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

21–30 of 173 posts

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

#21

Post by incongruity »

dexterdog wrote: post #13
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.

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.

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

#22

Post by engi_nerd »

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 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.

Allow me to point out the very practical reality that the figure you're quoting was the cost to build an F-22. We haven't built one since the last F-22 rolled out of Marietta in 2012, and all the tooling has been put away (and some of it has been lost). It would certainly be possible to resume F-22 production, but the cost of the first few new aircraft would be even higher than what you're quoting because we would have to teach ourselves how to build it again, and set up all the equipment and logistics necessary to do it. That won't come cheaply.

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

#23

Post by wrong_variable »

nabla9 wrote: post #20

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…

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.

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

#24

Post by adventured »

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 money is on them re-starting F-22 production.

"The bill would also require a study of the budgetary implications of restarting Lockheed Martin’s F-22 fighter jet line."

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/28/house-pa...

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/20/D-j-Vu-F-22-Why-Air...

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

#25

Post by mrweasel »

>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?

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

#26

Post by tomjen3 »

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…

Honestly why do we still spec these with pilots? Why not make a generation of hyper-advanced missiles? It has got to be cheaper and easier (you don't need to visualize anything, because it is a computer) and you wouldn't even need active lifesupport.

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

#27

Post by arethuza »

PantaloonFlames wrote: post #14
ansible wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the subject of messy international things - the UK is building large carriers without CATOBAR specifically for the F-35B!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft...

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

#28

Post by Pxtl »

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.

I remember when they were killing the F-22 project that basically the argument was that the F-35 would be taking over the lion's share of the work and the F-35 wouldn't have the same issues as the F-22.

Oops.

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

#30

Post by vonmoltke »

engi_nerd wrote: post #22
vonmoltke wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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. Allow me to point out the very practical reality that the figure you're quoting was the cost to build an F-22. We haven't built one since the last F-22 rolled out of Marietta in 2012, and all the tooling has been put away (and some of it has been lost). It would certainly be…

Quite right. The comment I was replying to seemed to be saying it was a mistake to cut F-22A production way back when in favor of the F-35, and I was answering in that context. Restarting it now would require hundreds of millions in tooling costs just to get the lines going again.
Post reply on HN