2 ms·

Several of these flaws, like the lack of any means for a pilot to confirm a weapon’s target data before firing, and damage to the plane caused by the tailhook o

Several of these flaws, like the lack of any means for a pilot to confirm a weapon’s target data before firing, and damage to the plane caused by the tailhook on the Air Force’s variant, have potentially serious implications for safety and combat effectiveness. Tail hook? That 2nd one is pretty basic for a Navy carrier aircraft! Just how bad is it? Reading again and further, it's the Air Force plane, not the Navy plane: Testers have also identified an issue with the arresting hook on the Air Force’s F-35A conventional takeoff variant. The F-35A, like other Air Force aircraft, is equipped with a single-use tailhook for emergency-landing situations when the pilot suspects a braking failure. Testing on the F-35A’s tailhook began in 2016. Testing engineers found that the arresting hook is causing damage to the aircraft due to “up-swing.” It's a "just in case" piece of emergency equipment for emergencies. Not nearly as serious. I wonder if this article is a bit of a hit piece?

strictnein 8y ago
It really reads that way. Stuff like this makes me think it is: > " F-35 test teams rated this a Category I “High” deficiency, but the Board downgraded it to Category II “High,” without any indication of whether plans exist to correct it." So they're both "High" but one group thought it was Category I and the other thought it was Category II? There's never been a disagreement about issue severity in the history of any development project, that's for sure.
- hguant 8y ago
  >There's never been a disagreement about issue severity in the history of any development project, that's for sure. Right, but take a look at the groups doing the categorization. The team that rated the issue Category I was the actual QA testing team, made up of engineers and aviators. The Board that downgraded it was made up of managers and bureaucrats, the majority of which, according to the article at least, have a vested interest in the process rather than the result. This reads to me as a Dilbert comic. Engineer: "We tested the product. It has these 111 critical defects, any one of which can destroy the product, or the user. These need to be fixed as soon as possible" PHB: "Would you call these fixes an upgrade to the current system?" Engineer: "Yes, in that it would upgrade the product to "not death to look at" PHB: Downgrades issue "Perfect. So we can fix it after we ship and charge an extra 40% as part of our exclusive upgrades contract"

strictnein 8y ago

It really reads that way. Stuff like this makes me think it is: > " F-35 test teams rated this a Category I “High” deficiency, but the Board downgraded it to Category II “High,” without any indication of whether plans exist to correct it." So they're both "High" but one group thought it was Category I and the other thought it was Category II? There's never been a disagreement about issue severity in the history of any development project, that's for sure.

hguant 8y ago
>There's never been a disagreement about issue severity in the history of any development project, that's for sure. Right, but take a look at the groups doing the categorization. The team that rated the issue Category I was the actual QA testing team, made up of engineers and aviators. The Board that downgraded it was made up of managers and bureaucrats, the majority of which, according to the article at least, have a vested interest in the process rather than the result. This reads to me as a Dilbert comic. Engineer: "We tested the product. It has these 111 critical defects, any one of which can destroy the product, or the user. These need to be fixed as soon as possible" PHB: "Would you call these fixes an upgrade to the current system?" Engineer: "Yes, in that it would upgrade the product to "not death to look at" PHB: Downgrades issue "Perfect. So we can fix it after we ship and charge an extra 40% as part of our exclusive upgrades contract"