12 ms·

The F-35’s Terrifying Bug List

121 points by bootload 11y ago

spoiledtechie 11y ago
Wanna know why? Because of the good developers don't actually work for the military.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  That's just untrue.
- DrJokepu 11y ago
  I guess then Grace Hopper wasn't a good enough developer for you?
  - dominotw 11y ago
    Isn't that back when people generally believed that American wars are for greater good of the whole world tho?
    - delazeur 11y ago
      Lots of people still believe that, even if it's a less popular opinion in a lot of tech hubs.
    - gnu8 11y ago
      Just manufactured propaganda. The other side believed the same thing.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Your statement is offensive because it's a blanket generality. Maybe if you had said "the government has difficulty attracting top engineering talent because of any number of reasons, including workplace culture, comparatively low pay, etc"...Then that's a point worthy of discussion.
  - fma 11y ago
    F35 is made by Lockheed Martin, a private company, not the US government. The only people involved from the government side would mostly be management paper pushers or engineers who do IV&V work (independent verification and validation). Basically just check boxes that say LM completed XYZ and passed testing.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      Yes, I'm very aware of who makes the F-35. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor and operator of the Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) in Fort Worth, Texas, where the majority of F-35s will be made (all but two to date have been made in Fort Worth, but the other two FACOs in Cameri, Italy, and Nagoya, Japan are now building F-35s). Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems are the other two major players on the team. And you are not quite correct on who the people involved on the government side are. There are management paper pushers, but every engineering team has government engineers working side by side with their contractor counterparts, and the program has been run that way from the start. They do far more than just "check boxes". They have helped with the design and testing all the way through the program.
      - hackuser 11y ago
        > every engineering team has government engineers working side by side with their contractor counterparts I'm curious about the government engineers and their roles: Do you mean aeronautical and other engineers who do the core development and design work? Or do they monitor, provide customer input, ensure quality, and do other oversight of the contractor's engineers? Or something else? Also, whose payroll are they on? Defense Contract Management Agency? Some other Dept of Defense group? Air Force?
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        engi_nerd 11y ago
        The short answer to every one of those questions is: yes. There are government people who were involved with design work from the beginning. There are also engineers who directly participate in test/evaluation (not just in the supervisory roles, either, I mean engineers who are actually doing tests). And there are also those who are in a supervisory role. There are DoD people (from all kinds of agencies), there are DCMA people, people on active duty in the military... With a program this big and that has already lasted over 15 years, the answer is going to be "yes".
- gjkood 11y ago
  Do you think that none of the best scientific minds in America worked on the Manhattan project?
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    The original point may or may not be true. But I don't see how trying to compare the F35 to a project from 70 years ago is relevant.
- madengr 11y ago
  Yes, they are working on sexting apps and ad injection.
- bluejekyll 11y ago
  I've worked with some especially brilliant engineers that came out of the military. In point of fact, the attention to security concerns is generally impressive.
ralfruns 11y ago
How can they claim the F35 "shares many—if not necessarily all—of the same close air support capabilities as the $18.8 million A-10" if it doesn't have a functioning cannon yet [1]. I thought the A-10 is basically a airframe built around a cannon. [1] http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/01/07/f35-gun-on-track/21401907/ http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/20...
- gherkin0 11y ago
  > How can they claim the F35 "shares many—if not necessarily all—of the same close air support capabilities as the $18.8 million A-10" Probably through a lot of box-ticking. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/box-ticking http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/box-ticking
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  That article is more than a year old and doesn't accurately reflect the current state of the gun. Here's the current state. F-35A test aircraft AF-02 has completed initial test firings of the internal gun on the F-35A variant, both on the ground [1] and in flight [2]. The F-35B and F-35C carry their gun externally, in a centerline gun pod [3]. The gun pod has been tested over the past several years [4] on the ground, and will be tested on those variants later this year. The 2017 date in that article you posted refers to when the cannon on all variants will be integrated with the mission systems software. So just as it is disingenuous to say "the F-35 cannon testing is complete" it's also not completely accurate to say "it doesn't have a functioning cannon yet." The engineering reality is more nuanced than that. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoJ93Kb5z0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoJ93Kb5z0 [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEAhFZG022M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEAhFZG022M [3]: http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20120222_O_GR159_001-copy.jpg http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20120222... [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTDomgJooJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTDomgJooJU
- poof131 11y ago
  It’s all smoke. Using the F-35 for CAS is ludicrous. Using 4th and 5th generation aircraft in place of AC-130s [1] and Super Tacanos [2] not only costs more, but is incredibly less effective for the soldiers on the ground. CAS and the F-35 shouldn’t be used in the same sentence. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have cost significantly less (1/4 the total?) if the military hadn’t forced square fighter jets into the round hole of CAS (add up $10k / hr vs $600, plus airborne tankers, plus carriers, plus increased supply costs). Not only did this cost multiples more, provide less effective support to Americans risking their lives on the ground, it damaged the fleet of fighters for other tasks in the future. How many flight hours where burned “in country” on already aging platforms? I know I got some. Senior military aviation leadership boxed themselves into a corner burning up the fleet in ways it shouldn’t have and betting on a do-it-all turd called the F-35. The cannon could fall of this thing and it would be better for everyone. Dog-fighting is dead and people will scream F-4 / Vietnam, but I’d rather have an extra aim-9x than a fucking gun pod in this day and age [3, 4]. So the plane sucks for CAS and the gun pod is irrelevant for BFM. But don’t worry, the plane is so magical who knows. Just know you’re being sold a bill of goods when leadership talks about CAS and the F-35. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#AIM-9X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#AIM-9X
gherkin0 11y ago
I'm curious: how do the F-35's development troubles compare to other recent fighters, like the F-22 or Eurofighter? Are they objectively worse, or are the memories just fresher?
- DrJokepu 11y ago
  The F-16 used to be called "lawn dart" for a reason.
  - gherkin0 11y ago
    Was that due to development problems, though? This article claims the nickname comes from the fact that it's a single-engine fighter: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,154457,00.html http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,154457,00.html > The F-16 is known in Air Force circles as the "lawn dart" for its tendency to plunge back to Earth when its single engine flames out, and in most years, engine failure causes more accidents than any other factor.
    - greedo 11y ago
      The F-16A was a useless fighter; nothing but guns and IR missiles, only useful in good weather. It wasn't until it received a series of upgrades that it became a valuable workhorse. And surprisingly, it became more expensive an heavier in the process.
    - neurotech1 11y ago
      The F-16 has made a successful engine-out landing before, when the conditions allow. Earlier jets like the F-104 were almost impossible to land engine-out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8 And how many F-14s were lost as a result of single-engine handling performance issues? F-14s have departed from controlled flight after one engine stalls, and entered a flat spin. Yes, the scene in Top Gun was somewhat based on real events. A few F/A-18s have been lost due to issues with single-engine performance. The F/A-18 doesn't have as much issues with asymmetric thrust, single engine flight isn't always possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Virginia_Beach_F/A-18_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Virginia_Beach_F/A-18_cra...
noselasd 11y ago
Report is here: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/dod/2015f35jsf.pdf http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/dod/2015f35js...
doodlebugging 11y ago
This is the loudest fighter plane in our inventory. You can hear this thing coming at least a minute before it gets near you and for several minutes after depending on flight direction. I can tell from the sound which of our planes is passing near and this one, the first time I heard it, was clearly not one with which I was familiar. Beautiful plane but obviously a troubled build history. With all the problems noted over the last few years I'm surprised that anyone wants it. The F-22 has had its problems and production was cut at a very low number (I think I read that they wanted to shift gears and go with the F-35). The complexity of these two planes could make them more of a liability in a conflict. It makes more sense to me (as a taxpayer) to spend the defense dollar on things that can be built quickly and for minimal initial cost so that many can be built to replace those lost to attrition in conflict. They should also be purpose-built for specific missions just as we built planes in WW2. We have the technology and we don't need a fleet of flying super-computers that can't fight their way out of the battlespace. Planes are great support tools for infantry and armored units who actually win the wars by taking and holding territory from the enemy. They won't win wars by themselves. Sorry 'bout that, Air Force.
- greedo 11y ago
  Aircraft that "can be built quickly and for minimal initial cost" don't exist. Modern fighter aircraft are complex, expensive machines. The engines alone are a significant portion of the cost. And if you think the F-35 has supercomputers, you're sorely mistaken. Even the F-22 has old, decade old CPUs. The world has moved on since WW2, and the idea of cheap hordes of aircraft, or spinning up the Arsenal of Democracy to build them in wartime just won't fly. Ask the Syrians how well their simple Mig-21s and Mig-23s did in the Bekka Valley in 1982 when they ran up against the Israeli's flying F-15s and F-16s. Turkey shoot doesn't even begin to describe it. If you bring a biplane to a modern dogfight, you'll end up a splat mark on the ground.
  - pippy 11y ago
    >Turkey shoot doesn't even begin to describe it. If you bring a biplane to a modern dogfight, you'll end up a splat mark on the ground. Kind of unfair example, the Israelis had a lot of time to prepare for that battle. On top of that the Syrians knew they didn't stand a chance given their resources. Given any situation you have to fit the resource to meet the need. The United States deploys the EMB 314 Super Tucano to great effect, which is a WW2 style fighter fitted with modern electronics. The F35 in the modern context simply doesn't make sense, as it's simply over engineered and doesn't fit current individual needs.
dudul 11y ago
That's ok. They'll release a hotfix on steam a few weeks after the release. Plus a couple of DLCs to improve the in-flight experience :)
jessaustin 11y ago
After the report came out Monday, Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, of the F-35 program executive office, issued a statement to cast the report’s findings in a rather more flattering light. Perhaps a posting to the Joint Chiefs is out for Gen. Bogdan, but fortunately Lockheed is keeping a senior VP's chair warm for him. One expects we'll see this luminary on the political bloviation shows in five years' time explaining why we must support our brave allies in ISIS against the savage onslaught of the Tehran-backed Zoroastrians, and oh-by-the-way buy a couple hundred more of these flying coffins.
nfriedly 11y ago
Off topic: I love it when websites are 'mobile first' without ever testing on a mobile browser. Every single link has a "new window" icon that's stretched to the entire width of my screen: http://s18.postimg.org/q551s8byh/tmp_14731_Screenshot_2016_02_03_22_07_3213990941.png http://s18.postimg.org/q551s8byh/tmp_14731_Screenshot_2016_0...
- civilian 11y ago
  It's the same on desktop chrome. :3
  - rubberstamp 11y ago
    but..but the ad looks cyber perfect
- shred45 11y ago
  Actually, It just kind of looks like that. I'm really not sure what is going on. http://imgur.com/LCSA2mx http://imgur.com/LCSA2mx
  - nfriedly 11y ago
    I'm not sure if that's better or worse... I think worse.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Same on FF desktop version.
omginternets 11y ago
DefenseOne has a pretty terrifying bug where the page reloads with a frequency of about 2-3 Hz ...
hackuser 11y ago
Most of this sounds like typical teething pains for an exceptionally complex project just reaching version 1.0. “Each new version of software, while adding some new capability, failed to resolve all the deficiencies identified in earlier releases,” Doesn't that describe every software update ever released for any system?
ilurkedhere 11y ago
Aren't fighter pilots obsolete at this point? Much of the complexity in the craft is centered around keeping the poor bastard flying it, alive. Then there are pretty tight limits on how much acceleration the human body can receive. Pilot-less craft don't have those limitions, so I figure they should be much more maneuverable and less expensive.
- ihsw 11y ago
  The tech simply isn't there yet. Conventional fighter jets have more speed, travel and strike range, and more maneuverability. They will outflank drones every time -- I'm not kidding, they stand absolutely zero chance against fighter jets. You could send a couple dozen Reaper drones out and a pair of Su27/F15s would shoot them out of the sky before you can say "Hellfire." Not to mention modern anti-air defense systems would chew through them like candy. What are they good for then? Cheap, high-altitude, medium-range (~1500KM), endurance (>24hr) missions.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Military drones started with the CIA - I listened to the retired director that initiated the effort, on NPR. They used drones in countries who either didn't have radar or had forgotten how to connect it with weapons systems, which included "almost everywhere". They wanted a sustained (24 hour) observation platform in the field, and drones filled the bill. I'm sure they might ultimately get to fighter-jet performance, but at a much greater cost and reduction in mission time.

121 points by bootload 11y ago

spoiledtechie 11y ago

Wanna know why? Because of the good developers don't actually work for the military.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
That's just untrue.
DrJokepu 11y ago
I guess then Grace Hopper wasn't a good enough developer for you?
- dominotw 11y ago
  Isn't that back when people generally believed that American wars are for greater good of the whole world tho?
  - delazeur 11y ago
    Lots of people still believe that, even if it's a less popular opinion in a lot of tech hubs.
  - gnu8 11y ago
    Just manufactured propaganda. The other side believed the same thing.
engi_nerd 11y ago
Your statement is offensive because it's a blanket generality. Maybe if you had said "the government has difficulty attracting top engineering talent because of any number of reasons, including workplace culture, comparatively low pay, etc"...Then that's a point worthy of discussion.
- fma 11y ago
  F35 is made by Lockheed Martin, a private company, not the US government. The only people involved from the government side would mostly be management paper pushers or engineers who do IV&V work (independent verification and validation). Basically just check boxes that say LM completed XYZ and passed testing.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    Yes, I'm very aware of who makes the F-35. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor and operator of the Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) in Fort Worth, Texas, where the majority of F-35s will be made (all but two to date have been made in Fort Worth, but the other two FACOs in Cameri, Italy, and Nagoya, Japan are now building F-35s). Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems are the other two major players on the team. And you are not quite correct on who the people involved on the government side are. There are management paper pushers, but every engineering team has government engineers working side by side with their contractor counterparts, and the program has been run that way from the start. They do far more than just "check boxes". They have helped with the design and testing all the way through the program.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      > every engineering team has government engineers working side by side with their contractor counterparts I'm curious about the government engineers and their roles: Do you mean aeronautical and other engineers who do the core development and design work? Or do they monitor, provide customer input, ensure quality, and do other oversight of the contractor's engineers? Or something else? Also, whose payroll are they on? Defense Contract Management Agency? Some other Dept of Defense group? Air Force?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - engi_nerd 11y ago
        The short answer to every one of those questions is: yes. There are government people who were involved with design work from the beginning. There are also engineers who directly participate in test/evaluation (not just in the supervisory roles, either, I mean engineers who are actually doing tests). And there are also those who are in a supervisory role. There are DoD people (from all kinds of agencies), there are DCMA people, people on active duty in the military... With a program this big and that has already lasted over 15 years, the answer is going to be "yes".
gjkood 11y ago
Do you think that none of the best scientific minds in America worked on the Manhattan project?
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  The original point may or may not be true. But I don't see how trying to compare the F35 to a project from 70 years ago is relevant.
madengr 11y ago
Yes, they are working on sexting apps and ad injection.
bluejekyll 11y ago
I've worked with some especially brilliant engineers that came out of the military. In point of fact, the attention to security concerns is generally impressive.

ralfruns 11y ago

How can they claim the F35 "shares many—if not necessarily all—of the same close air support capabilities as the $18.8 million A-10" if it doesn't have a functioning cannon yet [1]. I thought the A-10 is basically a airframe built around a cannon. [1] http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/01/07/f35-gun-on-track/21401907/ http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/20...

gherkin0 11y ago
> How can they claim the F35 "shares many—if not necessarily all—of the same close air support capabilities as the $18.8 million A-10" Probably through a lot of box-ticking. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/box-ticking http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/box-ticking
engi_nerd 11y ago
That article is more than a year old and doesn't accurately reflect the current state of the gun. Here's the current state. F-35A test aircraft AF-02 has completed initial test firings of the internal gun on the F-35A variant, both on the ground [1] and in flight [2]. The F-35B and F-35C carry their gun externally, in a centerline gun pod [3]. The gun pod has been tested over the past several years [4] on the ground, and will be tested on those variants later this year. The 2017 date in that article you posted refers to when the cannon on all variants will be integrated with the mission systems software. So just as it is disingenuous to say "the F-35 cannon testing is complete" it's also not completely accurate to say "it doesn't have a functioning cannon yet." The engineering reality is more nuanced than that. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoJ93Kb5z0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoJ93Kb5z0 [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEAhFZG022M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEAhFZG022M [3]: http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20120222_O_GR159_001-copy.jpg http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20120222... [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTDomgJooJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTDomgJooJU
poof131 11y ago
It’s all smoke. Using the F-35 for CAS is ludicrous. Using 4th and 5th generation aircraft in place of AC-130s [1] and Super Tacanos [2] not only costs more, but is incredibly less effective for the soldiers on the ground. CAS and the F-35 shouldn’t be used in the same sentence. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have cost significantly less (1/4 the total?) if the military hadn’t forced square fighter jets into the round hole of CAS (add up $10k / hr vs $600, plus airborne tankers, plus carriers, plus increased supply costs). Not only did this cost multiples more, provide less effective support to Americans risking their lives on the ground, it damaged the fleet of fighters for other tasks in the future. How many flight hours where burned “in country” on already aging platforms? I know I got some. Senior military aviation leadership boxed themselves into a corner burning up the fleet in ways it shouldn’t have and betting on a do-it-all turd called the F-35. The cannon could fall of this thing and it would be better for everyone. Dog-fighting is dead and people will scream F-4 / Vietnam, but I’d rather have an extra aim-9x than a fucking gun pod in this day and age [3, 4]. So the plane sucks for CAS and the gun pod is irrelevant for BFM. But don’t worry, the plane is so magical who knows. Just know you’re being sold a bill of goods when leadership talks about CAS and the F-35. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#AIM-9X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#AIM-9X

gherkin0 11y ago

I'm curious: how do the F-35's development troubles compare to other recent fighters, like the F-22 or Eurofighter? Are they objectively worse, or are the memories just fresher?

DrJokepu 11y ago
The F-16 used to be called "lawn dart" for a reason.
- gherkin0 11y ago
  Was that due to development problems, though? This article claims the nickname comes from the fact that it's a single-engine fighter: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,154457,00.html http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,154457,00.html > The F-16 is known in Air Force circles as the "lawn dart" for its tendency to plunge back to Earth when its single engine flames out, and in most years, engine failure causes more accidents than any other factor.
  - greedo 11y ago
    The F-16A was a useless fighter; nothing but guns and IR missiles, only useful in good weather. It wasn't until it received a series of upgrades that it became a valuable workhorse. And surprisingly, it became more expensive an heavier in the process.
  - neurotech1 11y ago
    The F-16 has made a successful engine-out landing before, when the conditions allow. Earlier jets like the F-104 were almost impossible to land engine-out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8 And how many F-14s were lost as a result of single-engine handling performance issues? F-14s have departed from controlled flight after one engine stalls, and entered a flat spin. Yes, the scene in Top Gun was somewhat based on real events. A few F/A-18s have been lost due to issues with single-engine performance. The F/A-18 doesn't have as much issues with asymmetric thrust, single engine flight isn't always possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Virginia_Beach_F/A-18_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Virginia_Beach_F/A-18_cra...

noselasd 11y ago

Report is here: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/dod/2015f35jsf.pdf http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/dod/2015f35js...

doodlebugging 11y ago

This is the loudest fighter plane in our inventory. You can hear this thing coming at least a minute before it gets near you and for several minutes after depending on flight direction. I can tell from the sound which of our planes is passing near and this one, the first time I heard it, was clearly not one with which I was familiar. Beautiful plane but obviously a troubled build history. With all the problems noted over the last few years I'm surprised that anyone wants it. The F-22 has had its problems and production was cut at a very low number (I think I read that they wanted to shift gears and go with the F-35). The complexity of these two planes could make them more of a liability in a conflict. It makes more sense to me (as a taxpayer) to spend the defense dollar on things that can be built quickly and for minimal initial cost so that many can be built to replace those lost to attrition in conflict. They should also be purpose-built for specific missions just as we built planes in WW2. We have the technology and we don't need a fleet of flying super-computers that can't fight their way out of the battlespace. Planes are great support tools for infantry and armored units who actually win the wars by taking and holding territory from the enemy. They won't win wars by themselves. Sorry 'bout that, Air Force.

greedo 11y ago
Aircraft that "can be built quickly and for minimal initial cost" don't exist. Modern fighter aircraft are complex, expensive machines. The engines alone are a significant portion of the cost. And if you think the F-35 has supercomputers, you're sorely mistaken. Even the F-22 has old, decade old CPUs. The world has moved on since WW2, and the idea of cheap hordes of aircraft, or spinning up the Arsenal of Democracy to build them in wartime just won't fly. Ask the Syrians how well their simple Mig-21s and Mig-23s did in the Bekka Valley in 1982 when they ran up against the Israeli's flying F-15s and F-16s. Turkey shoot doesn't even begin to describe it. If you bring a biplane to a modern dogfight, you'll end up a splat mark on the ground.
- pippy 11y ago
  >Turkey shoot doesn't even begin to describe it. If you bring a biplane to a modern dogfight, you'll end up a splat mark on the ground. Kind of unfair example, the Israelis had a lot of time to prepare for that battle. On top of that the Syrians knew they didn't stand a chance given their resources. Given any situation you have to fit the resource to meet the need. The United States deploys the EMB 314 Super Tucano to great effect, which is a WW2 style fighter fitted with modern electronics. The F35 in the modern context simply doesn't make sense, as it's simply over engineered and doesn't fit current individual needs.

dudul 11y ago

That's ok. They'll release a hotfix on steam a few weeks after the release. Plus a couple of DLCs to improve the in-flight experience :)

jessaustin 11y ago

After the report came out Monday, Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, of the F-35 program executive office, issued a statement to cast the report’s findings in a rather more flattering light. Perhaps a posting to the Joint Chiefs is out for Gen. Bogdan, but fortunately Lockheed is keeping a senior VP's chair warm for him. One expects we'll see this luminary on the political bloviation shows in five years' time explaining why we must support our brave allies in ISIS against the savage onslaught of the Tehran-backed Zoroastrians, and oh-by-the-way buy a couple hundred more of these flying coffins.

nfriedly 11y ago

Off topic: I love it when websites are 'mobile first' without ever testing on a mobile browser. Every single link has a "new window" icon that's stretched to the entire width of my screen: http://s18.postimg.org/q551s8byh/tmp_14731_Screenshot_2016_02_03_22_07_3213990941.png http://s18.postimg.org/q551s8byh/tmp_14731_Screenshot_2016_0...

civilian 11y ago
It's the same on desktop chrome. :3
- rubberstamp 11y ago
  but..but the ad looks cyber perfect
shred45 11y ago
Actually, It just kind of looks like that. I'm really not sure what is going on. http://imgur.com/LCSA2mx http://imgur.com/LCSA2mx
- nfriedly 11y ago
  I'm not sure if that's better or worse... I think worse.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
Same on FF desktop version.

omginternets 11y ago

DefenseOne has a pretty terrifying bug where the page reloads with a frequency of about 2-3 Hz ...

hackuser 11y ago

Most of this sounds like typical teething pains for an exceptionally complex project just reaching version 1.0. “Each new version of software, while adding some new capability, failed to resolve all the deficiencies identified in earlier releases,” Doesn't that describe every software update ever released for any system?

ilurkedhere 11y ago

Aren't fighter pilots obsolete at this point? Much of the complexity in the craft is centered around keeping the poor bastard flying it, alive. Then there are pretty tight limits on how much acceleration the human body can receive. Pilot-less craft don't have those limitions, so I figure they should be much more maneuverable and less expensive.

ihsw 11y ago
The tech simply isn't there yet. Conventional fighter jets have more speed, travel and strike range, and more maneuverability. They will outflank drones every time -- I'm not kidding, they stand absolutely zero chance against fighter jets. You could send a couple dozen Reaper drones out and a pair of Su27/F15s would shoot them out of the sky before you can say "Hellfire." Not to mention modern anti-air defense systems would chew through them like candy. What are they good for then? Cheap, high-altitude, medium-range (~1500KM), endurance (>24hr) missions.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Military drones started with the CIA - I listened to the retired director that initiated the effort, on NPR. They used drones in countries who either didn't have radar or had forgotten how to connect it with weapons systems, which included "almost everywhere". They wanted a sustained (24 hour) observation platform in the field, and drones filled the bill. I'm sure they might ultimately get to fighter-jet performance, but at a much greater cost and reduction in mission time.