If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   The good news: The F-35 program is showing increases in efficiency and there are new foreign buyers showing interest. The bad news: The software the plane needs to operate may not be ready by 2017, when full-scale production should be underway   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 190
    More: Interesting, F-35, Lockheed Martin, United Technologies Corp., U.S. Defense Department, Pratt & Whitney, hacking attacks, EADS, BAE Systems  
•       •       •

4413 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2013 at 9:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



190 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-25 10:28:16 AM
miss diminutive

Can't we just go back to the golden days when gentlemen in fabulous mustaches graced the skies in multiple-wing wicker baskets and threw bricks at one another?


My great grandfather was knocked out of the sky by a Fokker who threw a brick at him. And that Fokker was flying a Junkers!
 
2013-04-25 10:30:27 AM
Lockheed is really shiatty with writing avionics software.

Back when I was a rocket scientist I met a guy who worked for Lockheed on their X-33 program.  One of the selling points was a composite fuel tank that would save weight.  But they knew it wouldn't work and they'd have to switch to tried-and-true aluminum.  Why?  They needed more time to write the avionics software, and switching the design from composite to AL gave them necessary cover.
 
2013-04-25 10:31:33 AM

Voiceofreason01: and is about as stealthy as a flying barn


Silent Eagle not just Eagle. It has just so much Eagle....

Seriously though, stealth is quickly becoming irrelevant in modern warfare. Networked detection schemes in frequencies outside of the traditional radar detection frequencies will mean no matter how "stealthy" you are, you will still be seen...

/Or IR
 
2013-04-25 10:32:08 AM

dittybopper: This is a common problem with high-tech projects. Nothing unique.


They did this one a bit differently. They skipped a lot of pre-production testing with the idea that any problems would be found in flight test and then fixes would be incorporated right back into the working production line. They called it concurrency and its failure has caused a lot of the delays and overruns.

In 2011, program head Vice Adm. David Venlet confirmed that the concurrency built into the program "was a miscalculation"
 
2013-04-25 10:33:11 AM
Smidge204

The United States is counting on foreign sales...

Why are we selling weapons of war to other countries again? Has that ever NOT come back to bite us in the ass at some point?
=Smidge=


We can always do like France did during the Falkland Island. Sell the Argentinians the Excorcet missile and then sell the Britts the technology to defeat it.

Profit profit!
 
2013-04-25 10:34:06 AM

Smidge204: Why are we selling weapons of war to other countries again? Has that ever NOT come back to bite us in the ass at some point?


It's not like we are exporting the "good" version (quotes because I don't like the F-35)
 
2013-04-25 10:35:24 AM

Nurglitch: "Do not ask me to approach the battle meekly, to creep through the shadows, or to quietly slip on my foes in the dark. Let my enemies cower at my advance and tremble at the sight of me."


You forgot the rest: "Let my enemies cower at my advance and tremble at the sight of me and shoot me down from 5 miles away as is the nature of modern warfare."
 
2013-04-25 10:35:40 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: Though at least they weren't trying to make the F-4 be a bomber too. Unlike with this turkey...


The F-4 was a bomber.  It wasn't an effective fighter when introduced.  The missiles sucked.
 
2013-04-25 10:37:23 AM

WhoopAssWayne: dittybopper: This is a common problem with high-tech projects. Nothing unique.

They did this one a bit differently. They skipped a lot of pre-production testing with the idea that any problems would be found in flight test and then fixes would be incorporated right back into the working production line. They called it concurrency and its failure has caused a lot of the delays and overruns.



Ahh, so they are using the Microsoft business model.
 
2013-04-25 10:38:17 AM
Nurglitch:
"Do not ask me to approach the battle meekly, to creep through the shadows, or to quietly slip on my foes in the dark. Let my enemies cower at my advance and tremble at the sight of me."

That's nice but it sounds like a good way to get your ass shot.
 
2013-04-25 10:39:38 AM

Smidge204: The United States is counting on foreign sales...

Why are we selling weapons of war to other countries again? Has that ever NOT come back to bite us in the ass at some point?
=Smidge=


Come now. How could selling advanced technologies to other countries possibly go wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_A6M_Zero

"It has been claimed that the Zero's design showed clear influence from American fighter planes and components exported to Japan in the 1930s, and in particular the Vought V-143 fighter. Chance Vought had sold the prototype for this aircraft and its plans to Japan in 1937."
 
2013-04-25 10:40:02 AM

MyRandomName: all chips are reprogrammable.


Oh yeah? Plenty of defense satellites are launched with one time programmable FPGAs (or ASICs).

//no idea about the F-35
 
2013-04-25 10:40:37 AM

miss diminutive: Can't we just go back to the golden days when gentlemen in fabulous mustaches graced the skies in multiple-wing wicker baskets and threw bricks at one another?


Actually, if you want to do that sort of thing, you can, for about the price of a decent car:

www.airdromeaeroplanes.com

Though, please, don't grow a mustache.
 
2013-04-25 10:41:26 AM
Bring the SR-71 back.

No matter what gets shot at it, the SR-71 can outrun it. Mostly.
 
2013-04-25 10:42:11 AM

ghall3: Smidge204: Why are we selling weapons of war to other countries again? Has that ever NOT come back to bite us in the ass at some point?

It's not like we are exporting the "good" version (quotes because I don't like the F-35)


Plus of the nations we're selling it to, Turkey is the only one that we would conceivably ever be at odds with, and that's a long shot.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if there is some undisclosed backdoor built into the electronics package that would let us remotely deactivate the planes should we ever find ourselves facing off against them in combat.
 
2013-04-25 10:42:30 AM
Well, that's what happens when you fund the NEA.  Thanks Libs for killing our freedoms.
 
2013-04-25 10:43:05 AM
A stealthy, networked, drone fighter fleet would put most manned fighters to shame. Plus, in total, it would be a less expensive project and not put pilots at risk.
 
2013-04-25 10:44:01 AM

Lord_Baull: Ahh, so they are using the Microsoft business model.


Yes, but unlike Microsoft, Lockheed doesn't have millions of free beta-testers worldwide.
 
2013-04-25 10:44:09 AM

xxmedium: "It has been claimed that the Zero's design showed clear influence from American fighter planes and components exported to Japan in the 1930s, and in particular the Vought V-143 fighter. Chance Vought had sold the prototype for this aircraft and its plans to Japan in 1937."


You read the end of that paragraph? "Allegations about the Zero being a copy have been mostly discredited. "
 
2013-04-25 10:44:53 AM
us government wouldnt let them sell the f22 globally...but these international sales will help.

the problem is that we keep creating aircraft that will be put in service well after their lifespan.  look at the b52...that sucker will keep getting retrofitted and flying for 100 years before they are grounded.  ben rich (skunk works guy who helped on the f117) even hit this point in his book when the b2 cost jumped over $1 billion.

the goal is to create aircraft that are cheaper, good for 20 years, and then scrapped.  otherwise you get an expansive airplane graveyard/parking lot at a variety of west and southwest airports.
 
2013-04-25 10:45:12 AM

WhoopAssWayne: dittybopper: This is a common problem with high-tech projects. Nothing unique.

They did this one a bit differently. They skipped a lot of pre-production testing with the idea that any problems would be found in flight test and then fixes would be incorporated right back into the working production line. They called it concurrency and its failure has caused a lot of the delays and overruns.

In 2011, program head Vice Adm. David Venlet confirmed that the concurrency built into the program "was a miscalculation"


Well, duh.  Software is often a sticking point, especially if it has to work with nearly 100% reliability.  The amount of testing and integration necessary to get it right can be very expensive, and you need to build slack into the schedule to account for unforeseen problems.

I mean, "The Mythical Man-Month" was written nearly 40 years ago, so it's not like this should be a surprise to anyone.
 
2013-04-25 10:45:22 AM
It probably hasn't helped that they just transferred a bunch of the programmers on it about 1000 miles away from home.

The big problem that I see with it is that it is the Swiss Army Knife of airplanes.  It has a lot of widgets and tools but it is hard to make them all useful.
 
2013-04-25 10:45:56 AM

dittybopper: miss diminutive: Can't we just go back to the golden days when gentlemen in fabulous mustaches graced the skies in multiple-wing wicker baskets and threw bricks at one another?

Actually, if you want to do that sort of thing, you can, for about the price of a decent car:

[www.airdromeaeroplanes.com image 330x204]

Though, please, don't grow a mustache.


Sounds like fun, although I'm sure they'd make me supply my own bricks.

Harry Freakstorm: My great grandfather was knocked out of the sky by a Fokker who threw a brick at him. And that Fokker was flying a Junkers!


Loves me some good WWI humour.
 
2013-04-25 10:47:09 AM
When the BSOD could actually result in Death!!!

images.techhive.com
 
2013-04-25 10:47:53 AM
www.airforce-technology.com

Who needs anything else?
 
2013-04-25 10:49:53 AM
fark it, push it out the door anyhow... we'll get paid, and can always maybe sorta patch it down the road if we're forced to.

/Electronic Arts school of business
 
2013-04-25 10:50:25 AM

MythDragon: [www.airforce-technology.com image 620x371]

Who needs anything else?


The A-10 is very useful, but ugly as shiat, hence the Warthog moniker.

THIS, however, is pure awesomeness:

static.ddmcdn.com
 
2013-04-25 10:50:34 AM

MythDragon: [www.airforce-technology.com image 620x371]

Who needs anything else?


That thing is more like a flying tank than a fighter plane, but they are very cool.
 
2013-04-25 10:51:30 AM

ghall3: Silent Eagle not just Eagle. It has just so much Eagle....


There is also some Eagle under the floorboards.
 
2013-04-25 10:53:03 AM

ghall3: Silent Eagle not just Eagle. It has just so much Eagle....


Dude, you got a little eagle on your chin there...
 
2013-04-25 10:53:26 AM

mainstreet62: MythDragon: [www.airforce-technology.com image 620x371]

Who needs anything else?

The A-10 is very useful, but ugly as shiat, hence the Warthog moniker.

THIS, however, is pure awesomeness:

[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x264]


Also very cool, but it's a spy plane, it doesn't carry any weapons AFAIK, and doesn't it gush fuel on takeoff until it hits sufficient speed that the body panels swell to actually fit together?
 
2013-04-25 10:54:54 AM

StopLurkListen: WHO ARE YOU. And why are you giving this talent away for free? I appreciate it, don't get me wrong...


I have actually long suspected that Pocket Ninja does not, in fact, post his work for free....
 
2013-04-25 10:55:22 AM

Uzzah: ghall3: Silent Eagle not just Eagle. It has just so much Eagle....

There is also some Eagle under the floorboards.


sigh...

"It's just that the luxury edition has so much more eagle, it saddens me to think of you missing out. "
 
2013-04-25 10:55:53 AM
I really, reallly, really WANT the F-35B. Fark the other varients. A vertical takeoff/landing supersonic fighter can be really, really, really useful.

If we had F-35B's and V-22's in 1979, the Iranian hostage rescue would have gone quite differently....
 
2013-04-25 10:58:25 AM
Bogdan welcomed recent management changes at Lockheed, and said the executives running the company and the F-35 program now showed "a different culture and a different attitude."

Oh, horseshiat. They're there to ride the gravy train, as ever.
 
2013-04-25 10:59:23 AM

Thunderpipes: Aarontology: Four hundred billion dollars for a plane that doesn't even really work

Or about five sequesters worth.

That is like 9 Solyndras.


Or 61,000 Teapot Domes
 
2013-04-25 10:59:30 AM

TuteTibiImperes: mainstreet62: MythDragon: [www.airforce-technology.com image 620x371]

Who needs anything else?

The A-10 is very useful, but ugly as shiat, hence the Warthog moniker.

THIS, however, is pure awesomeness:

[static.ddmcdn.com image 400x264]

Also very cool, but it's a spy plane, it doesn't carry any weapons AFAIK, and doesn't it gush fuel on takeoff until it hits sufficient speed that the body panels swell to actually fit together?


I'm sure with today's technology we can fix all those issues. That beast was built nearly 50 years ago and there's still very little outside of missiles/lasers that can outrun it.
 
2013-04-25 11:01:55 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Boeing Co's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon, built by EADS, Finmeccanica SpA and BAE Systems Plc, are also competing for the contract
The F-15 Silent Eagle should be the plane we're buying instead of the F-35.  It has better payload, better range, better performance, a much lower unit cost, and is built on an airframe that has never been downed in air-to-air combat.



A single F35 is supposed to be able to down a wing of F-15's without them even knowing what hit them.  They beat the snot out of F-15s in combat exercises.

Public Savant: The F-35 is just like the Nazis Tiger tanks - awesome but too complex and expensive.


Maybe... although the nazi tank divisions were never really defeated by other tanks.  The vast majority were lost due to a lack of air superiority, and a lack of fuel.  Neither of which is a problem for the United States.  Granted, we have had problems with a lack of oxygen....

/rimshot
 
2013-04-25 11:02:59 AM
Your airspeed is 410 knots. Your altitude is 18,000 feet. Your flight control system has an available update. Click here to delay update until later (requires reboot).  20 seconds ... 10 seconds ...
 
2013-04-25 11:03:54 AM
We can build thousands of MP-38s or millions of Stens.
 
2013-04-25 11:05:47 AM

another cultural observer: Thunderpipes: Aarontology: Four hundred billion dollars for a plane that doesn't even really work

Or about five sequesters worth.

That is like 9 Solyndras.

Or 61,000 Teapot Domes


Or 13.3 million college educations.
 
2013-04-25 11:06:48 AM

I_Am_Weasel: It's not that the software won't be completed until 2017, it's that it just won't be ready to run until 2017.  They're using Java.


Wait 'til Oracle starts monkeying with the attitude control API.
 
2013-04-25 11:06:53 AM

enry: I_Am_Weasel: It's not that the software won't be completed until 2017, it's that it just won't be ready to run until 2017.  They're using Java.

So they'll still be downloading updates and be asked if they want to install the Ask Toolbar?

/Or was it McAfee scanner?


Surfcanyon
 
2013-04-25 11:07:46 AM

Alonjar: another cultural observer: Thunderpipes: Aarontology: Four hundred billion dollars for a plane that doesn't even really work

Or about five sequesters worth.

That is like 9 Solyndras.

Or 61,000 Teapot Domes

Or 13.3 million college educations.


7 HP Print Cartridges. 9 days of Medicare.
 
2013-04-25 11:08:59 AM

give me doughnuts: Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. Half the price fo the F-35, and we already know they work.


USAs NATO allies are mostly looking at the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafaele or Saab Gripen as alternatives AFAIK.

The F35 is only in the picture because USA is strongarming their allies into choosing it.
 
2013-04-25 11:09:12 AM

mark12A: I really, reallly, really WANT the F-35B. Fark the other varients. A vertical takeoff/landing supersonic fighter can be really, really, really useful.

If we had F-35B's and V-22's in 1979, the Iranian hostage rescue would have gone quite differently....


Yeah, they could've broken down on the way to rescue the hostages instead of....oh, right.
 
2013-04-25 11:12:00 AM

Alonjar: A single F35 is supposed to be able to down a wing of F-15's without them even knowing what hit them.  They beat the snot out of F-15s in combat exercises.


The F-15SE is NOT the F-15C. The avionics, radar, everything has been upgraded. The airplane even utilizes some stealthy features (there's a reason the vertical stabilizers are canted on the -15SE, whereas all other variants have them completely vertical). And when you don't need the stealth anymore (once you've beat the hell out of the air defense radars with B-2s, Tomahawks, Apaches, Predators, and spit wads), the -15SE even has an extra wing station on each side for externally carried ordnance. While I don't know it for sure, I rather suspect the F-15s we're building now for Saudi Arabia (with most of the avionics and radar goodies installed) will be a harder kill for a -35, let alone something with a few extra tweaks like the Silent Eagle.

The F-22 is supposedly king shiat, even over the -35. The -35 is a step up from the 4th gen fighters, but isn't as superior as the -22... not as stealthy, not as maneuverable.

While there's a role for stealth aircraft, I have to think right now that there's little point in every aircraft being all that stealthy. It's expensive to develop and maintain, and once the first week of a conflict is out there's just not that much need for it for most of the force. We could buy more -15SEs than we can -35s, get them sooner, require less training to maintain them since we know how the airframe behaves, and get the same job done. All from a proven program (as opposed to Lockheed's recent love for playing bait and switch with costs and delivery dates).
 
2013-04-25 11:12:08 AM

jjorsett: Your airspeed is 410 knots. Your altitude is 18,000 feet. Your flight control system has an available update. Click here to delay update until later (requires reboot).  20 seconds ... 10 seconds ...


[E]ject [R]eboot [C]ontinue ?
 
2013-04-25 11:12:58 AM

pkellmey: A stealthy, networked, drone fighter fleet would put most manned fighters to shame. Plus, in total, it would be a less expensive project and not put pilots at risk.


[citation needed]. Sure, that's the future, but we're a LOOOONG way from having the airframes ready, let alone the networking and remote weapons systems. And drones won't be that much cheaper; you save money on life support, but you give it back in remote piloting gear. It can be only so small in order to carry enough fuel and weapons.

Superior performance isn't a given, either. On the one hand, a drone can pull more Gs, but on the other hand, the sensor feedback is much quicker in a manned fighter.

As for pilot risk, meh, they're fighter pilots. Our combat losses since Vietnam have been negligible; about the same risk they face in training. You saying no one should ride in airplanes because it's unsafe?
 
2013-04-25 11:14:52 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: We can build thousands of MP-38s or millions of Stens.


You know why nobody uses Stens any more?
 
Displayed 50 of 190 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report