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

Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

armed-services.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 173 posts

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#81

Post by wmeredith »

beamatronic wrote: post #66
wrong_variable wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what so many non-software people trying to make decisions on software fail to realize - every constraint added increases the complexity of software by an order of magnitude.

Maybe you can explain it to them this way - if they know what a function is. If you have a function that does something, foo, and it takes one boolean parameter, that's two test cases. If you add a second boolean parameter, now you have at least four total test cases. And so on.

Ah yes, give it to them in functions and boolean parameters, that will get the non-programmers on board. /s

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#82

Post by matt_wulfeck »

ino wrote: post #73
vanattab wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-22 is not for export because we want to make sure we can shoot down the f35s we do export.

a software kill switch could be a solution to that problem

Good thing we have such competent developers on the project.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#83

Post by Pinckney »

thinkcontext wrote: post #77
Impl0x wrote: post #68

This might be off topic, but there are a few comments on here (mostly) joking about why we even should bother designing planes like the F-35 to be operated locally by humans. I'm curious, does anyone have any info on the state of drone fighter planes, either remotely piloted or completely autonomous? Does such a project even merit consideration when we could innovate missile systems instead?

Drones are not a good replacement for the traditional fighter aircraft. Remote piloting has too much latency for dogfights and software is no where near smart enough to trust full autonomy in order to, say, shoot down another plane. That said, would you consider a cruise missile a drone? One can imagine other types of weapons getting smarter. Additionally, its clear the roles that drones tackle will expand at the exp…

What about a semi-autonomous fighter, with a pilot to provide low latency input on what to shoot, and the plane deciding how to fly and make that shot independently? You could even have the pilot prone for higher G tolerance, like they tried in some of the old Gloster Meteors, since their input is no longer necessary for all of its operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor_F8_"Prone_Pilot...

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#84

Post by akiselev »

sickbeard wrote: post #56
adventured wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money is on them re-starting F-22 production. "The bill would also require a study of the budgetary implications of restarting Lockheed Martin’s F-22 fighter jet line." http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/28/house-pa... http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/20/D-j-Vu-F-22-Why-Air...

funny because just 3-4 years ago everyone was saying how expensive the f-22 was and couldn't even win in a dogfight. Now we want more? http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-wont-win-a-dogfight-thru... 5 years later will there be comments saying how awesome the f-35 is and that we should build more?

Huh? That article is about how thrust vectoring, a really complex and expensive piece of hardware on the F22, is unnecessary to it's main mission, which is air superiority. If the F22 doesn't need one of its most marketed features to dominate the skies, that's a good thing.

The F22 is expensive but so good at its job that no other country had tried to counter it with its own design, and one of its primary problems is the health effects of extreme g forces on its pilots. The software is now modified to limit it's maneuverability just so that its pilots can remain concious.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#85

Post by erichurkman »

nabla9 wrote: post #20

F-35 looks like it's the most ambitious software project ever attempted. - Lots of system integration for the final product from multiple suppliers (usually nightmare). - Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) is critical for the maintainability and it's millions of lines of code. Failure rate of large projects like this is typically 40-60% and ALIS looks like it's more advanced than most bean counting systems…

Have you tried turning it off and back on again?

Have you tried turning it off and back on again?

Have you tried turning it off and back on again?

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#86

Post by mrpippy »

vonmoltke wrote: post #9
ivl wrote: post #6

I really think it's a shame that they moved to the F-35, instead of just continuing to produce F-22s. Stupid export ban. Then again, the extra payload may have been worth it.

The unit production cost (the cost of building an aircraft, not including amortized R&D) for the F-22A is about 50% higher than for the F-35A. You could certainly argue that two F-22As is better than three F-35As, but that is an issue that needs to be considered. Furthermore, the F-22A was already running into parts obsolescence issues when I was working on it (2002 - 2006). Those would have continued to get worse ha…

If parts were going obsolete while it was still being produced, how is maintenance going to work for the next half century? I assume these were electronics?

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#87

Post by neurotech1 »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #36
johngalt wrote: post #8

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else. Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for l…

RAND published a writeup of joint acquisition programs recently: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1200/... Spoiler: they're a bad idea.

RAND didn't mention the commonality between the F/A-18A and the F-117A aircraft.

McDonnell-Douglas significantly upgraded the YF-17 mission systems and cockpit avionics for the F/A-18A/B and it was more advanced than the F-16A version at the time.

The F-117A basically used the same mission avionics and engines as the F/A-18 which was a few years ahead in development.

Having inter-service commonality in major systems and components sometimes a better option than a joint aircraft program. The USAF is upgrading the F-15C (& some export customers) with AN/APG-82 radar, which is basically a larger AESA "antenna" on a AN/APG-79 radar from a Super Hornet.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#88

Post by venomsnake »

mozumder wrote: post #58
johngalt wrote: post #8

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else. Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for l…

Isn't the F-35's high price due to it already being 3 very different attack aircraft? 1. CAS with STOVL capability (Marine) 2. Light attack fighter (Air Force) 3. Carrier attack plane with bigger wings (Navy) Creating 3 separate programs isn't going to change that. And, if not that, then the software they want is going raise the prices of the 3 different aircraft anyways. The Marines are probably going to want to dev…

Because in real world costs tend to grow exponentially with complexity.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#89

Post by engi_nerd »

dajohnson89 wrote: post #80
rootbear wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar arguments apply to spacecraft. The processors and other IT tech are usually far behind consumer gear. This is party due to the radiation hardening required, but also the lack of a real requirement for the latest-and-greatest.

I have a hard time classifying the computational power of a smartphone as latest-and-greatest.

That's almost irrelevant. The point is, the computational power on even a 5th generation fighter is much less than a flagship smartphone. Which is fine, because defense acquisition is on a completely different timescale than a typical consumer electronic product.

Re: Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

#90

Post by Someone1234 »

gaius wrote: post #79
icegreentea wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harrier design concept is limited by the massive frontal cross section that Pegasus type engines imposes on the craft - this limits aero efficiency, and especially the ability to go supersonic. Harrier design is also completely not low observable. An F-35 could splash any harrier derivative from afar, and could probably beat out an Harrier in anything but the lowest altitude, lowest speed confrontations. F-35 is full…

F-35 could splash any harrier derivative from afar And an X-wing could take out an F-35, I mean, if we're talking complete hypotheticals. The Harrier is battle-proven everywhere from the Falklands to Afghanistan. Marry it up with modern radar and air-to-air missiles and you will have a very capable platform - one that the F-35 - if it ever flies in combat - which it won't because no-one will risk those mind-bogglingl…

I love the Harrier and agree that a modern one would be a better buy than the F-35.

However, the argument you're making is silly. A Harrier won't beat an F-35 in combat. The F-35 would shoot down the Harrier before the Harrier had even detected it.

The argument you SHOULD be making is one of cost, performance at roles (e.g. CAS, bombing missions, etc), proven for naval operations, extremely flexible, and would likely be delivered sooner (even if they started today, if only one manufacturer was involved, it will likely ship before the naval variant of the F-35 in 2022 or whatever they're guesstimating now).

The core problem with the F-35 and F-22 is that they're the most advanced air to air combat aircraft ever built, so advanced in fact that they have nothing to fight, and worse still will arrive right before swarms of drones take over from manned aircraft (e.g. 10x drones Vs. 1x F-35, the F-35 would literally run out of munitions).

Post reply on HN