F-35 flight tests are being delayed by onboard software snafus F-35 fighter jets are running so many different versions of their core software that a US government watchdog has warned of knock-on delays to flight tests. Core software aboard the Mach 1.6 stealth jet is in such a state of disarray – with aircraft at different US military bases running different versions of it – that the US …
A plane isn't like a social networking site, you can't just throw up some fashionable bling and spend the next three years getting it to work properly. The F-35 has a highly-integrated flight software suite of unique complexity. What did they expect with the first couple of year's cuts, communications grade or something?
you'd still expect a lot more from something which has had $1.5 Trillion thrown at it.
Not me. The F35 programme is so overly ambitious in all dimensions - capability, technology, performance, mission, control systems that I'm surprised it hasn't cost more, and that they've even got a handful into limited service. And complex software is rarely reliable or easily adapted, so we can forsee that it will be a problem throughout its service life.
1.5 Trillion is the expected cost for the whole 50 years of operation. The plane has its issues, but people throwing FUD around make me laugh. I spent 20 years working on aircraft in the military and all the haters have no idea that every plane goes through this to some level. Even 40-year-old F-16s and F-15s have issues and are constantly being updated. It takes time to upgrade software etc. Mission comes first and the benefits of a sub-version of a software may not be worth the downtime vs continuing training etc. The plane should be more complete you won't get an argument from me, but we are talking about a vehicle that is the most technologically advanced airplane flying and yet even with that its still at least 7 years out of date of current tech. Most people have no idea what it takes to keep something like this going and while some of the critisism is warranted most is not. There are quite a few flat-out falsities in the article that I wont even go into, but all this planes problems are nothing new, its just they are so much more public than they used to be.
I take your point having been involved in three extremely difficult projects - we were using a relatively formal approach to their mathematical analysis don't all boo - it proved its worth many time over (and we were well paid on the results), typically does so when used appropriately) but so many concurrent versions in the field - that is never going to be a good idea if you expect some convergence/learning.
Mission comes first and the benefits of a sub-version of a software may not be worth the downtime vs continuing training etc.
Yes, I can certainly see how not being able to fire your missiles in a combat situation is not worth the time to get right the first time around.
The plane is not considered combat ready so yes full ability to fire missiles is not required yet. It can fire some of its planned missiles just not all. Integration of ALL the missiles is not required for training. Seriously its not as easy as all the people have never worked on such projects think. There are symbology changes, missile specifications (range speed, inflight updates from the radar etc), Its a lot of work to integrate a new weapon. It took YEARS for the F-22 to be able to use the AIM-9X these planes are an improvement over older designs which often required replacing fire control computers with NEW/UPGRADED computer. There is still some level of that in these planes, but they are much more upgradeable than past designs, but then that takes a lot of programming, testing, and then bug fixes.
"There are quite a few flat-out falsities in the article that I wont [sic] even go into ..."
Funny, I'd have thought you'd be falling over yourself to list them, if they're "flat out falsities".
Some posters defending this project seem to be arguing with appeals to authority "trust me, I worked on this/that ..." and "You have no idea what's involved ..." rather than addressing the actual history of the F-35 development or the simply enormous litany of failings, failures, faults, cost overruns, magical accounting etc which are a matter of public record. It's true that previous planes have had teething problems, even the much-admired teen series like F-14, -15, -16, -18 and the celebrated A-10. But none endured such a hellish journey as F-35: not even close.
And it's notable that the planes I've mentioned were all designed, built and operated with a lesson in mind. That lesson was the F-111.
The F-111 was propagandised as the One Size Fits All combat plane, a multi-purpose multi-role flexible aircraft that could fulfil all necessary combat missions better than any previous dedicated aircraft, and would save oodles of money because of universal adoption and standardisation.
Does any of that sound familiar?
The F-111, of course, was an expensive disaster, setting the west's combat air power development back by at least a decade (yes, the UK's idiot, lying politicians got sucked into that disaster too).
Foolish and gullible as they had been, senior military and politicians resolved to act upon the lesson, realising that it is indeed far better to have three planes that each do a specific task brilliantly well, than one which does everything badly. The result was a series of unparalleled aircraft designs which have worked well for nigh on 50 years. For merely one example, ask any experienced infantry grunt which plane he'd prefer to have providing close air support when he's beset on all sides by hairy foes—it'll be A-10, not F-35: the latter is simply too limited, too fragile and too expensive.
I won't list again all the manifold warnings and failings of F-35 because, unlike the "flat out falsities" they are matter of record for anyone with a browser.
The Russians and Chinese are not cowering beneath their beds over the F-35 designs (the entirety of which they appear to have had on their computers for years now). They are delighted to see the US and UK pouring countless billions into an inferior aircraft, so expensive that there will never be nearly enough of them, so fragile that they will fly rarely, so dependent upon their vaunted "stealth" that Russian and Chinese engineers can almost cry with laughter as they dust off and improve suites of technology (multiband active/passive; IR; optical; acoustic; with multidomain integration), some of it actually quite old, which renders that stealth frequently useless¹. For them it is even more incredibly, hilariously welcome than watching the UK piss billions away on a Trident system it can't use, or float its Great Big Targerts ("supercarriers") without any aircraft. (Or escort ships. Or a modern operating system. Or—)
General and politicians forgot, or more likely were too arrogant, to heed the lessons learned by a previous generation and were, once again suckered by the lies of contractors and tempted by the prospect of congressional pork. And, just as with F-111, they have betrayed their nation's defence, again, and this time probably for much longer than 10 years..
¹ Useless, that is, when merely opening the weapons bay doors; or carrying a fuel tank; or a missile; or encountering a stone flake on the runway doesn't render the stealth already useless.
You would indeed be wrong. But I have long experience both in the defence sector and in mindbogglingly complex bleeding-edge software/system rollouts (not necessarily on the same project). I merely share a simple fact of life which most of you will never have had the experience to discover for yourselves. I'm afraid it will take more than a few script kiddies downvoting me to get this tricksy little piece of hardware flying the carefree hands-on way she is meant to. Without knowing the "features" in question, I'd expect another year or so of squishing and tidying, as long as nobody is dumb enough to change the requirements mid-flight. Longer if they don't coordinate the various releases rolled out to different customers. But come that day....
Which is exactly the sort of thing the customers are encouraged to do by the con-tractors*
This being a British site most posters are familar with BAe (whose is doing a lot of the radar software, and the air system for the pilots) as Billions Above Estimate.
The scary part is that, per design, your quip seems to be applicable to its physical hardware too.
It was planned as a gradual iteration program from the start, the 'Tranches' are part of that.
Now, it's common for military hardware to come in successive iterations, tranches. But those are usually each operational. Taxpayers have essentially been footing what seems to be a mass prototyping program where delivered jets won't necessarily be combat worthy. This was by design, but has since been redflagged on future planes.
Driving that need for iterations is the large infusion of bleeding edge components, combined with over-ambitious aims to be sold for too many different mission profiles.
Bring back F22 and open its export. Or buy elsewhere. Western countries* should basically drop this F111/P39** style abomination. Throwing more $ at it won't work at this point.
* those who haven't specced major F-35-only capital expenditures anyway ;-)
** these were planes designed by smart people with the best of intentions which never worked as intended.
"Taxpayers have essentially been footing what seems to be a mass prototyping program where delivered jets won't necessarily be combat worthy. This was by design, but has since been redflagged on future planes."
As I understand it, that was a deliberate ploy to escalate the level of commitment so that the program could not be cancelled no matter how badly it was going.
Otherwise there might have been an objective analysis that decided that the F35 program would not produce operational benefits in line with the costs, and that perhaps aircraft that did not depend on a one trick tactic ('you can't see me') that was bound to become obsolete (S-band radars, IRST, passive tracking, networked sensors from multiple aspects) would provide a more reliable, useful, long lasting capability.
Wouldn't be surprised.
They've spread the manufacturing pork throughout so many states by design that pretty much every senator has constituents who would be affected by a program shutdown.
Even abroad there are so many grubby fingers in that pie that it's almost as bad. Probably made sure to give an envelope full of cash to whoever decided making QE wo cats was a good idea. Glorified 70KT helicopter carrier wo F35s, really.
“For Block 3F, the pilot is now able to see what coordinates are sent to the bomb, but is still not able to see what coordinates are actually loaded in the bomb,”
Bwahahahaha...
ConfigState to OperState disagreement.
Any of us who have written system and network management software have seen this one before. Deja Vu all around. Usually this is a result of f*** up architecture and nearly impossible to fix by patching it up here and there. This nearly always requires rewriting the "sync" adapter(s) from scratch if not outright re-architecting the sync adapter(s), the data models and the interface APIs to the central system - you usually cannot change things on "what is being interfaced" (*).
I do not envy the poor pilots who will be flying this for a while because instead of rewrite this will be patched up using quick and ugly fixes again and again and again for political reasons.
(*) Been there, done that, have the T shirt more than once for various non-mil systems. T-shirt usually has holes in the back from 9 inch blades by the PHBs who commanded the original f*** up
Can’t talk to bombs, can’t properly use decades-old missiles
Britain’s 14 F-35Bs are all thought to be running Block 3F software of various sub-versions. Yet the all-singing, all-dancing jet still can’t talk to its guided air-to-ground bombs properly, even with the latest patches installed.
Talking to a bomb is only the first step. Convincing it to do what you want can be harder.
ALIS relied too heavily on lab simulations, and when “fleet personnel” got their hands on it, they “used ALIS in ways that laboratory testers did not”
Anyone who has ever written software to be used by someone else will tell you this happens. It should surprise no-one.
"Fleet personnel" are responsible for keeping airframes in the sky, where they belong. Lab rats are responsible for making sure software behaves the way it is supposed to.
Whist these are not mutually exclusive, what works well in a laboratory will not necessarily help when you're stuck on a steel postage stamp in the middle of a storm at sea with a pilot screaming at you because some relatively insignificant (in a lab) piece of hardware failed and nearly dumped him - and his $90m whizzjet - into the ocean, so the maintenance crew will find ways to use (and abuse) the software to try to prevent that happening... which is also somewhat at odds with the "just-in-time" manufacturing and minimal stock levels so loved by beancounters and management everywhere, and which is a very poor way to keep any sort of war machine actually doing what it is supposed to do rather than sitting awaiting repair while the parts get manufactured and shipped out to the combat zone.
Judging whether or not ALIS is fit for purpose has little to do with whether the REMFs certify it does what the salesman said it would in the lab but everything to do with how many airframes are in the air and not decorating the hangars...
In a book of the North Africa campaigns, someone quoted a German prisoner as saying to his Eighth Army captors:
When the RAF bomb, the Germans duck for cover; when the Luftwaffe bomb, the British duck for cover; when the USAAF bomb, everybody ducks for cover.
It's one of the few traditions the USAF has - don't knock it. So far they've missed the White House and the Pentagon ... I don't know how seriously they take that tradition ... :)
In close air support role (which this POS is supposed to take over too you know)? After you have exterminated the troops you are supposed to be supporting?
Provided they are not voters and the act is not recorded and broadcastt guess the USAF does not care. (And even then...)
The USAF has the B-1B for close air support ..... Oops!
This is just one of many examples of the armed forces having a fancy toy which really doesn't have much of a mission anymore. And so they cobble some crap together to use it for something. Anything. To justify it's ongoing support.
Close air support and the USAF are mutually exclusive terms (except for the Warthog which the AF brass never, ever wanted to have anyway). Their idea of close air support is a bomber, dropping it's load some distance from where the battle is raging. The upper crust would prefer they got to play with bombers and ICBM's rather than close air support. Not too many of the top brass have "fighter pilot" on their resume.
"Surely there are times when Top Brass wants to bomb something but doesn't want anyone to know what they bombed, not even the pilot?"
Yes, I came here to say the same thing. Coordinates can be entered and sent but no confirmation tha they are what are received. Plausible deniability..
Yes, it's going to keep stonking quantities of cash rolling in for as long as the program lasts; slightly let down by the fact that everyone can see it happening. Just got to hope the politicians and other needed actors are now so far in they just can't withdraw until the very last drops have been squeezed out. In time for a better plan to slip into its place.
This post has been deleted by its author
2020 at the very earliest according to this due to MDL's. Unless I'm reading it wrong.
"However, the full set of
MDLs required for real-world operations will not be
completely developed, tested, and verified until the
end of 2019 One of the remaining four is scheduled
for release in December 2018, a second in May 2019,
and the final two in November and December 2019,
presuming the current schedule holds. This extended
timeline is due to ongoing delays with Block 3F
and the program’s failure to provide the necessary
equipment and adequate software tools for the U.S.
Reprogramming Laboratory (USRL)."
Source: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2017/pdf/dod/2017f35jsf.pdf
It's an interesting read as well.
"Superiority"
http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html
If the F-35 Program Manager(s) [<- I'll bet that they go through 5 per year] had simply read some SciFi while growing up, then all this could have been avoided. They would have instinctively taken evasive action to avoid these problems, and they would have been more immediately successful.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
