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.
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.
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.
It's the dude from Ars. Like most news on /. these days you can read about most of it days prior on other sites. :P
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
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?"
A solution would be new code. It sounds like the test pilots are doing a great job of you know, testing.
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
I don't feel like watching the video, because based on the Defense Response it is the normal F-35 hachet job by journalists. I've heard the same arguments again and again.
First off the F-35 was never meant to be a primary air supremacy fighter, it was meant to be a multi-role stealth strike thus the deficiencies in ACM are to be expected. It is sacrificing wing area to get an internal weapons bay large enough to fit a 2,000lb JDAM. Something that the F-22 can't do. It also has a much longer range than other fighter aircraft, literally 50% more on internal fuel than the F-16 with drop tanks, and the F-22 on internal fuel.
Second though the specs don't seem impressive compared to the hot rod that is are the F-16, and F-15. But neither of those aircraft are going to reach their max speeds and altitudes with a war load. Those specs were tested with no armaments on the hardpoints and no drop tanks (with exception of the F-16 where wingtip missiles reduce wing flutter). While the F-35 going to be capable of nearly reaching its specs with an actual warload in the aircraft, and that includes super cruise. Granted the specs might be down rated somewhat from the initial contract specs, but that is to be expected as they often don't know the exact weights of all the third party systems to be installed on the aircraft (some were yet to be developed when the contract was written).
Third the expected price of the aircraft is inline with the F-35 competitors, who are all non-stealth aircraft. The F-15SE is brought up as a replacement for the F-35 by some critics, saying it would be cheaper than the F-35. Well the F-15K which has a similar electronics suite as the F-35, cost the ROK $100M each. Compared to the current LRIP production cost of the F-35 at $90-100M each, with the full rate production cost to be in $90M. The Eurofighter cost just short $90M each. So the price for a stealth strike aircraft is actually inline with competitors.
Fourth Canada made another stupid decision with canceling the F-35. They did so without selecting a replacement. The CF-18 nearly at the end of their service lives if they haven't reached it already. And likely will become another Sea King with the replacement used as political football between the ruling parties until if has killed enough aircrews that both parties agree "Perhaps we should actually replace these eh?"
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."
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?
{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!
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.
You likely mean the F-104. That aircraft was basically a rocket-powered dart - it had such a poor glide ratio that if you experienced a flameout below 15,000ft the standard procedure was to eject and ditch the plane.
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.
A retired Air Force fighter pilot once said that "the best part of the Starfighter was its name".
Apparently it was a dreadful bag of bolts that couldn't be relied upon to takeoff, circle the field, and land safely.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The F-104 was a fantastic jet. But a terrible military jet.
That thing was made to be a fast, last minute, bomber interceptor. It was built to get there at Mach 2+, fill the bomber's ass with lead and get home. Originally, it hadn't provision even for missiles!
But them, Pentagon changed the rules demanding a multi hole aircraft, and Lockheed started to hack the airframe. As a technical achievement, it was a formidable one. But again, as a military weapon, a questionable one.
The best "worst" hack was the F-104G, made for Germany. They almost doubled the combat radius - but made the thing yet more harsh to handle. A lot of German women were made widows by this plane.
Curiously, Italy was also an operator for this aircraft, but without a single recorded casualty (perhaps nobody managed to take it off! =P ).
The bottom line I had read is: the F-104 is a formidable plane in the hands of formidable pilots. And a catastrophe waiting to happen in everybody else's.
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
... 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
But them, Pentagon changed the rules demanding a multi hole aircraft, and Lockheed started to hack the airframe.
That was clearly the wrong approach. A drill would have been better than an axe. Drilled holes have better manufacturing tolerances.
Ezekiel 23:20
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?
But them, Pentagon changed the rules demanding a multi hole aircraft, and Lockheed started to hack the airframe.
That was clearly the wrong approach. A drill would have been better than an axe. Drilled holes have better manufacturing tolerances.
At first, I stared to your response for some minutes without understanding it. Until I finally realized I typed "hole" instead of "role" - and laughed my ass out until near a heart attack. :-D
Ah, the neverending amusements on speaking foreign (to me) languages. :-D
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
You can but, I should warn you, attempt no landing there.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You likely mean the F-104. That aircraft was basically a rocket-powered dart - it had such a poor glide ratio that if you experienced a flameout below 15,000ft the standard procedure was to eject and ditch the plane.
The remaining cartons also worth to be seen. They summarize perfectly what I had read about the plane. :)
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
Directions to reboot a quasi-frozen Linux box:
Press and hold Alt and SysRq keys.
Hold them and press these in order with a pause between each: REISUB
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
This one, in special, appears to explain the XB-70A #2 disaster.
(ok. enough for today)
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
One nickname for the F-104 was "Missile with a Man in it". Remember that, at this time, missiles were experimental and unreliable.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Dammit, now that's funny.
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!
Would even happen in high cost technically advanced programs. This - as well as most other software bugs - are caused by managerial decisions that force software to ship before it is fully tested. Quality assurance ranks even lower than documentation and customer support in software companies. You grab a few folks, put them on the QA team, and give them little time and no tools. The sole purpose is not to assure quality, but to check a box on some list....and have someone to blame if things go wrong.