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

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

#691

Post by caycep » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:00 AM UTC

GVIrish wrote: post #657

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 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 suddenly the marginal cost of a new F-35 started hitting the target numbers. A cost-plus contract is a contributor, but not the root of why…

I think this sort of self-perpetuating bureaucracy bloat has characterized most post-war weapons development in the Pentagon. The F-16 was an exception and success from what I understand, because of what another poster above refers to as spec management (I presume). i.e. it had a small group of proponents who had both extensive pilot experience and also the engineering/management chops to understand clearly what they wanted aeronautically, and were good at running a "rebel" program within the giant DoD bureaucracy to keep that project coherent and focused...until the very end when it did pick up a bit of bloat when it necessarily was exposed to other parts of the DoD.

I think in order to be successful, they probably have to implement some sort of "small teams" approach; I'd imagine a lot of tech developed for JSF/F-35 can be rapidly rolled into a 5th gen+ fighter without reinventing the wheel...but they'd need to firewall the project into small focused teams who really know what they'd want to build.

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

#692

Post by Scramblejams » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:03 AM UTC

heymijo wrote: post #140

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…

Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) [0]. You might have missed this news. It’s a modern remix to the Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich days of developing legendary aircraft at Lockheed’s Skunkworks that you lamented the loss of. People in the know confirm it’s legit and shocking, in a good way. Especially compared to the failures of the F-35 and even the F-22’s development. [0] https://www.airforcemag.com/article/ropers-ng…

I worked in stress analysis in the civilian aircraft world and it was obvious to me that probably 85% of my job could be automated away, and most of what remained could be shifted to the design side if the right software were written and design processes were revised around it.

But the right software would cost a lot of money, and since it would be new, it would need customer buy-in up front (aerospace is in some ways very risk averse when it comes to adopting new workflow tech).

I think there's a revolution waiting to happen in bringing down aerospace design cost and schedule and increasing the ability to iterate on designs. I'm hoping NGAD is the sign of something big that will trickle down soon to the civilian aerospace world.

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

#693

Post by mikepurvis » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:04 AM UTC

skissane wrote: post #612

mikepurvis wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of us would love to believe this, and yet what does the unrestrained private sector churn out? Ad networks, app addiction, gig economy, throwaway culture, urban sprawl, climate apathy... hardly a winner. SpaceX is everyone's favourite private sector success story, but they're basically just a younger, leaner version of Lockheed— surviving off of NASA and doing what they're contracted to do. I don't think the pri…

> SpaceX is everyone's favourite private sector success story, but they're basically just a younger, leaner version of Lockheed— surviving off of NASA In 2020, SpaceX did 26 launches. Only six of those had NASA as a customer. The rest were a mix of US military, commercial customers, foreign governments (Argentina and South Korea), and Starlink. Even if you add up NASA and US military, that's still only nine out of 26…

Sure, and legacy launch providers do business with the private sector also, but none of them could have been bootstrapped without years of unprofitable R&D on the public's dime.

There is no VC who would have accepted a pre-SpaceX pitch for low cost launches, Starlink, or any of the rest of it. It would have been straight up "lol Iridium amirite, get out."

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

#694

Post by Nasrudith » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:06 AM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #600

asimjalis wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can we create new incentives to discourage this behavior and to encourage infrastructure projects that provide jobs as well as create superlinear value?

The easiest answer is probably public financing of elections. Because Members of Congress basically need to continuously raise money, there’s always an incentive to spread the wealth among congressional districts. For the F35, I can think of one company in a rural area who fabricates some metal component for the project. Because of the way it is contracted, acceptance standards, etc they sell it for something like 50…

Public financing would help as a component with corporate lobbyists but pork barrels wouldn't be affected. I use the term with a slight distinction - pork barrels are for parochial voter influnce while an "industrial complex" involves a company's interest in exchange for political benefits. The two may overlap if what helps the company also gets votes in itself. A stereotypical but perhaps unfair example of both (as I am uncertain of actual lobbying in the period) would be Detroit in its heyday - it would have a sizeable base of factory workers locally and large connected auto companies.

The problem of pork barrels is that it gets them votes directly by making things worse for everybody else in exchange for local benefits. Disproportionate representation is what enables it as a tactic or at least makes it more disastrous. Something which serves the interests of 30% of the population is closer to benefitting the whole than one for 3% of the population.

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

#695

Post by dplavery92 » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:08 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #690

dplavery92 wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the thought of a Kubernetes cluster autonomously flying around with nukes scares the fuck out of me I get this, but I also wonder if the same kind of bugs or unintended behavior in a software system aren't just as likely in the protocols, procedures, and chains of command we build for humans to deploy that weaponry. You've got AI doomsday (a la "War Games") on one hand, and bureaucratic doomsday ("Doctor Strangelov…

The bureaucratic doomsday of Doctor Strangelove happens because the Russians have built their own 'Dead Hand' retaliatory 'AI'.

That's the lynchpin that guarantees Russia will retaliate, but it's Ripper's unchecked moments of control at SAC that set the whole ball rolling, and Slim Pickin's is cowboy-riding that bomb down to the ground whether Russia has an AI or not.

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

#696

Post by SCAQTony » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:09 AM UTC

bumby wrote: post #678

SCAQTony wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not trying to be a smart ass but how about this for an human incentive: Build us plane that fulfills these outlined objectives, that meets are budget requirements, or we will shop somewhere else.

I get what you’re saying but I wish it were that easy. Take the requirements for example. If they aren’t airtight, you’ll get into a wordsmithing scenario where the contractor claims they met the requirement and it becomes a game where the team with the best lawyer wins. Write the requirements too explicitly and contractors will push back saying “tell us what you want, not how we’re supposed to do it.” A somewhat sil…

Thank you, my ignorance on the subject has summarily changed

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

#697

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:09 AM UTC

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…

USPS does do contracts for transfers and some local routes.

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

#698

Post by jki275 » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:09 AM UTC

SCAQTony wrote: post #674

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…

I am not trying to be a smart ass but how about this for an human incentive: Build us plane that fulfills these outlined objectives, that meets are budget requirements, or we will shop somewhere else.

Where do you shop?

The problem with massive development efforts like this is that there aren't a lot of competitors. In this particular field, there are two, and not really even quite two exactly.

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

#699

Post by jki275 » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:14 AM UTC

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.

A lot of highly qualified people who have flown it say otherwise.

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

Chip Berke is an F22 and F35 test pilot, and the first F35 Squadron commander. He's probably the most qualified person on the planet to talk about fifth gen aircraft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0&t=203s

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

#700

Post by Rebelgecko » Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 1:16 AM UTC

dplavery92 wrote: post #673

Rebelgecko wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human pilot optional. I would argue that physical humans are not the limiting factor in bomber performance, and the thought of a Kubernetes cluster autonomously flying around with nukes scares the fuck out of me. In addition to the philosophical implications there's also political reasons to go with a hybrid approach.

> the thought of a Kubernetes cluster autonomously flying around with nukes scares the fuck out of me I get this, but I also wonder if the same kind of bugs or unintended behavior in a software system aren't just as likely in the protocols, procedures, and chains of command we build for humans to deploy that weaponry. You've got AI doomsday (a la "War Games") on one hand, and bureaucratic doomsday ("Doctor Strangelov…

That may be the case, but I think the "bugs" in humanity are biased towards not using nuclear weapons. I think that's a good thing.

For example it's very possible that a "Should I launch the nukes?" algorithm would've come up with a different answer than Stanislav Petrov did[1]. There's a similar story about US missileers disregarding a glitch in their own command and control system on Okinawa but the authenticity is suspect.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_al...