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

71–79 of 79 posts

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

#71

Post by sieabahlpark »

deanCommie wrote: post #2

> One solution favored by Winter during his recent tenure was so-called agile software development. His vision for “continuous capability development and delivery” resembles DevOps, a popular method in the private sector for quickly testing and evaluating features for new products. Coders generate software upgrades or patches in a matter of days or weeks, pass them along to users to test and then push out the update…

That's just nytimes doing what nytimes does best. I've never found their articles to be well researched and either accidentally or purposely misleading.

News about them lately is also not in their favor. I'm sure this is just another piece (which has been covered to death by better and more accurate publications) that is intended to discredit the current administration more.

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

#72

Post by redis_mlc »

Buttons840 wrote: post #43
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/

Single-engine fighters are ok for the Air Force, who fly high over land. Twins are preferred by the Navy and Marines, who either fly over water, or down low and get shot at, or both.

The civil link you provided refers to "light twins" (ie. underpowered and used in GA) used in training and EMS. Not applicable to airliners, which can safely take off on one engine.

Something to think about: all of my former twin instructors have been killed flying light twins.

Four-engine airliners are actually preferred for oceanic routes for safety, but regulators now allow twins (ETOPS), for cost reasons.

Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.

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

#73

Post by mikhailfranco »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #69

A trillion is a big number. Space station big. Personally, my expectation is that the F35 is America's $30,000 toilet seat -- financial cover for our secret UFO program of much higher performance vehicles. Building parts in 50 states is, of course, good congress fodder, but it's also a good way to make sure no one knows what they're building. It is this lie I tell myself to continue believing in America's technologic…

Yes, I had the same idea. It is so insane, overpriced and ineffective, that it must be a fake budget, used to hide a black program that will deliver the real technological advantage.

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

#74

Post by Gibbon1 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #37
devNoise wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Navy and Air Force could have shared version with a lot in common. The Marines want VTOL and I understand that feature is important to the Marines. Unfortunately, the VTOL requirements have force compromises in the design. Without VTOL, I believe the Navy and Air Force would have ended up with a platform that was more acceptable then what they are getting.

In other words, nobody learned anything from the Space Shuttle program.

That and there was some other 1950's era fighter that they tried to make dual use and eventually the Navy convinced congress to put a stop to it. Which they could because during the cold war it wasn't just about funneling money to congressional districts.

Me I think the F35 is the 21st century equivalent of a battle ship.

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

#75

Post by nexuist »

verisimilitudes wrote: post #42

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 la…

A thousand parts, suppliers, personnel, sensors, design sheets, and technical documents, and you first instinct is to blame the programming language?

They're building a plane, not Microsoft Excel.

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

#76

Post by Recurecur »

mlb_hn wrote: post #4
deanCommie wrote: post #2

> One solution favored by Winter during his recent tenure was so-called agile software development. His vision for “continuous capability development and delivery” resembles DevOps, a popular method in the private sector for quickly testing and evaluating features for new products. Coders generate software upgrades or patches in a matter of days or weeks, pass them along to users to test and then push out the update…

The current title I'm seeing is "Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program" which seems misleading as well; it's more of a history of press releases. Doesn't look like they interviewed anyone actually working on it aside from the fellow in charge if that.

> The current title I'm seeing is "Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program" which seems misleading as well

"Dysfunctional" is also misleading. The program has produced three operational variants, including the first ever supersonic STOVL aircraft. The US and Israel have both conducted F-35 airstrikes. That is a called a "functional" (if by no means perfect) aircraft development program.

It's also encouraging to see the F-35A price falling as expected...

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

#77

Post by JetSpiegel »

Felz wrote: post #5
deanCommie wrote: post #2

> One solution favored by Winter during his recent tenure was so-called agile software development. His vision for “continuous capability development and delivery” resembles DevOps, a popular method in the private sector for quickly testing and evaluating features for new products. Coders generate software upgrades or patches in a matter of days or weeks, pass them along to users to test and then push out the update…

This is sometimes called the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-ge...

Made up by Michael Crichton, if I'm not mistaken.

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

#78

Post by JetSpiegel »

thebusby wrote: post #66

Too many folks here are commenting on the F-35's design as an airplane, instead of what it really is. The F-35 is a beautifully designed trillion dollar uncuttable expenditure. If you look at how the program was designed to consume money, instead of deliver anything of value; it's a work of art!

There's also the $10e12 JEDI program, ready go straight into Amazon's pocket.

Trillion dollar uncuttable programs are dime a dozen...

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

#79

Post by bonestamp2 »

Arubis wrote: post #8
bonestamp2 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does such a poorly researched article get published in the NYT? My personal blog is better researched than this.

If you hit Publish on your personal blog three days later than originally planned, you’re unlikely to be fired over it.

It's because they don't care enough about being accurate. Maybe you're right, and that carelessness is a byproduct of speed. But, it's not like this was breaking news. They had enough time for a technical editor to have a look.
Post reply on HN