Samsung TV software update comes to mind
Dunno why, but the software update for Samsung TVs comes to my mind...
Initial software development for the F-35 fighter jet is coming to an end, while future tweaks to the aircraft’s onboard systems will be rolled out like smartphone app updates, according to reports. “Envision a little window that pops up that says, ‘Your latest [electro-optical distributed aperture system] software update is …
"I don't see how they might resemble..."
The OP was probably refering to a recent "smart" TV firmware "update" that bricked the machine due to some bug - or more likely outsourced sub continent halfwit copying the wrong file - causing firmware for the wrong machine type to be uploaded. In a TV thats annoying, in an aircraft that could be instantly fatal.
"otherwise why are we spending $10bn on them?"
Come to that, why is anybody spending money on them when the software still isn't able to support the product's purpose, combat. And come to that why are we spending money on carriers which also aren't ready to do the same because we still don't have the planes to fly from them? Eventually, of course, they are hoped to be ready but we rather hope the Russians don't invade before then.
Yes Prime Minister: "So if the Russians are to invade, we'd prefer them to do it between Mondays and Fridays?"
"Come to that, why is anybody spending money on them when...."
Because the reason for these programs isn't military it's political. MPs get to send some pork to their local districts and PMs / Presidents / generals can play "look what a big dick I have"
"Instantly fatal"? That's a bit of hyperbole, methinks. I'm pretty sure the software updates won't be delivered in flight,
So instead of being bricked in-flight, it will be bricked before flight. Isn't it wonderful having most (for some countries all) of your air force on the ground for a nice "fish in a barrel" shooting spree exercise.
Add to that the idea that USA has to approve your flight plans as the mission software is integrated with spares and logistics and is located in USA mil cloud.
Even the most desperate Nazi super-weapon attempts towards the end of WW2 did not get anywhere as surreal as that. This just beats the Sur out of Surreal.
@Voland
I have never worked on a military contract but have done a couple of central government. They are as risk averse as it gets (and I have done a few banking/financial services). I am reliably informed military are a whole new level of paranoia.
I'm not saying they couldn't release a fatal bug to production (we all know thats always possible) but there's a whole different level of rigour involved compared to the commercial world.
So instead of being bricked in-flight, it will be bricked before flight. Isn't it wonderful having most (for some countries all) of your air force on the ground for a nice "fish in a barrel" shooting spree exercise.
I can't believe anyone seriously believes there will be updates delivered without any choice, and they'll have to be applied all planes at the same time. A clueless Vice Admiral had the process explained to him by techies in dumbed-down language they thought he could understand, and he interpreted it to mean there will be a pop up that says such and such an update is ready that can happen at any time like it does on an iPhone.
I'll happily bet anyone any amount of money that is NOT going to happen. The plane will have to be in some sort of 'service' mode to download/apply updates, and they'll be delivered via wire (i.e. on ground when being serviced by techs with the pilots nowhere around) not over the air.
If anyone decides to update their entire air force without doing a couple first as a test and making sure the pilots check it out as OK, they deserve to have their country's air force destroyed by someone shooting fish in a barrel.
The US control over the whole process of dealing with the F35s is a real concern, but one that any country that can't afford to develop its own military gear faces, and one that's separate from the software updates. What I'd be worried about if I was another country is that the US could include a super-secret 'kill' switch on the plane they can trigger via satellite, by i.e. inserting a command into the GPS data stream the plane will constantly be receiving. If they're being nice it prevents weapons fire and the plane will refuse to take off again after landing. If they're not being so nice, the plane would simply fall out of the sky and fingers crossed the ejection seat will still operate.
"and fingers crossed the ejection seat will still operate."
Given that the ejection seat is the one part of the plane that *must*, almost by definition, function when the plane is completely without any sort of power,(1) I'd say this isn't as such a worry, or at least not for the reason implied.
(1) It must work in the circumstance where the engine has stopped and the hydraulics and electrics are busted and it wouldn't matter anyway because the ram-air turbine didn't deploy like it's supposed to, so there's no thrust, no hydraulics, and no electricity either. You pull the handle, the rockets fire mechanicomechanically, and the canopy goes bye-bye.(2)
(2) In a pinch, just because the seat fires directly through it, but in most planes it is ejected or shattered by explosive means.
"I see you're about to bomb the sh*t out of country x. Uncle Sam / $ rouge state sponsored leet hackorz doesn't want you to do that ..."
OR
Over the radio in a combat zone ...
"Hello, this is Ferdinand from microsoft, there is a problem with the computer in your F-35 ...."
Call me stupid and old fashioned but why on earth would you need to update a fighter jets firmware incrementally?
Surely you would get it right, apply it, go away and improve it, test it then apply it.
The only reason for incremental updates is if the software isn't ready, that's a scary thought, though technically not as worrying as over the air updates and security.
It sounds like it and it is incremental to a degree but the way they are doing it sounds some crappy android app that updates every week for a text field fix or because they forgot something in the previous version.
Like I said, get it right, test it, apply it. None of this version 3F/3i/3J/3k rubbish, have fixed versions 3/4/5/6, it's a fighter jet for the love of dog.
I don't even want to get started on data corruption because over the air doesn't fill me with confidence even if you spend the time putting all the obvious checks in place before applying it then after it's applied.
As this is America do you have to get the pro version or will it have ads?
They're adding feature updates to support things like new weapons that various customers want to use. Some of those include new weapons that did not exist when the plane was being designed.
Some of it is also feature updates to enable features that were left "for later" because the software was so far behind.
Some of it is updates to deal with problems that were discovered during flight testing. Those include hardware problems (bugs) by the way, not just software bugs.
The plane is technically still under development. The customers (US and UK now) are now flying early models around and reporting back problems to be fixed. Actual normal full production doesn't start for a few years yet.
The plane is technically still under development. The customers (US and UK now) are now flying early models around and reporting back problems to be fixed.
I've paid $30 or $40 for early access of a steam game, basically being an alpha or beta tester. Then I get the full game on release.
But paying billions (or tens of billions) of dollars for early access alpha testing? And having to pay for upgrades (in unavailable downtime if not extra money for specific upgrades) - fuck me.
Wonder what the kickbacks were for that particular agreement?
Call me old fashioned, but surely one of the prime requisites for a "jet fighter" would be that it can actually fight!
"Yes, we said we'll make it Combat Enabled in the next version... North Korea are doing what? Can't they wait a few weeks.... Open Beta isn't even planned yet and TBH the fire control system is just stubs atm...."
Call me stupid and old fashioned but why on earth would you need to update a fighter jets firmware incrementally?
The whole point of fly-by-wire systems is that they allow aircraft to be designed which are aerodynamically unstable. An aerodynamically unstable aircraft, if you can control it (unaided humans can't, computers can), is more agile.
Nothing could be more appropriate for an agile aircraft than agile development and updates. Devops with a vengeance.
And, like agile/devops, fuck quality and reliability. "Minor issues" will be fixed in the next release, in 30 minutes. The fact that your aircraft crashed before the new update just means you're no longer around to complain about the old release not working properly.
"Hmm... If they're going from 3i to 3F it seems to imply that they didn't anticipate needing more than 26 interim versions between each major release."
I thought it implied they tried 3j to 3z, then wrapped around to 3A and now are reaching 3F. I guess all those interim updates didn't quite work and were skipped over.
"If they're going from 3i to 3F it seems to imply that they didn't anticipate needing more than 26 interim versions between each major release."
i is interim and F is Final? Although it looks as if there's going to be an interim final. Will this be followed by a Nearly Final, and Almost There Final and a Real Soon Now Final?
Not over the Internet, no. No way. Not in a million years.
I do hope this download functionality means from a secure site to a local, secure server, then control and validation of the package and then distribution to the planes via sneakernet.
The last thing you want for multi-million dollar jets is to let them open to man-in-the-middle attacks and all the other joys of Internet insecurity. The only way to be sure that these very expensive tools are not vulnerable is to not have them link up.
Period.
USB!
If it's deemed good enough for the Wildcat in-lieu of a TDL...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/17/lynx_wildcat_has_no_tactical_data_link_royal_navy
"Not over the Internet, no. No way. Not in a million years."
There is an awful lot of military traffic that goes over the Internet. I suspect that it's probably "most" military traffic. And the Internet isn't a million years old yet. Then there's all the military traffic that is broadcast over a huge geographical footprint.
Can you work out why no one cares about this?
"The only way to be sure that these very expensive tools are not vulnerable is to not have them link up."
Bullshit.
Which does seem odd as the USMC have been flying theirs over South Korea recently, which is hardly the place you want to be taking a non-combat capable aircraft. Unless they're saying it's not reached FOC (Full Operational Capability) yet, which isn't quite the same as being non-combat capable.
@SkippyBing - Part of the testing process will involve flying the plane around various parts of the world to see what sorts of problems will crop up. They won't be looking for just problems with the plane itself, but also problems with the training, base facilities, communications systems, spare parts supply and inventory system, ground equipment, etc., etc.
The plane software is also localised, in terms of having to download new software components to support features in specific parts of the world. The details of this are not public, but apparently if you buy the plane for use in one part of the world you have to get a software update from the US to use it in another part of the world. The issue is apparently related to limited data storage which prevents them from downloading a global data set to all the planes.
The end result is that they can't know if the plane, including all its support infrastructure, is going to work in Korea until they actually test it in Korea. The presence of the F-35s there is only making the news because of all the other things happening are causing the press to report whatever other military news they can find.
The planes flying over Korea are already forward based in Japan and have reached Initial Operating Capability, they were taking part in a show of force with F-15s and B-1s. It was literally doing operational tasking.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/amp28034/b-1-f-35-north-korea/
The end result is that they can't know if the plane, including all its support infrastructure, is going to work in Korea until they actually test it in Korea.
"Are we ready for Operation Overlord?"
"We have a slight snag, Prime Minister. We don't know if our planes are going to be able to operate in France. We have to take them over there to do some testing first. Can the Foreign Office arrange that with the Germans?"
"It's bad enough when your sat nav* crashes/freezes/reboots. But the whole vehicle (OK airplane here, makes it worse)"
Oh don't worry, the headless chicken rush into needless complexity shoehorned in to road vehicles simply to have marketing tickbox features that only appeal to people to young to actually hold a driving license continues unabated. Very soon you'll be able to look forward to OTA updates of your cars core software just as you're entering a tunnel.
It looks to me like ye olde Pentagon tap dance has started again.
Project officers are always keen to assure their superiors that all is going smoothly and that things will be delivered on time. After all there are promotions to be considered.
This way if anyone comes along and says "This aspect of the software isn't working." the contractor or project officer can turn around and say "Don't worry about that it's all fixed in the next version that will be rolled out real soon."
That way timelines are made just a bit more elastic and help give those in authority the impression that things are in hand and there is nothing to worry about.
I recommend Col. James G Burton's book The Pentagon Wars as an insight into how things are arranged and managed in the procurement of weapons at the Pentagon.
"I recommend Col. James G Burton's book The Pentagon Wars as an insight into how things are arranged and managed in the procurement of weapons at the Pentagon."I usually recommend Fred Reed's Au Phuc Dup and Nowhere to Go: The Only Really True Book About Viet Nam as a primer on US military management.
The current version, Block 3i, is due to be superseded by Block 3F once development on the latest version is completed
The whole F-35 project looks more 4-F to me....
(For those who are unfamiliar with that designation, see http://directionsindentistry.net/4f-unfit-for-service-because-of-teeth/ ).
I remember myself and others making jokes in these columns about Patch Tuesday regarding the F-35,
I'm quite dismayed that it has more or less become reality and that anyone should think that is a valid way to sell the most expensive non-functioning warplane ever.
All I can imagine is the team of pond dwelling lawyers that wrote the contract for Lockheed Martin are the best pond life out there.
The only way updates should be applied to this sort of stuff is by user intervention. Someone needs to have physical access to the aircraft and flip a switch, insert a key or other positive action that allows the upgrade to occur, in conjunction with detecting that the aircraft is on the ground and otherwise powered down. IT should only accept a signed image, and also inhibit all functions related to movement until the upgrade interlock is removed.
The same is true for cars, too (especially the 'on the ground' bit).
When an update fails the pilot can just call 1-800-OH-SH1T. "Thank you for calling. Your call is very important but we are experiencing a higher than normal volume of calls. Please visit our web site or stay on the line to talk to a support representative. You are number 137 in the queue."
Because, y'know, Ada was so tough to find developers in, according to LM and BAe systems.
"“Even with the final version of 3F, the Air Force will not be able to use the newest aircraft in combat,” "
So not the actual last-positively-the-last-cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-be-spanked-very-hard-on-the-bottom-if-I-go-back-on-this-promise version then.
Quote: "“Even with the final version of 3F, the Air Force will not be able to use the newest aircraft in combat,” reports Aviation Week. This applies equally to the F-35Bs bought by the UK as it does to USAF F-35As. The plan is for a future version, Block 4, to be the first combat-capable version."
*
Right now, the Royal Navy has a spiffy, expensive, brand new aircraft carrier....with no aircraft!!
*
This news item seems to suggest that next year, when the F-35 aircraft are delivered, we will still have an non-operational aircraft carrier....because the Royal Navy " will not be able to use the newest aircraft in combat".
*
Once again "keeping us safe" seems like an expensive lie. What am I missing?
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/may/24/top-gun-2-is-definitely-happening-says-tom-cruise
Mr Cruise is getting his butt fucked by multiple opposition aircraft.
Clippy: "You appear to be getting your butt fucked. May I suggest the latest unstable release?"
Cruise: "Fuck Yeah!"
OK... maybe not such a good idea.