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

The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#661

Post by pishpash »

arwhatever wrote: post #629
bumby wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is it the “randomness” of terrorism that causes us to overweight the risk? It seems like we’re just really bad at thinking clearly about low probability / high severity risks

Bruce Schneider article claims people fear terrorism disproportionately to the risk because it is intentional and directed https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/the_comparati...

Not only that, it is the whole point of terrorism, to trigger psychological bugs in humans relating to risk assessment.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#662

Post by rsj_hn »

adinb wrote: post #652
bumby wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The root of the F-35 program's problems is a cost plus style contract that gave Lockheed every incentive to overrun I’m fond of the saying “once you understand people’s incentives, you understand everything” as it applies to contracting. I will add, however, that fixed price contracts have their own problems as it relates to cutting corners. E.g., it can put downward pressure on retaining talent and performing best…

Firm, Fixed Price (ffp) contracts can be utilized with incentives after delivery based on metrics like tail availability, maintenance issues, flight hour cost, effectiveness, etc. Most big contracts are really a hybrid, though an existing contractor always tries for a cost plus. It's literally taught in PM classes. I was NOT directly involved in F-35, so I can't speak to the exact amount of sleaze that occurred with…

I think the issue is if you are going to order a million toilets, then moving all the risk to the contractor is fine. If you are asking for innovation and R&D, then the contractor already has a ton of risk. Add in requirements to make a fighter suitable for all branches of the military, and the risk is gigantic. In that environment, you need to remove risk from the contractor.

This is why R&D projects can't be treated in the same way as delivery of well understood tech that simply needs to be mass produced well and efficiently.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#663

Post by 23iofj »

misiti3780 wrote: post #86

The saddest thing about all of this IMO is they have been working on this for 14 years, and how much money was spent/wasted? Now, read about Skunkworks - they were able to build the SR71 (without supercomputers) in less than half that time and for a fraction of the cost. This isn't just planes, this seems to be everything nowadays. Fission was discovered in 1938/1939 and we dropped two bombs on Japan in 1945. No chan…

WE DEVELOPED AND DEPLOYED SEVERAL VACCINES TO A NOVEL VIRUS IN LESS THAN A YEAR.

The year over year progress on computing power/efficiency/size is beyond impressive. Modern computer hardware is an amazing feat of engineering.

The first complete sequences of the Human Genome was completed in 2003, as part of the Human Genome Project which started in 1990. Total cost of $100,000,000. That's actually not so expensive given the payoff is literally a complete copy of our own genetic code. Today, less than 20 years later, the cost of sequencing that same genome is about $1,000.

The LHC? Super fucking cool.

We do build cool shit. Incredibly cool shit. WAY cooler than dumb ass killing machines like fission bombs and space-age fighter jets. And BTW, going from fission in theory to something actually useful for doing something other than killing people did take a couple decades (first nuke power plant turned on in 1954).

We can build all that cool shit you want, too. Flying cars? We've been able to do that for decades. You don't have a flying car because you'd almost certainly end up killing yourself or someone else and probably couldn't afford the fuel to operate it on the daily. There's a reason you can't just rent a Cessna and go out for a joy ride without any training.

The "no cool shit" thesis always uses killing machines and rich person toys as examples. I don't want stupid rich person toys that even rich people don't actually use when they get them (flying cars). I want to be able to Zoom with my parents during a pandemic.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#664

Post by bumby »

adinb wrote: post #652
bumby wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The root of the F-35 program's problems is a cost plus style contract that gave Lockheed every incentive to overrun I’m fond of the saying “once you understand people’s incentives, you understand everything” as it applies to contracting. I will add, however, that fixed price contracts have their own problems as it relates to cutting corners. E.g., it can put downward pressure on retaining talent and performing best…

Firm, Fixed Price (ffp) contracts can be utilized with incentives after delivery based on metrics like tail availability, maintenance issues, flight hour cost, effectiveness, etc. Most big contracts are really a hybrid, though an existing contractor always tries for a cost plus. It's literally taught in PM classes. I was NOT directly involved in F-35, so I can't speak to the exact amount of sleaze that occurred with…

>FFP is at the other end of the spectrum, moving all risk to the contractor.

I agree with your overall opinion but I do think the govt has a lot of residual risk in cost-plus. When a contractor is incentivized to cut corners, the mitigation is govt oversight. Meaning the contractor can keep cutting corners until caught. Since the govt ultimately owns these systems they can be left holding the bag (particularly when requirement specs are weak)

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#665

Post by tootie »

3nf wrote: post #179
medium_burrito wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand the purpose the F35- it is a jobs and pork program first and foremost, like SLS. It has the side benefit of keeping people trained to build this sort of thing, so SpaceX can hire them. We can build cool shit, but our government and most companies don't optimize for that.

I have always assumed this and the $500 toilet seats are just making room for black projects. There were no publicly visible budgets for the U2/F117 projects.

This is mostly a myth.

https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the...

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#666

Post by garmaine »

zie wrote: post #647
garmaine wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a problem with fixed price contracts so much as selecting the lowest bidder. An agency which is allowed to pick the more expensive contract that is justifiably better usually won't succumb to these problems.

And those of us that spend govt money generally do this, it's totally fine to not pick the cheapest, you just have to have a sound reason to do so. I.e. if you aren't willing to stand up in court and talk about why Tootie is better than Tito, despite Tito being 10% cheaper, you better be selecting Tito or looking for another job.

Thanks for offering your experience. That matches with my own as well, albeit from the other side. I worked for a large government contractor on our bid, and we knew we weren't going to have the cheapest option but rather banked on the value-add. And most of the time it worked.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#667

Post by ageyfman »

Judgmentality wrote: post #651
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the US does have a problem with building civil engineering projects today, that dynamic isn't really what happened with the F-35. The root of the F-35 program's problems is a cost plus style contract that gave Lockheed every incentive to overrun on cost and time table. Ash Carter fixed that by telling Lockheed if they didn't agree to his new contract he'd kill the entire thing. And oh hey what a surprise sudden…

> The aircraft itself is apparently excellent at what it does I have heard the opposite from a test pilot who has flown it. He fucking hates it.

Users, amiright?

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#668

Post by patentatt »

hctaw wrote: post #18
digi59404 wrote: post #7

“The F-35 has failed” is a strong statement that depends on what your definition of success is. Did it fail because it couldn’t replace the F-16? Did it fail because it’s expensive and bloated? Do those things even matter? I’m not defending the F-35 but anyone deeply and intimately familiar with the platform knows and understands that it is a Ferrari. You don’t bring your Acura TSX to a Formula 1 race track to win a…

The race car/pickup truck analogy is useful here. The F35 failed because they tried to make a vehicle that could be both a race car and a pickup truck, and wound up making one that is more expensive and worse at both jobs than building two different vehicles. Or just using existing fleets of vehicles. Although personally I think that in the event the US military needs to scramble a bunch of F35s to serve as in legiti…

So you’re saying the F35 is the El Camino of fighter jets?

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#669

Post by Yaa101 »

freeopinion wrote: post #564
nerdponx wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But imagine if we put people to work building useful stuff instead of useless stuff. Power grid infrastructure, new bridges, new rail lines, etc.

Grid infrastructure and rail lines jump to my mind often in these discussions. I am reminded how we got existing rail line through much of the U.S. 19th century land acquisition for private parties who built that infrastructure is easy to spin as a travesty. In many cases it was blatant corruption. And the legacy lasts to this day. All of that land and infrastructure is still privately owned. Fast forward to today. I…

But all these companies need a government that does compete with them the moment they stop innovating and start rent seeking, it's really best for them.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#670

Post by jacobr1 »

relaxing wrote: post #606
freeopinion wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grid infrastructure and rail lines jump to my mind often in these discussions. I am reminded how we got existing rail line through much of the U.S. 19th century land acquisition for private parties who built that infrastructure is easy to spin as a travesty. In many cases it was blatant corruption. And the legacy lasts to this day. All of that land and infrastructure is still privately owned. Fast forward to today. I…

Re: USPS, I’m still waiting to hear the interesting part. The USPS is legally obligated to deliver mail to every household, 6 days a week. The private carriers don’t come anywhere close to meeting that level of service. Most of the US is incredibly sparsely populated. There won’t be bicycle contractors lining up to deliver mail up the Adirondacks or across the Great Plains. How would a network of private interests ha…

This isn't an argument for privatization, but the proposal from the OP are not the same as full an open free market. You still have the USPS responsible for ensuring delivery to the long-tail routes. That just gets bid out (probably at a higher cost that delivery occurs for today). These are the kinds of bids companies like Halliburton take.

I'm not in favor of this approach, either we have a really free market (with some limited regulation for things like anti-fraud) or you have the government manage the service. These public-private partnerships just seem to be grift programs write large. Let's not push for more corporatism. If there is already a private market, then sure, have the government bid for private contracts within that market. Otherwise you have companies whose full-time roles is figure out how to squeeze more money out of government, and they lobby hard to do so, often with much success (at filching taxpayers)

Post reply on HN