Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

armed-services.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 173 posts

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

#11

Post by ansible »

ivl wrote: post #6

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.

Eh, the F-22 is for land-based air superiority, and not much else. I don't think it is really want we want to use for CAS and other missions, nevermind doing things like land on a carrier.

I think we should have cancelled both the F-22 and F-35 programs, demand that the Air Force just fly F/A-18F Super Hornets (they would totally hate this), and put all that money into UCAVs instead.

Edit: grammar.

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

#12

Post by coredog64 »

wyldfire wrote: post #7
ardit33 wrote: post #2

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.

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…

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.

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

#13

Post by dexterdog »

johngalt wrote: post #8

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 l…

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.

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

#14

Post by PantaloonFlames »

ansible wrote: post #11
ivl wrote: post #6

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.

Eh, the F-22 is for land-based air superiority, and not much else. I don't think it is really want we want to use for CAS and other missions, nevermind doing things like land on a carrier. I think we should have cancelled both the F-22 and F-35 programs, demand that the Air Force just fly F/A-18F Super Hornets (they would totally hate this), and put all that money into UCAVs instead. Edit: grammar.

Yep, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are the planes we need, it turns out.

Unwinding the F-35, with all the international commitments and arms deals, is gonna be very messy. Yet necessary.

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

#15

Post by hga »

johngalt wrote: post #8

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 l…

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 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.

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

#16

Post by engi_nerd »

coredog64 wrote: post #12
wyldfire wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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.

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

#17

Post by engi_nerd »

SFJulie wrote: post #5
a3n wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those practices might be appropriate for a combat plane.

So basically F35 is a plane embedded in a software. Why not have embedded computers in a decent plane? lol.

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.

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

#18

Post by nxzero »

ardit33 wrote: post #2

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.

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?

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

#19

Post by Gravityloss »

vonmoltke wrote: post #9
ivl wrote: post #6

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.

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 ha…

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

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

#20

Post by nabla9 »

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!

Post reply on HN