22 ms·

Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

97 points by protomyth 11y ago

ardit33 11y ago
TLDR: The delays are due to software problems and the plane wont be kinda ready until end of 2018. Software Development is going to be a competitive advantage in warfare as well. From what I have heard, DoD has some really interesting practices on building software (code review each line with physical printouts, etc), which in combination with scope creep might be the cause of this slowness.
- puppetmaster3 11y ago
  "Software Development is going to be a competitive advantage" Let me fix that: if done well.
- a3n 11y ago
  Those practices might be appropriate for a combat plane.
  - SFJulie 11y ago
    So basically F35 is a plane embedded in a software. Why not have embedded computers in a decent plane? lol.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      Just about every complex engineering system is now a software project with an associated hardware component. You do not have a "decent plane" without good software.
    - dingaling 11y ago
      > Why not have embedded computers in a decent plane? Oddly enough, Fairchild Aircraft was formed when Mr Fairchild decided to build a 'decent plane' to carry-around his aerial cameras... Back to the F-35 it is interesting to contrast how Dassault in France has been slowly expanding the mission scope of its Rafale by adding additional software, without affecting the actual flight-control systems. After 12 years of gradual updates they're also starting to update hardware, such as converting to an SDR instead of traditional tuned radio.
      - emeraldd 11y ago
        > Oddly enough, Fairchild Aircraft was formed when Mr Fairchild decided to build a 'decent plane' to carry-around his aerial cameras... Ya know, I think he may have been onto something there ... > The A-10 was designed around the 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon that is its primary armament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde...
- wyldfire 11y ago
  Fagan-style code review is likely a net productivity gain over no-reviews-at-all. Sure, scope creep is a killer, but I'd imagine it's a herculean task to create software for a new fighter. The expectation would likely be that software could control and/or monitor many features that would not have been software-controlled in previous generations. Safety requirements for flight (active life support) and armaments would be a huge burden.
  - coredog64 11y ago
    IIRC, the F-22 has the equivalent of a Harris Night Hawk computer onboard. That was a big deal 20 years ago, but computationally outclassed by a $100 smartphone today. My memory, faulty as it may be, seems to recall a two page ad in AW&ST touting the Night Hawk "supercomputer" that would be in each F-22.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      This is normal in the defense industry. You must be very careful when you upgrade hardware, because it should be proven that the upgrade provides at least the capability of the previous system (regression testing) plus whatever new/improved functionality you plan. Changing hardware on the timescale of consumer electronics is simply not viable, or necessary. In other words, my response to your statement that the avionics of a fighter jet are "computationally outclassed by a $100 smartphone today" is, "So what?" You buy and test the hardware that you believe is necessary to accomplish the given mission, not the latest-and-greatest for the sake of being the latest-and-greatest.
      - rootbear 11y ago
        Similar arguments apply to spacecraft. The processors and other IT tech are usually far behind consumer gear. This is party due to the radiation hardening required, but also the lack of a real requirement for the latest-and-greatest.
        dajohnson89 11y ago
- coldcode 11y ago
  I think a lot of the issue is not the software on the plane but the software that manages maintenance, logistics and support; without that working the plane is sitting on the tarmac not doing anything.
- nxzero 11y ago
  Just to be clear, "physical printouts" means their printing the code to paper? If so, why, and if not, what do you mean, and why is it done this way?
ivl 11y ago
I really think it's a shame that they moved to the F-35, instead of just continuing to produce F-22s. Stupid export ban. Then again, the extra payload may have been worth it.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  The unit production cost (the cost of building an aircraft, not including amortized R&D) for the F-22A is about 50% higher than for the F-35A. You could certainly argue that two F-22As is better than three F-35As, but that is an issue that needs to be considered. Furthermore, the F-22A was already running into parts obsolescence issues when I was working on it (2002 - 2006). Those would have continued to get worse had production expanded or continued. The F-35A was (supposedly) designed to better handle those issues.
  - Gravityloss 11y ago
    The solution should be relatively straightforward. Purpose built different airframes, with relatively conservative technology. Share components where it makes sense. Manufacture lots of airframes and spares. Update components later. The next US fighter / attack program is going to be like that. It aims a lot lower and should be more predictable. I've lost track if it's called F-X or F/A-XX or what now, and what are the split parts etc... http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160426-f35.html http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160426-f35.html
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Yes, my naive reaction to reading about these planes and the maintenance requirements is that they are pushing for capabilities that are unreasonable given the available technology.
    - neurotech1 11y ago
      There is 3 different models of super Hornets. 1) F/A-18E Strike Fighter 2) F/A-18F FAC(A) CAS/Strike Fighter 3) EA-18G Growler Commonality is ~80% between all 3 aircraft. They could probably make a F/A-XX based on F/A-18E/F with similar avionics, and engines based on the F135 in a larger airframe, but they could make it happen relatively economically if that was the priority.
johngalt 11y ago
The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else. Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for lower total cost and be operational on a shorter timeframe. The F-35 reminds me of this short story by A. C. Clarke http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html And this scene from pentagon wars: https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA
- dexterdog 11y ago
  Plus if it's three different ones when the world changes and you need 85% carrier drones, 10% stealth bombers and 5% close air support you can build accordingly. Not to mention the fact that one of those can be available when it's done instead of not getting anything until they are all done.
  - incongruity 11y ago
    Seriously – this is project management and design 101 stuff here. The points you make highlight the HUGE cost savings that could be accomplished by breaking it up into 3 different aircraft, at different price points, tailored to the different roles.
  - Spooky23 11y ago
    Sounds like a great idea. It's not like an adversary could shoot down satellites, jam controller transmissions or hack a drones control plane. We'd be better off buying aircraft from the French.
- hga 11y ago
  The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project Or an example of how we don't learn from history, for the same exact thing happened with the '60s TFX, except the F-35 substitutes S/VTOL for air superiority. 5 models of it were planned, two for the Navy, all but what ended up as the F-111 were canceled, and we resumed building focused planes like the F-14 through F-16, and the A-10 I think. Read the relevant section in Possony, Pournelle, and Kane's classic The Strategy of Technology https://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html for lots more details. ADDED: And I've now recalled that there was stiff criticism of the F-111 as it starting flying and was fielded in the hot war of Vietnam. By and large the bugs were worked out, and e.g. surviving pilots were convinced that they should not turn off the terrain following radar and auto pilot system so they wouldn't follow their predecessors in immediately flying it into a hill. Which didn't happen with the following similar in that way B-1, come to think of it. That I remember mostly from contemporaneous reports, the frequently poor prosecution of the Vietnam war was a big issue in the heartland.
nabla9 11y ago
F-35 looks like it's the most ambitious software project ever attempted. - Lots of system integration for the final product from multiple suppliers (usually nightmare). - Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) is critical for the maintainability and it's millions of lines of code. Failure rate of large projects like this is typically 40-60% and ALIS looks like it's more advanced than most bean counting systems ever delivered. - Underlying hardware is slowly changing underneath because the system is late. - It has frigging augmented reality system with helmets that integrates everything together. - It's safety critical code. > no less than 27 power cycles were required to get all systems functioning between initial startup and takeoff. These power cycles varied in degree – from “cold iron” resets, where the aircraft had to be shut down and then restarted, to component or battery power recycling. Holy shit!
- wrong_variable 11y ago
  This is what so many non-software people trying to make decisions on software fail to realize - every constraint added increases the complexity of software by an order of magnitude.
  - awinter-py 11y ago
    well, a binary order of magnitude maybe
    - russell 11y ago
      Indeed. There was a paper done in the 70s or 80s that found that operating system size doubled with each new feature. Picture going from single tasking to multitasking or to virtual memory. Sorry, I cant dredge up the reference.
  - sbov 11y ago
    I run into this at work all the time. Me: FYI, in scenario xyz, I updated the documentation to do abc. It seems like the best balance of complication and doing the right thing, especially considering it will almost never come up. Boss: why does it even matter what it does? It will come up maybe once per year. Oh, and it should do <this other really specific and complicated thing> instead, so do that. Me: sigh....
mrweasel 11y ago
>The combination of re-hosted immature software and new processors resulted in avionics stability problems that were significantly worse than Block 2B So, the upgrade actually made thing worse. I'm sure I'm colored by many of the negative articles about the F-35, but other than "we already spend a lot of money on this thing" and "there's no plan b", why aren't the F-35 scrapped? For the US, it would maybe make sense to get the F-35 operational, but why would any other country, including my own, not pick a different plane?
- threeseven37 11y ago
  Probably the same reason people get the newest model of iPhones whenever they come out.
- ecnal 11y ago
  Because, for all their software and development delays, they significantly outperform 4.5th gen offerings and (the A, at least, which is the majority of what people are buying) don't cost nearly as much (~85-95 million for an F-35A flyaway vs. 110-120+ million for a Eurofighter or Rafale).
  - mrweasel 11y ago
    According to Wikipedia the $90 million is without an engine, which is just weird. For smaller air forces, which won't have enough plane fight of the Russians anyway, there's little reason for buying a plane like the F-35. Some of the competitors are actually planes like the F-18 Super Hornet or the SAAB Gripen, priced at around $60 million. Sure they are aren't as modern, but for the needs of many small countries they're actually fine.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      > According to Wikipedia the $90 million is without an engine, which is just weird. Yes, a plane without engines is just a pretty mockup that sits on the ground. But, from Lockheed Martin's perspective, the engine is government furnished equipment. LM does not build engines. The government has a totally separate contract with Pratt & Whitney for the development and production of F-135 engines, and another separate contract with Rolls Royce for the development and production of the LiftSystem in the F-35B. This is why the costs are given as "without engine". Because the engine is a separate contract.
Aelinsaar 11y ago
For the love of god, it's time to admit that the F-22 wasn't too expensive, and crawl back to it.
- sickbeard 11y ago
  F-22 is an apex predator, F-35 is a multirole fighter/bomber. two different planes. I think you mean going back to building specific planes for specific thing rather than jack off all trades plane
  - Aelinsaar 11y ago
    The F-35 is a 1.5 Trillion black hole; a stark lesson on the sunk cost fallacy. The F-22 exists, and works. We already have bombers, and frankly it seems less useful to put humans rather than robots in harm's way for a bombing run.
    - sickbeard 11y ago
      and what robot is going to do this bombing run you speak of? has it been built yet?
      - Aelinsaar 11y ago
        Robot, or for the near-term, drones controlled remotely by humans. It's never desirable to risk the life of an airman/woman, for obvious and lasting political reasons if no other.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      Maybe it is an example of the sunk cost fallacy. But ruminate on this for a moment: if we were having this conversation in 1996, you could have easily said something like, "The F-22 is a $800 billion black hole; a stark lesson on the sunk cost fallacy. The F-15 exists, and works..." Maybe the F-35 is what you say it is, but when you look at the history of fighter development, I don't think the F-35 is significantly different, just a continuation and amplification of trends seen on previous programs. In other words, these kinds of problems aren't unique to the F-35. This is by no means an excuse, just a thinking point.
ChrisBland 11y ago
When viewing the F-35 through the lens of a defense project, it looks silly. You must also realize that this is also an indirect federal jobs program. When the F-35 would replace other aircraft and their roles, the bases, parts suppliers, and ...sub contractors those people had to be kept employed. No member of congress wanted to say don't add that or build that if it would hurt their district. So much backroom dealing goes on with projects like these its embarrassing.
- sickbeard 11y ago
  Army: We need 3 different planes Government: Why not build one plane that can do 3 things? it will be cheaper. ... it turns out it isn't.
  - jgeada 11y ago
    LMFTFY: Government/Army: We need 3 different planes for these 3 different requirements Private corporations @ public trough: you could "save" money by building a single plane meeting all those requirements, and we'd also bring extra jobs to your geographical area. Oh, and plus there is this extra "lobbying" money you can have you if support this project. Politician: Sounds like a good idea...
    - levemi 11y ago
      That's not how the F-35 was conceived or designed, not at all. It was a highly competitive contract with the requirements given to a few companies and they were given some amount of money to compete for the best design[1]. Your comment is nonsense. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program
  - russell 11y ago
    Hah! The army is the only service not getting one, unless there is a helicopter variant in there somewhere.
    - 11y ago
transfire 11y ago
Ode to what could have been... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BZGgvhqs5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BZGgvhqs5g
Impl0x 11y ago
This might be off topic, but there are a few comments on here (mostly) joking about why we even should bother designing planes like the F-35 to be operated locally by humans. I'm curious, does anyone have any info on the state of drone fighter planes, either remotely piloted or completely autonomous? Does such a project even merit consideration when we could innovate missile systems instead?
- thinkcontext 11y ago
  Drones are not a good replacement for the traditional fighter aircraft. Remote piloting has too much latency for dogfights and software is no where near smart enough to trust full autonomy in order to, say, shoot down another plane. That said, would you consider a cruise missile a drone? One can imagine other types of weapons getting smarter. Additionally, its clear the roles that drones tackle will expand at the expense of manned aircraft.
  - Pinckney 11y ago
    What about a semi-autonomous fighter, with a pilot to provide low latency input on what to shoot, and the plane deciding how to fly and make that shot independently? You could even have the pilot prone for higher G tolerance, like they tried in some of the old Gloster Meteors, since their input is no longer necessary for all of its operation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor_F8_"Prone_Pilot" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor_F8_"Prone_Pilot...
stillsut 11y ago
Here are some new rules of warfare that the F35 is designed for: "Blackhawk Down" If you lose even one aircraft crew as we did in Somalia, you may be forced to retreat from the entire war. So it makes sense to spend 10x to go from 99.9% -> 99.99% safety. "Battle of the Civs, Proxy war edition": Fighter planes are less relevant to hugely asymmetric warfare the U.S. is engaged in, and expects to engage in the near future. These fights consists of the most advanced military technology against insurgents with machine guns and RPG's. Clearly drones are better in this area, and Missiles of all classes bring more destruction and accuracy to the traditional fighter role of deterring the threats of advanced weapon systems against your ships/bases. However in the smaller proxy wars of e.g. Syria, Ukraine a traditional fighter jet still makes sense, and in fact could be a crucial deciding factor. So what the F35 program is doing is building a machine that can give a strong advantage in a regional war. And by controlling the access to the machine, the U.S. gets a say in the conflict without entering it. "Terrorist hideout or hospital?" - collateral damage has always been a part of aerial combat but bad PR seems to do be especially discouraging to today's democracies. So weapon systems have to be even smarter and more precise. "Software is eating the world" - As others have mentioned this is at least an order of magnitude increase in software functionality over the F22. And yes, an autonomous vehicle will probably be the main aircraft in the fleet in 20-30 years. So the F35 is this kind of avant-guarde experiment in how to structure contracts, maintain and deploy weapons which are primarily based on software.
nealrs 11y ago
we found, designed a plan to, and (nearly) recovered an entire nuclear submarine from the ocean floor -in secret- using a giant grappling hook in under than 8 years and for $3.8 billion ($800 million in '74) dollars. but we can't design a marginally improved fighter jet for less than a trillion or under 20 years? ref: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Project_Azorian https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Project_Azorian
- JimboOmega 11y ago
  We also built the golden gate bridge in 4.5 years for an inflation adjusted $1.3B, the new Eastern span of the bay bridge took what, $6.4B and 11 years? That's just seems to be the nature of all public projects - the cost rises way faster than inflation.

97 points by protomyth 11y ago

TLDR: The delays are due to software problems and the plane wont be kinda ready until end of 2018. Software Development is going to be a competitive advantage in warfare as well. From what I have heard, DoD has some really interesting practices on building software (code review each line with physical printouts, etc), which in combination with scope creep might be the cause of this slowness.

puppetmaster3 11y ago
"Software Development is going to be a competitive advantage" Let me fix that: if done well.
a3n 11y ago
Those practices might be appropriate for a combat plane.
- SFJulie 11y ago
  So basically F35 is a plane embedded in a software. Why not have embedded computers in a decent plane? lol.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    Just about every complex engineering system is now a software project with an associated hardware component. You do not have a "decent plane" without good software.
  - dingaling 11y ago
    > Why not have embedded computers in a decent plane? Oddly enough, Fairchild Aircraft was formed when Mr Fairchild decided to build a 'decent plane' to carry-around his aerial cameras... Back to the F-35 it is interesting to contrast how Dassault in France has been slowly expanding the mission scope of its Rafale by adding additional software, without affecting the actual flight-control systems. After 12 years of gradual updates they're also starting to update hardware, such as converting to an SDR instead of traditional tuned radio.
    - emeraldd 11y ago
      > Oddly enough, Fairchild Aircraft was formed when Mr Fairchild decided to build a 'decent plane' to carry-around his aerial cameras... Ya know, I think he may have been onto something there ... > The A-10 was designed around the 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon that is its primary armament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde...
wyldfire 11y ago
Fagan-style code review is likely a net productivity gain over no-reviews-at-all. Sure, scope creep is a killer, but I'd imagine it's a herculean task to create software for a new fighter. The expectation would likely be that software could control and/or monitor many features that would not have been software-controlled in previous generations. Safety requirements for flight (active life support) and armaments would be a huge burden.
- coredog64 11y ago
  IIRC, the F-22 has the equivalent of a Harris Night Hawk computer onboard. That was a big deal 20 years ago, but computationally outclassed by a $100 smartphone today. My memory, faulty as it may be, seems to recall a two page ad in AW&ST touting the Night Hawk "supercomputer" that would be in each F-22.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    This is normal in the defense industry. You must be very careful when you upgrade hardware, because it should be proven that the upgrade provides at least the capability of the previous system (regression testing) plus whatever new/improved functionality you plan. Changing hardware on the timescale of consumer electronics is simply not viable, or necessary. In other words, my response to your statement that the avionics of a fighter jet are "computationally outclassed by a $100 smartphone today" is, "So what?" You buy and test the hardware that you believe is necessary to accomplish the given mission, not the latest-and-greatest for the sake of being the latest-and-greatest.
    - rootbear 11y ago
      Similar arguments apply to spacecraft. The processors and other IT tech are usually far behind consumer gear. This is party due to the radiation hardening required, but also the lack of a real requirement for the latest-and-greatest.
      - dajohnson89 11y ago
coldcode 11y ago
I think a lot of the issue is not the software on the plane but the software that manages maintenance, logistics and support; without that working the plane is sitting on the tarmac not doing anything.
nxzero 11y ago
Just to be clear, "physical printouts" means their printing the code to paper? If so, why, and if not, what do you mean, and why is it done this way?

ivl 11y ago

I really think it's a shame that they moved to the F-35, instead of just continuing to produce F-22s. Stupid export ban. Then again, the extra payload may have been worth it.

vonmoltke 11y ago
The unit production cost (the cost of building an aircraft, not including amortized R&D) for the F-22A is about 50% higher than for the F-35A. You could certainly argue that two F-22As is better than three F-35As, but that is an issue that needs to be considered. Furthermore, the F-22A was already running into parts obsolescence issues when I was working on it (2002 - 2006). Those would have continued to get worse had production expanded or continued. The F-35A was (supposedly) designed to better handle those issues.
- Gravityloss 11y ago
  The solution should be relatively straightforward. Purpose built different airframes, with relatively conservative technology. Share components where it makes sense. Manufacture lots of airframes and spares. Update components later. The next US fighter / attack program is going to be like that. It aims a lot lower and should be more predictable. I've lost track if it's called F-X or F/A-XX or what now, and what are the split parts etc... http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160426-f35.html http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160426-f35.html
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Yes, my naive reaction to reading about these planes and the maintenance requirements is that they are pushing for capabilities that are unreasonable given the available technology.
  - neurotech1 11y ago
    There is 3 different models of super Hornets. 1) F/A-18E Strike Fighter 2) F/A-18F FAC(A) CAS/Strike Fighter 3) EA-18G Growler Commonality is ~80% between all 3 aircraft. They could probably make a F/A-XX based on F/A-18E/F with similar avionics, and engines based on the F135 in a larger airframe, but they could make it happen relatively economically if that was the priority.

johngalt 11y ago

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else. Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for lower total cost and be operational on a shorter timeframe. The F-35 reminds me of this short story by A. C. Clarke http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html And this scene from pentagon wars: https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA

dexterdog 11y ago
Plus if it's three different ones when the world changes and you need 85% carrier drones, 10% stealth bombers and 5% close air support you can build accordingly. Not to mention the fact that one of those can be available when it's done instead of not getting anything until they are all done.
- incongruity 11y ago
  Seriously – this is project management and design 101 stuff here. The points you make highlight the HUGE cost savings that could be accomplished by breaking it up into 3 different aircraft, at different price points, tailored to the different roles.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  Sounds like a great idea. It's not like an adversary could shoot down satellites, jam controller transmissions or hack a drones control plane. We'd be better off buying aircraft from the French.
hga 11y ago
The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project Or an example of how we don't learn from history, for the same exact thing happened with the '60s TFX, except the F-35 substitutes S/VTOL for air superiority. 5 models of it were planned, two for the Navy, all but what ended up as the F-111 were canceled, and we resumed building focused planes like the F-14 through F-16, and the A-10 I think. Read the relevant section in Possony, Pournelle, and Kane's classic The Strategy of Technology https://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html for lots more details. ADDED: And I've now recalled that there was stiff criticism of the F-111 as it starting flying and was fielded in the hot war of Vietnam. By and large the bugs were worked out, and e.g. surviving pilots were convinced that they should not turn off the terrain following radar and auto pilot system so they wouldn't follow their predecessors in immediately flying it into a hill. Which didn't happen with the following similar in that way B-1, come to think of it. That I remember mostly from contemporaneous reports, the frequently poor prosecution of the Vietnam war was a big issue in the heartland.

nabla9 11y ago

F-35 looks like it's the most ambitious software project ever attempted. - Lots of system integration for the final product from multiple suppliers (usually nightmare). - Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) is critical for the maintainability and it's millions of lines of code. Failure rate of large projects like this is typically 40-60% and ALIS looks like it's more advanced than most bean counting systems ever delivered. - Underlying hardware is slowly changing underneath because the system is late. - It has frigging augmented reality system with helmets that integrates everything together. - It's safety critical code. > no less than 27 power cycles were required to get all systems functioning between initial startup and takeoff. These power cycles varied in degree – from “cold iron” resets, where the aircraft had to be shut down and then restarted, to component or battery power recycling. Holy shit!

wrong_variable 11y ago
This is what so many non-software people trying to make decisions on software fail to realize - every constraint added increases the complexity of software by an order of magnitude.
- awinter-py 11y ago
  well, a binary order of magnitude maybe
  - russell 11y ago
    Indeed. There was a paper done in the 70s or 80s that found that operating system size doubled with each new feature. Picture going from single tasking to multitasking or to virtual memory. Sorry, I cant dredge up the reference.
- sbov 11y ago
  I run into this at work all the time. Me: FYI, in scenario xyz, I updated the documentation to do abc. It seems like the best balance of complication and doing the right thing, especially considering it will almost never come up. Boss: why does it even matter what it does? It will come up maybe once per year. Oh, and it should do <this other really specific and complicated thing> instead, so do that. Me: sigh....

mrweasel 11y ago

>The combination of re-hosted immature software and new processors resulted in avionics stability problems that were significantly worse than Block 2B So, the upgrade actually made thing worse. I'm sure I'm colored by many of the negative articles about the F-35, but other than "we already spend a lot of money on this thing" and "there's no plan b", why aren't the F-35 scrapped? For the US, it would maybe make sense to get the F-35 operational, but why would any other country, including my own, not pick a different plane?

threeseven37 11y ago
Probably the same reason people get the newest model of iPhones whenever they come out.
ecnal 11y ago
Because, for all their software and development delays, they significantly outperform 4.5th gen offerings and (the A, at least, which is the majority of what people are buying) don't cost nearly as much (~85-95 million for an F-35A flyaway vs. 110-120+ million for a Eurofighter or Rafale).
- mrweasel 11y ago
  According to Wikipedia the $90 million is without an engine, which is just weird. For smaller air forces, which won't have enough plane fight of the Russians anyway, there's little reason for buying a plane like the F-35. Some of the competitors are actually planes like the F-18 Super Hornet or the SAAB Gripen, priced at around $60 million. Sure they are aren't as modern, but for the needs of many small countries they're actually fine.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    > According to Wikipedia the $90 million is without an engine, which is just weird. Yes, a plane without engines is just a pretty mockup that sits on the ground. But, from Lockheed Martin's perspective, the engine is government furnished equipment. LM does not build engines. The government has a totally separate contract with Pratt & Whitney for the development and production of F-135 engines, and another separate contract with Rolls Royce for the development and production of the LiftSystem in the F-35B. This is why the costs are given as "without engine". Because the engine is a separate contract.

Aelinsaar 11y ago

For the love of god, it's time to admit that the F-22 wasn't too expensive, and crawl back to it.

sickbeard 11y ago
F-22 is an apex predator, F-35 is a multirole fighter/bomber. two different planes. I think you mean going back to building specific planes for specific thing rather than jack off all trades plane
- Aelinsaar 11y ago
  The F-35 is a 1.5 Trillion black hole; a stark lesson on the sunk cost fallacy. The F-22 exists, and works. We already have bombers, and frankly it seems less useful to put humans rather than robots in harm's way for a bombing run.
  - sickbeard 11y ago
    and what robot is going to do this bombing run you speak of? has it been built yet?
    - Aelinsaar 11y ago
      Robot, or for the near-term, drones controlled remotely by humans. It's never desirable to risk the life of an airman/woman, for obvious and lasting political reasons if no other.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    Maybe it is an example of the sunk cost fallacy. But ruminate on this for a moment: if we were having this conversation in 1996, you could have easily said something like, "The F-22 is a $800 billion black hole; a stark lesson on the sunk cost fallacy. The F-15 exists, and works..." Maybe the F-35 is what you say it is, but when you look at the history of fighter development, I don't think the F-35 is significantly different, just a continuation and amplification of trends seen on previous programs. In other words, these kinds of problems aren't unique to the F-35. This is by no means an excuse, just a thinking point.

ChrisBland 11y ago

When viewing the F-35 through the lens of a defense project, it looks silly. You must also realize that this is also an indirect federal jobs program. When the F-35 would replace other aircraft and their roles, the bases, parts suppliers, and ...sub contractors those people had to be kept employed. No member of congress wanted to say don't add that or build that if it would hurt their district. So much backroom dealing goes on with projects like these its embarrassing.

sickbeard 11y ago
Army: We need 3 different planes Government: Why not build one plane that can do 3 things? it will be cheaper. ... it turns out it isn't.
- jgeada 11y ago
  LMFTFY: Government/Army: We need 3 different planes for these 3 different requirements Private corporations @ public trough: you could "save" money by building a single plane meeting all those requirements, and we'd also bring extra jobs to your geographical area. Oh, and plus there is this extra "lobbying" money you can have you if support this project. Politician: Sounds like a good idea...
  - levemi 11y ago
    That's not how the F-35 was conceived or designed, not at all. It was a highly competitive contract with the requirements given to a few companies and they were given some amount of money to compete for the best design[1]. Your comment is nonsense. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program
- russell 11y ago
  Hah! The army is the only service not getting one, unless there is a helicopter variant in there somewhere.
  - 11y ago

transfire 11y ago

Ode to what could have been... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BZGgvhqs5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BZGgvhqs5g

Impl0x 11y ago

This might be off topic, but there are a few comments on here (mostly) joking about why we even should bother designing planes like the F-35 to be operated locally by humans. I'm curious, does anyone have any info on the state of drone fighter planes, either remotely piloted or completely autonomous? Does such a project even merit consideration when we could innovate missile systems instead?

thinkcontext 11y ago
Drones are not a good replacement for the traditional fighter aircraft. Remote piloting has too much latency for dogfights and software is no where near smart enough to trust full autonomy in order to, say, shoot down another plane. That said, would you consider a cruise missile a drone? One can imagine other types of weapons getting smarter. Additionally, its clear the roles that drones tackle will expand at the expense of manned aircraft.
- Pinckney 11y ago
  What about a semi-autonomous fighter, with a pilot to provide low latency input on what to shoot, and the plane deciding how to fly and make that shot independently? You could even have the pilot prone for higher G tolerance, like they tried in some of the old Gloster Meteors, since their input is no longer necessary for all of its operation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor_F8_"Prone_Pilot" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor_F8_"Prone_Pilot...

stillsut 11y ago

Here are some new rules of warfare that the F35 is designed for: "Blackhawk Down" If you lose even one aircraft crew as we did in Somalia, you may be forced to retreat from the entire war. So it makes sense to spend 10x to go from 99.9% -> 99.99% safety. "Battle of the Civs, Proxy war edition": Fighter planes are less relevant to hugely asymmetric warfare the U.S. is engaged in, and expects to engage in the near future. These fights consists of the most advanced military technology against insurgents with machine guns and RPG's. Clearly drones are better in this area, and Missiles of all classes bring more destruction and accuracy to the traditional fighter role of deterring the threats of advanced weapon systems against your ships/bases. However in the smaller proxy wars of e.g. Syria, Ukraine a traditional fighter jet still makes sense, and in fact could be a crucial deciding factor. So what the F35 program is doing is building a machine that can give a strong advantage in a regional war. And by controlling the access to the machine, the U.S. gets a say in the conflict without entering it. "Terrorist hideout or hospital?" - collateral damage has always been a part of aerial combat but bad PR seems to do be especially discouraging to today's democracies. So weapon systems have to be even smarter and more precise. "Software is eating the world" - As others have mentioned this is at least an order of magnitude increase in software functionality over the F22. And yes, an autonomous vehicle will probably be the main aircraft in the fleet in 20-30 years. So the F35 is this kind of avant-guarde experiment in how to structure contracts, maintain and deploy weapons which are primarily based on software.

nealrs 11y ago

we found, designed a plan to, and (nearly) recovered an entire nuclear submarine from the ocean floor -in secret- using a giant grappling hook in under than 8 years and for $3.8 billion ($800 million in '74) dollars. but we can't design a marginally improved fighter jet for less than a trillion or under 20 years? ref: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Project_Azorian https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Project_Azorian

JimboOmega 11y ago
We also built the golden gate bridge in 4.5 years for an inflation adjusted $1.3B, the new Eastern span of the bay bridge took what, $6.4B and 11 years? That's just seems to be the nature of all public projects - the cost rises way faster than inflation.