3 ms·

This headline is really misleading. TFA is about the "Autonomic Logistics Information System" (ALIS) system used to automatically order replacements parts and

This headline is really misleading. TFA is about the "Autonomic Logistics Information System" (ALIS) system used to automatically order replacements parts and schedule service, NOT the plane itself. It's grounding the plane because they can't schedule maintenance and order parts correctly now that they're moving to this new system, not because the plane itself is buggy. The planes have been flying (mostly bug free) for over 10 years now. A lot of people here are using this to scapegoat C++, but although the plane is written in C++, I don't think the ALIS is...

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Don't bother. Threads like this just become mindless ragefests from people with political axes to grind and sites like vice know how to exploit these feelings for ad impressions. Liberal doves also want anything to attack new weapon systems spending. Its an ugly scene altogether and accurate information and commentary about military programs are lacking. I've lived through a few major weapons systems changes and its all the same. Heck, anyone who has ever worked on a large project knows this stuff is fairly common. A lot of people don't want this thing in the air, especially Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Its a very capable weapons system and fills a much needed role. Its crazy a lazily sourced article like this could make it to the front page of HN. It reads like my grandmother wrote it, "THE AIRPLANE IS RUN BY A COMPUTER! TECHNOLOGY IS SCARY!" To compete on this level, automation and complexity are required. Its silly to think we are going to back to how planes were designed 50 years ago.
- outworlder 11y ago
  > Its a very capable weapons system and fills a much needed role. Which role?
- hackuser 11y ago
  > Liberal doves also want anything to attack new weapon systems spending I generally agree with your points, but not this one. I've seen no partisan bias in the criticism, and John McCain is the biggest critic of this program, which is being pushed by the Obama administration. In fact, IME most of the criticism comes from the temper-tantrum-of-the-week branch of the GOP. Also, Democrats have become hawkish; almost everyone says they are for a strong military including Clinton and Obama. There aren't many of those knee-jerk doves left - can you name a prominent one?
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  I also think threads like this suffer a bit from the overall population that comes here. By this site's very nature, the posters and commenters don't tend to be people with military aviation and/or flight testing experience.
windexh8er 11y ago
Are you sure you have the correct aircraft? "The planes have been flying (mostly bug free) for over 10 years now." Considering first flight was in December of 2006 there's no possible way it could have been flying for a decade as of today. Also that was the maiden flight, not a take-delivery-first-production-flight, but the first flight ever. As for bug free, I'd beg to differ: * On 18 January 2013, the F-35B was grounded after the failure of a fueldraulic line in the propulsion system on 16 January. * On 5 June 2015, the U. S. Air Education and Training Command Accident Investigation Board reported that catastrophic engine failure had led to the destruction of an Air Force F-35A assigned to the 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, on 23 June 2014. * On 23 June 2014, an F-35A preparing to take off on a training flight at Eglin Air Force Base experienced a fire in the engine area. The pilot escaped unharmed. The accident caused all training to be halted on 25 June, and all flights halted on 3 July. During the incident investigation, engine parts from the burned aircraft were discovered on the runway, indicating it was a substantial engine failure. And a report issued in 2013 stated these amongst other major problems: * Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training. * Ejection seat may fail, causing pilot fatality. * Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touchscreen controls. * The radar performs poorly, or not at all. * Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified. * Maintenance tools do not work. "Bug free" I guess if those are acceptable criteria for a government defense platform that has racked up over a trillion in cost and has yet to perform much, if any, real-world value.
- jlarocco 11y ago
  You're nitpicking, leaving out information, and trying to change the topic. I said "over 10 years" because the first "official" flight was probably not the first flight ever. Change it to "over 9 years". Whatever. Practically the same thing. The next sentence in the Wikipedia article you quoted says the grounding from 18 January 2013 was lifted 28 February 2013. Likewise the June 2014 grounding was lifted shortly after. Regardless, I said "mostly bug free,", not "entirely bug free". Most aircraft get grounded at some point due to issues or accidents that are discovered after they've been flying a while, so it's really not very exceptional, and hardly means the entire project is a failure. Do any of your nitpicks change the fact that that the article posted here isn't about the C++ software on the plane, but is about the non-C++ software running ground systems? I don't have any opinion on whether the plane is a waste of money or a failure or not, but the headline is misleading, and people are missing the real point of the article.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

Don't bother. Threads like this just become mindless ragefests from people with political axes to grind and sites like vice know how to exploit these feelings for ad impressions. Liberal doves also want anything to attack new weapon systems spending. Its an ugly scene altogether and accurate information and commentary about military programs are lacking. I've lived through a few major weapons systems changes and its all the same. Heck, anyone who has ever worked on a large project knows this stuff is fairly common. A lot of people don't want this thing in the air, especially Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Its a very capable weapons system and fills a much needed role. Its crazy a lazily sourced article like this could make it to the front page of HN. It reads like my grandmother wrote it, "THE AIRPLANE IS RUN BY A COMPUTER! TECHNOLOGY IS SCARY!" To compete on this level, automation and complexity are required. Its silly to think we are going to back to how planes were designed 50 years ago.

outworlder 11y ago
> Its a very capable weapons system and fills a much needed role. Which role?
hackuser 11y ago
> Liberal doves also want anything to attack new weapon systems spending I generally agree with your points, but not this one. I've seen no partisan bias in the criticism, and John McCain is the biggest critic of this program, which is being pushed by the Obama administration. In fact, IME most of the criticism comes from the temper-tantrum-of-the-week branch of the GOP. Also, Democrats have become hawkish; almost everyone says they are for a strong military including Clinton and Obama. There aren't many of those knee-jerk doves left - can you name a prominent one?
engi_nerd 11y ago
I also think threads like this suffer a bit from the overall population that comes here. By this site's very nature, the posters and commenters don't tend to be people with military aviation and/or flight testing experience.

windexh8er 11y ago

Are you sure you have the correct aircraft? "The planes have been flying (mostly bug free) for over 10 years now." Considering first flight was in December of 2006 there's no possible way it could have been flying for a decade as of today. Also that was the maiden flight, not a take-delivery-first-production-flight, but the first flight ever. As for bug free, I'd beg to differ: * On 18 January 2013, the F-35B was grounded after the failure of a fueldraulic line in the propulsion system on 16 January. * On 5 June 2015, the U. S. Air Education and Training Command Accident Investigation Board reported that catastrophic engine failure had led to the destruction of an Air Force F-35A assigned to the 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, on 23 June 2014. * On 23 June 2014, an F-35A preparing to take off on a training flight at Eglin Air Force Base experienced a fire in the engine area. The pilot escaped unharmed. The accident caused all training to be halted on 25 June, and all flights halted on 3 July. During the incident investigation, engine parts from the burned aircraft were discovered on the runway, indicating it was a substantial engine failure. And a report issued in 2013 stated these amongst other major problems: * Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training. * Ejection seat may fail, causing pilot fatality. * Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touchscreen controls. * The radar performs poorly, or not at all. * Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified. * Maintenance tools do not work. "Bug free" I guess if those are acceptable criteria for a government defense platform that has racked up over a trillion in cost and has yet to perform much, if any, real-world value.

jlarocco 11y ago
You're nitpicking, leaving out information, and trying to change the topic. I said "over 10 years" because the first "official" flight was probably not the first flight ever. Change it to "over 9 years". Whatever. Practically the same thing. The next sentence in the Wikipedia article you quoted says the grounding from 18 January 2013 was lifted 28 February 2013. Likewise the June 2014 grounding was lifted shortly after. Regardless, I said "mostly bug free,", not "entirely bug free". Most aircraft get grounded at some point due to issues or accidents that are discovered after they've been flying a while, so it's really not very exceptional, and hardly means the entire project is a failure. Do any of your nitpicks change the fact that that the article posted here isn't about the C++ software on the plane, but is about the non-C++ software running ground systems? I don't have any opinion on whether the plane is a waste of money or a failure or not, but the headline is misleading, and people are missing the real point of the article.