is). The JSF is replacing some planes like the Tornado and the Harrier in the Royal Air Force too.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: Colonel C
Some piece of crap from the 1970's. The F16 is quite old afterall. Its entering retirement soon too. The JSF and F-22 are replacing nearly every strike/fighter bomber in the airforce (the U.S airforce that is). The JSF is replacing some planes like the Tornado and the Harrier in the Royal Air Force too.

They will stay active for at least another 10 years, and the go to the Air NG or be sold to foreign states. The F-22 is still not active after over 10 years of developement, JSF program is a lot less mature than that. The Navy and Marines have committed to the upgraded F/A-18 Super Hornet, pushing the JSF even further back.

The B-52 went into service in 1952, and may continue for another 30+ years. There may never be a replacement ever produced. The B-2 is not a replacement, it's downright different.

 

[Farmer]

Believe it or not Colonel C, but a 70s era aircraft is still considered current generation (Just look at the F-15). Like Dangler said, the F-16 is still an extremely capable aircraft, and has experienced many upgrades (Just ask Block 60 drivers and the Israelies, who purchased a bunch of new F-16Is from LMA about a year or two ago). Most of all, it is light and relatively inexpensive.

Sure, F-22 and F-35 will phase in, but not for a while.

 

[TerryMathews]

The thing most people don't understand about aircraft is the concept of production blocks. It only happens with aircraft, as far as I know.

Basically, aircraft are produced in blocks. All of the aircraft in a given block should be identical down to the individual parts, but newer blocks do not have to use the exact same parts. F-16s, for example, are up to block 50 the last time I checked. Sit down in a block 1 F-16A, then in a 50 F-16C and I think you'd say that they aren't the same aircraft.

I guess it's kind of like model years for cars.

The computers are especially prone to block changes. The newer fighters/bombers have to have their OS or whatever you want to call it coded in something other than ASM (the normal route), because the onboard computers do not have to use the same model processor in each block - just like everything else, they order what's on sale.

My friend and I had a very long talk about C++'s -O3 optimizations versus pure ASM.

 

[Farmer]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews
F-16s, for example, are up to block 50 the last time I checked.

Block 60. F-16E/Fs have the fuselage fuel tank extensions seen on Block 52, but also sports some sort of extended tailspine running ontop of the fuselage from the end of the cockpit to the rear. Other improvements are purely avionics; radar, cockpit displays, weapons compatibility and countermeasures, AFAIK. As far as I know, LMTAS has not delivered any Block 60 F-16s to the USAF.

I think Israel's new F-16I Sufas could be considered Block 60, though I'm not sure. They sure look Block 60 to me.

From what I read, the F-16 Block 60 was intended to be a strike varient that looked a lot like the NASA F-16XL. The project was scrapped I think, when the Gov't favored the F-15E and A-10 for that role. Would've been cool, though, dontchya think?

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: Farmer
From what I read, the F-16 Block 60 was intended to be a strike varient that looked a lot like the NASA F-16XL. The project was scrapped I think, when the Gov't favored the F-15E and A-10 for that role. Would've been cool, though, dontchya think?

Dunno, I have mixed feelings about the more modern F-16 variants. Don't get me wrong, it's a very capable plane, but considering the types of conflicts we're currently involved in, and those we are likely to be involved in for the near future, (I think) we should be looking more at a modernized A-10 variant and more rotary-wing designs.

Most of the fighting we do today doesn't really involve evading sophisticated AA defenses, so a superfast, supermanoeverable plane isn't the same kind of benefit that it was/would have been fighting the Soviets. Of course, if the chit hits the wall with the Chinese...

 

[Eris23007]

Originally posted by: f95toli
I agree, AFAIK there is nothing special about the fabrication technology used to make the computers in military equipment. The circuits are designed to that they are as fault tolerant as possible and there are of course backup systems but other than that they are just normal ASICS.

Not true. Most mil-spec processors, particularly for space systems, are designed to a completely different level of radiation tolerance. A significant percentage of this difference is related to the packaging, to increase the Linear Energy Transfer at which radiation events will cause one of the various types of Single Event Upset events. Also it turns out that new Silicon-On-Insulator technologies are very effective at increasing a CPU's resilience to these SEU events.

It turns out that smaller mfg processes (e.g. the new 0.09u, 0.13u, etc) are much more susceptible to radiation events. Therefore mil-spec CPUs are generally much larger - 0.25u,0.5u, even 1u or larger. This also partially accounts for their lower speed capabilities, though the crazy fault-tolerant/redundant designs contribute to low speeds as well.

Fortunately military equipment tends not to have nearly the level of feature-creep of consumer equipment. Eye candy likewise is not a concern - military user interfaces tend to be as simple and stark as possible, to present the greatest amount of information in the most efficient manner.

 

[Valkerie]

Originally posted by: Eris23007

Originally posted by: f95toli
I agree, AFAIK there is nothing special about the fabrication technology used to make the computers in military equipment. The circuits are designed to that they are as fault tolerant as possible and there are of course backup systems but other than that they are just normal ASICS.

Not true. Most mil-spec processors, particularly for space systems, are designed to a completely different level of radiation tolerance. A significant percentage of this difference is related to the packaging, to increase the Linear Energy Transfer at which radiation events will cause one of the various types of Single Event Upset events. Also it turns out that new Silicon-On-Insulator technologies are very effective at increasing a CPU's resilience to these SEU events.

It turns out that smaller mfg processes (e.g. the new 0.09u, 0.13u, etc) are much more susceptible to radiation events. Therefore mil-spec CPUs are generally much larger - 0.25u,0.5u, even 1u or larger. This also partially accounts for their lower speed capabilities, though the crazy fault-tolerant/redundant designs contribute to low speeds as well.

Fortunately military equipment tends not to have nearly the level of feature-creep of consumer equipment. Eye candy likewise is not a concern - military user interfaces tend to be as simple and stark as possible, to present the greatest amount of information in the most efficient manner.

Agree,
Electronic chipset systems and the like, for private investors, particularly military equipment, can run anywhere from a hundred USD to + a hundred thousand USD. The manufacturing is more intense than modern day equipment as far as micro computer technology goes.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: Eris23007

Originally posted by: f95toli
I agree, AFAIK there is nothing special about the fabrication technology used to make the computers in military equipment. The circuits are designed to that they are as fault tolerant as possible and there are of course backup systems but other than that they are just normal ASICS.

Not true. Most mil-spec processors, particularly for space systems, are designed to a completely different level of radiation tolerance. A significant percentage of this difference is related to the packaging, to increase the Linear Energy Transfer at which radiation events will cause one of the various types of Single Event Upset events. Also it turns out that new Silicon-On-Insulator technologies are very effective at increasing a CPU's resilience to these SEU events.

I know that systems used in space are made in a different way due to radiation but is that really the case also for "ordinary" mil-spec electronics?
Mil-spec components are quite common and from what I have seen the only difference between the ordinary version of e.g. an op-amp and the mil-spec version is the temperature range where it can be used and sometimes the packaging,

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: f95toli
I know that systems used in space are made in a different way due to radiation but is that really the case also for "ordinary" mil-spec electronics?
Mil-spec components are quite common and from what I have seen the only difference between the ordinary version of e.g. an op-amp and the mil-spec version is the temperature range where it can be used and sometimes the packaging,

Then you haven't looked very closely. Even resistors have a milspec variant - they're typically 1% tolerance vs. 10% or 20%. Military hardware cannot be fabricated on a lead-free process, as lead makes the connections more durable.

I could go on and on and on, but suffice it to say, if the military bought it, unless it's being used in an office by a civil servant, it's more rugged than what you and I buy.

 

[f95toli]

I know that there are mil-spec versions of many components (I use them) but how are they different?
The fact that they want more durable conncetions is presumably because of the increased temperature range, so as I wrote in my post the difference is in the packaging; they still use standard semiconductors.

Btw, standard metal film resistors are +-1% percent and most (all? ) conform to mil-spec.
(10 or 20% resistors? Even the old carbon resistors are better than that)