Slashdot Mirror
More Bad News For the F-35
schwit1 sends this news from Aviation Week:
"A new U.S. Defense Department report warns that ongoing software, maintenance and reliability problems with Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 stealth fighter could delay the Marine Corps' plans to start using its F-35 jets by mid-2015. It said Lockheed had delivered F-35 jets with 50 percent or less of the software capabilities required by its production contracts with the Pentagon. The computer-based logistics system known as ALIS was fielded with 'serious deficiencies' and remained behind schedule, which affected servicing of existing jets needed for flight testing, the report said. It said the ALIS diagnostic system failed to meet even basic requirements. The F35 program, which began in 2001, is 70 percent over initial cost estimates, and years behind schedule, but top U.S. officials say it is now making progress. They have vowed to safeguard funding for the program to keep it on track. Earlier this week, the nonprofit Center for International Policy said Lockheed had greatly exaggerated its estimate (PDF) that the F-35 program sustained 125,000 U.S. jobs to shore up support for the program."
At least the UK's carrier building programme is running slow...it'd just be embarrassing if we had carriers but no planes to put on them....
Whatever one's political philosophy about them is, drones really are the future -- if one gets shot down, no expensive pilot lost and no embarrassing flag-draped coffins. Can hotseat pilots to allow for long loiter times. No need to have a cockpit for a pilot. Latency and jamming is an issue, but is steadily improving. It's the same way with aircraft carriers, which are steadily becoming welfare for defense contractors and an easy target for ballistic anti-ship missiles, super cavitating torpedos, etc. Defense needs to get out of the 20th century mindset, and out of the pockets of Congress, and into the business of actually building useful stuff.
I'm going to wait for the F-35 with service pack 1, at least.
rewriting history since 2109
is Embry Riddle pin heads
DoD has learned nothing from conflicts we've fought, have they? Why has the B-52 seen more action than the B-1 or B-2? How about the A-10? Or drones for that matter. These successful platforms have a few things in common: They're (relatively) cheap, easy to maintain, and they have a high mission capable rate contrasted with their expensive big brothers.
There's a place for the B-2, the F-22, and even the F-35, but what does DoD have in the works to replace the reliable workhorses of the air fleet? Nothing. Not a damned thing. They've placed all their eggs in the F-35 basket, even as costs have ballooned and promised milestones/deadlines have come and gone. Maybe the naysayers (yours truly included) will be proven wrong and the F-35 will go on to be as successful as the F-16. Here's hoping. Even in that optimistic scenario they've still got a huge hole to plug with the pending retirement of platforms like the A-10 and the continued attrition of the B-52 fleet.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
That web site failed on the back end with the 3rd party and there data format needs maybe if we where to have less subcontracts / contracts things will work better as well less people in the mix who get kickbacks / no bid contracts.
Just to be fair, can anyone name a U.S. aircraft that was delivered ontime and at or below budget since the U2 or SR71? This is SOP, not that it's right.
Just another day in Paradise
Yea, websites like slashdot.org
Seems that politicians only look at best case scenario's in order to get projects funded.
Then when shit hits the fan they say, "we can't cancel now, that would cost more than finishing".
But they don't really know how much it costs to finish and their promises are still based on the best case scenario.
1. American Way - close School Districts and move kids to sheds and trailers.
2. Saving pass on F-xx projects.
3. Call for more H1B visas because kids are now dumb.
"God Bless America"
just buy the Eurofighter already; it's a better bird. I hate the NIH syndrome the US exhibits. All in the name if cronyism with the military industrial complex.
The French and Swedes build better fixed wing and helos anyway.
This is a structural problem, and seems a tough nut to crack. Ike pointed out the problem more than half a century ago, but there is no apparent solution/alternative.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
The F-35 is expected to cost over a trillion dollars over ten years and that's not including the billions in cost over-runs. And then the GOP has the gall to talk about shutting down PBS and the Post Office as a waste of government money.
This plane's engine is being built in Speaker John Bohener's state of Ohio. No wonder funding for it will never, ever be cut. The plane could cost 20 trillion, bankrupt the entire United States, and they'd still continue to fund it, by cutting all healthcare, schools, welfare, social security, and foreclose on every American whether they can or not.
This is the GOP mantra. Build more planes and ships we don't need so that defense contractors can be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams... Remember the kid that ran over 4 people in his pickup truck and got off with the defense of "affluenza"? his parents are government contractors. Follow the money. We're being fleeced by the military and then told that the USA is broke if we dare ask for any social service.
The pentagon's photocopier paper budget is bigger than PBS. But what did Mitt Romney promise to cut during his (failed) campaign?
We're headed for a third-world nation banana-republic where the military has everything and the citizens live in mud huts.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Don't be so sure about that.
And buy it from China, its cheaper and has the exact same specifications.
... that all engineers working for military contractors would walk away from their positions. I did - and so can you.
failed on the back end with the 3rd party
Sounds like defense contracting.
less subcontracts / contracts things will work better as well less people in the mix who get kickbacks / no bid contracts
Does not sound like defense contracting.
We could be spending this money on other issues that could do a lot of good plus you don't need an Army when everyone has nuclear bombs. Roads Schools Disease Research The Homeless Starving Kids Clean Energy
When has this misguided notion that we can have 1 base A/C be all things to all branches EVER worked out?
F-111 anyone?
The F-14 was a great A/C. For the Navy. The F-15 is one of the best ever, but would be useless as a carrier based A/C.
Anyone around fro all the fun and games that was involved in the F/A-18A rollout, and what was required for that to become a useful platform?
This flawed paradigm is why the A-6 was around for so long, they couldn't field a suitable replacement.
I expect that by the time the F-35 is out and working for everyone, it will cost the same as 3 well run, more narrowly scoped projects.
that since the 3D printing revolution, we can all 3D print a fully functional F-35, with trained pilot, at home?
So many failures by trying to be all things to all people as long as the taxpayer foots it all.
My native Brazil has decided on ðe Saab JAS 39E Gripen NG, as did Switzerland where I lived. Two very different countries, very different needs, and sure enough the Gripen even in its NG version cannot do all the F-35 should be able to do — but it does not need to. It is more of a versatile aircraft, doing passably well in its intended deployments at a reasonable cost, than a do-it-all.
It is not to say the US should just ditch ðe F-35 and localise ðe Gripen just as ðey did with ðe Harrier. But it could be an strategy: to have a flexible (‘swing role’ is what Saab calls it) main aircraft, perhaps the evolution of ðe F-18, perhaps a pared down F-35 just as ðe Chinese did, and dedicated planes to do things ðe main platform cannot do, such as ðe A and B planes: ðe A-10, ðe Harrier &, yes, ðe B-52, or evolutions or replacements ðereof. Theoretically a single plane should be cheaper to keep ðan several ones, but not when its costs spiral out of control.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
I had a job offer to do systems engineering work on ALIS in Orlando. Glad I passed!
Maybe the result of the next gen CS programs? patching together someone else code without actually implementing almost anything from scratch....just saying...
This movie always comes to mind when ever I hear about one of these big projects:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because they were "British".
In fact from an on-the-ground point of view the scottish actually did more to facillitate the growth of the empire on a per man basis than the english.
This is what we really needed to fight terrorists in Afghanistan.
because morlocks think eloi meat is tasty
I agree with your assessment, 100%. For instance, the US Navy tried to replace their SLQ-32 electronic warfare suite, which has been around since the 1970s, in the 1990s. Because the system that was currently utilized worked, and worked well, they couldn't build a better system. Despite the ship sets not being built for decades, they're still in use, and when a ship that has a console is decommissioned, they pull the console from that ship and put it on a new, to-be-commissioned ship. All because they can't build a better replacement.
... what could possibly go wrong?
I actually know something about the Falkland wars, and encourage your to learn something about it. Grew up hating Thatcher, and learning the history of what happened there was one of the first times that I realized how little I know about the world. It has always been the position of the UK government that the people *living* in the falkland islands should be able to decide if they want to be part of Argentina or not. The military junta that ruled Argentina didn't see it that way -- and in Argentina there is a myth that the Falkland islands were always theirs. (Please, Argentina was colonised by Spanish, and the Spanish had a rather tenuous connection to the Falklands.) When Argentinian soldiers landed on the island, they were shocked, SHOCKED, not to be greeted as liberators. That is how thoroughly propagandized they were.
If you dole sovereignty out first-come-first served, then the Falklands should be Portuguese, and Argentina should be a nation of natives. The French were the first to colonoise the islands, *briefly* conquered by the Spanish, and then transferred to the UK towards the end of the Napoleonic era. Argentina didn't even exist.
The British stood up to a bully. A weak, ineffectual, corrupted, delusional, but still dangerous bully.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
from here:
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-h...
As an incentive for the contractor to fullfill the requirements, the Navy put some penalties on the project if Grumman would fail on some of the contract guarantees:
Empty Weight: $440,000 for each 100 lbs overweight
Acceleration: $440,000 for each second slow
Escort Radius: $1 million for each 10 nautical miles short
Approach Speed: $1.056 million for each knot fast
Maintainability: $450,000 for each extra maintenance man-hour per flight hour
Delivery to Navy Board of Inspection and Survey: $5,000 for each day late
With this background and a good deal of knowledge on building Navy fighter aircraft, Grumman succeeded in delivering the F-14 on time, on cost and as an even better fighter than they contracted for!
The F-14 was a great A/C. For the Navy. The F-15 is one of the best ever, but would be useless as a carrier based A/C.
OTOH the F-14 would've made a great plane for the air force.
The F-111 was a turkey because it was designed to play too many roles ("medium-range interdictor and tactical strike aircraft that also filled the roles of strategic bomber, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare") more than because it was designed for both USAF and USN. However it was designed without any real consideration of navy requirements (way too big and heavy). Did you know though that the excellent F-14 was built in large part from spare parts (radar, engines, etc.) from the turkey F-111 program?
It makes a lot more sense to first build a plane for the navy, and then have the air force adopt it. If a plane can take off and land on a carrier, then land based service is no problem. The F-4 though was such a good navy plane that the air force adopted it, and it worked well.
Maybe Lockheed should take a look at this: http://obex.parallax.com/objec... Or ask DYIDrones.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
"Did you know though that the excellent F-14 was built in large part from spare parts (radar, engines, etc.) from the turkey F-111 program?"
Ya, vaguely familiar. Spent my 20's at Miramar working on F-14A+'s.
"It makes a lot more sense to first build a plane for the navy, and then have the air force adopt it."
Never, ever happen. AF is a bigger contract and has WAY more political clout. They always trump the squids.
Cost of 1 F-35 $300 million
Cost to keep Mars Rover operating 1 year $14 million
I know where my money would go...
Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
"Don't worry, even if you don't deliver what we asked for, get way behind schedule, and run way over budget, we'll still pay you." That pretty much sums up the issue right there. That's why we have debacles like the F-35. These clowns making the hardware simply can't fail. We're guaranteeing to buy whatever crap they happen to offer us. Military Contracts have been known to be "gravy" for decades now, and that needs to change. The classic "$250 toilet seat" jab is unfortunately a reality, and a persistent one at that.
It's not jut the government that can't run like a business, it's the businesses working with the government that are having the same issue, and it's again a problem from within the government, it's a behavior that their system both allows and seems to encourage. A select few are getting rich on our tax dollars, and we're not getting what we should in exchange, be it materials or government itself. Pisses me off that there's nothing effective I can do about it. (and no, voting hasn't helped so farâ¦)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
We should have gotten the Canadians to build it. After all they built the Avro arrow and it would be about 90% cheaper due to the exchange. :)
really. It began as the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter. I somewhat follow its developmental process but not all the details. I remember when planners looked at F22 and saw where its costs were going (this was during the decade of downsizing) and determined an alternate must be made. What happened? Did Steindle screw up someplace or did others override his longterm planning?
mfwright@batnet.com
At least its better than beta.slashdot.org.
Now that's a miserable worthless website.
I bought an f-35 once... At least I thought until I had a look at it in the daylight. Turned out to be a MIG with a paint job!
That's called "lack of proper project management".
As a PM myself, we don't build jack until the requirements are signed off and the design is signed off. Folks who do requirements gathering during user-acceptance testing (and there are far too many of them) get what they get.
If the client wants to make a change? No problem. Fill out this change control request, we'll estimate the schedule and cost change and they sign it. We then update the dashboard and report out the new timeline/budget. You'd be amazed at how many changes turn from "must have" to "never mind" when money and deadlines are on the line.
If one of our software devs/hardware engineers makes any unauthorized changes (i.e, the client goes to them directly), then I nail whomever made the change's arse to the wall (they have to undo the change AND still make their original goals). They do it again and they'll find themselves looking for work somewhere else.
There is a term we have in PM Biz called "Wishful Thinking". It is where a project is way over budget, horribly late and there's no end in sight. The "answer" is to throw money and people at the problem. This has been proven to be the exact wrong approach so many times, there are even peer-reviewed journal articles on this topic.
Here's one correct approach:
Step 1: STOP
Step 2: Do a gap analysis - how can we get anything salvageable from this? (MVP = minimum viable product)
2a. If there is no way, then PROJECT OVER, skip to #6
Step 3: Set up plan to achieve MVP.
Step 4: Get signoff on new plan
4a: if client won't sign, skip to #6
Step 5: implement proper project controls and go.
Step 6: do post-mortem
Steamed Puddings?
Sandwiches?
Pies, where you eat the case rather than throw it away?
It's a tired trope, but wrong for all its common usage.
. . . I guess I need to take Lockheed off of my resume. Waste of 5 years.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The U.S. can't build a web site! We have no business building aircraft.
An aircraft is a WHOLE LOT simpler than the countries healthcare systems.. So I don't think you are comparing apples to apples.
Plus, we are talking about the Department of Defense building an airplane and not Health and Human Services trying to take over and regulate 14% of the nations economic activity.
(Sarcasm off)
oh but they have those totally cool sunglasses! I want to join the army just so I can get a pair of those.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
A pity. I saw one fly over doing a dump and burn the year before last and now there are apparently none in working order. All scrapped apart from a few that were disassembled with key parts removed before going to places where they are to go on display.
Meanwhile a DC3 took part in a search and rescue in Antarctica a few weeks ago. A heavily modified DC3 but an airframe flying since the 1940s just the same, looking almost exactly like the ski version in the 1951 "The Thing From Another World".
The Cold War is over. We don't need an Air Superiority fighter designed to fight the USSR in Europe.
Never, ever happen. AF is a bigger contract and has WAY more political clout. They always trump the squids.
Yeah. It's a real shame the Air Force never flew the F-4.
Let's just say that if the Navy and the Air Force become aware of a need for a new weapons system at about the same time, they'll both get independent systems. The F-4 became popular in the Air Force only because Air Staff somehow didn't realize they needed an actual air-superiority aircraft. Apparently, Century-series bomb-sleds and go-fast interceptors are all they ever thought they needed. (SAC thinking, really. And I say that as an Air Force veteran who literally lived my entire life, childhood and adult, in the SAC culture.)
So when they needed an actual dogfighter, they had to take what was available (F-4E) and start the procurement process for what became the F-15 and F-16.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
I believe it's a good time to point out President Eisenhower's warnings with respect to the military-industrial complex and spending.
there is absolutely no substitute for a human pilot
remote controled planes (aka 'drones') have been around for 50 years and they have awesome applications...today's smaller components & wider wireless control channels allow for more automation...
but RC planes are not able to react to surroundings & adapt like a human...which is the most important factor...adaptation...that's what air combat is ***ALL ABOUT***...exploiting the weaknesses of your opponent
like in the Cold War, our F-15's had radar that could provide 'missile lock' on the best Soviet plane several miles before the MiG could do the same...which is how you win air combat
dogfighting & close air support is similar but decisions must be made much faster based on continually changing information that **cannot** be anticipated before the battle
lastly, the thing that kills your point about drones replacing humans fully is **ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES**
what good are RC planes if they are spoofed or jammed?
Thank you Dave Raggett
Only thing about drones is the autonomy part:
a. drones are typically remotely piloted (RPV), which means loss of satellite signal or in-air network (E3/awacs/C4I, etc..)means you're done for the day.
b. drones remotely piloted have latency issues (just basic physics, though the tech is fast enough today for their current missions).
c. you need ahuge sensor network to match the sensing capabilities of a manned vehicle (i.e. a pilot can see & decide on stuff more quickly than the sensor processing packages).
Manned fighters do not have these issues and have more intelligence to respond to changing conditions. Cause everything is on-board.
From that, the only solution to drones is to go fully autonomous. And that creates a whole new set of problems (and a possible Skynet incidence).
F-4 Phantom II - USN aircraft adapted and adopted by USAF
A-7 Corsair II - USN aircraft adapted and adopted by USAF
A-3 Skywarrior - USN aircraft so heavily modified for USAF needs it earned a new designator: B-66 Destroyer
A-1 Spad - USN aircraft adapted and adopted by USAF
EA-6B - USN aircraft adapted and adopted by USAF
Happens all the time. Failing to come up with a successful USAF transplant to the carrier deck
>> "It makes a lot more sense to first build a plane for the navy, and then have the air force adopt it."
> Never, ever happen. AF is a bigger contract and has WAY more political clout. They always trump the squids
F-4 Phantom
Should have picked the other design.
No matter where you go, there you are.
Being a former Marine, I've followed the development of the USMC version of the F-35 with some interest. And I'm disgusted by it. This plane is inferior to its predecessors in every way possible that matters to the main mission of USMC air power: Close Air Support. Sure, it's stealthier. And it's a better dogfighter than the AV-8B (but arguably not the F-18 Super Hornet). But neither of those matter a damn with CAS missions. You need a reliable, rugged bomb truck for CAS. The F-35, with its internal weapons bay, is pathetic for CAS. Stealth doesn't matter much for CAS, either...or at least it doesn't matter in ways that make the F-18 Super Hornet notably inferior. And let's not forget you can buy *three* Hornets for the cost of *one* F-35.
Really, what I've always thought the USMC needs is an A-10 Warthog. Surely the cost of a carrier-spec A-10 would be much cheaper than even Super Hornets...just not as glamorous to fly by fighter jocks. But us grunts on the ground would much appreciate having a GAU-8 Avenger 30mm Gatling cannon on call any day over the whizz-bang-but-underarmed F-35. If jet jockeys want fast fighters, let them join the Air Force or the Navy. We want CAS platforms.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
It pisses me off that we are still burning money over this jet. It's a really cool design, but is way too complicated and cost ineffective for any kind of real use. We already have jets that work and have worked great for a long time, and using these would gain us nothing on the battlefield. The only reason the damn thing is still being researched is because someone (or many ones) are greedy and not thinking about the interests of others or the greater good. I'll have a smile on my face the day this waste of a program gets shut down.
The A35 is a dog. What you say? I was supposed to type F35 and I typed an A instead? No, I got it right. The #35 isn't good as a fighter, its design is more like a ground attack aircraft than a fighter, oh and it doesn't do ground attack all that well. Don't think about using it as an interceptor or bomber either. Fighters have to be more maneuverable than the #35, interceptors have to have greater range and speed, bombers have to be able to carry a bigger weapons payload. It does all of these crappily. It has ok low-level capabilities (please don't talk about high altitude), so its an A35. It would be nice if you also left out the part about 'Air Superiority'. Oh and it would be nice if you didn't talk about cost.
Not to split hairs, but I meant 'Never,ever happen', not 'Never, ever happened'. Past tense vs present tense, and those examples are way past tense. I don't think that would ever happen now, that the AF would intend to let a A/C be developed for the Navy first and then adapt it for their use.
Great Bronco history read aviation geeks will enjoy.
http://www.volanteaircraft.com...
Too bad they were retired after Desert Storm (losing helicopters is apparently fine but woe betide we lose a couple of far less expensive fixed wing birds!). They are still flying elsewhere because Broncos are designed to be easy to repair and maintain. I enjoyed working on them.
If you've seen the drama "Lone Survivor", the SEALs lost comm because they didn't have a long loitering (thirsty helos don't loiter well) radio relay FAC aircraft orbiting above them and "leadership" relied on unreliable comms instead. Marcus Luttrel was eventually found with the help of his rescue beacon, but that was a day late and a dollar short for his dead buddies.
Ignored today is the solution perfected during the Viet Nam war. A Bronco could loiter, carried rockets and machine guns (and could be fitted with Sidewinders to kill enemy helos etc) and had (2 FM connected to allow automatic relay, 1 VHF AM, 1 UHF, and 1 HF for long distance) and ample radio suite. Its predecessor the O-2 Skymaster (seen in the movie about another operational disaster, Bat 21) was primitive but still effective in that role.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
holy fuck talk about waste
like literally, the world does not need more war planes, it makes no sense whatsoever unless we are planning on world war 3 sometime soon
maybe mother earth fuckd their anuses and said you get no airplanes you greedy warmongering holes
catpha: disarm
We were pushed into the F-35 by best-buddies Howard and Bush without even considering other options such as aircraft from Europe or older-but-still-suitable US aircraft. Then we were forced into buying the F/A-18 Super Hornet again without considering alternatives (I am still not buying the arguments that the F-111 Aardvark was really in need of retirement)
I dont claim to know what aircraft Australia should have bought instead of signing up for the F-35 and Super Hornet but I do know that the US needed Australia to fun a big chunk of F-35 development cost a LOT more than Australia needed to buy an aircraft that was years away from being an operational fighter jet.
They did need expanded capabilities though, like Nulka.
At least in the end they can be sure of the magnitude of human effort required to create a competing product and therefore how great a lead they have on the competition.
The F-14 could not out-dogfight an F-15.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
This sounds like a perfect example of #Agile "working" perfectly.
In terms of cost, you may be right. But what if, just for once, the services actually played nice with one another? Maybe it could catch on?