About the F-22's CIP's (Common Integrated Processors))

[e-dog]

I'll keep this short

***
According to http://www.f22fighter.com/avionics.htm# ... 0%28CIP%29

The F-22 has 2 CIP's with space for a third unit in the airframe and according the link I mentioned, the CIP's maximum raw processing power is 700 Mips "with growth to 2,000 Mips" (Million instructions per second).

Now here's the really weird part... Howcome even the CIP's maximum of 2.000 Mips (2 Billion instructions per second) pales in comparison to a desktop processor?
Here are a few examples that put the CIP of our beloved flying beauty to shame:

F-22 CIP, capable of performing 700 Million, up to 2 Billion instructions per second.
i7 2600K, capable of performing 128 Billion instructions per second.
i7 980X, capable of performing 147 Billion instructions per second.
i7 3960x, capable of performing 177 billion instructions per second.

So why is it that the F-22's processor(s), in terms of speed, are comparable to a Pentium III from 2002/2003?

Is it harder to manufacture "fast" CPU's suited for the F-22's avionics suite because of some weird limitation in other hardware?
Is it a software issue?

I really don't see why you guys don't just invest a few hundred million USD in upgrading the F-22's avionics suite to make more space for other, important things that the Raptor might need in the future if not already.

Thanks in advance!


IT--

[hornetfinn]

So why is it that the F-22's processor(s), in terms of speed, are comparable to a Pentium III from 2002/2003?

Is it harder to manufacture "fast" CPU's suited for the F-22's avionics suite because of some weird limitation in other hardware?
Is it a software issue?

It's because those CIPs were designed about 20 years ago and because technology then wouldn't allow for faster speed.

It'd be relatively easy to design fast CPUs, but the problem likely is the overall hardware and software architecture, which likely limits the possibilities here. Basically they'd need to upgrade a whole lot more than just the processors. This includes other hardware and also porting the software to this new architecture. This means also a lot of testing, which is expensive.

I think current F-22s have been upgraded to use more modern systems at least partially.

I think F-35 has better architecture for future growth and easier upgradeability as it has been designed much later with better technology and with more options.

[popcorn]

Imagine trying to plug in the latest CPU chipsets into 20-year old PC architectures.

[delvo]

It's not just a matter of age & time with a plane's design & specifications being set while commercial computing moves on. There's also the issue of making electronics that can handle the conditions aboard the plane, including occasional high "g" and nearly constant shaking and, unless it's in the climate-controlled cockpit, wild swings in temperature & pressure & humidity. To survive flight, the chip must be what they call a "rugged" design, or a "ruggedized" version of a standard commercial chip. And those always lag behind the non-rugged originals.

The computers aboard NASA's shuttles were subject to the same issues. They could be replaced with upgrades every few years, but even the latest & greatest upgrade chip was still always already behind its civilian home/office counterparts before they even put it in. Even civilian passenger planes, which have plenty of interior climate-controlled space to put computers in and whose flight characteristics are all about smoothness and comfort, still use somewhat older chips than brand-new home/office computers.