C++ is certainly a feasible choice. You can do anything at all in C++ but you may or may not do it correctly. That kind of terminal gun defense system has hard real time requirements (e.g. Patriot could wait 0.2 sec to launch an anti-missile, whereas a hypersonic missile might travel 0.5 km in that time which is about 1/3 the effective range of a gun like
You could do it in Rust or do it in ADA but people know how to build that kind of thing in C++. It is probably a lot like a video game with a core written in C++ but with a scripting layer.
I'd make the argument that only some parts of certain AA systems are hard real time. High performance (in terms of distant and AA and ABM systems like Patriot and S-400 use a track-via-missile strategy that requires close coordination between the missile and the ground radar and that whole loop would be hard real time. (Jamming the comm link is an effective countermeasure about that kind of thing plus the ground radar is a great visible target) Other aspects of the system like the UI and executive control (do I shoot?) are not so hard real time as the engagement time is much longer than the close in systems.
Other systems like NASAMS depend on missiles that have an internal GPS/INS and a seeker that will go to some coordinates and then acquire the target. Systems like that don't work very well unless you update the coordinates based on radar or other information periodically, but if they do systems like this can be highly effective (in terms of hit rate) against low performance aircraft and cruise missile. They can also turn the radar off to avoid being targeted, will have the missile complete the intercept if they get hit, etc. That kind of system doesn't have particularly harsh real time requirements.
> Anti-ship missiles go three to five times faster than sound with increasingly complex behavior. When several of these threats come up against them simultaneously, it becomes increasingly difficult for human operators to take efficient and effective protection measures. The AWW-FCS provides the necessary information to make the right decision within seconds. (from the article)
As you note, a "decision with seconds" will really not cut it against incoming hypersonic (or even supersonic) missiles.
Interesting: In the Wikipedia's comparison table of point defense guns ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system#Compari... ), the US Phalanx has the shortest range (and smallest round, which is related) of the systems in that table. With a larger magazine capacity as the sole offsetting benefit.
Late in WWII, and in the years shortly after, the USN removed massive numbers of small (espec. 20mm and 40mm) AA guns from their ships, replacing them with 76mm guns. Because "massed pea shooters" had proved relatively useless against fast-moving kamikazes. I wonder if we'll see similar changes in point defense gun systems over then next decade or so.
6 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 28.9 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
You could do it in Rust or do it in ADA but people know how to build that kind of thing in C++. It is probably a lot like a video game with a core written in C++ but with a scripting layer.
I'd make the argument that only some parts of certain AA systems are hard real time. High performance (in terms of distant and AA and ABM systems like Patriot and S-400 use a track-via-missile strategy that requires close coordination between the missile and the ground radar and that whole loop would be hard real time. (Jamming the comm link is an effective countermeasure about that kind of thing plus the ground radar is a great visible target) Other aspects of the system like the UI and executive control (do I shoot?) are not so hard real time as the engagement time is much longer than the close in systems.
Other systems like NASAMS depend on missiles that have an internal GPS/INS and a seeker that will go to some coordinates and then acquire the target. Systems like that don't work very well unless you update the coordinates based on radar or other information periodically, but if they do systems like this can be highly effective (in terms of hit rate) against low performance aircraft and cruise missile. They can also turn the radar off to avoid being targeted, will have the missile complete the intercept if they get hit, etc. That kind of system doesn't have particularly harsh real time requirements.
As you note, a "decision with seconds" will really not cut it against incoming hypersonic (or even supersonic) missiles.
Interesting: In the Wikipedia's comparison table of point defense guns ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system#Compari... ), the US Phalanx has the shortest range (and smallest round, which is related) of the systems in that table. With a larger magazine capacity as the sole offsetting benefit.
Late in WWII, and in the years shortly after, the USN removed massive numbers of small (espec. 20mm and 40mm) AA guns from their ships, replacing them with 76mm guns. Because "massed pea shooters" had proved relatively useless against fast-moving kamikazes. I wonder if we'll see similar changes in point defense gun systems over then next decade or so.