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

The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#41

Post by mmmBacon »

ghaff wrote: post #36
mmmBacon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment you point out reminds me of something Margaret Hamilton said: Also, what became apparent with Apollo – though it is not how it worked – is that it is better to define your system up front to minimise errors, rather than producing a bunch of code that then has to be corrected with patches on patches. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/13/margaret-...

So, in other words, it is better to do waterfall development? Indeed, it sometimes probably is, and agile generally shouldn't mean you just make it up as you go along. But I think we've generally come to recognize that, at least in many cases, being more flexible and iterative. This, to be clear, is not in any way a knock on the many people who developed software for Apollo. It was a type of project and set of techno…

I think her comment is specifically around software that is critical for human life support. She is advocating for design in such cases. I posted it because I would consider the SW for the F-35 to be in this category.

It’s worth questioning whether agile SW development that we do for websites, apps, etc... is good when human life hangs on the line.

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#42

Post by verisimilitudes »

It's great to see this in the Fighter-Jet programmed mostly with C++, instead of Ada. I've read of rather queer flaws, such as that one mentioned involving the helmets. To its credit, C++ programmers are cheaper and more numerous, so you get what you pay for.

People will mention every catastrophic flaw Ada programs have ever had, but how many people will remember this as an example of how C++ fails at being a real language for real projects?

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#43

Post by Buttons840 »

jokoon wrote: post #19

It seems 3 new separate aircraft would have been much better and cheaper. It's true that the F35 seems a little beefy, compared to other aircrafts. A single engine is quite bad for survivability. While I can admit that vertical liftoff can be an asset if you want to respond quickly to an attack without building airstrips every 50km, it's hard to really justify building so many aircrafts with a airframe shape that all…

> A single engine is quite bad for survivability.

Are you sure about this?

https://www.quora.com/Do-twin-engine-fighter-jets-provide-hi...

From my research it looks like the same is true in civilian aviation. Statistically twin engines are more dangerous.

https://www.flyingmag.com/wrong-worry-twins-versus-singles/

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#44

Post by thunderbird120 »

goatinaboat wrote: post #28
jokoon wrote: post #19

It seems 3 new separate aircraft would have been much better and cheaper. It's true that the F35 seems a little beefy, compared to other aircrafts. A single engine is quite bad for survivability. While I can admit that vertical liftoff can be an asset if you want to respond quickly to an attack without building airstrips every 50km, it's hard to really justify building so many aircrafts with a airframe shape that all…

Unless the F35 has a next gen radar which allows it to see enemy aircrafts from farther, it will be bad at dogfights. The point of seeing your enemy from afar is that you launch a missile and avoid the dogfight. It is bad at dogfights http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-b...

It's really not. To put it mildly, the report that that article draws from has been subject to some criticism over the years. To put it less mildly, if you link it in any community that follows military aviation closely they will probably make fun of you[1].

Performance is generally better than F-16s in real wold scenarios due to the more powerful F135 engine and the internal weapons bay which means carried weapons don't cause additional drag as they would if carried on pylons. That second point is extremely significant. The aerodynamic effects of hanging a bunch of stuff of your wings is pretty major, especially at supersonic speeds.

Here's a few pilots commenting on differences between the F35 and other aircraft they've flown[2].

[1]https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/129/519/4d0...

[2]https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-mos...

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#45

Post by 0xffff2 »

iamleppert wrote: post #39

Will there even be pilots in dogfights in 20 years? Won’t it be mostly autonomous by then? It stands to reason removing the human component would be a far better engineering choice than this monstrosity. I’m reminded of the quote, “A flying car is equally bad at being a car and an aircraft.”

I think you're badly overestimating the speed of development in defense tech. The F-35, a comparatively conventional aircraft, started development 20 years ago and look where it's at. We'd be incredibly lucky to have an even slightly functional one-off prototype of an unmanned fighter 20 years from now.

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#46

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

jokoon wrote: post #19

It seems 3 new separate aircraft would have been much better and cheaper. It's true that the F35 seems a little beefy, compared to other aircrafts. A single engine is quite bad for survivability. While I can admit that vertical liftoff can be an asset if you want to respond quickly to an attack without building airstrips every 50km, it's hard to really justify building so many aircrafts with a airframe shape that all…

There is a design space betwen VTOL and having to build airstrips every 50km. Sweden has done it:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBE41A9VT3Q

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

Just use some streets and prepared sheds :-)

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#47

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

mmmBacon wrote: post #41
ghaff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in other words, it is better to do waterfall development? Indeed, it sometimes probably is, and agile generally shouldn't mean you just make it up as you go along. But I think we've generally come to recognize that, at least in many cases, being more flexible and iterative. This, to be clear, is not in any way a knock on the many people who developed software for Apollo. It was a type of project and set of techno…

I think her comment is specifically around software that is critical for human life support. She is advocating for design in such cases. I posted it because I would consider the SW for the F-35 to be in this category. It’s worth questioning whether agile SW development that we do for websites, apps, etc... is good when human life hangs on the line.

Clearly, there was never going to be any way to patch the Apollo Guidance Computer in the middle of a mission. Even if that weren't true, the development cycle was so long that iterative development was never a realistic option.

I suspect a project like the F-35 is a hybrid, with elements that are life-or-death mission critical and absolutely need to Just Work, and elements that allow for refinement - even refinement-by-failure in some cases.

Which just underlines how complex a project like this is. A distant descendant of the Apollo Guidance Computer code is likely just one of (at least) hundreds of equivalently complex routines and features in the F-35 codebase.

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#48

Post by alkonaut »

inamberclad wrote: post #22

> There soon turned out to be an essential flaw in the grand plan for a single plane that could do everything. Design specifications demanded by one branch of the military would adversely impact the F-35’s performance in another area. “It turns out when you combine the requirements of the three services, what you end up with is the F-35, which is an aircraft that is in many ways suboptimal for what each of the servic…

The question isn’t whether the compromises are bad but whether 2 or 3 different programs with the same budget as this single program would have done better. That’s possible but not at all as clear as “the F-35 is expensive and technically a compromise between too many different goals”.

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#49

Post by dgregd »

jokoon wrote: post #19

It seems 3 new separate aircraft would have been much better and cheaper. It's true that the F35 seems a little beefy, compared to other aircrafts. A single engine is quite bad for survivability. While I can admit that vertical liftoff can be an asset if you want to respond quickly to an attack without building airstrips every 50km, it's hard to really justify building so many aircrafts with a airframe shape that all…

Car companies develop platforms on which they build many different models. For example in VW cars you can find exactly the same parts in Golf, Touran, Passat, Tiguan and many other models.

All these 3 separate plains probably could share 90% of parts, software, avionics, that VR helmet, etc. Having fewer constraints it would also simplify the plane body design.

Just image car engineers are asked to design one car to replace off-road, city and van cars. Even Elon Musk did not come up with that idea.

Re: The Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar U.S. Fighter-Jet Program

#50

Post by HillaryBriss »

jokoon wrote: post #19

It seems 3 new separate aircraft would have been much better and cheaper. It's true that the F35 seems a little beefy, compared to other aircrafts. A single engine is quite bad for survivability. While I can admit that vertical liftoff can be an asset if you want to respond quickly to an attack without building airstrips every 50km, it's hard to really justify building so many aircrafts with a airframe shape that all…

> That's like deciding to design a pen-lighter-laser-pointer-usb-drive-knife-screwdriver into a single device. It sounds cool, but in the end, it's ...

... sorta like a smartphone

Post reply on HN