Israel’s F-35 App And Its Implications

Cockpit, radar, helmet-mounted display, and other avionics
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23588
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Apr 2016, 13:02

Bueller - Anyone - Bueller have the rest of this article please? Tah.
Israel’s F-35 App And Its Implications Has Israel set a precedent?
22 Apr 2016 Eric Tegler

"Israel has announced it will equip the F-35s it starts receiving this December with its own command, control, communications and computing (C4) system. The software, produced by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), is an upgrade of an existing C4 system the Israeli air force flies on its F-15 and F-16s. By adapting proprietary software to the F-35, Israel has leveraged the strike fighter’s open-architecture software design long touted by Lockheed Martin and the Joint Program ..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/israel- ... plications
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

fang

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 277
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2006, 10:07

Unread post24 Apr 2016, 13:45

If AW want payment so there's other ways, the source for example :)
http://www.iai.co.il/2013/32981-46942-en/MediaRoom.aspx
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23588
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Apr 2016, 13:51

Thanks for that 'fang'.
Following a successful testing, the Command, Control, Communications and Computing (C4) systems for Israel’s F-35I ‘Adir
03 Apr 2016 IAI PR

"April 3, 2016 - With system definition, prototyping and testing phases completed, Israel Aerospace Industries' (IAI) is now moving to production the Command, Control, Communications and Computing (C4) systems developed for the Adir - F-35I, Israel's variant of the Fifth Generation Fighter F-35.

The system developed exclusively for the F-35I by IAI's LAHAV Division is part of IAI's cutting edge ‘tactical C4 architecture‘ introducing unique force multipliers in the modern, networked battle arena. The induction of advanced systems of this type with the Israel Air Force (IAF) combat fleet will enable the IAF to better manage, and rapidly field networked applications that interface with core services over proprietary protocols developed especially for the IAF.

Using generic communications infrastructure based on the latest Software Defined Radios (SDR), IAI new C4 system developed for the Adir will provide the backbone of the IAF future airborne communications network. This network will dramatically improve over legacy systems currently operating with the current fleet of 4th Generation aircraft (F-16, F-15).

Based on open systems architecture the new system enable rapid software and hardware development cycles that will also provide more affordable modernization and support of systems over the platform's life cycle, as systems are required to meet rapidly changing operating environment.

The integration of IAI's C4 systems in the F-35I avionics program represents major milestone in the introduction of advanced, indigenous capabilities to the multinational F-35 program. Fully embedded into the aircraft integrated avionic system, IAI's new C4 system provides the user the latest, most advanced processing capabilities with relative independence of the aircraft manufacturer.

Part of the F-35I avionic system, the C4 system introduces a new level of freedom for the IAF, as it paves the way for additional advanced capabilities to be embedded in the F-35I in the future.

"This cutting edge avionic system represents an ‘operational quantum leap' in the capability of air power to conduct networked-centric air warfare" said Benni Cohen, General Manager of LAHAV division, "It is part of a major change that takes place once in a decade, which includes the upgrading of 4th Generation systems. This program will be critical to our national security as it represents a shift in air forces' concepts of operations (CONOPS) and operational capabilities."

In the past decade LAHAV Division is positioned as Israel Aerospace Industries' center of excellence implementing network centric warfare capabilities. The combat proven systems developed by LAHAV are operational on all combat aircraft and special mission platforms as well as in land-based systems of the Israel and foreign air forces...."

Source: http://www.iai.co.il/2013/32981-46942-en/MediaRoom.aspx
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23588
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Apr 2016, 11:33

Full text of OP - more or less - below now.
Israel’s F-35 App And Its Implications Has Israel set a precedent?
22 Apr 2016 Eric Tegler

"Israel has announced it will equip the F-35s it starts receiving this December with its own command, control, communications and computing (C4) system. The software, produced by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), is an upgrade of an existing C4 system the Israeli air force flies on its F-15 and F-16s.

By adapting proprietary software to the F-35, Israel has leveraged the strike fighter’s open-architecture software design long touted by Lockheed Martin and the Joint Program Office (JPO). In effect, IAI has written the first “app” for the F-35 and, arguably, set a precedent for F-35 software independence

“Imagine putting some new applications on your mobile phone,” says Benni Cohen, general manager of IAI’s Lahav Division. “It is not difficult. You can do it without touching the mission systems.”

His metaphor is a useful one. While the specifics are not exactly the same, think of the F-35’s software backbone as an “operating system” like Apple’s iOS and IAI’s C4 software, which sits atop it as an “application.” With the right application interface, developers can write new apps for the F-35, adding new functionality.

“Yes, it is straightforward to tap into that [F-35 system] data and build upon that information to make new applications or add new functionality that benefits the overall fight,” John Clark agrees. Clark is director of mission systems and software at Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works, which is working with the U.S. Air Force to craft a software protocol called Open Mission Systems (OMS), designed to enable faster technology insertion into existing and future platforms.

By standardizing the process for moving data around the F-35’s open architecture backbone, OMS will enable more rapid software development and mission systems integration. The protocol is still in development but is planned to be introduced on the F-35 “in the near future,” says Lockheed. By working independently, however, Israel may have already changed the game.

Israel will not add its C4 system using OMS but instead exploit the F-35’s existing openness. Whenever OMS does arrive, the fact that someone has already written an app for the aircraft now provides F-35 customers the option to add their own software, rather than waiting for upgrades planned by the U.S. Current plans for the JSF partner nations to develop a follow-on Block 4 software package are not expected to start until 2018 and will take six years.

“The folks at IAI doing that will certainly bring up [the issue] as more partner nations have the desire to do that,” says Clark. “But it is also a double-edged sword. They do not get the benefits of the rest of the ecosystem the F-35 has by deviating.”

Clark points out the F-35 program has a defined joint standards process intended to align partner nations with common enterprise support across the board, for software or hardware.

“Each country has the choice to make on how much value it puts on the enterprise support structure to maintain systems long-term,” he says. “If there is an interoperability issue with one, you see it get fixed and the fix applies to all, as opposed to an interoperability issue that may exist with an IAI one-off.”

The crux of the issue is how many other JSF partners will look at what Israel is pioneering and desire similar one-off software programs. Their motivations could range from strategic/tactical independence to the timing of JSF program software releases and, possibly, commercial concerns. Ironically, the open architecture design of F-35 systems potentially abets such desires.

“The open architecture gives the Israeli air force the option to operate new systems and to address, let us say, special needs without needing to change versions of the airplane’s software,” says Cohen.

What are those “special needs”? “It gives the Israeli air force the capability for EW [electronic warfare] that is not part of the software for the normal F-35.” Cohen says.

The explanation aligns well with comments made to Aviation Week in 2012 by a senior Israeli air force official: “We think the stealth protection will be good for 5-10 years, but the aircraft will be in service for 30-40 years, so we need EW capabilities [on the F-35] that can be rapidly improved. The basic F-35 design is OK. We can make do with adding integrated software” (AW&ST Aug. 6, 2012, p. 28). http://aviationweek.com/awin/israel-us- ... 35-ew-work

[First on this forum here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20158&p=229326&hilit=David+Eshel+David+Fulghum#p229326 ]

The ability to write its own apps is consistent with Israel’s general desire for a level of independence from U.S. control. This emphasis on flexibility is evidenced by its push for an exemption from the JPO to carry out maintenance work in-country, rather than at predetermined Lockheed Martin-established logistics centers in Europe and elsewhere.

“The idea is to give the [Israeli air force] the opportunity and capability to add new applications without the [backbone] system blocking that opportunity,” Cohen adds. “If you decide to add another system, another missile, another capability, you do not need to touch the mission system, you just add the new application.”

Simply adding a new application sounds appealing and efficient, but the JPO sounds a cautionary, and possibly conflicting, note on the precedent of JSF partners writing their own apps.

“By U.S. government policy, any integration of F-35 software must be done with U.S. government oversight and with the two prime contractors’ involvement. Having open architecture systems on the F-35 will make it easier to integrate future improvements onto the aircraft, but it does not equate to every country or industry having free rein to integrate their own add-on software and systems,” says the JPO.

Whether or not JSF partners add their own apps and functionality, the schedule for U.S. software updates once the program concludes its developmental phase could provide additional motivation to operate independently.

According to the JPO, hardware and software releases will alternate on a four-year schedule. A software release will be followed two years later by a hardware release and so on. But it is a schedule that simply does not align with software development and operational realities.

“This is the idea of our system,” Cohen says. “Instead of waiting two years or four years for another [software update] version, we can [update] it in 4-5 months.”

“The speed at which you could make [software] changes could certainly play a role in what is motivating partner nations,” Clark allows. “I do not know that it is the only factor, but I don’t have firm data to say one way or the other.”

The JPO does not acknowledge the timing of its software releases as problematic: “We are working with all partners and [Foreign Military Sales (FMS)] customers to ensure we all have timely updates to meet various sovereign requirements in the coming years.”

If Israel and other partners are sufficiently motivated to write their own apps, several questions arise, starting with interoperability. While commonality is foundational to the F-35 program, Skunk Works’ Clark says conflicts can be managed.

“The Israelis are very innovative,” he says. “I would expect they will work in their own way, but that does not preclude having interoperability with other standards. It just means that when interoperability is sought, they’ll have to ensure that whatever implementation they have built on top of the data provided via F-35 can operate with other pieces of software or hardware. . . . With our [OMS] effort we are trying to minimize the upfront systems engineering required to do those sorts of things.”

Interoperability will not be an issue, the JPO assures, again citing U.S. oversight of the two contractors involved (Lockheed and IAI). The office adds that it “applies strong systems engineering rigor and discipline to all software development efforts supporting both partners and FMS customers.”

The prospect of writing apps for the F-35 also raises the issue of cybersecurity. Commercial software development security experts repeatedly point out that the intersection of manufacturer and vendor software is perhaps the chief point of vulnerability for integrated systems.

Clark concedes that developing apps for the F-35 is analogous but stresses the program has sufficient security assurance in place. “We all see the news in the broader context of what is going on in the cyberenvironment,” he says. “If you look at what the banking industry has to deal with, those are the type of [security] technologies that we are exploring and evaluating to try to apply to our airborne avionics environment.”

The F-35’s open architecture design follows strict principles on the provision of data for third-party evaluation, according to Lockheed. There are high assurance guards within the system that can integrate cross-domain devices while keeping mission systems and outside apps separate.

IAI’s Cohen says the company is confident its C4 software will not have any influence on the security of the overall system. But what if a partner nation does not strictly adhere to correct security protocols, or makes a mistake?

“It depends on what application you are talking about and what data that system is trying to access. There is no one easy answer on that,” Clark admits.

Another question is whether F-35 users that create their own apps could share or potentially sell them? Would IAI consider that possibility?

“Yes,” Cohen answers. “We would need special permission to export [new applications]. We would need an export license.”

Surely, F-35 users must have U.S. government authorization to market, sell or discuss non-U.S. add-ons, software updates, non-U.S. weapons, or any other F-35 equipment the program office emphasizes. Interestingly, the JPO does not completely shut the door to partner-to-partner nation add-on/software sales, saying, “The U.S. government will review each situation individually as countries discuss their intent with us.”

Could the possibility of JSF user-to-user sales combined with the issues of software control, independence, updates and security see the F-35 program again mimic the Apple mobile device world? Could the U.S. set up its own F-35 “App Store”?

Lockheed has “brainstormed” the idea, Clark confirms. “It could provide for a greater ecosystem of software developers and tailorization of the system for unique needs, but we are still sorting out how we would manifest that in a way that would not just be a marketing pitch,” he says."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/israel- ... plications
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2635
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post26 Apr 2016, 16:21

The F-35 is truly the Smartphone analagous of the Fighter Jet world.
Where the F-22 was the ultimate "Feature Phone"

While all older fighter jets are analogous to older phone models.
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post26 Apr 2016, 18:06

An app for it 'Angry Birds'. Hahaha. There are limits to software-alone upgrade-ability. At some point, the underlying hardware will need to be refreshed, to use IT parlance.
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline

Scorpion82

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1094
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

Unread post26 Apr 2016, 20:08

Which hardware does this app use? LINK16?
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2882
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post27 Apr 2016, 09:15

Scorpion82 wrote:Which hardware does this app use? LINK16?


They might use something of their own design like this:
http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/files/4/37524.pdf

Or maybe F-35 hardware is able to do all the required things already and it's a matter of software only. I think this might well be the case and Israelis have developed their own datalink system which connects their Communication nodes and fighters together in different way than what Link 16 does. This might require only their own datalink application which controls the physical radios in F-35 and connects to F-35 mission systems.
Offline

barrelnut

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2015, 00:05

Unread post27 Apr 2016, 12:00

The F-35 Communication system using Software Defined Radio tech looks pretty advanced.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... asheet.pdf
Offline

les_paul59

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016, 05:57

Unread post27 Apr 2016, 16:06

The Israeli's have always been great at customizing their american jets to fit their own needs. Most people are only realizing this now because of what Israel is doing but @blindpilot has been saying this for a while.The f-35 is an i-phone, just load it up with new apps if the country wants new capability.

Anyone arguing against the f-35 is arguing that a flip phone is more versatile that a smart phone, it's just nonsense at this point.
Offline

Scorpion82

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1094
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

Unread post27 Apr 2016, 17:06

barrelnut wrote:The F-35 Communication system using Software Defined Radio tech looks pretty advanced.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... asheet.pdf


Answers pretty much the question, thanks.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2296
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post27 Apr 2016, 20:31

Salute!

Les Paul has it right.

IAF will do their own thing within the limits of the sfwe and the basic CPU they are dealt.

I was on the Cockpit Review Team for a few sessions in early 80's. We had reps from the Systems Command, the SPO, Tactical Air Command, all the main user orgs, all the countries and then the folks from Israel. The Israeilis did not have a vote on sfwe changes, displays etc. Nevertheless, we listened as they made their case, because some things they wanted or needed would be lots cheaper if the "production group" signed on. IAF cut their own deals with GD.

I watched IAF folks using our Xerox machine in the 16th TFTS to copy volumes of maintenance and such documents early Sat and Sun mornings. They didn't buy the things as part of their deal!! I was there moving stuff for the academic area and setting up the audio-visual crapola in the academic briefing room.

You must realize that we did not have megabytes of RAM or even core memory then. We would trade bytes for features and displays. First display/processor subroutine I remember trashing was the energy maneuver HUD display. Sorry, Boyd, but nobody could figure the thing out except that tadpole that showed you were gaining or losing total energy. The IAF wanted extra waypoints and "marks". USAF and the EPG voted against that to get more stuff for NATO purposes. IAF also wanted to enable CCIP for Select Jett. They had a small country. and needed to drop unarmed stuff in a small area. I don't think we incorporated that, but could be mistaken.

So the IAF "app" is no surprise, and they are not paying GD/L-M $$$$ to have their way.

Gums remembers.....
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1840
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post27 Apr 2016, 20:39

Gums wrote:You must realize that we did not have megabytes of RAM or even core memory then. We would trade bytes for features and displays. First display/processor subroutine I remember trashing was the energy maneuver HUD display. Sorry, Boyd, but nobody could figure the thing out except that tadpole that showed you were gaining or losing total energy. ..



:lmao:

Return to F-35 Avionics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests