4 ms·

Am I reading this right? The software has bugs, so it limits flying time, so it limits testing, so they're reducing the number of tests it has to make to qualif

Am I reading this right? The software has bugs, so it limits flying time, so it limits testing, so they're reducing the number of tests it has to make to qualify? That's like going "QA is identifying a lot of bugs. QA are a problem. Fire QA. There we go. No more bug reports.". This'll end as well as it has gone so far - I wonder how many pilots will need to die from malfunctioning hardware and software for them to consider a different course of action.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
This is how I read this as well. I would not want to be an F35 pilot.
- pluma 11y ago
  At least they won't have to cancel night flights over too bright cockpits. cough Luftwaffe cough
masklinn 11y ago
> That's like going "QA is identifying a lot of bugs. QA are a problem. Fire QA. There we go. No more bug reports.". That hits so close to home it's a gutshot followed by a knee to the face.
- bluejekyll 11y ago
  While this is meant I think a little tongue-in-cheek, it's always important for everyone to contribute value. QA is vital to the success of any project, if all it is functioning as is a Boolean check at the end that says "good" or "bad" and it keeps spitting out "bad" then it is not providing value. QA needs to be implemented throughout the process, and it needs to be capable of feeding changes into the system at different stages to make sure that it's providing feedback at the earliest possible moment. I know nothing about this project, so I don't know what their issues were along the way. Definitely they need real hardware at the end to test with, but I hope that they had mocked out the expected hardware interfaces such that they could have quicker turnaround earlier in the cycle.
  - crpatino 11y ago
    Bullshit... If the Emperor has no clothes, and QA keep saying "naked", there is value there. The value lies in highlighting the fact that there's a bunch of advisors that either have been actively profiteering from the fake garment con, or where negligent in their duties and failed to notice the problem before. Either party would have strong interest to cover up their negative-value-added actions, but since they cannot directly challenge QA statement, they go and say that "it does not add value". In the strictest sense of the word they are true, QA does not add value, it helps prevent/correct that would destroy already-added value in the product if left unchecked.
    - bluejekyll 11y ago
      Which part exactly is bullshit? The "QA is vital to the success of any project", bit? or the "QA needs to be implemented throughout the process", bit? Because, I'm confused. I quite literally said that QA needs to provide value THROUGHOUT the process to help increase the success (value) of the project. All I said in anyway that disagrees with you, is that it doesn't provide value if it only exists at the END. I can't believe that any modern developer/qa would disagree with that.
      - crpatino 11y ago
        I guess you're right, I overdid the hyperbole. The part I disagree with is looking at a disfunctional system, taking the component producing the loudest symptoms and declaring it "non value added". I agree that, in general, QA needs to provide specific feedback to development in order to accomplish its goals. I disagree with the unstated asumption that the problem with F-35 is a QA problem. I know nothing about planes, but for what I have read online, this has been a basket case of Project Management vices and mispractices. In my mind, claiming that QA is not adding value in this case is the equivalent of "fixing" your car by clipping the cable that goes to the "Engine Maintenance" led. I agree a one bit message is not enough to actually solve the problem, but ignoring the one bit of information you already have is just wrong.
  - pjc50 11y ago
taf2 11y ago
Just delete that test, it was failing anyway
- masklinn 11y ago
  And delete that other test, it always passes it just slows down testing.
  - pc86 11y ago
    I had a physical reaction to reading this comment.
blktiger 11y ago
Actually, this sounds a lot like the F22 program. They had tons of software bugs as well and management basically came in and told them they were behind schedule to screw testing and get back on schedule.
gvb 11y ago
Two quotes: The reasoning, explained at Aviation Week, was that Lockheed Martin couldn't put together enough units [F-35s - gvb] in that configuration to run the Block 2B OUE in time. The Block 2B tests were also impacted by restrictions imposed after a June 2013 engine failure in an F-35A unit. That impacted software tests, because the restricted flying hours “reduced the number of accessible test points”. It looks like there are not enough F-35s in the correct configuration to run the tests. Unfortunately, this is typical of all programs I've been involved in in my career - software development gets starved for hardware and software test gets screwed over for lack of both hardware and software. The reason is simple: hardware is first in the timeline, software is second and gets hammered by hardware slips, and test is last and gets nailed by both hardware and software slips. Nowadays, software can make a lot of progress on surrogate development systems, but software/hardware integration and software/hardware test still requires real hardware.
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  Given how utterly blown their timeline is, I'm surprised that it's even a concern at this point. Safest and most economical option at this juncture would be to chalk it up to experience and walk away. Who wants or needs a fighter jet in this day and age anyway? The tech is increasingly obsolete in modern warfare.
  - camelNotation 11y ago
    Fighter jets and aircraft carriers are basically war penises. Whoever has the coolest, fastest, and most powerful ones will look amazing to the rest of the world, but in the event that someone actually wants to go to war, the penises will be the first to go. No one needs a penis. Hmmm...this analogy fell apart.
    - Justsignedup 11y ago
      I'm pretty sure at some point we will have a cheap, sub-100k drone that would be able to take out this fighter. Okay fine maybe it'd take 30 of those sub-100k drones. But for every take down, the US loses 1 BILLION DOLLARS while probably 20 of the drones survived, so the cost was ~ 1 million. #1 rule of war. Never take to war what you can't afford to lose. It was noted the navy has the same issue. If we lose an aircraft carrier we lost the war economically. At that point its cheaper to just give up.
awqrre 11y ago
I guess the new tests could be allies...

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

This is how I read this as well. I would not want to be an F35 pilot.

pluma 11y ago
At least they won't have to cancel night flights over too bright cockpits. cough Luftwaffe cough

masklinn 11y ago

> That's like going "QA is identifying a lot of bugs. QA are a problem. Fire QA. There we go. No more bug reports.". That hits so close to home it's a gutshot followed by a knee to the face.

bluejekyll 11y ago
While this is meant I think a little tongue-in-cheek, it's always important for everyone to contribute value. QA is vital to the success of any project, if all it is functioning as is a Boolean check at the end that says "good" or "bad" and it keeps spitting out "bad" then it is not providing value. QA needs to be implemented throughout the process, and it needs to be capable of feeding changes into the system at different stages to make sure that it's providing feedback at the earliest possible moment. I know nothing about this project, so I don't know what their issues were along the way. Definitely they need real hardware at the end to test with, but I hope that they had mocked out the expected hardware interfaces such that they could have quicker turnaround earlier in the cycle.
- crpatino 11y ago
  Bullshit... If the Emperor has no clothes, and QA keep saying "naked", there is value there. The value lies in highlighting the fact that there's a bunch of advisors that either have been actively profiteering from the fake garment con, or where negligent in their duties and failed to notice the problem before. Either party would have strong interest to cover up their negative-value-added actions, but since they cannot directly challenge QA statement, they go and say that "it does not add value". In the strictest sense of the word they are true, QA does not add value, it helps prevent/correct that would destroy already-added value in the product if left unchecked.
  - bluejekyll 11y ago
    Which part exactly is bullshit? The "QA is vital to the success of any project", bit? or the "QA needs to be implemented throughout the process", bit? Because, I'm confused. I quite literally said that QA needs to provide value THROUGHOUT the process to help increase the success (value) of the project. All I said in anyway that disagrees with you, is that it doesn't provide value if it only exists at the END. I can't believe that any modern developer/qa would disagree with that.
    - crpatino 11y ago
      I guess you're right, I overdid the hyperbole. The part I disagree with is looking at a disfunctional system, taking the component producing the loudest symptoms and declaring it "non value added". I agree that, in general, QA needs to provide specific feedback to development in order to accomplish its goals. I disagree with the unstated asumption that the problem with F-35 is a QA problem. I know nothing about planes, but for what I have read online, this has been a basket case of Project Management vices and mispractices. In my mind, claiming that QA is not adding value in this case is the equivalent of "fixing" your car by clipping the cable that goes to the "Engine Maintenance" led. I agree a one bit message is not enough to actually solve the problem, but ignoring the one bit of information you already have is just wrong.
- pjc50 11y ago

taf2 11y ago

Just delete that test, it was failing anyway

masklinn 11y ago
And delete that other test, it always passes it just slows down testing.
- pc86 11y ago
  I had a physical reaction to reading this comment.

blktiger 11y ago

Actually, this sounds a lot like the F22 program. They had tons of software bugs as well and management basically came in and told them they were behind schedule to screw testing and get back on schedule.

gvb 11y ago

Two quotes: The reasoning, explained at Aviation Week, was that Lockheed Martin couldn't put together enough units [F-35s - gvb] in that configuration to run the Block 2B OUE in time. The Block 2B tests were also impacted by restrictions imposed after a June 2013 engine failure in an F-35A unit. That impacted software tests, because the restricted flying hours “reduced the number of accessible test points”. It looks like there are not enough F-35s in the correct configuration to run the tests. Unfortunately, this is typical of all programs I've been involved in in my career - software development gets starved for hardware and software test gets screwed over for lack of both hardware and software. The reason is simple: hardware is first in the timeline, software is second and gets hammered by hardware slips, and test is last and gets nailed by both hardware and software slips. Nowadays, software can make a lot of progress on surrogate development systems, but software/hardware integration and software/hardware test still requires real hardware.

madaxe_again 11y ago
Given how utterly blown their timeline is, I'm surprised that it's even a concern at this point. Safest and most economical option at this juncture would be to chalk it up to experience and walk away. Who wants or needs a fighter jet in this day and age anyway? The tech is increasingly obsolete in modern warfare.
- camelNotation 11y ago
  Fighter jets and aircraft carriers are basically war penises. Whoever has the coolest, fastest, and most powerful ones will look amazing to the rest of the world, but in the event that someone actually wants to go to war, the penises will be the first to go. No one needs a penis. Hmmm...this analogy fell apart.
  - Justsignedup 11y ago
    I'm pretty sure at some point we will have a cheap, sub-100k drone that would be able to take out this fighter. Okay fine maybe it'd take 30 of those sub-100k drones. But for every take down, the US loses 1 BILLION DOLLARS while probably 20 of the drones survived, so the cost was ~ 1 million. #1 rule of war. Never take to war what you can't afford to lose. It was noted the navy has the same issue. If we lose an aircraft carrier we lost the war economically. At that point its cheaper to just give up.

awqrre 11y ago

I guess the new tests could be allies...