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

51–60 of 173 posts

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

#51

Post by Aelinsaar »

sickbeard wrote: post #39
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.

and what robot is going to do this bombing run you speak of? has it been built yet?

Robot, or for the near-term, drones controlled remotely by humans. It's never desirable to risk the life of an airman/woman, for obvious and lasting political reasons if no other.

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

#52

Post by icegreentea »

gaius wrote: post #41
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…

You could start a brand new Harrier programme right now, same basic design but new build airframes, avionics and engines using modern materials, and you would still beat the F35 not only into-service, but in a stand-up fight if it ever came to that.

Harrier design concept is limited by the massive frontal cross section that Pegasus type engines imposes on the craft - this limits aero efficiency, and especially the ability to go supersonic.

Harrier design is also completely not low observable. An F-35 could splash any harrier derivative from afar, and could probably beat out an Harrier in anything but the lowest altitude, lowest speed confrontations.

F-35 is full of problems, but there's no sense in bringing up ridiculous arguments. Harriers might be able to perform some CAS roles better than a F-35, but it would get completely demolished in any 'stand-up fight'.

Any attempt to turn something based on a Harrier airframe into something as LO and as fast as the F-35 runs most of the same design risks and problems as the F-35.

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

#53

Post by matt-attack »

tomjen3 wrote: post #26
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…

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.

...but you'd need a ton more software, which based on the F-35's history, is already the key hurdle in its design.

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

#54

Post by prodmerc »

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…

Unsurprisingly, it's already divided into three different aircraft - F-35A, F-35B, F-35C. They were supposed to be 70% common, but that's simply not achievable so the differences are quite a bit larger.

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

#55

Post by threeseven37 »

mrweasel wrote: post #25

>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…

Probably the same reason people get the newest model of iPhones whenever they come out.

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

#56

Post by sickbeard »

adventured wrote: post #24
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...

funny because just 3-4 years ago everyone was saying how expensive the f-22 was and couldn't even win in a dogfight. Now we want more?

http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-wont-win-a-dogfight-thru...

5 years later will there be comments saying how awesome the f-35 is and that we should build more?

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

#58

Post by mozumder »

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…

Isn't the F-35's high price due to it already being 3 very different attack aircraft?

1. CAS with STOVL capability (Marine)

2. Light attack fighter (Air Force)

3. Carrier attack plane with bigger wings (Navy)

Creating 3 separate programs isn't going to change that. And, if not that, then the software they want is going raise the prices of the 3 different aircraft anyways. The Marines are probably going to want to develop the expensive Augmented Reality helmet anyways, for example.

If you create 3 separate programs, where will you save money?

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

#59

Post by protomyth »

adventured wrote: post #24
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...

I also keep seeing news about the Navy and Marines asking for more F-18's since they have ran through more hours on the airframe since the F-35 is late.

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

#60

Post by brohee »

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…

>> 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!

Even more extraordinary that they found someone willing to takeoff after that...

Post reply on HN