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

981–990 of 1001 posts

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

#981

Post by uncoder0 »

tandr wrote: post #32
uncoder0 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worked around F16's and F22's when I was in and can attest that this is the source of the issue for upgrades. Everything in the software is so tightly coupled to the hardware that updating the F16's would be a monumental effort. The difference between a 4th and 5th generation air frame are night and day in terms of software capabilities. Hell, even the different between 5th generation jets can be massive on the softw…

Please forgive my ignorance of military processes involved. Could that be addressed by old software trick of modularising components - software and hardware-alike - and rely on some extensive semi-open protocols to connect these? I think car manufacturers have faced that at some time in the past, even inside single manufacturer (not sure if they have solved it completely). Sounds like they need Ada-like project, but…

The F22 and F35 are far more modular. No more soldering irons and oscilloscopes were needed in the shop after the upgrade. Just swap out the module and you're good to go. Can't go into too much more detail than that.

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

#982

Post by djur »

roninhacker wrote: post #806
djur wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that is that there is no direct correlation between tax receipts and budget outlays. Money being spent in 2021 is not being "paid for" by taxes received in 2021, or for that matter in 2022, 2023, or any other particular year. That's the theoretical problem; the practical problems you encounter as a result include how you deal with programs that are technically 'paid for' by specific taxes (do you try…

I mean, forgive me for being obtuse, but...why do we even pay taxes at all? Like, I understand the "prole logic" of a balance between income and expenditures, but if the government doesn't seem to care, why should I?

In the longer term, the ability of taxpayers to pay taxes is a signal of the nation's ability to produce enough to meet its debt. It's just spread over an extended period.

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

#983

Post by voldacar »

sneak wrote: post #820
christoph wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average person does virtually no regular maintenance / checking of their car, even basics like tyre pressures and oil levels not being checked regularly, happy to leave as much as they possibly can for an annual check at the garage. There’s a shocking amount of people also happy to drive around ignoring warning lights flashing. Imagine that scenario with tons of metal that could fall out of the sky when something…

Very soon, cars won't really let you do anything without ID/phone number/paired phone/key serial number, gps lock, a full working complement of vehicle sensors, and a network connection to report all of the above in realtime to people you don't know (who are of course obligated to provide all of that data to military intelligence at any time, without a warrant or probable cause). There isn't really an issue with that…

crushingly depressing, tbh

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

#984

Post by voldacar »

agsamek wrote: post #432
bun_at_work wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't entirely true. The US subsidizes military costs for all of our allies. It costs a lot, and a huge amount of funds go to that. There are parts that are like jobs programs, and the contractors intentionally drive up costs as part of their business model, but there are also real expenses to maintaining stability across the parts of the world where our military operates.

Read more about petro-dollar scheme. Basically US provides military services to oil producers in exchange for global tax. This is only possible if US is able to retain their military position. So every dollar you think is being subsidized to allied countries is in fact paid back with lots of premium from all countries - both allies and enemies.

> Basically US provides military services to oil producers in exchange for global tax. This is only possible if US is able to retain their military position.

this is just not how economics works at all

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

#985

Post by Accujack »

president wrote: post #409
notional wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more than just a jobs program too. It's a reelection plan for senators/house members. Look at what states and districts get these big DoD contracts and then look at what committees the congressmen/women are sitting on. They approve plans that benefit them then direct the funds right into their districts so they can campaign on it. I mean it's not the worst form of corruption but it's pretty shitty when you reali…

The interesting thing is that it seems to be an unfixable and systemic problem. You could have someone come in and try to clean it up but then they'd face the backlash of the entire system that has been built on and benefited from the corruption.

Exactly... this is in fact the overall problem with the US government. Start by fixing that, and then the smaller systems like military procurement that depend on corruption higher up will become fixable.

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

#986

Post by chipsa »

goatinaboat wrote: post #978
chipsa wrote: post #961

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of having one aircraft be able to become any of the other variants isn't actually that great. Air Force planes don't operate from carriers, and Navy planes don't need to operate from very small fields. The common bits are actually really useful to have in common. The radar is expensive to develop. The optical sensors are too. Engines are expensive, and the F135 engine is like 1/6 of the aircraft's cost. Deve…

The idea of having one aircraft be able to become any of the other variants isn't actually that great. Air Force planes don't operate from carriers, and Navy planes don't need to operate from very small fields. I disagree, there have been cases where it could have been very useful. For example in the 1980s the RAF were operating the Harrier for the close support role (from austere forward airfields) and the RN were o…

Yes, the UK had all of those 4 different aircraft. But the F-35 is primarily a US aircraft, designed primarily for US purposes, and only bought by other nations as fitting their purposes close enough. The F-35B fits UK RN FAA requirements close enough, so they're buying it. The UK RAF has requirements that are better met by the F-35A, so they're doing that.

The F-35B is explicitly the replacement for the Harrier (Sea or regular). The F-35A is designed for both interdiction/strike (it is a "strike fighter"), as well as being able to swing role[0] into air defense. The F-35C is explicitly only for USN requirements. No one else is going to be buying them, because the only allied country that operates CATOBAR aircraft is France, who likes their Rafales.

For all of the F135 being literally the most powerful low bypass turbofan in the world, it's still not enough power to be able to adequetely lift the F-35B without the B being lightened compared to the A. It's not just parts they left off, like the arresting hook, but different parts to shave weight. For example, the weapons bays are smaller. Tails are smaller. Airframe structure is lighter, which reduces durability, and also limits the maximum g-load (22% lower! than the A model). They also had to make the attachment of the wings more difficult compared to earlier plans, because the easier wing attachments weighed too much. The left shoulder of the aircraft are different, because the A model has a gun there that the others don't. These limitations are baked in, and unbaking them would make it too heavy to be able to perform the required role.

[0]: Swing role is more than just being able to do more than one role, but being able to do both of them during the same flight.

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

#987

Post by p_l »

chipsa wrote: post #986
goatinaboat wrote: post #978

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of having one aircraft be able to become any of the other variants isn't actually that great. Air Force planes don't operate from carriers, and Navy planes don't need to operate from very small fields. I disagree, there have been cases where it could have been very useful. For example in the 1980s the RAF were operating the Harrier for the close support role (from austere forward airfields) and the RN were o…

Yes, the UK had all of those 4 different aircraft. But the F-35 is primarily a US aircraft, designed primarily for US purposes, and only bought by other nations as fitting their purposes close enough. The F-35B fits UK RN FAA requirements close enough, so they're buying it. The UK RAF has requirements that are better met by the F-35A, so they're doing that. The F-35B is explicitly the replacement for the Harrier (Sea…

The only reason FAA ended up with F-35B is that they were too late with the idea of switching to F-35C, which meant that they couldn't rebuild their new carriers for CATOBAR on reasonable time/money budget.

Meanwhile F-35B exists pretty much only due to USMC to the point that I would be doubtful of any praise for the F-35 if it came from USMC crew. Then it got pushed as option for export, often seemingly presenting F-35B as being as capable as F-35A.

Meanwhile the ALIS without which F-35 is an expensive paperweight turned out to be a very expensive turd, that finally got renamed as ODIN after awarding the new contract to the same group that fscked up ALIS :/

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

#988

Post by p_l »

whalesalad wrote: post #205
jetrink wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Not to mention the F-16 itself, which the F-35 was meant to replace: 1972: RFP for prototypes 1974: Maiden flight of the first prototype 1975: Production begins 1980: The aircraft officially enters service

Lockheed is synonymous with Skunk Works ... the F-35 was a Lockheed project. I can guarantee a lot of the engineers who worked on those legendary aircraft also participated in the JSF.

A critical part of F-35 problems was developed so far away from Skunkworks it is technically a separate company (still part of the wider Lockheed-Marting Concern) - the Lockheed-Marting Global Training & Logistics.

Having encountered the quality (hahahah ... sob) they produce personally, I'm totally unsurprised US Navy and USMC could find funding a new fleet of space satellites cheaper than re-bribing enough senators to get ALIS (and now ODIN) contract reassigned to someone competent.

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

#989

Post by p_l »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #178
tiahura wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roper is awesome. There’s a video of him describing the role of K8s in the next-gen process.

We are doomed.

Avionics software resembled k8s before k8s was designed. Sure, some of the most problematic bits don't exist due to static assignment, but the difference is not that big. Including presence of virtual overlay networks.

Anyway, k8s is mostly for lower-criticality software to be quickly added/removed, iirc, partly because unlike the normal avionics setup it allows dynamic addition/removal.

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

#990

Post by p_l »

HPsquared wrote: post #874
jnwatson wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've been at this for more than 14 years. I was accidentally part of both the Boeing and Lockheed F-35 teams, and that was 23 years ago. For a humorous take on the U.S. military platform problem, look for a movie called The Pentagon Wars [1] starring Kelsey Grammar and Cary Elwes. It came out in 1998, and very little has changed since then. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/

The movie was based on a book of the same name written by Colonel James Burton, highly recommended. It is a history of how and why the kinds of scope creep occurred in the DoD procurement. Eerily prescient.

... and quietly avoids mentioning that a lot of the problem came from Burton, or that his proposals were found detrimental to the program.

He also was staunch supporter of replicating Volksjäger concept, which was fortunately laughed out of the room (even dumbest Soviet design at the time wasn't that dumb)

Post reply on HN