“Fire your goddamned missiles!.json”
“Think russian^H^H^H xml”
German Rheinmetall open-sources its Battlesuite connected weapon system protcol
31–40 of 114 posts
Re: German Rheinmetall open-sources its Battlesuite connected weapon system protcol
#32Open the C++ example up and the first thing I see: ```cpp std::cout Generally, I've heard `std::endl` instead of \n has bad performance because it forces the statement to print immediately. And because cout is guaranteed to flush anyways when the program ends, you're adding a delay for no reason. I wonder if there's something I'm not seeing that led to them adopting this rule. e.g. "abnormal program termination" caus…
The modern C++ idiom is std::println() anyways...
Re: German Rheinmetall open-sources its Battlesuite connected weapon system protcol
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
DDS sort of took over from CORBA in the military domain, and the statically-typed IDL was still quite similar to CORBA last time I looked at it, so that takes you back to around 1998 when CORBA was being used a lot in the military in my experience. What other protocols and systems were you thinking of that can provide (depending on broker) hard-realtime delivery that can be used in safety-critical systems?
Stupid question, but why didn’t the DOD mandate IP compatibility for literally all comms like 20+ years ago? Is it pure corruption/incompetence or is there a good reason?
The DOD effectively can't "just mandate" things and it's because of politics (which is a superset of corruption and incompetence).
There's a very small number of major contractors and if you pick one of their APIs as the new standard, then you disadvantage all the others.
If you pick a greenfield project, then it will take a long time, and once you are done everybody will claim that they can't use it (see e.g. Ada; quick version they started working on a mandate for a programming language in 1975, mandated Ada in 1991 and by 1996 removed the Ada mandate).
Re: German Rheinmetall open-sources its Battlesuite connected weapon system protcol
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every mil company designs unique bespoke things often with some exceptions, and even the "open systems" mostly aren't open by any stretch of the definition. Obscurity is part of the allure, not a repulsive factor. You don't want a hostile nation suddenly and easily understanding your systems.
I have to assume that so many people require access to the specs that an interested party can surely acquire them. World of Tanks has repeatedly had military personnel updating the technical specifications with details they have found in the secret manuals.
Are you not thinking about the wrong tank game? World of tanks has ancient tanks, not modern (game tank span basically end with the main battle tank making the game tank role division being made irrelevant).
Re: German Rheinmetall open-sources its Battlesuite connected weapon system protcol
#35Are they trying to recreate DIS (IEEE1278) and HLA (IEEE1516) — like they‘re replicating the FOM architecture from distributed simulations for their weapons to integrate.
Re: German Rheinmetall open-sources its Battlesuite connected weapon system protcol
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
DDS sort of took over from CORBA in the military domain, and the statically-typed IDL was still quite similar to CORBA last time I looked at it, so that takes you back to around 1998 when CORBA was being used a lot in the military in my experience. What other protocols and systems were you thinking of that can provide (depending on broker) hard-realtime delivery that can be used in safety-critical systems?
Stupid question, but why didn’t the DOD mandate IP compatibility for literally all comms like 20+ years ago? Is it pure corruption/incompetence or is there a good reason?
A lot of military comms are point-to-point or broadcast between radios where TCP/IP doesn’t really make sense. On top of that, you need to understand how much legacy military networking stuff is out there. This stuff long predates the internet. We had tactical data links and target tracking where a ground station could receive a target info from a remote radar array, and automatically direct fighters on autopilot on an intercept course with enemy contacts in like 1960 (see SAGE as an example). These systems have been around for decades and been continually improved on. There’s a lot of inertia to maintain compatibility. Because you really don’t want someone to die because your ally tried to warn you but their tactical data link isn’t compatible with yours.
Re: German Rheinmetall open-sources its Battlesuite connected weapon system protcol
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every mil company designs unique bespoke things often with some exceptions, and even the "open systems" mostly aren't open by any stretch of the definition. Obscurity is part of the allure, not a repulsive factor. You don't want a hostile nation suddenly and easily understanding your systems.
I have to assume that so many people require access to the specs that an interested party can surely acquire them. World of Tanks has repeatedly had military personnel updating the technical specifications with details they have found in the secret manuals.
> I have to assume that so many people require access to the specs that an interested party can surely acquire them.
Those documents are often secret or top secret, or even more compartmentalized.
There are training docs in wide use today that are not publicly findable on the internet, nor are they seemingly in the datasets of LLMs.
I'm sure there are reasons for that, of course.
What you're talking about would have an even higher level of obscurity and secrecy, and probably Compartmented Information access.
Re: German Rheinmetall open-sources its Battlesuite connected weapon system protcol
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every mil company designs unique bespoke things often with some exceptions, and even the "open systems" mostly aren't open by any stretch of the definition. Obscurity is part of the allure, not a repulsive factor. You don't want a hostile nation suddenly and easily understanding your systems.
Hat sounds like a particularly weak form of security by obscurity
Layers of an onion and all that.
Often connectors are even proprietary.
(This is partially to protect systems not from the enemy, but from the troops themselves...)
Re: German Rheinmetall open-sources its Battlesuite connected weapon system protcol
#39Nah, they haven't open sourced anything: https://github.com/rheinmetall . They just published the documentation. Really weird, what's the point?
I think that’s what the “protcol” (sic) in the title was supposed to indicate. I agree it’s misleading.
Re: German Rheinmetall open-sources its Battlesuite connected weapon system protcol
#40So like Open Mission Systems (OMS)? https://www.vdl.afrl.af.mil/programs/oam/OMS_Marketing.pdf