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

Post by gaius » Mon, May 02, 2016, 4:31 PM UTC

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…

Post by sbov » Mon, May 02, 2016, 4:34 PM UTC

wrong_variable wrote: post #23

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.

Post by sickbeard » Mon, May 02, 2016, 4:38 PM UTC

ChrisBland wrote: post #34

When viewing the F-35 through the lens of a defense project, it looks silly. You must also realize that this is also an indirect federal jobs program. When the F-35 would replace other aircraft and their roles, the bases, parts suppliers, and ...sub contractors those people had to be kept employed. No member of congress wanted to say don't add that or build that if it would hurt their district. So much backroom deali…

Post by rootbear » Mon, May 02, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

engi_nerd wrote: post #16

coredog64 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 avion…

Post by Aelinsaar » Mon, May 02, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

engi_nerd wrote: post #46

Aelinsaar wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 is a 1.5 Trillion black hole; a stark lesson on the sunk cost fallacy. The F-22 exists, and works. We already have bombers, and frankly it seems less useful to put humans rather than robots in harm's way for a bombing run.

Maybe it is an example of the sunk cost fallacy. But ruminate on this for a moment: if we were having this conversation in 1996, you could have easily said something like, "The F-22 is a $800 billion black hole; a stark lesson on the sunk cost fallacy. The F-15 exists, and works..." Maybe the F-35 is what you say it is, but when you look at the history of fighter development, I don't think the F-35 is significantly d…