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  
•       •       •

4416 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 02:46:25 PM  
If you haven't seen the movie 'Deal of the Century', find it. I'll bet most of the people in this thread have seen it though.

//Just a little touch up!!
 
2013-04-25 02:58:30 PM  
Toxic Park:

Not disagreeing with anything you're saying here. But I still would/will want a standby human pilot aboard the flights in the unlikely event of failure of the auto functions. Wouldn't you?

Oh hell yes.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a pilot, but I still want someone qualified and experienced with that plane in the cockpit.  Even if the robot is doing the flying.  My ability to fly a jumbo is probably OK.  My ability to land that beast is not.  And of course, as a pilot, I greatly distrust the computer that claims to be able to fly.  It turns out most of them are good at it, but one of these days....


Also, did you know the propeller on an airplane is only there to keep the pilot cool?  Yeah, stop it and watch him start sweating.
 
2013-04-25 03:19:17 PM  
And this was supposed to be the cheaper alternative to the F22.
 
2013-04-25 03:29:16 PM  

Jarhead_h: And this was supposed to be the cheaper alternative to the F22.


Yup. That's the real insult of the entire thing. While it's still cheaper than the F-22, it isn't cheaper by the margin promised. We might as well have just made a multirole version of the F-22 and saved all the trouble.
 
2013-04-25 03:48:43 PM  

Kahabut: I could go into a great deal of detail on this


...and you'll never get to the part where "remote controlled" is not synonymous with "automated".

The problem is that a drone interceptor would have to, under all conditions (night, weather, jamming, and anywhere in the world whether you've got a satellite working or not), identify its target to a human operator and get the authorization to shoot.

Foregoing that authorization means you've got a flying landmine that's due to end someone's career.  Mandating it means you've got a vulnerability where the enemy just needs to jam the right signal to silence your weapon.

Theres a difference between a missile sent to kill a target and a robot sent to find something to kill.
If the vehicle finds itself in a tight bank with an enemy fighter and can't get its dish into an uplink position, its going to quickly fail at defending itself.

I'm saying that there aren't many people who want that prospect between them and an enemy cluster bomb falling on their heads.
 
2013-04-25 04:07:44 PM  

way south: Kahabut: I could go into a great deal of detail on this

...and you'll never get to the part where "remote controlled" is not synonymous with "automated".

The problem is that a drone interceptor would have to, under all conditions (night, weather, jamming, and anywhere in the world whether you've got a satellite working or not), identify its target to a human operator and get the authorization to shoot.

Foregoing that authorization means you've got a flying landmine that's due to end someone's career.  Mandating it means you've got a vulnerability where the enemy just needs to jam the right signal to silence your weapon.

Theres a difference between a missile sent to kill a target and a robot sent to find something to kill.
If the vehicle finds itself in a tight bank with an enemy fighter and can't get its dish into an uplink position, its going to quickly fail at defending itself.

I'm saying that there aren't many people who want that prospect between them and an enemy cluster bomb falling on their heads.


The whole "asking for permission to kill" thing is going to be extremely temporary.  Sentry style defensive drones will merely have an on/off mode, the entire advantage of using a computer is that it can act faster than a human can think, and we can use an endless amount of them.

War in the future WILL involve massive clouds of autonomous drones which are capable of target acquisition and distinction.  They will be capable of operating with zero outside communication, specifically because of the jamming issues you suggested.  Morality doesnt come into play... this WILL happen at some time, its just a matter of when.  Its inevitable.
 
2013-04-25 04:08:11 PM  

way south: Kahabut: I could go into a great deal of detail on this

...and you'll never get to the part where "remote controlled" is not synonymous with "automated".

The problem is that a drone interceptor would have to, under all conditions (night, weather, jamming, and anywhere in the world whether you've got a satellite working or not), identify its target to a human operator and get the authorization to shoot.

Foregoing that authorization means you've got a flying landmine that's due to end someone's career.  Mandating it means you've got a vulnerability where the enemy just needs to jam the right signal to silence your weapon.

Theres a difference between a missile sent to kill a target and a robot sent to find something to kill.
If the vehicle finds itself in a tight bank with an enemy fighter and can't get its dish into an uplink position, its going to quickly fail at defending itself.

I'm saying that there aren't many people who want that prospect between them and an enemy cluster bomb falling on their heads.


I get where you are coming from.  It's just not accurate to the world we live in.  AtoA combat is not done "top gun" style.  There are no 6g climbs into a scissor into a cobra and then you line up your gun sights and open fire.  No.  Drones do not dog fight.  Modern FIGHTERS don't even dogfight.  Modern air to air combat happens at 5+ miles.  A signature is analysed, identified, and a missile is dispatched.  The missile accelerates to mach3 or so and uses a proximity fuse to detonate a shrapnel charge near the signature (which we all hope wasn't an airliner).  There is no scenario in which a drone will engage in a dog fight.  They aren't built for it, and even if they were, it is simply not how modern air combat works.

I'd rather have 100 drones in the air than 5 fighters with human pilots.  Because in any situation where enemy air power can reach me (west coast USA), I'd rather have as many missile launching vehicles as we can get airborne and I want them all told to shoot at anything that isn't squawking friendly ident.

It's also worth noting that despite the propaganda on the subject, modern drones are fully capable of being told: Take off from here, fly to here, here, here, here and here, drop this munition on this target and watch for targets of opportunity  use engagement protocol 6a, and then fly here, here, here and land.  At no point is a human being required in this system.  Do we currently claim to operate such a mission with human oversight?  Yes, we claim that.  There is no technological reason for it, but lots of people like you are deeply afraid of "terminators", so we lie to the public about how these things actually work.

Sleep tight.
 
2013-04-25 04:13:39 PM  
Why don't they just stick a smart phone in it?
 
2013-04-25 04:17:19 PM  

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

Who needs anything else?


Ground support fighter that gets chewed up by air superiority fighters.
 
2013-04-25 04:46:12 PM  

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


he's Illuminati don't fall for it
 
2013-04-25 04:47:15 PM  
I always wondered about the effectiveness of stealth. Everything I have read states that the cross-section goes down to a hummingbird or bumblebee, not completely invisible.

If I was a radar operator and I saw a hummingbird coming at me at mach 1.5, I might say "Hmmm, that's strange".
 
2013-04-25 04:48:44 PM  

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


Sadly, that's only true of the F-22.  The F-35 is going to be more like an F-18, we're expecting to lose a lot of them in combat but at least they're versatile!
 
2013-04-25 04:57:47 PM  

Jument: Why don't they just stick a smart phone in it?


That's what she said
 
2013-04-25 04:58:48 PM  

LeftCoast_eh: If I was a radar operator and I saw a hummingbird coming at me at mach 1.5, I might say "Hmmm, that's strange".


That hummingbird really wants him some farking sugar water.
 
2013-04-25 05:05:55 PM  

Kahabut: Modern FIGHTERS don't even dogfight.


It doesn't matter so much what they do regularly, its what they need to do in extreme situations.  We're talking about a vehicle that will be the last line of defense between your soldiers and a very bad day.

They need the ability to dogfight both because politics often demands pilots get within visual range before shooting (radar can't be trusted to tell migs apart from airliners) and because our enemies are now playing with stealth.   It wouldn't be wise to depend on a sensor guided weapon as your last resort.

We need human oversight because someone has to be held responsible when people are going to be killed.    At least with a missile I know my liabilities, where the targets are identified in advance.
If this thing gets into a tussle with a puddle jumper full of tourists over some fishing village, I wouldn't want my name on any piece of paper associated with it.

The problem of terminators not that they'll take over the world. Its that they just don't care for the differences between schoolchildren and enemy soldiers.
Its going to take alot of programming skill and computing power to make them care.
 
2013-04-25 05:06:15 PM  

MichiganFTL: Marcus Aurelius: MichiganFTL: The M-16 always worked fine

The AK-47 always worked better.

Depends on the job you want to do. Ability to rapidly change roles, accuracy and carry additional ammo are all areas where the M16 always outshined the AK47. Now, in terms of ease of cleaning/production and ruggedness, the AK47 is awesome, but the latter gap is closing/closed with the introduction of new platforms (SCAR/416). So, always is not really the best description.


We could stand off at 500 yards and shoot at each other. I get the M16.
 
2013-04-25 05:12:49 PM  

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

Sadly, that's only true of the F-22.  The F-35 is going to be more like an F-18, we're expecting to lose a lot of them in combat but at least they're versatile!


Wait, so you're saying that we have Tiger tanks for our Tiger tanks? It makes me think of that really muscle-y guy in cartoons who would flex giant muscles then flex harder until muscles popped up on his muscles.

way south: The problem of terminators not that they'll take over the world. Its that they just don't care for the differences between schoolchildren and enemy soldiers.Its going to take alot of programming skill and computing power to make them care.


It'll be even harder than that. You're assuming that soldiers will always look like soldiers.
 
2013-04-25 05:18:37 PM  

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

Who needs anything else?

Ground support fighter that gets chewed up by air superiority fighters.


War is a giant game of rock<->paper<->scissors. Half the battle is having a rock, a paper, and a scissors on hand. The other half is knowing when the enemy is going to play on or the other and counter it appropriately.

The United States armed forces generally dominates because we have working rocks, paper, and scissors and are up against enemies that lack one or more of the above.
 
2013-04-25 05:39:11 PM  
torusXL:
It'll be even harder than that. You're assuming that soldiers will always look like soldiers.


Sometimes they look like cake.
cdn.cakecentral.com
 
2013-04-25 05:49:55 PM  

gaslight: cake


lie
 
2013-04-25 06:24:09 PM  

torusXL: Wait, so you're saying that we have Tiger tanks for our Tiger tanks? It makes me think of that really muscle-y guy in cartoons who would flex giant muscles then flex harder until muscles popped up on his muscles.


No I'm saying that the F-22 is the super advanced and unrealiable thing that rapes the sky.  The F-35 is the super expensive and unreliable thing that (will probably) get shot down all the time, especially when it chooses to pretend it's an A-10 because it can't carry its payload internally which negates its stealth advantages.  Its also not very durable.

So when it's playing the true multi-role, er, role, it's actually only marginally better than the F-18, you know, the AC it's replacing and, er, costs many times as much as.

5th gen is stupid anyways cause the age of the manned jet, as someone pointed out earlier, is over.  Drones, lasers and naval railguns is how non ground control warfare is probably going to look in the later half of this century.
 
2013-04-25 06:29:10 PM  
What is Blizzard the one developing it?
 
2013-04-25 06:41:14 PM  

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

Really?  Can you name a software package that took more than 5 years to develop and then was late?  (difficulty, shiatty games don't count)

Look, yes, high-tech projects do tend to crop up with major delays.  But 5 years is an outrageously long time for software.  I've seen complicated software, I've even made some.  If it's taking 5 years... you are doing something wrong.

This isn't a high-tech project problem.  This is a government contractor -unlimited money- problem.  These projects are so far out of control that is has actually become "normal" for this to happen to any new military hardware.


You've never worked in avionics, have you?  There is this evil little thing called DO-178B, which essentially treats software design exactly like hardware design.  Spend years getting the requirements perfect, then more years getting the design perfect (which is really just more requirements, because the diagrams and flowcharts one would find in an actual software design aren't "traceable" enough), then hire a couple of bums off the street code-monkey software contractors to implement the thing in 6 months.  The code will naturally be perfect because it directly follows from perfect requirements and design, right?  Of course, anyone who's ever written software knows that this approach never works, and the budget, in both time and money, at least triples over the course of the project.

I've written some of the code for one of the F-35's modules and systems for other aircraft, too, and every time it's the same.  There are actually people who make a living solely from quibbling over minutiae in the wording of the requirements.

\Lovin' my new job in the commercial sector
 
2013-04-25 07:45:45 PM  

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]


COBRA had all the good jets.
 
2013-04-25 08:17:15 PM  

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.


...except it's not very stealthy and it's not 5th Gen. Other than that I suppose you're right especially the part about the airframe dating back to the early 1970's!

A single F-35 can eat a bunch of Eagles for lunch and then go back for more!!
 
2013-04-25 08:30:42 PM  

dittybopper: Well, duh. Software is often a sticking point,


Spoken like a poser;.
 
2013-04-25 08:34:40 PM  
Sounds like they're looking for an excuse to off-shore the software. Why don't we get North Korea to write it? I'm sure they could use the money.
 
2013-04-25 08:37:00 PM  

Fark Me To Tears: Sounds like they're looking for an excuse to off-shore the software. Why don't we get North Korea to write it? I'm sure they could use the money.


They write that base 6 crap.
 
2013-04-25 08:52:13 PM  
These rich and powerful wastes of oxygen gotta have their toys to compensate for their tiny, limp dicks,

/People with a modicum of intelligence should have zero respect for the suited ones.
 
2013-04-25 10:26:55 PM  
<i>A Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is pictured with the space shuttle Endeavour mounted atop its 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) at the 461st Flight Test Squadron (FLTS)</i>

No wonder the F-35 program is so expensive.
 
2013-04-25 10:53:28 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: 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.

...except it's not very stealthy and it's not 5th Gen. Other than that I suppose you're right especially the part about the airframe dating back to the early 1970's!

A single F-35 can eat a bunch of Eagles for lunch and then go back for more!!


You may wish to read up on what is generally considered "5th generation" fighters. While it's not a widely agreed upon definition, the only item that the F-15SE and some others don't meet are all aspect stealth (the F-35 isn't all aspect either; the ass end is going to show up on radar screens like a billboard with that exhaust nozzle back there). AESA radar, check. Enhanced situational awareness, check. Increased maneuverability, check. Reduced radar signature (the Silent Eagle's frontal radar cross section is not that far off the F-35) rather than full blown stealth. Oh, and the F-15SE is way faster (Mach 2.5 vs. 1.6 for the F-35) and has longer range on internal fuel tanks.

The airframe of the F-15 has evolved over time as well too. Sure, the design elements were laid down in the 1970s, but the F-22's own design (and nobody is claiming the F-35 is as capable as the -22) is in the neighborhood of 20 years old (first flight was in 1997... sixteen years ago).

Again, while the F-35 would do in the F-15C, I rather doubt it would be near as successful against modern evolutions such as the F-15SA or the F-15SE.

Just because there's new dogs out there don't mean the old ones haven't learned some new and impressive tricks.
 
2013-04-26 01:06:44 AM  

ZeroKnightRaiden: <i>A Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is pictured with the space shuttle Endeavour mounted atop its 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) at the 461st Flight Test Squadron (FLTS)</i>

No wonder the F-35 program is so expensive.


Muscles popping out of muscles, man.
 
2013-04-26 06:16:08 AM  
It would be a shame not to have a huge war and use these cool figher jets.
 
2013-04-26 09:39:46 AM  
NASA sent three men to the moon with a guidance computer that had a 16-bit, 2MHz processor and 32K of memory.

/If you believe that sort of thing.
 
2013-04-26 09:43:29 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: MichiganFTL: The M-16 always worked fine

The AK-47 always worked better.


Especially back when it was the Browning Model 8 Police:

img838.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-26 09:46:10 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: dittybopper: Well, duh. Software is often a sticking point,

Spoken like a poser;.


Like a poser?  I've been writing software for a living for roughly 20 years now.  If you count the stuff I wrote for fun prior to being a professional, I've been writing it almost 35 years now.
 
2013-04-26 09:49:22 AM  

UnspokenVoice: MichiganFTL: Marcus Aurelius: MichiganFTL: The M-16 always worked fine

The AK-47 always worked better.

Depends on the job you want to do. Ability to rapidly change roles, accuracy and carry additional ammo are all areas where the M16 always outshined the AK47. Now, in terms of ease of cleaning/production and ruggedness, the AK47 is awesome, but the latter gap is closing/closed with the introduction of new platforms (SCAR/416). So, always is not really the best description.

We could stand off at 500 yards and shoot at each other. I get the M16.


Deal.  I'll even make it easier for you:  I get my Remington 700 in .30'06.

;-)
 
2013-04-26 10:49:48 AM  

dittybopper: WhoopAssWayne: dittybopper: Well, duh. Software is often a sticking point,

Spoken like a poser;.

Like a poser?  I've been writing software for a living for roughly 20 years now.  If you count the stuff I wrote for fun prior to being a professional, I've been writing it almost 35 years now.


Yeeeeep. Really spoken like a true poser.
 
2013-04-26 01:16:37 PM  

torusXL: dittybopper: WhoopAssWayne: dittybopper: Well, duh. Software is often a sticking point,

Spoken like a poser;.

Like a poser?  I've been writing software for a living for roughly 20 years now.  If you count the stuff I wrote for fun prior to being a professional, I've been writing it almost 35 years now.

Yeeeeep. Really spoken like a true poser.


Oh, I get it.  You're *TROLLING*.
 
2013-04-26 02:14:32 PM  

dittybopper: Oh, I get it.  You're *TROLLING*.


Shhhhhhh.

*gives dittybopper a soothing caress*
 
Displayed 40 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report