Troubles dividing the VME board industry could have been avoided

By John Keller
Posted by John Keller

I worried about this, I warned of this, and now it's happening: companies in the VME board industry are choosing up sides in a fight over industry standards to make the VITA 46 VPX high speed serial bus interoperable in commercial and military systems across the board.

Everybody in the single board computer industry knows his community must agree on standards for uniform board sizes, connectors, and other technical aspects of the VPX standard high-speed serial databus. Otherwise this promising new technology will stumble in its bid to gain market momentum and appeal among the big military system integrators like Boeing, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman.

The stakes couldn't be higher, because VPX is considered to represent the future of this entire industry. The problem is this: the military board community can't settle on how to move forward with setting these open system standards for embedded computing.

On one side of this dispute, we have five companies that want to break away from the established standards group for this industry, the VITA Standards Organization (VSO) in Fountain Hills, Ariz. The break-away group is called the OpenVPX Industry Work Group, and its members include Mercury Computer Systems Inc. of Chelmsford, Mass.; Aitech Defense Systems in Chatsworth, Calif.; GE Fanuc Intelligent Platforms in Charlottesville, Va.; Hybricon in Ayer, Mass.; Tracewell Systems in Westerville, Ohio.

On the other side are four companies that want the industry to work within the VITA Standards Organization so as not to give any perceived advantage in VPX innovations to any company or group of companies. These are Curtiss-Wright Controls Embedded Computing in Leesburg, Va.; Elma Electronic Inc. in Fremont, Calif.; Carlo Gavazzi Computing Solutions in Brockton, Mass.; and Extreme Engineering Solutions Inc. (X-ES) in Middleton, Wis.

So we have the OpenVPX Five against the VSO Four. You're kidding yourself if you think the other companies in this industry are not under intense pressure to chooses sides and declare allegiances.

More importantly, what does this industry discord say to the big systems integrators in the U.S. defense industry that for years have come to depend so heavily on VME technology like VPX? At best, the big defense companies will want to delay design decisions until the controversy dies down. At worst, they'll get disgusted and look elsewhere for the technology they need.

Among these divided forces are some of the biggest and most influential companies in the embedded computing industry. All are fierce competitors, with no love lost between them. There's enough to divide this industry as it is without competing standards organizations.

So how did it come to this?

First, the VITA Standards Organization ignored repeated appeals from its members to move quickly on VPX interoperability standards so they wouldn't miss market opportunities. I understand some of these appeals came directly from VITA Executive Director Ray Alderman, as well as from other influential industry old-hands.

As a result, leaders of the companies that would comprise the OpenVPX Five believed they couldn't wait on the slow-moving VITA Standards Organization any longer. They believed it was crucial, for themselves and for the future of VPX technology, to move on -- with or without the VSO, and so they did. In all honesty, I can't blame them for doing so.

The mistake the OpenVPX Five made was in not initially inviting everyone in the military embedded computing community to join them. Right off the bat, this group alienated others in the industry who thought the OpenVPX group was moving furtively and with only a select group of companies to do an end-run around those not invited to be part of the group.

Since then, the OpenVPX group has put out the word that their organization is open to anyone who wants to join, but unfortunately the damage has been done. Those not initially invited to join are hurt, suspicious, and ready to organize on their own. It will take a long time to rebuild this kind of devastated trust.

For the VSO Four and their supporters, you can't blame them for being mad. They thought they were getting the kind of standards-building mutual support their industry needed by being members of VITA. Formation of the OpenVPX group was a surprise, and it changed all the rules.

Some people involved with the OpenVPX group are honestly surprised at the industry backlash their group has caused. One member told me -- and rightly, I believe -- that the OpenVPX group could do this industry a lot of good, if people would just quit taking shots at it.

So the OpenVPX group could help boost this industry up if its detractors would fall into line. On the other hand, the VITA Standards Organization also could do the industry a lot of good if its members would get off their butts and take VPX interoperability standards seriously.

Something had better happen fast, before it's too late for this industry.

Easily post a comment below using your Linkedin, Twitter, Google or Facebook account.

Previous Blog Posts

Capital Hill budget deal could restore tens of billions of dollars to the Pentagon

December 17, 2013

Hacker drone story a cautionary tale about the need for unmanned vehicle data security

December 10, 2013

Lack of money for systems upgrades threatens to maintain wind-farm radar dead spots

December 3, 2013

Engineering support contracts indicate the Pentagon is sinking into the Mothball Strategy

November 26, 2013

The revenge of COTS: an ageing commercial technology base complicates military supply chain

November 19, 2013

Navy's newest destroyers evolve to fill traditional battleship roles

November 12, 2013

International suspicions of U.S. encryption technology putting defense companies in a bind

November 5, 2013

Defense industry left guessing as Army struggles forward with an unclear mission

October 29, 2013

These are tough times for the combat vehicle and vetronics industries

October 22, 2013

Is the government shutdown a harbinger of more ominous things to come?

October 15, 2013

Government shutdown reduces military contracting, increasing pressure on U.S. defense industry

October 7, 2013

Potential good news: has U.S. defense spending finally bottomed-out?

October 1, 2013

Is robotics revolution the first glimpse of a fundamental change in human evolution?

September 24, 2013

Obsolescent parts: are we enhancing military readiness or creating a hollow force?

September 17, 2013

For the high-tech warfighter, the future of electronics-laden uniforms is here

September 10, 2013

New generation of embedded computing thermal management in development at GE

September 3, 2013

Trading bus stops for credit cards: how far embedded computing has come in three decades

August 27, 2013

Unmanned vehicle industry stands at the doorstep of a fundamental transformation

August 20, 2013

AUVSI 2013, one of the biggest unmanned vehicles shows in the world, opens this week in Washington

August 13, 2013

The Washington Post, under Jeff Bezos, could lead the way for media in the 21st Century

August 6, 2013

Are costs and vulnerabilities making military leaders nervous about satellite communications?

July 30, 2013

Unmanned aircraft carrier that travels beneath the waves may be in the Navy's future

July 23, 2013

Electronic warfare programs kick into high gear with a flurry of contract activity

July 16, 2013

How vulnerable are U.S. Navy vessels to advanced anti-ship cruise missiles?

July 9, 2013

First came VHSIC, then came MIMIC, and now comes ACE to push electronics technology

July 2, 2013

The Mil & Aero Bloggers

John Keller is editor-in-chief of Military & Aerospace Electronics magazine, which provides extensive coverage and analysis of enabling electronic and optoelectronic technologies in military, space, and commercial aviation applications. A member of the Military & Aerospace Electronics staff since the magazine's founding in 1989, Mr. Keller took over as chief editor in 1995.

Ernesto Burden is the publisher of PennWell’s Aerospace & Defense Media Group, including Military & Aerospace Electronics, Avionics Intelligence and Avionics Europe.  He’s a father of four, a runner, and an avid digital media enthusiast with a deep background in the intersection of media publishing, digital technology, and social media. He can be reached at ernestob@pennwell.com and on Twitter @aero_ernesto.

Courtney E. Howard, as executive editor, enjoys writing about all things electronics and avionics in PennWell’s burgeoning Aerospace and Defense Group, which encompasses Military & Aerospace Electronics, Avionics Intelligence, the Avionics Europe conference, and much more. She’s also a self-proclaimed social-media maven, mil-aero nerd, and avid avionics geek. Connect with Courtney at Courtney@Pennwell.com, @coho on Twitter, and on LinkedIn.

Mil & Aero Magazine

December 2013
Volume 24, Issue 12
file

All Access Sponsors


Download Our Apps



iPhone

iPad

Android

Connect with Us



Newsletters

Military & Aerospace Electronics

Weekly newsletter covering technical content, breaking news and product information
SUBSCRIBE

Defense Executive

Monthly newsletter covering business news and strategic insights for executive managers
SUBSCRIBE

Embedded Computing Report

Monthly newsletter covering news on embedded computing in aerospace, defense and industrial-rugged applications
SUBSCRIBE

Unmanned Vehicles

Monthly newsletter covering news updates for designers of unmanned vehicles
SUBSCRIBE