6 ms·

The gun has been tested on the ground both in and out of the plane. The software that would enable full use of the gun was delayed at program office request. It

The gun has been tested on the ground both in and out of the plane. The software that would enable full use of the gun was delayed at program office request. It was decided that using missiles and bombs was more relevant and important. I get that you don't like the plane but your arguments do not reflect facts.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nickpsecurity 11y ago
You just admitted what the article claimed but with a different reason. We've spent X dollars for Y years for a plane with a partly usable gun? That fact is enough reason not to like the plane for situations involving guns or the program that led to that situation. That's before my arguments or personal preferences enter the situation.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  So you're a software guy, right? Ever do a phased release? Wherein you design capability to be released in different increments. I know this isn't the most popular of software methodologies, but it's how defense projects work. Your complaint is like saying, "You worked all this time to get to phase 2 and you don't have feature X done yet?" and the engineers say, "But feature X isn't even intended to be in the software until phase 4!" EDIT: I should point out that as a defense acquisition project, THIS (http://www.hjspllc.com/2014dev/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/DAUlarge.jpg http://www.hjspllc.com/2014dev/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/DA...) is what governs the F-35 and most projects the DoD does. Look upon these works, ye sorry engineers, and despair. I took several hundred hours of courses about this process and I could not even begin to explain it, it's so ridiculous. Tons of waterfall and spiral development there.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    I'm a systems & software guy w/ a high assurance focus so I'm familiar with that sort of thing. It taught me to prioritize based on what was more vs less critical. So, it's supposed to destroy targets. Means it has to take off, detect the target, destroy with missiles/guns, and return. The essentials of these get done first and then everything else. A program that's spent this money with this many features without a working gun is not how we do phases in delivery. That's defense programs gone wrong. Further, the other commenter's link shows this isn't a phase: it's a delay caused by the failure of one. Plenty of delays, overruns, and even decommissioning to make up for it support how poorly-managed this program is. And such poor management and priorities support that this isn't merely a lifecycle issue.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      Well, you would have to prioritize how you wanted to kill targets, as you say. The program has chosen to delay focus on the gun until later. Was that a wise decision? I honestly don't know. And also, history nerd that I am...most of the high profile defense programs that I can think of were off the rails at one point or another. This is not to excuse anything (boy, people love that argument, that other programs had issues but turned out fine, so this will, too...I don't like that one), but to point out the fact that we as a society really don't understand how to do this kind of thing well. F-15 and F-16 were both lampooned in their day as being bloated and late and ineffective (I can anticipate the objection now -- not to this same degree -- and cannot argue against it). The Bradley's problems were so famous that HBO made "The Pentagon Wars" (which is a movie that I would actually highly recommend). The A-10 was not paid much attention to publicly but the Air Force of the 1970s hated it and wanted it to die before it ever left a drafting board (they were wrong, of course).
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        I was saying the program has had many delays and overruns in general with the gun issue maybe being part of that trend rather than pure design decision. Each possibility paints it in a different light. Regardless, I agree that many programs have had issues despite making it. I did watch Pentagon Wars and was amazed that some issues even existed. I think the main concern, outside the original link, is that this plane is one of the most expensive we've ever done while not delivering the value or effectiveness a few different, focused planes would. They still could've consolidated on radar, comms, weapon/missile systems, and so on while making the plane physically ideal for its missions. In process, they could leverage proven approaches in other best of breed fights. That is what I meant by upgrading our current best stuff. You can straight-up improve their existing configuration. Or you can create new planes with their best qualities with vastly improved capabilities. As illustrated above, there's still plenty of consolidation allowed and would probably be cheaper (in development) due to less troubles.
  - robotresearcher 11y ago
    I have enough experience with phased development to know that the later phases rarely happen.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      Or they get mashed together, or neutered, or otherwise transformed to poor shadows of their original conception.
  - plonh 11y ago
    ? Spiral is the opposite of waterfall that people like these days
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      That process chart has some waterfall in it -- that's clear to see -- but the steps of those waterfalls are often done in a spiral manner (sounds confusing, it really is). So you go down a waterfall in this chart, do some work, but you split the functionality of what you make into "blocks". The first block features the basic functionality. Subsequent blocks build on that. Really the DoD chart is what the DoD tells itself about how it designs and develops products, but in reality, it's even messier and more confused. It's the world's biggest exemplar of a spaghetti process.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        "Really the DoD chart is what the DoD tells itself about how it designs and develops products, but in reality, it's even messier and more confused. It's the world's biggest exemplar of a spaghetti process." Well put. It's how I've interpreted it from the outside looking at descriptions/slides vs results.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      Spiral is waterfall with short iterations and the predecessor to Agile's increments. It's also not how defense procurements usually work. They get a big contract, divide that into different phases, subdivide each phase's work into subcontracts, these might be further subdivided, and there are various points of integration. There are DOD efforts that used Spiral or want to do Agile but the status quo is quite waterfall-like. Even if your small part is Spiral, you might still be forced into an overall water-fall structure. One of many reasons I stay out of that sector. It can be like working in a straight-jacket sometimes.
  - plonh 11y ago
    ? Spiral is the opposite of waterfall that people like these days
protomyth 11y ago
My argument is the gun software is not the ready which you have confirmed. Also, for a CAS platform the pathetic 220 rounds is really going to be a problem. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/08/pentagon-f-35-gun-will-fire-in-2017/ http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/08/pentagon-f-35-gun-will-fir...
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Yup, there's no denying the software is not ready. As I pointed out, the gun is still being tested. And let's be clear about that 220 rounds -- that's only on the F-35A. The number is less for the other two variants (180) which have to carry the gun externally in a pod. So that is even worse!

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

nickpsecurity 11y ago

You just admitted what the article claimed but with a different reason. We've spent X dollars for Y years for a plane with a partly usable gun? That fact is enough reason not to like the plane for situations involving guns or the program that led to that situation. That's before my arguments or personal preferences enter the situation.

engi_nerd 11y ago
So you're a software guy, right? Ever do a phased release? Wherein you design capability to be released in different increments. I know this isn't the most popular of software methodologies, but it's how defense projects work. Your complaint is like saying, "You worked all this time to get to phase 2 and you don't have feature X done yet?" and the engineers say, "But feature X isn't even intended to be in the software until phase 4!" EDIT: I should point out that as a defense acquisition project, THIS (http://www.hjspllc.com/2014dev/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/DAUlarge.jpg http://www.hjspllc.com/2014dev/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/DA...) is what governs the F-35 and most projects the DoD does. Look upon these works, ye sorry engineers, and despair. I took several hundred hours of courses about this process and I could not even begin to explain it, it's so ridiculous. Tons of waterfall and spiral development there.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I'm a systems & software guy w/ a high assurance focus so I'm familiar with that sort of thing. It taught me to prioritize based on what was more vs less critical. So, it's supposed to destroy targets. Means it has to take off, detect the target, destroy with missiles/guns, and return. The essentials of these get done first and then everything else. A program that's spent this money with this many features without a working gun is not how we do phases in delivery. That's defense programs gone wrong. Further, the other commenter's link shows this isn't a phase: it's a delay caused by the failure of one. Plenty of delays, overruns, and even decommissioning to make up for it support how poorly-managed this program is. And such poor management and priorities support that this isn't merely a lifecycle issue.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    Well, you would have to prioritize how you wanted to kill targets, as you say. The program has chosen to delay focus on the gun until later. Was that a wise decision? I honestly don't know. And also, history nerd that I am...most of the high profile defense programs that I can think of were off the rails at one point or another. This is not to excuse anything (boy, people love that argument, that other programs had issues but turned out fine, so this will, too...I don't like that one), but to point out the fact that we as a society really don't understand how to do this kind of thing well. F-15 and F-16 were both lampooned in their day as being bloated and late and ineffective (I can anticipate the objection now -- not to this same degree -- and cannot argue against it). The Bradley's problems were so famous that HBO made "The Pentagon Wars" (which is a movie that I would actually highly recommend). The A-10 was not paid much attention to publicly but the Air Force of the 1970s hated it and wanted it to die before it ever left a drafting board (they were wrong, of course).
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      I was saying the program has had many delays and overruns in general with the gun issue maybe being part of that trend rather than pure design decision. Each possibility paints it in a different light. Regardless, I agree that many programs have had issues despite making it. I did watch Pentagon Wars and was amazed that some issues even existed. I think the main concern, outside the original link, is that this plane is one of the most expensive we've ever done while not delivering the value or effectiveness a few different, focused planes would. They still could've consolidated on radar, comms, weapon/missile systems, and so on while making the plane physically ideal for its missions. In process, they could leverage proven approaches in other best of breed fights. That is what I meant by upgrading our current best stuff. You can straight-up improve their existing configuration. Or you can create new planes with their best qualities with vastly improved capabilities. As illustrated above, there's still plenty of consolidation allowed and would probably be cheaper (in development) due to less troubles.
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  I have enough experience with phased development to know that the later phases rarely happen.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    Or they get mashed together, or neutered, or otherwise transformed to poor shadows of their original conception.
- plonh 11y ago
  ? Spiral is the opposite of waterfall that people like these days
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    That process chart has some waterfall in it -- that's clear to see -- but the steps of those waterfalls are often done in a spiral manner (sounds confusing, it really is). So you go down a waterfall in this chart, do some work, but you split the functionality of what you make into "blocks". The first block features the basic functionality. Subsequent blocks build on that. Really the DoD chart is what the DoD tells itself about how it designs and develops products, but in reality, it's even messier and more confused. It's the world's biggest exemplar of a spaghetti process.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      "Really the DoD chart is what the DoD tells itself about how it designs and develops products, but in reality, it's even messier and more confused. It's the world's biggest exemplar of a spaghetti process." Well put. It's how I've interpreted it from the outside looking at descriptions/slides vs results.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    Spiral is waterfall with short iterations and the predecessor to Agile's increments. It's also not how defense procurements usually work. They get a big contract, divide that into different phases, subdivide each phase's work into subcontracts, these might be further subdivided, and there are various points of integration. There are DOD efforts that used Spiral or want to do Agile but the status quo is quite waterfall-like. Even if your small part is Spiral, you might still be forced into an overall water-fall structure. One of many reasons I stay out of that sector. It can be like working in a straight-jacket sometimes.
- plonh 11y ago
  ? Spiral is the opposite of waterfall that people like these days

protomyth 11y ago

My argument is the gun software is not the ready which you have confirmed. Also, for a CAS platform the pathetic 220 rounds is really going to be a problem. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/08/pentagon-f-35-gun-will-fire-in-2017/ http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/08/pentagon-f-35-gun-will-fir...

engi_nerd 11y ago
Yup, there's no denying the software is not ready. As I pointed out, the gun is still being tested. And let's be clear about that 220 rounds -- that's only on the F-35A. The number is less for the other two variants (180) which have to carry the gun externally in a pod. So that is even worse!