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

F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#71

Post by poof131 »

noir_lord wrote: post #58
josefresco wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering we (and around the world) still fly jets from the 1970's and prior (although heavily updated) I'd say we have a handful of decades of human operation left.

To some extent however most of the changes since the 60's have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, pilotless aircraft are revolutionary. Even putting modern electronics into an ancient design like the Mig-21 produces a very capable aircraft (the Mig-21 Bison has held it's own against F16's and even F15C's) putting a pilotless control system into something like a modern F15 would create one hell of a fighter.

Interesting that you mention the bison upgrade. The U.S. defense establishment’s inability to iterate quickly with technology is becoming an increasing liability. More, cheaper planes, with specialized roles, that can be upgraded quickly with new technology is definitely the way to go. The JSF is a disaster waiting to happen. As the saying goes, ‘armchair generals study strategy, but professionals study logistics’ forgets the last part that only fools put all their eggs in one basket.

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#72

Post by outworlder »

josefresco wrote: post #23
outworlder wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some types, not all of them. Also, 'Unmanned' does not necessarily means "remote-controlled". They can be autonomous. We are making progress: http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsus-navys-x-47b-cond... This is after carrier landings and takeoffs and formation flying with manned aircraft. And all that developed at a fraction of what the F-35 program will spend on engines alone

If you think drones, or autonomous planes will fix what governments spend (and waste) on military projects - you're in for a huge disappointment. If anything, "drone" type weapons have meant an increase in budgets. While the F-35 budgets looks atrocious now - in a couple decades we'll look back and think "how cheap!".

You have a point.

I remember reading a couple of years ago that the thing causing F-35's biggest delays was software, not the hardware. The software for the radar alone is reported to be a few millions of lines of C++ code.

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#73

Post by poof131 »

Shivetya wrote: post #10
mangeletti wrote: post #5

I think the F-35 isn't real, that all the videos of it are CGI, and that all these reports are supposed to convince us that this money has been lost, all while the government is secretly using the entire F-35 budget to build a flock of flying drones, walking and talking robots, and rail guns for the next major war. I have to believe such contrivances to avoid thinking about how my tax dollars are wasted.

The X-47B is pretty damn cool, makes one wonder with the rate of advancement they had why we would need to develop manned craft much longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B

As a former F/A-18 pilot, I’m actually a huge fan of drones, but I’m also suspect of betting everything on them. It strikes me as having the same problem as the JSF: ‘all your eggs in one basket’. If one key flaw can be found with the JSF, a sneaky way to target it, the results would be catastrophic. The same applies to drones, if an adversary can figure out how to deny the comm links or compromise the system, the results would also be catastrophic.

Fighter aircraft are essentially missile trucks with targeting systems. The battle is being won or lost in the electromagnetic spectrum. In this battle, I’m of the mindset that we should have a mix of manned and un-manned missile truck drivers. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems.

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#74

Post by protomyth »

greedo wrote: post #69
protomyth wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I should have added strike fighter, but the F/Axx is listed as manned or unmanned. I have my doubts about the duality they think they are going to get. On the technical side the F-35 is replacing the F/A-18C while the F/Axx is replacing the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

The problem for the USN is that the F-35 isn't coming along fast enough, and the cost will make the airwing even smaller than currently deployed. I think they Navy would love to ditch the F-35, let the Marines suffer with the F-35B, and push on to F/Axx. Of course the really smart thing would be pushing UCLASS hard, but that would conflict with a lot of their ideas about piloted aircraft.

At this point, they might as well buy the newer F-18 until they can get a decision. It looks like Boeing needs orders or it will shutdown the line.

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#75

Post by glesica »

cbd1984 wrote: post #20
glesica wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's basically "New Deal"-type spending that is acceptable to the right wing (which, for the most part these days, includes the Democrats). The economy is in shambles, so you have to do something about it. But fixing the economy would involve breaking from your orthodoxy and upsetting your wealthy sponsors. So what do you do? Pay the unemployed to build killing machines, everyone loves those.

It's easy to blame the wealthy sponsors, but some blame also rests on the people who are convinced that literally all of the taxes they pay on their 250%-of-poverty-line income go to support those on 150%-of-poverty-line assistance programs, and that that's a terrible thing, because of someone they met once who got more than they 'deserved' from the system. There's a whole psychology there which is missed by the usua…

Oh I agree with you. But I also think that that attitude is driven, at least partially, by the rich. If you're part of the top N%, for N<50, you must convince other people that what is in your best interest is also in their best interest. This is what has happened, the middle class have been turned against themselves and the poor.

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#76

Post by Jtsummers »

outworlder wrote: post #72
josefresco wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think drones, or autonomous planes will fix what governments spend (and waste) on military projects - you're in for a huge disappointment. If anything, "drone" type weapons have meant an increase in budgets. While the F-35 budgets looks atrocious now - in a couple decades we'll look back and think "how cheap!".

You have a point. I remember reading a couple of years ago that the thing causing F-35's biggest delays was software, not the hardware. The software for the radar alone is reported to be a few millions of lines of C++ code.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/aerospace/aviation/softw...

An article on the topic. The summary, IMO, is that no one acquiring major systems (defense or otherwise) seems to properly understand the costs and risks of software. More money spent up front on their design, development and test framework would have significantly reduced the risks while (naturally) costing more early on, but should reduce costs over the lifetime. They ignore this and spend more after the deadlines have passed as a consequence.

Re: F-35 Engines from United Technologies Called Unreliable by GAO

#77

Post by noir_lord »

poof131 wrote: post #71
noir_lord wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To some extent however most of the changes since the 60's have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, pilotless aircraft are revolutionary. Even putting modern electronics into an ancient design like the Mig-21 produces a very capable aircraft (the Mig-21 Bison has held it's own against F16's and even F15C's) putting a pilotless control system into something like a modern F15 would create one hell of a fighter.

Interesting that you mention the bison upgrade. The U.S. defense establishment’s inability to iterate quickly with technology is becoming an increasing liability. More, cheaper planes, with specialized roles, that can be upgraded quickly with new technology is definitely the way to go. The JSF is a disaster waiting to happen. As the saying goes, ‘armchair generals study strategy, but professionals study logistics’ fo…

Agreed, also the Bison is interesting because the Russian's put their state of the art (which might not be the wests, I'm not sure) equipment into a plane that first flew 59 years ago and went into service 56 years ago.

That it turned out to be extremely capable is very interesting and compared to the stuff the west is building very cheap.

As I think Lenin said "Quantity has a quality all of it's own".

Post reply on HN