Slashdot Mirror
Software Bug in F-35 Radar Causes Mid-Flight System Reboot
Reader Lisandro writes: The F-35 Fighter jet can't seem to catch a break. An advanced AN/APG-81 AESA F35 radar system has been found riddled with a software bug that causes it to degrade and stop working. The solution? Rebooting the system while in the air.
Major General Jeffrey Harrigian, director of the Air Force's F-35 integration office at the Pentagon, was quoted as saying "radar stability - the radar's ability to stay up and running. [...] What would happen is they'd get a signal that says either a radar degrade or a radar fail - "something that would force us to restart the radar." The issue was spotted in late 2015, and thankfully, it was caught during the testing period. The software version "3i" is affected. An update aimed to resolve the bug is expected to be delivered to the US Air Force by the end of March.
Major General Jeffrey Harrigian, director of the Air Force's F-35 integration office at the Pentagon, was quoted as saying "radar stability - the radar's ability to stay up and running. [...] What would happen is they'd get a signal that says either a radar degrade or a radar fail - "something that would force us to restart the radar." The issue was spotted in late 2015, and thankfully, it was caught during the testing period. The software version "3i" is affected. An update aimed to resolve the bug is expected to be delivered to the US Air Force by the end of March.
It looks to me that it's a classic memory leak.
It should have been caught in testing, but of course someone wanted to save money and then it's testing that gets shaved first.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Oh come on, who here hasn't had to reboot during air to air combat?
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
You know, I'm with the late E.W.Dijkstra on this one: We really need to stop calling them bugs, and start calling them software defects. Because, you know, the thing clearly is defective and it needs repair.
Actually, the F-35 is so defective it needs scrapping. This is one of those ships that need stripping to the keel and rebuilding from there, and not just the software. It is both a failed software project and a failed hardware project rolled into one. Fred Brooks, eat your heart out.
Or, well, it's actually worse than that. The entire thing is an instant classic, wilful, deliberate, military-industrial complex boondoggle good money after bad sunk cost fallacy extortion scam. So hey, a legal swindle for Lockheed-Martin. Good for them. Bad for everyone else except them thar terrists.
The thing is in fact so bad that it will keep on bleeding failure even well after scrapped, and we're not even close to that yet. Even though we know full and undeniably well where we are and where this is going. Years of taxpayer-funded fun to come!
Which is why it'll keep going. Denying the undeniable? What's this, a challenge? Just you watch all those politicians taking up that challenge. It's what they think they're paid to do.
My car occasionally does that too.
Software Bug in F-35 Radar Causes Mid-Flight System Reboot
Alarmist headline.
First of all, the bug doesn't cause a reboot. It requires a reboot to put the radar back into a useable state.
Secondly, it is only the radar system that needs rebooting.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Am I the only person who notices we seem to have a new editor? Who is manishs? Welcome to Slashdot!
I'm sure it's a very serious bug but does it mean that the software is "riddled" with bugs? For all anyone knows it was an isolated issue that occurred in an atypical circumstance and was subsequently rectified. And it occurred during testing which is the reason that testing even exists as a thing - to find problems.
Slashdot is an EU site. Why would anyone here care about a failed US fighter jet? Let's talk about things that matter to us Europeans. Screw the US.
That was just about the most pathetic trolling attempt I have seen for months.
Regards
J. Q. European
I knew the Air Force shouldn't have used PlayStation 3 consoles for the flight computers!
Didn't we have this same headline for the F-22, back in the day?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"Yaeh, my jet is plummeting to earth at mach 3. Any suggestions?"
"Have you tried turning off and on again?"
If Microsoft had designed that software it would probably be something like simultaneously pressing: "missile launch", "gear down" and "radio transmit"
A solution would be new code. It sounds like the test pilots are doing a great job of you know, testing.
This Australian ABC report is a good summary of why the USA's allies are getting screwed over on the F-35. Canada has made a great decision to go to tender on their attack place requirements.
Here is a good report on this from Australia's perspective.
This happens literally all the time with software updates on jets, anyone who's worked on any other generation fighter/attack aircraft in the "digital age" knows this. The interesting part, is that someone is publicly complaining about it, and making a software version with a bug, known to the public. Every radar system we've produced for 30 years has issues, again, this is completely normal. This article is about sounding some sort of political alarm, it shows that there's some dissent among the ranks, and I can assure you, that any experienced test pilot wouldn't even be remotely surprised to see this type of behavior, but the usual course of action is to document it and train the pilots in the short term, while releasing a new version of software in the long term. Pilots fly with "radar degrade" every single day. This is making a standard issue between contractors and military flight crews, into a public pentagon issue, to either ask congress for more money, rather than holding said contractors accountable for their failure to meet some sort of design goal, or to try to join the "anti F-35" team to advance his own career in some way. Our jets are flying way beyond their designed limitations right now, and the longer it takes to replace them, the worse off all of our military personnel are going to be.
Slashdot is an EU site.
So it's all mainland Europeans who keep using American English spellings in the comments? Seems it's just down to us Brits to spell things properly.
The software version "3i" is affected.
As a general rule, when your version numbering system needs to use complex numbers, something's going wrong with your project.
You can't shut us down! The Internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas!
"Th' more they over th' plumbin' th easier it is to stop up th' drain."
-Montgomery Scott ST3
... but then I took an system reboot to the knee.
The F-35 epitomizes the saying "the perfect is the enemy of the good".
Half of Europa bought that jet.
"I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
Slashdot is an EU site.
So it's all mainland Europeans who keep using American English spellings in the comments? Seems it's just downe to us Brits to spell things propourly.
FTFY, my good chap
Really? Were Bonnie and Clyde "riddled with a bullet hole"? Come on, editors!
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
If we'd bought them from Verizon it could be years before we get upgraded to the fixed software version. Or we might just have to by the F-36 to get the update.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Do Shut up!
This must be one of the "Low Cost Technically Acceptable" programs.
Thanks for posting the software version number. When I get home I'll check my F35 and download an update if necessary.
{Major Autonomous Car Manufacturer} announced today the discovery of a bug in their control software that prompts a reboot of the cars' systems in mid-drive. "driving stability - the cars' ability to stay up and running. [...] What would happen is they'd get a signal that says either a driving degrade or a driving fail - "something that would force us to restart the cars' autonomous control systems."
This reporter notes that if autonomous cars had a full set of manual controls, instead of just a big red 'STOP' button on the dash, human occupants of the vehicle would have an opportunity to save themselves from a firey death, instead of the surviving family members merely receiving an insurance payout.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
San Francisco to Auckland. Except the reboot didn't fix it. Got a free day in San Francisco which was nice.
It'll be totally fixed in the F-36 and it'll also include cool sound effects when the radar target windows minimize and maximize!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
This. The F-35 program has eaten ofer $1.3 *trillion* US dollars by now. It is insane; you could use that money to triple the current F-22 fleet (a vast superior, but also more expensive, aircraft) the US has and still have left over cash to fund its entire program all over again.
At this point is hard to justify the F-35s existence. It is cheaper to build and fly than the F-22, yes, but so much money has been pour on the project that those savings will never offset its cost. Same as with the possibility of exporting it; the US won't make a dime on it. On top of that is a modern fifth generation aircraft that does pretty much everything worse than the model it is replacing... and the ones used by other nations.
Get it? Over the Air update? new meaning to the word software crash.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
is no longer just a figure of speech.
You are vastly mistaken if you think any 4th gen aircraft can touch the overall effectiveness of the F-35. And your F-22 was a 74B investment for a single model. The F-35 at 1.3T is replacing 3 models of aircraft. It's current LRIP fly away cost is _already_ cheaper than a new F-15, let alone an F-22 (when it was in production).
At this point is hard to justify the F-35s existence.
It's easy to justify its existence, you just can't wrap your brain around the total picture.
... as opposed to definitely spending billions to write verifiable software that will be out of date by the time they release it.
Having their tech be out of date is usually preferable to have it being unreliable, provided that bug patches, etc..., are backported as necessary.
Spending billions to get the software right on the F-35 would make sense. We are going to make thousands of the things and use them for generations. The software is also likely to be stolen at some point, so it is better for us to take the time and make it as perfect as possible so that even if stolen, other nations do not have an easy time finding and exploiting vulnerabilities. You have to assume they will spend a billion dollars or more trying to crack it.
The F-35 at 1.3T is replacing 3 models of aircraft. It's current LRIP fly away cost is _already_ cheaper than a new F-15, let alone an F-22 (when it was in production).
No, it is intended to replace three models. I'm still waiting on any explanation (official or not) on how a F-35s is expected to replace the A-10 on CAS duties. Hell, the US might be better off just buying a fleet of Super Tucanos from Embraer and writing it off as losses on the total program cost.
The delivery to Jupiter will be very expensive, though.
Ezekiel 23:20
You say intended, then go on to the A-10, which isn't one of the three originals. Good segue.
A-10 is great at CAS, nobody denies that. It's major downfall, it's too vulnerable. In a contested airspace, it will get murdered performing those CAS sorties. It's enjoyed a good run in AF and IQ, but there it flies with impunity.. Not going to survive against a near peer with any sort of defense.
Near peer conflict, if you want CAS, you get an F-35. Because it's the only aircraft that can get there and survive.
It is. In fact the F-35 is intended to replace four aircraft within the US military: F-16, A-10, F/A-18 and the AV-8B. Get your facts checked.
Can we deliver Congress along with them?
They don't need much life support due to all the hot air they generate.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You can but, I should warn you, attempt no landing there.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You know, if the aerospace engineers who designed the plane were any where near as careless as the software engineers who control it, the whole thing would have never left the ground. Before everyone goes nuts here, none of these problems have anything to do with control surfaces, throttle vectoring or any of the other myriad of mechanical sub-systems that do their damn job. It is just shitty software.
This kind of issue is common in the software industry these days. Delivery dates are set way before the engineering team has a chance to make an educated estimate and if there is a time crunch then testing time is cut. Reason: cannot cut development time because you cannot ship what does not exist. Result: software is released that is not properly tested. The flaws are detected during later stages of testing or once in full production use. Conclusion: want reliable systems and software? Then cut features, not quality!