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

Lockheed has an opening for engineers with VAX experience for the F22

lockheedmartinjobs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 330 posts

Re: Lockheed has an opening for engineers with VAX experience for the F22

#211

Post by euler_angles »

cmiles74 wrote: post #161
nabla9 wrote: post #73

Modern is relative. F-22's first flight was 1997. F-35 development started in 1992, first flight of X-35 was 2000 and F-35's first flight was 2006. There is absolutely noting wrong with using old technology. Being modern just for the sake of being modern is wasteful.

I see the "there's nothing wrong with old technology" comment a lot, and in this case I disagree. There's a good chunk of this thread pointing out how hard it is to hire for this position because practically no one is familiar with these technologies. This, to me, illustrates that there absolutely is something wrong with using old technology, especially in this instance. I will grant that there are some things that j…

The problem is of incompatible time scales. The original studies and requirements for the F-22 were done in the 1980s, Lockheed selected to build the F-22 in the 90s, F-22 entered flight test in 1997, IOC declared in 2005, expected to be in service until the 2040s at least. And in that time the world went from the original IBM PC to iPads and graphics cards that do real time ray-tracing.

And re-doing all the avionics would be a probably decade-plus effort costing billions of dollars. Cheaper to hire some old VAX guys as consultants, pay them exorbitant rates, and have them train up a new generation of VAX people.

Re: Lockheed has an opening for engineers with VAX experience for the F22

#212

Post by stcredzero »

aosmith wrote: post #19
dotancohen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way that the fine article was worded, it seems that the engineering team knew that they needed approximately 1.5M LOC before they has started. How could they have known that? Or is it simply poorly worded? > The ATF Team planned to develop approximately 1.5 million source lines of code, across more than 20 software development companies located throughout the U.S., Canada, and Europe.

Also seems pretty low for a team that size. I would love to know their cost per line...

In aerospace, a hyphen might well be worth $80 million.

https://priceonomics.com/the-typo-that-destroyed-a-space-shu...

Re: Lockheed has an opening for engineers with VAX experience for the F22

#213

Post by jfb »

inetsee wrote: post #204
magduf wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should apply, and demand an insanely-high salary while pointing out that almost no one has VAX experience now.

When we retired my wife and I fled Atlanta at top speed. I don't know if the job is in Marietta, GA or Ft. Worth (the job listing seems to have disappeared) but I doubt if even an insanely high salary could get us to move to either of those locations.

It's at Edwards.

Re: Lockheed has an opening for engineers with VAX experience for the F22

#214

Post by NortySpock »

floatboth wrote: post #198
akiselev wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ECC doesn't help when you have an EMP caused by an atmospheric nuclear detonation. Those are the kinds of things the design has to consider.

But wouldn't that fuck up the processors as well as memory anyway?

In flight reboot

Re: Lockheed has an opening for engineers with VAX experience for the F22

#215

Post by stcredzero »

euler_angles wrote: post #211
cmiles74 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the "there's nothing wrong with old technology" comment a lot, and in this case I disagree. There's a good chunk of this thread pointing out how hard it is to hire for this position because practically no one is familiar with these technologies. This, to me, illustrates that there absolutely is something wrong with using old technology, especially in this instance. I will grant that there are some things that j…

The problem is of incompatible time scales. The original studies and requirements for the F-22 were done in the 1980s, Lockheed selected to build the F-22 in the 90s, F-22 entered flight test in 1997, IOC declared in 2005, expected to be in service until the 2040s at least. And in that time the world went from the original IBM PC to iPads and graphics cards that do real time ray-tracing. And re-doing all the avionics…

The problem is of incompatible time scales. The original studies and requirements for the F-22 were done in the 1980s, Lockheed selected to build the F-22 in the 90s, F-22 entered flight test in 1997, IOC declared in 2005, expected to be in service until the 2040s at least.

Iteration time goes down by a lot in wartime. Also, choosing technologies which have much shorter iteration times could be a disruptive game changer. I'd bet shaped charge carrying drones with a range of 4 km would be much faster to iterate on than tank guns with the same range.

Re: Lockheed has an opening for engineers with VAX experience for the F22

#216

Post by jfb »

keeganjw wrote: post #117
nabla9 wrote: post #73

Modern is relative. F-22's first flight was 1997. F-35 development started in 1992, first flight of X-35 was 2000 and F-35's first flight was 2006. There is absolutely noting wrong with using old technology. Being modern just for the sake of being modern is wasteful.

The F-35? Being wasteful? They wouldn't dare...

It's also the F-22.

Re: Lockheed has an opening for engineers with VAX experience for the F22

#217

Post by euler_angles »

stcredzero wrote: post #215
euler_angles wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is of incompatible time scales. The original studies and requirements for the F-22 were done in the 1980s, Lockheed selected to build the F-22 in the 90s, F-22 entered flight test in 1997, IOC declared in 2005, expected to be in service until the 2040s at least. And in that time the world went from the original IBM PC to iPads and graphics cards that do real time ray-tracing. And re-doing all the avionics…

The problem is of incompatible time scales. The original studies and requirements for the F-22 were done in the 1980s, Lockheed selected to build the F-22 in the 90s, F-22 entered flight test in 1997, IOC declared in 2005, expected to be in service until the 2040s at least. Iteration time goes down by a lot in wartime. Also, choosing technologies which have much shorter iteration times could be a disruptive game chan…

The technologies may have a shorter iteration time, but can the defense establishment adapt? I am skeptical but hope you are correct.

Re: Lockheed has an opening for engineers with VAX experience for the F22

#218

Post by CharlesColeman »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #202
rwallace wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a school of thought that says rather than look at the requirements and make your best guess at the amount of work needed to implement them, you will get more accurate results by making your best guess at the number of lines of code required, then using a formula to estimate the amount of work needed to write that many lines of code. I personally am not convinced this is really more accurate, but it does have…

The variation I was taught (and it works rather well), is to look at the Requirements and estimate them in terms of T-Shirt sizes of LOC (Small, Medium, Large, XL). Then baseline your S/M/L/XL sizes into LOC. e.g., Small is 20 LOC, Large is 750, etc. From that, use your historical data (you have been tracking closely how long it takes to implement a feature vs its LOC size, right?) to estimate that say, a Small featu…

I'm sure that works reasonably well in most cases, but it is a bit of a fallacy that it take a similar amount of effort to write each LOC.

Re: Lockheed has an opening for engineers with VAX experience for the F22

#219

Post by mcguire »

cmiles74 wrote: post #161
nabla9 wrote: post #73

Modern is relative. F-22's first flight was 1997. F-35 development started in 1992, first flight of X-35 was 2000 and F-35's first flight was 2006. There is absolutely noting wrong with using old technology. Being modern just for the sake of being modern is wasteful.

I see the "there's nothing wrong with old technology" comment a lot, and in this case I disagree. There's a good chunk of this thread pointing out how hard it is to hire for this position because practically no one is familiar with these technologies. This, to me, illustrates that there absolutely is something wrong with using old technology, especially in this instance. I will grant that there are some things that j…

How often do you rewrite your existing projects?

Re: Lockheed has an opening for engineers with VAX experience for the F22

#220

Post by a_random_name »

ubermonkey wrote: post #193
oldsklgdfth wrote: post #118

I had a job maintaining fortran code on an openVMS OS running on itanium hardware. Itanium was intel's failed attempt at a 64bit architecture and that's the platform VMS decided to port to. That made hardware expensive and as of recently obsolete (i think hp discontinued that integrity line of servers) VMS doesn't natively support TCP/IP, because it predates it. The VMS communication protocol was called decnet. So yo…

VMS is widely maligned today, but it really wasn't bad, and as you note the clever, native support of versions was kind of amazing. I can't believe that's not part of a modern OS. VMS' clustering tech was also pretty great, which is the reason my late-90s employer was still on it (though on Alpha hardware at that point, not Vax).

ZFS does bring in file system level versioning. Not widely adopted yet though.
Post reply on HN