Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[Ken Garlington]

(A quick excerpt from a recent USA Today article:)

"The early Land Warrior software rarely worked... To troubleshoot, in early
1999 Jette brought in high-tech consultants Exponent, a Silicon Valley firm
that studies engineering and structural failures and accidents. The firm
felt that Raytheon had followed Army specs for the project too closely. The
old prototype had to be trashed and a new computer and radio system built...
The Silicon Valley engineers slapped together a crude model in three months.
They went to retailers Best Buy and Fry's Electronics and bought several
cheap, off-the-shelf products, including Microsoft Windows CE software and a
wireless card to allow Land Warrior computers to send data. The most
critical technical step: They wrote the software in common programming
language used by most software engineers, rather than using old government
programming language, as Raytheon had.... Soldiers say the newest Land
Warrior is the best version yet... Its Microsoft Windows 2000 software still
has bugs but is nearing the project goal of 10 days of use without breaking
down."

(The full article can be found at:)

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/02/07/tech-military.htm

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[Jim Rogers]

This is a wonderful article. It gives support to the idea that
off the shelf hardware and software is more reliable and better
than Mil Spec hardware and software.

Note that the Silicon Valley solution does not work properly for
10 days of use. Clearly, the problem the Silicon Valley gurus had
is that they do not understand "the old government" programming
language.

What makes Windows CE more reliable than a true real time OS?
What makes off-the-shelf software work better under DoD
environments. The answer is simple. Their system almost works
and they have avoided most of the reliability requirements.
I also suspect they have avoided DoD frequency requirements
as well as DoD message specifications such as the Joint Variable
Message Format. Wait until they get to the system integration
tests where the Land Warrior must communicate with systems that
actually follow DoD specifications. Success may be spelled
differently at that point.

Isn't Silicon Valley arrogance beautiful? They know all that is
useful. Anything they do not know must be useless.

Jim Rogers
Colorado Springs, Colorado USA

Ken Garlington wrote:

> (A quick excerpt from a recent USA Today article:)
> 
> "The early Land Warrior software rarely worked... To troubleshoot, in early
> 1999 Jette brought in high-tech consultants Exponent, a Silicon Valley firm
> that studies engineering and structural failures and accidents. The firm
> felt that Raytheon had followed Army specs for the project too closely. The
> old prototype had to be trashed and a new computer and radio system built...
> The Silicon Valley engineers slapped together a crude model in three months.
> They went to retailers Best Buy and Fry's Electronics and bought several
> cheap, off-the-shelf products, including Microsoft Windows CE software and a
> wireless card to allow Land Warrior computers to send data. The most
> critical technical step: They wrote the software in common programming
> language used by most software engineers, rather than using old government
> programming language, as Raytheon had.... Soldiers say the newest Land
> Warrior is the best version yet... Its Microsoft Windows 2000 software still
> has bugs but is nearing the project goal of 10 days of use without breaking
> down."
> 
> (The full article can be found at:)
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/02/07/tech-military.htm
> 
> 
> 

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[Richard Riehle]

Jim Rogers wrote:

> This is a wonderful article. It gives support to the idea that
> off the shelf hardware and software is more reliable and better
> than Mil Spec hardware and software.

We must be a little careful about sour grapes.   Of course they used
a language other than Ada.   There is no Ada compiler available for
the CE operating system.   If there were, it would have been just as
successful, maybe even more so, than the language they used.

This is not a language issue.   It is a competency issue.   Apparently
the Raytheon engineers simply lacked the compentence to do the
job they were supposed to do.    Also,  the "old government programming
language" was probably Ada 83, not Ada 95.   I am often amazed to see how
many DoD contractors have still avoided upgrading their software
development processes to Ada 95 and still use Ada 83.

Richard Riehle

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Note that the Silicon Valley solution does not work properly for
> 10 days of use. Clearly, the problem the Silicon Valley gurus had
> is that they do not understand "the old government" programming
> language.
>
> What makes Windows CE more reliable than a true real time OS?
> What makes off-the-shelf software work better under DoD
> environments. The answer is simple. Their system almost works
> and they have avoided most of the reliability requirements.
> I also suspect they have avoided DoD frequency requirements
> as well as DoD message specifications such as the Joint Variable
> Message Format. Wait until they get to the system integration
> tests where the Land Warrior must communicate with systems that
> actually follow DoD specifications. Success may be spelled
> differently at that point.
>
> Isn't Silicon Valley arrogance beautiful? They know all that is
> useful. Anything they do not know must be useless.
>
> Jim Rogers
> Colorado Springs, Colorado USA
>
> Ken Garlington wrote:
>
> > (A quick excerpt from a recent USA Today article:)
> >
> > "The early Land Warrior software rarely worked... To troubleshoot, in early
> > 1999 Jette brought in high-tech consultants Exponent, a Silicon Valley firm
> > that studies engineering and structural failures and accidents. The firm
> > felt that Raytheon had followed Army specs for the project too closely. The
> > old prototype had to be trashed and a new computer and radio system built...
> > The Silicon Valley engineers slapped together a crude model in three months.
> > They went to retailers Best Buy and Fry's Electronics and bought several
> > cheap, off-the-shelf products, including Microsoft Windows CE software and a
> > wireless card to allow Land Warrior computers to send data. The most
> > critical technical step: They wrote the software in common programming
> > language used by most software engineers, rather than using old government
> > programming language, as Raytheon had.... Soldiers say the newest Land
> > Warrior is the best version yet... Its Microsoft Windows 2000 software still
> > has bugs but is nearing the project goal of 10 days of use without breaking
> > down."
> >
> > (The full article can be found at:)
> >
> > http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/02/07/tech-military.htm
> >
> >
> >

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[Hyman Rosen]

Richard Riehle wrote:
> This is not a language issue.   It is a competency issue.

Heh. You know I'm eventually going to have to quote this
back to you :-)

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[Richard Riehle]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Richard Riehle wrote:
> > This is not a language issue.   It is a competency issue.
>
> Heh. You know I'm eventually going to have to quote this
> back to you :-)

Most software debacles of this sort can be traced back to
poor requiremenents plannning.    The failure of Raytheon,
as described in the article, sounds like a failure to ask,
"What problem are we trying to solve and what is the
context in which we are trying to solve it?"    If one is
solving the wrong problem, no collection of development
tools is going to make a difference.

It seems the engineers from Silicon Valley took the time to
ask the fundamental questions.    They knew what problem
they wanted to solve.   Their choice of development tools,
once started, might have been better.   Windows CE may not
be the most reliable operating system but it does the job,
for now.   Let's see how it holds up in the field after it has
been on the job for a longer period of time.

My original point was that, Ada was never the culprit here. I
have seen developers blame Ada for their own incompetency
before.   When one large company mismanged its contract to
build an ATC and failed to meet its contractual goals, it found
it easy to blame Ada.  Pure silliness, but they needed some
excuse for their failure.   Meanwhile, other companies have
done excellent ATC software using Ada.

Of course, your point, not too subtly lying beneath the surface
of your warning (I did see the smiley) is that language would
not matter.   On this we disagree.    The more experience I
have with C++, and the more I study it, the more convinced
I am that it is more error-prone than Ada.  While I agree that
one can (underscore can), build reliable software with C++,
it is more difficult to ensure the dependability of the final
product.  We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Language does matter once one has decided what problem is
to be solved.   However, if one has made poor choices in
the problem analysis stage, no  engineering expertise, programming
language, or development method will save them from creating
a dumb solution.

Richard Riehle

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[Marin David Condic]

Just a side-bar on this one. It can often be extremely difficult and costly
to change a language version on an existing DoD system - depending on
exactly what the nature of the systems is. If the system has really high
reliability requirements and expensive testing/verification needs, you can
easily get to the point where you can't even accept a later release of the
same compiler you are using. So it isn't always fair to pick on a contractor
for not jumping to accept Ada95.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Richard Riehle" <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message
news:3C675F89.2BC474E@adaworks.com...
> job they were supposed to do.    Also,  the "old government programming
> language" was probably Ada 83, not Ada 95.   I am often amazed to see how
> many DoD contractors have still avoided upgrading their software
> development processes to Ada 95 and still use Ada 83.
>

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[David Starner]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:11:09 GMT, Ken Garlington <ken.garlington@computer.org> wrote:
> wireless card to allow Land Warrior computers to send data. The most
> critical technical step: They wrote the software in common programming
> language used by most software engineers, rather than using old government
> programming language, as Raytheon had.... Soldiers say the newest Land
> Warrior is the best version yet... 

The soliders complain about it being overweight and clunky, and the most
critical step has to do with the programming language? On the other
hand, I don't recall hearing about a Windows CE targetted Ada compiler 
. . .

-- 
David Starner - starner@okstate.edu
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing 
with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[Jim Rogers]

David Starner wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:11:09 GMT, Ken Garlington <ken.garlington@computer.org> wrote:
> 
>>wireless card to allow Land Warrior computers to send data. The most
>>critical technical step: They wrote the software in common programming
>>language used by most software engineers, rather than using old government
>>programming language, as Raytheon had.... Soldiers say the newest Land
>>Warrior is the best version yet... 
>>
> 
> The soliders complain about it being overweight and clunky, and the most
> critical step has to do with the programming language? On the other
> hand, I don't recall hearing about a Windows CE targetted Ada compiler 


And why was Windows CE the only choice for operating systems?
We all know there are other real time operating systems on the market.
We also know that many of those other real time operating systems
support Ada.

Are you implying that the system worked because Windows CE was chosen
over other real time OS's? I find that very hard to believe.

I still wonder how well this little gem integrates into the overall
battlefield communication system using only off the shelf components
and a "quickie" software development. I expect it would take more than
three months to develop the parser for the Army's variable message
protocol.

I also wonder just how close to acceptance testing this gem is.
It is one thing to claim success as a system supplier. It is
another thing to pass DoD acceptance testing. I suspect the
customer has severe requirements concerning reliability,
maintainability, and weight. These requirements normally exceed
the performance of off the shelf hardware systems.

Jim Rogers

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[David Starner]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1003 bytes --]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:27:00 GMT, Jim Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> And why was Windows CE the only choice for operating systems?
> We all know there are other real time operating systems on the market.
> We also know that many of those other real time operating systems
> support Ada.

Do you chose your OS based on which languages are supported with it? Or
do you chose your language based on which OS it works on? In an optimal
world, you wouldn't be forced to make that decision. In real life, on
desktop systems, I find myself picking the OS and chosing the languages
to use based on that. I don't do things in Visual Basic or PL/1 or
Fortran 95 in part because Linux doesn't have a free compiler for me to
use. Such is life.
 
-- 
David Starner / Давид Старнзр - starner@okstate.edu
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing 
with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[Warner Bruns]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1401 bytes --]

In article <a492rd$aik1@news.cis.okstate.edu>, David Starner
<dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> writes:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:27:00 GMT, Jim Rogers
<jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > And why was Windows CE the only choice for operating systems?
> > We all know there are other real time operating systems on the market.
> > We also know that many of those other real time operating systems
> > support Ada.
> 
> Do you chose your OS based on which languages are supported with it? Or
> do you chose your language based on which OS it works on? In an optimal
> world, you wouldn't be forced to make that decision. In real life, on
> desktop systems, I find myself picking the OS and chosing the languages
> to use based on that. I don't do things in Visual Basic or PL/1 or
> Fortran 95 in part because Linux doesn't have a free compiler for me to
> use. Such is life.
>  
> -- 
> David Starner / Давид Старнзр - starner@okstate.edu
> Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
> What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing 
> with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."

 This is wrong.
 For Linux on Alpha, Compaq gives you at least free access to 
 a Fortran-95 Compiler which is of very high quality.
 For Linux on Intel-x86 or Itanium, Intel gives you free access
 to their compilers, which are at least usable.

 Warner

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[Ken Garlington]

"Jim Rogers" <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C67C694.4090200@worldnet.att.net...

[snip]

> I suspect the
> customer has severe requirements concerning reliability,
> maintainability, and weight. These requirements normally exceed
> the performance of off the shelf hardware systems.

You may want to read the full article:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/02/07/tech-military.htm

"The firms - Pacific Consultants, Exponent, Pemstar and Computer Sciences -
ignored rigid Army specifications and brainstormed ideas. They lightened the
Land Warrior computer harness, wrote new software and worked closely with
soldiers. Today, the new Land Warrior is earning rave reviews from troops
testing it. 'A dramatic improvement,' says Army Lt. Col. Scott Crizer.
Military officials say 48,000 Land Warrior outfits may roll out by 2004 to
be used by Army troops in training and combat... in early 1999 Jette brought
in high-tech consultants Exponent, a Silicon Valley firm that studies
engineering and structural failures and accidents. The firm felt that
Raytheon had followed Army specs for the project too closely."

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[Jim Rogers]

Ken Garlington wrote:

> 
> You may want to read the full article:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/02/07/tech-military.htm

I did. I find some of the conclusions of the article a bit shaky.
It is clear that the systems built by Raytheon met the contract
specifications and failed the needs of the soldiers. This appears
to be a failure of the Army Project Office in charge of the
Raytheon contract.

The soldiers using the equipment do not write the contracts and
requirements. They specify their needs to the Procject Office,
which then produces requirements documents and awards / manages
the contracts. It appears that the system broke down in the middle.
Raytheon performed according to its contract. To do otherwise would
have been illegal. The Silicon Valley teams were allowed to interact
directly with the end users of the products and produce a
prototype based upon those interactions. They were not burdened
with a previous set of requirements stated by the Project Office.

In classical Army development arrangements the Project Office becomes
the purchasing agent. It acts as an intermediary between the end
user and the contractor. This is supposed to provide improved
communication and contract control for the Army. In this case it
appears that the Project Office did not accurately communicate the
customer requirements to the contractor. The project office then
developed and managed a contract based upon its faulty requirements.

It will be interesting to see how well the COTS approach works in
severe environments. I remember one project using a COTS liquid
crystal display that completely froze up during a Bosnian Winter.
The Army did not test for that problem before deploying the
system. The solution was the addition of a heater system for the
liquid crystal display. This small addition had a major impact on
system electrical requirements, system start up time, and overall
weight.

It could be that the Project Office had designed requirements with
such problems in mind. The resulting system was very heavy and
consumed too much power. Anyone can build a system that works well
through California Summers and Winters. How well will the same
system work at 14000 foot (4000 meter) altitudes at -40 degrees?

Jim Rogers

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <3C68AF0B.6030903@worldnet.att.net>, Jim Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> It could be that the Project Office had designed requirements with
> such problems in mind. The resulting system was very heavy and
> consumed too much power. Anyone can build a system that works well
> through California Summers and Winters. How well will the same
> system work at 14000 foot (4000 meter) altitudes at -40 degrees?

It was proven 10 years ago that contemporary use of US military is in
flat desert areas with warm weather, much like California.  :-)

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[Jim Rogers]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:

> In article <3C68AF0B.6030903@worldnet.att.net>, Jim Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> 
> 
>>It could be that the Project Office had designed requirements with
>>such problems in mind. The resulting system was very heavy and
>>consumed too much power. Anyone can build a system that works well
>>through California Summers and Winters. How well will the same
>>system work at 14000 foot (4000 meter) altitudes at -40 degrees?
>>
> 
> It was proven 10 years ago that contemporary use of US military is in
> flat desert areas with warm weather, much like California.  :-)


Yes, like the Hindu Kush. :-)

Jim Rogers

 

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[Marin David Condic]

I hear tell that it was pretty hot, wet and muddy in the rice paddies and
jungles of Vietnam. More recently, the weather is pretty cold and the
terrain mountanous in Afganastan. And they tell me it gets pretty cold &
snowy in Korea too. It might not be a safe assumption that the next war will
be in California. :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
news:YrD8B7VV7eTB@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> In article <3C68AF0B.6030903@worldnet.att.net>, Jim Rogers
<jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> It was proven 10 years ago that contemporary use of US military is in
> flat desert areas with warm weather, much like California.  :-)

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[David Gillon]

Jim Rogers wrote:
> 
> Ken Garlington wrote:
> 
> >
> > You may want to read the full article:
> >
> > http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/02/07/tech-military.htm
> 
> I did. I find some of the conclusions of the article a bit shaky.
> It is clear that the systems built by Raytheon met the contract
> specifications and failed the needs of the soldiers. This appears
> to be a failure of the Army Project Office in charge of the
> Raytheon contract.

Everything I've seen on Land Warrior over the past several years has
said that the power requirements have been a major bugbear, with the
troops loaded down to an unacceptable degree by the battery pack it
required. It's obvious that the system had to expect several major
design iterations, particularly of hardware, to get down to something
useful and it looks like Raytheon (for whatever reason) threw a tantrum
when asked to take on outside help for the next iteration. It also looks
like a lot of the criticism in the article is of the initial prototypes,
not the final Raytheon standard, so is hardly fair. It may well be the
problem is as much in the project office as the contractor, but I
suspect all that talk about software is a distraction from the real
issues, which looks to have been a major 'throw it away and start again'
hardware redesign which got the weight down to something usable.

> It will be interesting to see how well the COTS approach works in
> severe environments. I remember one project using a COTS liquid
> crystal display that completely froze up during a Bosnian Winter.
> The Army did not test for that problem before deploying the
> system. The solution was the addition of a heater system for the
> liquid crystal display. This small addition had a major impact on
> system electrical requirements, system start up time, and overall
> weight.
> 
> It could be that the Project Office had designed requirements with
> such problems in mind. The resulting system was very heavy and
> consumed too much power. Anyone can build a system that works well
> through California Summers and Winters. How well will the same
> system work at 14000 foot (4000 meter) altitudes at -40 degrees?

I'll be interested to find out just how much EM radiation the Silicon
Valley version is leaking compared to Raytheon's version--the last thing
you want is every soldier on the battlefield radiating a 'here-I-am'
signal for the opposition's ELINT guys to triangulate and pass on to
their artillery.... And IIRC correctly, one of the requirements of Land
Warrior is for the soldier to be able to point his rifle at a target and
the system to automatically calculate the target's position based on the
soldier's current GPS-derived coordinates, rifle attitude and the range
to the target derived from it's laser-rangefinder, then to pass that
info on directly to the artillery or air support. That makes Land
Warrior safety critical and they may have bought themselves future V&V
problems by going with the fast-track non-Ada approach. We've seen in
Afghanistan what can happen if GPS guided weapons are given the wrong
coordinates....

-- 

David Gillon

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[tmoran]

> It will be interesting to see how well the COTS approach works in
  Having just found that my nice new COTS Wintel machine executes
    End_Time := Ada.Calendar.Clock + 5.0;
    while Ada.Calendar.Clock < End_Time loop null;end loop;
in a fraction of a second, I'm very interested in seeing how well
their COTS Wintel machine works.  #.#

Re: Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear

[Preben Randhol]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:11:09 GMT, Ken Garlington wrote:

> Its Microsoft Windows 2000 software still has bugs but is nearing the
> project goal of 10 days of use without breaking down."

So the *goal* is 10 days without breaking down. Lets hope these soldiers
can do their job in less than 10 days then. Sad to see that the quality
of software is not important as long as it is cheap. I think it comes
from that everybody *expects* programs to crash. It reminds me of an
error message I used to get in "good old" Win 3.11: "Error: No Error" or
this strip: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990302

I just hope that things will change before something really bad happens. 
-- 
Preben Randhol         �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�