3 ms·

> Some 'agile fans' have been promoted up a few notches at Lockheed, that is all this is. Maybe. I definitely do not have first hand knowledge of anything. Wh

> Some 'agile fans' have been promoted up a few notches at Lockheed, that is all this is. Maybe. I definitely do not have first hand knowledge of anything. What I do remember is that a few months ago SpaceX's Starlink was playing cat-and-mouse games with Russian jamming attempts. They had an issue where the Russians couldn't jam an already established connection, but because of some protocol weakness they could jam the establishment of new connections. Within a very short amount of time they patched it and rolled out a fix both to their satellites and the receivers which negated that particular jamming attack. When that happened Dave Tremper director of electronic warfare for the Office of the Secretary of Defense commented that they envy that level of agility. He said that current way how the Pentagon responds to such challenges would have taken much much longer. Not saying that this recent news is directly related to that event, but observations like that can prompt the defense sector to offer solutions like this. more details on that particular case: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/04/20/spacex-shut-down-a-russian-electromagnetic-warfare-attack-in-ukraine-last-month-and-the-pentagon-is-taking-notes/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/04/20/spacex-shut-down-...

sneak 3y ago
At some point we as a society need to admit that both the space program and the "defense" sector are just jobs programs and aren't really there to build anything useful. One need only look at the Space Launch System or the F-35. They're mechanisms for transferring tax money to gigantic employers that employ people across zillions of different congressional districts. It's a doublespeak to avoid having millions of people on a program that would otherwise be termed "socialism" or "welfare". SpaceX/Starlink, on the other hand, are more interested in shipping and servicing customers and getting revenue thereby than being approved by a constituency and/or the existing military-industrial complex. The DoD and SpaceX were built for drastically different purposes, and it's no surprise that they have drastically different change control procedures.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  I personally find the fact that world’s 2nd or 3rd most feared military is getting its ass kicked by the US defense sector’s bargain bin a strong argument against your point. There’s obviously a ton of pork and SLS in particular is a known welfare program, but that’s not a fair critique of F-35 nor of the defense sector writ large.
  - presidentender 3y ago
    That Russia is worse doesn't mean we are good. Fortunately we don't have to be very good to be better than our peers.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      It literally means we are the best in the world.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        Well, it is a very big jobs program.
      - presidentender 3y ago
        That's fair.
- SubjectToChange 3y ago
  The F35 program is really blown out of proportion. Yes it is easy to criticize and point to many mistakes, but the fact is that virtually every next generation fighter project is a colossal management nightmare. I find it somewhat confusing that the F22 is universally beloved yet it is arguably a failure of sorts (limited production run, few prospects for its future). Honestly I feel like the F35 is a target in the “information warfare” space. While the project is not above criticism, China/Russia/etc have every reason to promote animosity towards the project.
9659 3y ago
operational use, this was a specific problem, and it was imposing on mission success. those get fixed fast, even on manned aircraft platforms. (time more likely in weeks, rather than days). space-X hopefully did a risk review. what is the chance this "100 line fix" is going to break something else? what was the in lab coverage? can it be rolled back? sometimes you say you want agility; but you would really prefer low risk of greater failure.

sneak 3y ago

At some point we as a society need to admit that both the space program and the "defense" sector are just jobs programs and aren't really there to build anything useful. One need only look at the Space Launch System or the F-35. They're mechanisms for transferring tax money to gigantic employers that employ people across zillions of different congressional districts. It's a doublespeak to avoid having millions of people on a program that would otherwise be termed "socialism" or "welfare". SpaceX/Starlink, on the other hand, are more interested in shipping and servicing customers and getting revenue thereby than being approved by a constituency and/or the existing military-industrial complex. The DoD and SpaceX were built for drastically different purposes, and it's no surprise that they have drastically different change control procedures.

ethanbond 3y ago
I personally find the fact that world’s 2nd or 3rd most feared military is getting its ass kicked by the US defense sector’s bargain bin a strong argument against your point. There’s obviously a ton of pork and SLS in particular is a known welfare program, but that’s not a fair critique of F-35 nor of the defense sector writ large.
- presidentender 3y ago
  That Russia is worse doesn't mean we are good. Fortunately we don't have to be very good to be better than our peers.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    It literally means we are the best in the world.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      Well, it is a very big jobs program.
    - presidentender 3y ago
      That's fair.
SubjectToChange 3y ago
The F35 program is really blown out of proportion. Yes it is easy to criticize and point to many mistakes, but the fact is that virtually every next generation fighter project is a colossal management nightmare. I find it somewhat confusing that the F22 is universally beloved yet it is arguably a failure of sorts (limited production run, few prospects for its future). Honestly I feel like the F35 is a target in the “information warfare” space. While the project is not above criticism, China/Russia/etc have every reason to promote animosity towards the project.

9659 3y ago

operational use, this was a specific problem, and it was imposing on mission success. those get fixed fast, even on manned aircraft platforms. (time more likely in weeks, rather than days). space-X hopefully did a risk review. what is the chance this "100 line fix" is going to break something else? what was the in lab coverage? can it be rolled back? sometimes you say you want agility; but you would really prefer low risk of greater failure.