13 ms·

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 t

by 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.
    - xixi77 11y ago
      Also, we certainly haven't lost the war economically from a loss of just one carrier -- we have a few. Our opponents (whoever they might be) would though. It's not a bad example actually -- US economy and military spending are so far ahead of competition, that if we can keep $$ losses under ~1 to 5 (their 1 to our 5, that is), and probably much more than that if you account for production capabilities and strength of the economy, that any opponent would be economically devastated. WW2 and the cold war demonstrated that quite well: Soviet costs were technically lower in absolute terms, but in relation to the size of the economy they were absolutely destructive.
      - dmichulke 11y ago
        A loss of a carrier doesn't incur by itself any economic cost, however building it does. Your Soviet analogy makes sense, even though their mistake was building it (and not losing it - I don't know about great losses of the Soviets after 45) Also, IANA expert but I think carriers today only make sense against pre-missile and pre-jet militaries. IMO a carrier can only operate under air superiority and effective missile defense one of which probably even small countries can contest these days.
        xixi77 11y ago
        I think opinions also vary on that one, and effectiveness of anti-ship missiles vs carriers has obviously not been combat tested -- a carrier group has a lot of means to defend against cruise missile attacks though, the aircraft themselves being a pretty major one. There have been developments on both sides of that equation, but I doubt anyone who actually knows much about the current state of affairs is going to tell us :) One problem with the missile strategy (which is the one Soviets tried) is that even if you might be able to cost-effectively attack a carrier group with missile cruisers, they are pretty much useless for anything else.
        gaius 11y ago
        Also, IANA expert but I think carriers today only make sense against pre-missile and pre-jet militaries. The Falklands war suggests otherwise. The Argentines had the most advanced weapons the French would sell them.
- pravda 11y ago
  Defense contractors need fighter jets. Drones are too cheap. https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/cheap-drones/ https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/cheap-drones/ How many drones would it take to get $500 billion into the bank accounts of defense contractors?
  - clock_tower 11y ago
    At a guess, enough drones to blot out the sun. Give each infantry fire team its own drone, maybe? :P
- hh2222 11y ago
  "Who wants or needs a fighter jet in this day and age" sounds similar to the reason given to Canadians when the Avro Arrow was cancelled in the 1950’s. At that time, the reasoning was new missile technology obsoleted fighter planes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow Many Canadian aerospace engineers went to work for NASA on the Apollo program.
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  Ask the populace of Ukraine what modern warfare looks like, because the US and its allies haven't been fighting any modern wars for a while. Russia and China haven't stood still over the past 15 years while we've been otherwise engaged. What we've done with drones has been excellent, but you're not going to be loitering for hours over enemy airspace in a "modern war" against even a close peer adversary. Drones have a part to play in modern warfare - and some of the smaller man portable versions are going to be revolutionary. But the ones capable of playing in the big leagues where you'd quite like them to come back are just as expensive as manned aircraft.
  - 7952 11y ago
    > the ones capable of playing in the big leagues where you'd quite like them to come back are just as expensive as manned aircraft. Yes, the US relies on expensive technology in either drones or manned aircraft. What they are loosing is the ability to have pilots get close to the enemy and actually utilise their eyes.
    - cptskippy 11y ago
      I guess a question I have is does the lack of pilot eyes on the target present a problem? It seems like the move is away from pilots having eyes on target because it puts them at greater risk. The primary weapon of most CAS aircraft, with the AC-130 being a notable exception, are guided missiles. One of the notable upgrades to the Apache Longbow was the Hellfire II launch system that introduced fire and forget capability so that the Apache, or ground forces, didn't need to paint the target until the missile hit. Has the effectiveness of CAS aircraft gone down with the introduction of these types of systems?
      - Recurecur 11y ago
        Actually the Apache has a reasonably effective 30mm cannon that works well in many CAS situations. As far as guided weapons go, the GPS guided bombs are the preferred CAS solution. Current laser designators compute the map coordinates of target locations. These are then uploaded to the aircraft, and then to the weapons. Shortly thereafter the weapons land within a couple of meters of the designated spot. The "eyes on the target" are the eyes of the ground troops, who have the greatest interest in eliminating said target. The use of GPS guided bombs means that CAS aircraft can loiter at fairly high altitudes (> 5000 ft), and drop munitions as needed. This eliminates the need for titanium bathtubs and the like.
- jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
  The navy tried to pull out of the program at one point, Robert Gates yanked the leash hard to keep them in line.
  - alanh 11y ago
    Interesting. Where did you learn this?
  - georgeecollins 11y ago
    The navy has a much better case for drones. They need to attack at a very long range to avoid land based missiles. They are likely to strike targets that are strategic like airfields or ships, which are easier to identify. Still probably a good idea for carriers to have a mix of manned and unmanned aircraft.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago
You nailed it perfectly. I've dealt with this problem so many times in my career it makes me sick. Continual pounding on hardware/systems to let them realize that we really can't finish software without actual hardware (simulators only go so far) and that a few weeks of integration at the end of a multiyear hardware/software/chemistry project just ain't gonna cut it. So glad I finally got out of that industry!

by gvb 11y ago

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.
  - xixi77 11y ago
    Also, we certainly haven't lost the war economically from a loss of just one carrier -- we have a few. Our opponents (whoever they might be) would though. It's not a bad example actually -- US economy and military spending are so far ahead of competition, that if we can keep $$ losses under ~1 to 5 (their 1 to our 5, that is), and probably much more than that if you account for production capabilities and strength of the economy, that any opponent would be economically devastated. WW2 and the cold war demonstrated that quite well: Soviet costs were technically lower in absolute terms, but in relation to the size of the economy they were absolutely destructive.
    - dmichulke 11y ago
      A loss of a carrier doesn't incur by itself any economic cost, however building it does. Your Soviet analogy makes sense, even though their mistake was building it (and not losing it - I don't know about great losses of the Soviets after 45) Also, IANA expert but I think carriers today only make sense against pre-missile and pre-jet militaries. IMO a carrier can only operate under air superiority and effective missile defense one of which probably even small countries can contest these days.
      - xixi77 11y ago
        I think opinions also vary on that one, and effectiveness of anti-ship missiles vs carriers has obviously not been combat tested -- a carrier group has a lot of means to defend against cruise missile attacks though, the aircraft themselves being a pretty major one. There have been developments on both sides of that equation, but I doubt anyone who actually knows much about the current state of affairs is going to tell us :) One problem with the missile strategy (which is the one Soviets tried) is that even if you might be able to cost-effectively attack a carrier group with missile cruisers, they are pretty much useless for anything else.
      - gaius 11y ago
        Also, IANA expert but I think carriers today only make sense against pre-missile and pre-jet militaries. The Falklands war suggests otherwise. The Argentines had the most advanced weapons the French would sell them.
pravda 11y ago
Defense contractors need fighter jets. Drones are too cheap. https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/cheap-drones/ https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/cheap-drones/ How many drones would it take to get $500 billion into the bank accounts of defense contractors?
- clock_tower 11y ago
  At a guess, enough drones to blot out the sun. Give each infantry fire team its own drone, maybe? :P
hh2222 11y ago
"Who wants or needs a fighter jet in this day and age" sounds similar to the reason given to Canadians when the Avro Arrow was cancelled in the 1950’s. At that time, the reasoning was new missile technology obsoleted fighter planes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow Many Canadian aerospace engineers went to work for NASA on the Apollo program.
cmdkeen 11y ago
Ask the populace of Ukraine what modern warfare looks like, because the US and its allies haven't been fighting any modern wars for a while. Russia and China haven't stood still over the past 15 years while we've been otherwise engaged. What we've done with drones has been excellent, but you're not going to be loitering for hours over enemy airspace in a "modern war" against even a close peer adversary. Drones have a part to play in modern warfare - and some of the smaller man portable versions are going to be revolutionary. But the ones capable of playing in the big leagues where you'd quite like them to come back are just as expensive as manned aircraft.
- 7952 11y ago
  > the ones capable of playing in the big leagues where you'd quite like them to come back are just as expensive as manned aircraft. Yes, the US relies on expensive technology in either drones or manned aircraft. What they are loosing is the ability to have pilots get close to the enemy and actually utilise their eyes.
  - cptskippy 11y ago
    I guess a question I have is does the lack of pilot eyes on the target present a problem? It seems like the move is away from pilots having eyes on target because it puts them at greater risk. The primary weapon of most CAS aircraft, with the AC-130 being a notable exception, are guided missiles. One of the notable upgrades to the Apache Longbow was the Hellfire II launch system that introduced fire and forget capability so that the Apache, or ground forces, didn't need to paint the target until the missile hit. Has the effectiveness of CAS aircraft gone down with the introduction of these types of systems?
    - Recurecur 11y ago
      Actually the Apache has a reasonably effective 30mm cannon that works well in many CAS situations. As far as guided weapons go, the GPS guided bombs are the preferred CAS solution. Current laser designators compute the map coordinates of target locations. These are then uploaded to the aircraft, and then to the weapons. Shortly thereafter the weapons land within a couple of meters of the designated spot. The "eyes on the target" are the eyes of the ground troops, who have the greatest interest in eliminating said target. The use of GPS guided bombs means that CAS aircraft can loiter at fairly high altitudes (> 5000 ft), and drop munitions as needed. This eliminates the need for titanium bathtubs and the like.
jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
The navy tried to pull out of the program at one point, Robert Gates yanked the leash hard to keep them in line.
- alanh 11y ago
  Interesting. Where did you learn this?
- georgeecollins 11y ago
  The navy has a much better case for drones. They need to attack at a very long range to avoid land based missiles. They are likely to strike targets that are strategic like airfields or ships, which are easier to identify. Still probably a good idea for carriers to have a mix of manned and unmanned aircraft.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago

You nailed it perfectly. I've dealt with this problem so many times in my career it makes me sick. Continual pounding on hardware/systems to let them realize that we really can't finish software without actual hardware (simulators only go so far) and that a few weeks of integration at the end of a multiyear hardware/software/chemistry project just ain't gonna cut it. So glad I finally got out of that industry!