Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Operating Systems Software

Lockheed Martin Selects Linux for Missile Defense 532

m3lt writes "Business Wire is reporting that Concurrent announced today that Lockheed Martin Space Systems has selected RedHawk(TM) Linux as the operating system for their United States Army Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program." From the article: "Lockheed Martin selected RedHawk for the THAAD program due to the precision and guaranteed response time of Concurrent's RedHawk Linux real-time operating system. Only RedHawk Linux was able to ensure the high frame rates required in their HIL simulation without frame overruns, thereby ensuring the highest quality of system test."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lockheed Martin Selects Linux for Missile Defense

Comments Filter:
  • Arms (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @08:42AM (#14136713)
    So we like big arms companies now?
    • Re:Arms (Score:5, Funny)

      by Patrik_AKA_RedX ( 624423 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @08:56AM (#14136790) Journal
      Yes, ofcourse we do.
      Arm developers are a very important industry. Without it we wouldn't have realistic weapon models in our games. No sir, if it wasn't for the arm companies we would have shitty weapon models that weren't even near realistic. We should thank our deity for those marvelous people of the weapon factories, without them we wouldn't be were we are today.
    • Re:Arms (Score:4, Insightful)

      by C++12 ( 934449 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @09:07AM (#14136848) Homepage
      If you value survival, you do. Not that I advocate war or anything, but I would like the baddies to believe I have a reasonable ability to kick their ass.
      • Re:Arms (Score:4, Interesting)

        by demachina ( 71715 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @04:25PM (#14140711)
        This is an interesting problem.

        Yes it is good to have enough weapons to deter someone bad from attacking, invading or destroying you. There are bad people in the world, and there are people who good or bad don't like what you do or stand for.

        A problem today is certain American enemies know full well that they can't go toe to toe with the U.S. in conventional or strategic war. They don't and can't squander $500 billion on weapons, the military and intelligence a year, much of that money borrowed by the way. So they don't even try and don't need to.

        What do the do? Well they use hijacked jetliners, suicide bombers, IED's, propaganda and other forms of asymmetric warfare. They have proved in Iraq that they can spend millions of dollars on asymmetric weapons and tie up the U.S. military in knots, which is spending billions a month, and which has hundreds of billions of weapons most of which are useless in urban guerrilla warfare. They can launch attacks that costs millions of dollars, if that, that cause, billions of dollars in economic damage to the U.S.

        THAAD is in a lot of ways a good weapon if it works. Its main goal is to keep someone with ballistic missiles from killing people weather they are civilian or military.

        There are other classes of weapons which unfortunately are dual use, and can be used both offensively and defensively. There have been times when American's have shunned foreign adventure and aggressive warfare. During those times our defense department was really for defense, to deter attack and counter ruthlessly when attacked.

        Sadly political and military elites have at various times forgotten the basic difference between defense and preemptive or aggressive warfare. Preemptive and aggressive warfare is something only bad people, like the Nazi's did. Well not ture, The U.S. for example launched the Spanish American war largely under false pretense and to cover a large colonial expansion in the Carribean and the Phillippines. In the Phillippines there was an entire, lengthy, bloody war in the early 1900's never taught in American history classes where the U.S. ruthlessly killed civilians in a largely vain attempt to suppress an insurgency that didn't appreciate decades of American colonial occupation. It holds a lot of parallels to Iraq today, and probably could teach some lessons if we hadn't pushed it out of our collective conscious because it was so ugly.

        I guess what I'm saying is that I'm all for paying for enough weapons to defend the U.S. but the U.S. military is completely beyond that today. Its is a cold war relic turned in to an preemptive, offense tool for dominating the world and that flies in the face of what many people want the U.S. to be. What's worse it isn't even any good to deal with terrorist attacks or insurgencies like the ones in Vietnam and Iraq which are far more likely than a conventional war today.

        You also need to look no further than the Duke Cunningham case yesterday to realize the Pentagon is mostly just a vast corrupted mechanism for funneling vast quantities of money from tax payer's pockets in to the pockets of largely corrupt defense contractors.

        There is irony that China may well dominate the U.S. militarily and economically in the near future because the U.S. is squandering its wealth on excessive defense spending, and watching its economy wither in the face of globalization, budget and trade deficits. The Chinese might well win World War III without firing a shot. They will win it with a steady stream of containers ships to the U.S. and of U.S. dollars to China. The U.S. spends billions developing new weapons technology and the Chinese spend thousands to steal them. The Chinese will soon have all the manufacturing base to make weapons and the U.S. wont be able to make any without importing them from China.
    • Re:Arms (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      who is we?
      anyone can use linux weather "we" like them or not.
    • Re:Arms (Score:3, Funny)

      by hey! ( 33014 )
      ARM is the last RISC CPU standing. Oh, wait.
  • by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @08:42AM (#14136715) Homepage Journal
    M M M M M MULTI-KILL!

    I wonder if the selected distro includes tic-tac-toe ?
  • by ettlz ( 639203 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @08:43AM (#14136716) Journal
    Red Hat Linux, then Red Flag Linux, and now RedHawk Linux. What next, Red Light Linux bundling a GPL alternative to Leisure Suit Larry?
  • by flowerp ( 512865 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @08:43AM (#14136718)
    hmm, Linus Thorvalds to the rescue! No killing people with the Linux kernel, please!
  • w00t! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Penguin Follower ( 576525 ) <scrose1978@gmaCO ... m minus caffeine> on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @08:43AM (#14136720) Journal
    I hadn't heard of RedHawk Linux until this news blurb, so at first I thought I had read it as "RedHat" and just about choked on my coffee!
    • Re:w00t! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      RedHawk Linux is used in some high-end applications. It is provided by Concurrent [ccur.com], a company which also offers several different hardware solutions that work with the Linux offering.
    • Re:w00t! (Score:5, Informative)

      by wde ( 781445 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @09:18AM (#14136907) Homepage
      Our group has one of the Concurrent "iHawk" systems on order. They're pretty sweet. Essentially, RedHawk is a Concurrent-licensed version of Montevista's HardHat Linux modified to have its scheduler driven by a Concurrent-custom hardware interrupt card (the "RCIM"). You program your interrupt frequency, tie your task to be driven by the card, and determinism goes through the roof. The computer itself is COTS server-grade stuff. Presently Concurrent is using Dells I believe.
  • Doom 3 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Reducer2001 ( 197985 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @08:44AM (#14136722) Homepage
    Linux was able to ensure the high frame rates

    It looks like the military gets better frame rates running Doom 3 under Linux also. :)

  • by Thomas Miconi ( 85282 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @08:44AM (#14136728)
    Now managing, configuring and upgrading missile system will be so complicated and time-consuming that missile-based wars will become essentially impossible ! Three cheers for Lockheed-Martin and Linus !

  • by porkThreeWays ( 895269 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @08:45AM (#14136733)
    There was this [cambridgenetwork.co.uk] story on slashdot a couple of months ago and was detracted by many as opterons being out of place in the real time market. I guess we see it does have use =P
  • RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @08:48AM (#14136744)

    Linux will be used to *test* the system not run it.

    "Lockheed Martin will use RedHawk real-time Linux in hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) simulation testing of strategic missile defense subsystems. HIL simulation is a critical product development process that provides for thorough testing of components in a virtual environment in which other subsystems are replaced by mathematical models."
    • This is still important however. From their wording it looks like they will be replicating hardware via "mathematical models". I think it shows a lot in that linux can provide a real time software drop in for various missile guidance hardware.
  • by vmxeo ( 173325 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @08:48AM (#14136747) Homepage Journal
    "Lockheed Martin selected RedHawk for the THAAD program due to the precision and guaranteed response time of Concurrent's RedHawk Linux real-time operating system.

    That, and the fact that the Windows-based missle kept blowing up mid-flight...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @08:48AM (#14136753)
    Well, Linux can now really start targeting Redmond...
  • The Defense Department has a more or less unlimited budget (they could have specified any OS they wanted) and they still chose Linux over the competition. Now THAT'S cool.
  • by AEton ( 654737 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @08:53AM (#14136779)
    Only you can stop the incoming missiles, Tux Racer!
  • by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @09:11AM (#14136865)
    You are entitled to the source code to the missiles that just landed on your head under the terms of the GPL?
  • by acordes ( 69618 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @09:15AM (#14136889)
    Does anyone have any more information on RedHawk Linux? I went to their website and it appears they modified the stock Linux kernel to make it hard realtime. I'm a little skeptical after following kernel developments over the years. Even with the preemptible kernel patch, Linux is still nowhere close to being able to claim hard realtime response. Any ideas on how RedHawk is able to make these claims?
    • Well, if you're interested on hard real-time simulations in general, check these guys out: RTAI [rtai.org]. They've been around for a long time too, so you shouldn't be so scheptical of the linux kernel being modified to be hard real-time.

      It's free (as in freedom AND beer), and it works pretty well, especially with I/O cards that are supported by comedi drivers [comedi.org], which are designed with real-time use in mind.

      We use them for our real-time HIL simulations at my department, and we're happy with the results.

  • by everphilski ( 877346 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @09:16AM (#14136892) Journal
    Hardware In the Loop testing is where a missile is put basically in a 3 axis gyroscope mount so it is able to maneuver freely. In front of it is put a projection screen where RADAR images are being projected. The seeker on the missile then sends a signal to the fins to move but instead of moving fins that signal is hijacked and an algorithm figures out how the missile would have rotated in space and instead rotates the gimbal (the gyro mount) instead. A computer program tracks how the missile would have really moved in space. A RTOS comes in handy for these kinds of simulations. HWIL testing is an important step between pure software simulation and firing the actual beast because you can start to see lags in the system and test indvidual subsystems non-destructively without ever firing a missile.

    -everphilski-
    • by florescent_beige ( 608235 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @10:57AM (#14137584) Journal
      Gosh.

      ...a missile is put basically in a 3 axis gyroscope mount...
      The THAAD missile it 20 ft long and weights a ton, putting it in a gymbal would be expensive and pointless because...

      ...projection screen where RADAR images are being projected...
      This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, how does one "project" a radar "image"? Second of all, the THAAD radar is ground-based, not part of the missile. The vehicle is steered to the projected intercept point by commands from the ground. The kill vehicle steers itself to the intercept with an IR seeker.

      Maybe the KV hardware test article is gymbal mounted but again, how does one "project" an IR "image" on a "screen"?

      ...sends a signal to the fins...

      THAAD is exoatmospheric. Fins would be useless. It uses vectored thrust.

      ...A computer program tracks how the missile would have really moved in space...
      See now, if you are modeling the dynamics of the vehicle, why bother actually physically moving it? In this case, you aren't testing the vehicle dymanics, you are imposing them, the only purpose of which would be to exersize the seeker mechanisms (of which the missile has none.) Why not simply vary the seeker's simulated target signal (what you call an "image" projected on a "screen" but which is probaby purely electronic)?

      Modded +5. Lordy.

      • by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. ( 142215 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @02:00PM (#14139358) Homepage
        First of all, how does one "project" a radar "image"?

        That's classified.

      • by cmholm ( 69081 ) <cmholm.mauiholm@org> on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @02:42PM (#14139762) Homepage Journal
        The parent for this thread probably doesn't have any first hand experience with HWIL, but s/he has the basic ideas down. Lemme hit the previous bullets:

        Gyroscopic mount: typically, the seeker for the missile (radar, ir, video, whatever) in question is mounted on the gimbals. The rest of the guidance section is in a nearby rack. The reactions of the rest of the missile (fins, motor, body) is simulated in the kinematic codes running on the HWIL simulation computer(s).

        Projection screen: a jargon problem. For Radar: an array of radio frequency feed horns are mounted on a wide hemispheric frame about 50 to 100 feet in front of the seeker, which is at the focal point of their output. By varying the frequency, power, and polarity of the energy from each feed horn, one or more targets can be represented. The simulation computer usually takes care of the radar pulse delay to represent range. Simulated changes in target angle are handled by moving the seeker on it's gimbals.

        IR projection: a "hot" video display, to my experience using an led array no bigger than a laptop display a few feet in front of the seeker. Video: to my experience, either a large front or rear video projection system, or a tv display a few feet in front of the seeker.

        Fins/vectored thrust: in a HWIL system, the aerodynamic controls are usually simulated. The control computer intercepts the commands from the guidance section, and feeds them into the kinematic software for use in the virtual environment.

        Movement in 3D space: Why move the seeker at all? Because it's cheaper than moving the display mechanism (whether radar, ir, or video). The seeker is built to withstand intense shock and vibration, small, and usually weighs anywhere from a few tens to hundreds of pounds. The display system is usually custom built, touchy, and too unwieldy to move in angle or rate in degrees per second needed to represent how a target might present itself. Depending on the scenario, the simulated target may well start 'waaaaaaay off to the side of the seeker's POV. So, throw the seeker on gimbals and move it.

        Before moving into an expensive HWIL lab, the guidance software, or guidance computer and s/w, will have been put thru it's paces on a computer-in-the-loop simulation, where nothing moves except logic states. HWIL is the final stage of integration testing before trying the whole missile out on a test range.

        Just between you, me, and the lamp post, I believe Lockeed won the THAAD contract on price, and the Army has been paying the price for what, twelve years? If (my previous employer) had won this, I assert we'd have a deployable system by now.

      • I make HILs.

        You don't need the whole missile. You need the guidance electronics and the seeker. I've seen THAAD's HIL.

        Yes, you absolutely can project IR imagery. Look for the word "mirror". You can make mirrors that are RADAR transparent. I've seen them.

        I don't the details of THAAD, but for the lower stages (since they simulate from launch), you intercept fin commands and use that information within a simulation to calculate updated attitude and position information. This is then used in returning dat
  • by Vo0k ( 760020 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @09:24AM (#14136933) Journal
    If they shoot such a missile at my rocket, I may demand them to send me the source code. After all, they just distributed open source software. All over the area...
  • Wow, think of the savings for the American tax payer!

    Oh wait...

  • This is why they're running linux, methinks: http://ubergeek.tv/article.php?pid=54 [ubergeek.tv]
  • by lbrandy ( 923907 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @09:32AM (#14136975)
    1. Combine a major company using Linux for all it's excellent benefits with an obvious usage of war....
    2. Slap on that flamesuit and logical-fallacy-inducing tinfoil hat
    3. Watch the collective mind of slashdot swirl around these conflicting emotions
    (4. Profit.)

    This is gonna keep me entertained all day...
  • As we all know, an OS has to be involved in crimes against humanity to be taken seriously.
  • by Ancient_Hacker ( 751168 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @09:35AM (#14136997)
    THAAD is not exactly a real winner. Pls see : Looooser [tinyurl.com]

    It's been in the works for over a decade now, with no deployment in sight.

  • by Jacquouille ( 929716 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @09:53AM (#14137122)
    I can tell you that the killall command is very powerful on this system.
  • by trygstad ( 815846 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @11:23AM (#14137818)
    People can debate the morality of this all day without really accomplishing anything, but as someone who operated technically sophisticated weapons systems, I can speak from experience as to the value of having an OS that is rock-stable and fast. As a long-time anti-submarine warfare helicopter pilot, the last thing I want ever want to see on my center console screen would be a blue screen of death, because in a shooting war, the "death" part might be far more literal than figurative. The morality of the use of technologies for war is a debate for politicians and academics; for those who are at the cutting edge of the spear--who are all volunteers and are there defending your right to even have this debate--the only thing that really matters about a technology is does it work now, and will it work without fail every time it is needed. Personally I'd go with Linux with a great deal of confidence. And if the political will of a nation is going to ask some citizens to lay their lives on the line to protect the bulk of the people, don't those folks on the cutting edge deserve to have the very best tools to do their job?
  • Way Back When (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jmichaelg ( 148257 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @11:55AM (#14138098) Journal
    I worked on an air defense system back in the 70's. It was built for the King of Morroco so he could show off to the other despots in North Africa. It wasn't as if Morocco was seriously threatened by anyone but I guess that having been overrun by the Germans, French and the occasional American task force rescuing a Greek who claimed to be an American, the king was a little concerned. The system consisted of two radars parked on a couple of mountaintops talking to a single cpu which updated a couple of consoles and huge wall screen. Whereas the consoles got the standard cryptic designators for each plane, the wall screen got elaborate detailed descriptions since they were for the king to read. The cpu was the fastest cpu of the time, a 16 mhz behemoth that filled a room.

    The guy I reported to was one of the smartest people I've ever met and fortunately for the project, he was responsible for the software. He'd come into our offices (the only people that worked in cubicles back then were HP employees) and see how we were doing. He'd frequently find us waiting on a compile as the machine was hard pressed to have 30 or so developers using a single computer to compile with. It began to bother him quite a bit because he'd read the design spec which called for the system to handle a couple of 1000 radar returns each minute. As he was technically capable, he sat down one day and wrote a radar simulator that fed radar packets to a "processor." All the processor did was count the number of packets it received and all the radar simulator did was send empty packets. Not a very complicated piece of software but it was enough to show the hardware wasn't going to meet the spec. It couldn't do that simple task, let alone process the packets, draw positions on the controller screens etc.

    He wrote a memo and sent it up the chain. A week passed and no response so he wrote another memo saying the same thing but he changed the memo title. The new title was "I know you're out there - I can hear you breathing." That got his bosses moving and the problem was addressed.

Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.

Working...