
F-35 stealth jet 'will not be able to fire its guns until 2019' - protomyth
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11319455/F-35-stealth-jet-will-not-be-able-to-fire-its-guns-until-2019.html
======
ortusdux
This clip from the Pentagon Wars always comes to mind when I hear about a
delay in the F-35. Needless to say this clip is on my mind every few months...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA)

~~~
dmix
This clip never gets old, no matter how many times I watch it.

This is how I imagine somewhere in the world malware is currently getting
engineered at this very moment.

~~~
jacquesm
Was 'malware' an accident or a purposeful entry? (I read 'software', then did
a double-take and read 'malware' instead...)

~~~
chm
I'm pretty sure he meant malware. What's the difference between a software
engineer writing malware to the specifications set by an employer (whoever
that might be) and the mechanical engineer shown in the clip?

For example, a request such as making the vehicle amphibious could translate
into a request for making the software attack both OS X and Windows.

------
Twirrim
Surely at some stage it's better to write off this mess and start again from
scratch? It really seems like they're throwing good money after bad.

It's a nice idea to have a completely flexible plane capable of doing every
role, but it's clearly not working. What we're ending up with is the
proverbial camel designed by a committee who was designing a horse.

~~~
tsotha
Why would you think the next program would be any better?

These are the normal teething problems every new advanced fighter goes
through. The F-22 went through them. The F-16 and F-15 went through them,
though it was so long ago nobody remembers. Nearly every project reaches a
point where people say "This will never work. Let's cancel it."

But there's no plan B. We can't fly the F-16 for another 25 years.

In any event, the gun doesn't matter that much. Gun kills are very rare, and
usually they happen because the pilot wants a gun kill. They probably wouldn't
even have included the gun but for some bad experiences in the '60s with the
F-4.

By the way, the "flexible plane idea" has been incredibly successful in the
F-18.

~~~
wmkn
> But there's no plan B. We can't fly the F-16 for another 25 years.

Serious question: why not? Assuming the F16 is going to be updated with
improved technology is any other country producing fighter jets that are going
to overtake the capabilities of the F16 any time soon?

~~~
GVIrish
The Chinese are pushing on a Gen 4.5ish fighter and the Russian Su-30 variants
are nothing to sneeze at. The Eurofighter is a step up over the F-16 but
doesn't totally eclipse it.

However, the irony is that the F-35 probably won't be able to turn or
accelerate with aircraft like the Su-30 or Eurofighter so in a dogfight it
would be outclassed.

~~~
tsotha
It's not designed to be a knife fighter. Stealth is supposed to give it a big
BVR advantage.

I used to think that was a big mistake, but lately I'm coming around to the
idea that the oft-wrongly-heralded end of the dogfight is pretty much upon us.
As missiles get smarter and (more importantly) integrate more sensors they get
much harder to dodge.

It's one thing to slip a single frequency semi-active radar homing missile or
a four quadrant heat seeker in 1980. It's something quite different to shake a
missile with IR, visual, and active EM sensors with the computing horsepower
to integrate them all into a single predictive model. I was involved in IR
missile development twenty years ago, and the consensus from the test pilots
even then was the higher resolution sensors and extra smarts made modern (mid
'90s) missiles almost impossible to shake once they locked on. That was just
IR, too.

From what I can tell going forward the last guy to get detected wins.

~~~
techdragon
It's going to wind up being how cheap can we make this drone to loiter with 1
missile attached? Cheap enough? Cool, just let the litter the sky, anyone dumb
enough to try flying through will have to avoid detection or face instant
death, so it will boil down to black stealth bombers only flying at night
again, but even these will be drones.

~~~
GVIrish
Honestly I think the drone approach is where the smart money is. You could
build many, many jet-engined drones that can provide air support over a wide
area and would be fairly difficult for anyone to shoot down. The cost per unit
would be low enough that you wouldn't particularly care if you lose a few here
and there.

I have to think some nation is going to pursue the swarm of drones idea and
once it's proven in combat the whole air power paradigm will shift.

~~~
tsotha
Almost everyone I talk to agrees on this point and thinks the F-22/F-35 is the
last generation of manned fighters (in the US, anyway). There's quite a bit of
disagreement on the timeline, though.

------
neurotech1
Article is somewhat misleading. The software that implements the gun (Block
3F) is slotted for 2017. That is largely a program management decision and not
a major "technical" snag.

The F-35 may not be able to fire its guns in operational service until 2017,
but test pilots will likely fire the gun well before then. The F-35 is
designed to use 25mm rounds instead of the more common 20mm rounds used
currently in other jets including the F-22 Raptor. The 25mm rounds have to be
physically certified, then the software for the gun validated and certified,
and finally pilots (& ground crew) trained to operate the gun.

~~~
engi_nerd
The cannon itself has already been test fired on the ground.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD_A69B1cyg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD_A69B1cyg)
for video of that.

~~~
fubarred
It looks like it's just a 5 barrel General Dynamics GAU-12/U.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-12_Equalizer#Specification...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-12_Equalizer#Specifications_.28GAU-12.29)

^- Same video as YT

What's delay in integrating this into the platform? Haven't they done this
several times before? Or is this a low priority item (how often do jets use
their cannons)?

~~~
Eskali
It's mostly the new ammo that's being developed and most weapons aren't
scheduled untill block 3F, Block2B is just JDAMs and AMRAAMs.

------
jacquesm
That's good news. I sincerely hope that it won't be able to until 2050.

~~~
rodgerd
Yep. I am not unhappy when death machines don't work.

~~~
cheeseprocedure
I feel good until I realize who's paying to fix it.

~~~
rodgerd
Fortunately I'm not a US taxpayer.

~~~
tsotha
Well, that makes sense then. You won't be depending on this "death machine",
so why _would_ you want it to work out?

------
gte525u
Not to imply the F-35 is the be-all end-all but the article is a bit
misleading.

Military avionics is developed in a waterfall fashion with functionality
spread out over several increments.

Initial weapons capability is to be included in block 2B increment which
/should/ be released to the fleet this year [1]. The fleet is currently using
block 2A, the gatling gun seems to be block 3f by the release date cited in
the article.

Secondly, even after the software development is done there are still /months/
of testing (including flight tests) required before it's released to the main
force. As example, f35 block 2b was reportedly finished last summer but will
be ready to be fielded _this_ summer.

[1]
[http://www.janes.com/article/40733/farnborough-2014-block-2b...](http://www.janes.com/article/40733/farnborough-2014-block-2b-software-
testing-for-f-35-nears-completion)

------
Focalise
The F35 is hilarious.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw)

~~~
tim333
And some counter points to that - "Pierre Sprey's Anti-F-35 Diatribe Is Half
Brilliant And Half Bullshit"

[http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-
anti-f-35-dia...](http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-
anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665)

------
davidattprice
This explains a lot about why we can't kill the F-35 program: the contracts
are spread over 45 states, by design.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-
trag...](http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-
the-american-military/383516/)

~~~
baddox
That article says that the B-2 contracts were spread over 46 states. I don't
see anything about the F-35.

~~~
tim333
There's a 45 state source here:

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-
too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html)

------
rocky1138
The article states that the gov't has been forced to deny the report. So, is
it true? Will they be able to fire its cannon or not?

~~~
protomyth
We will know at the next update in front of Congress. I am not sure when they
are scheduled. I posted the article mainly for the whole "software glitch"
angle. I am a little uneasy about the number of items on this bird that keep
going back to software. Sadly, it looks like we should have built the full
complement of F-22s and got rid of this. The F-22 seems to be ironing out its
problems where the F-35 just keeps getting worse.

------
ZanyProgrammer
Is the software gun issue with the F-35 fleet in general, or with the very
glitchy F-35B? The article doesn't do a good job of explaining that-though
since its a British article, I'd assume its the F-35B, which will be on the
QE2 class carriers.

Really, if you want a culprit for the F-35, blame the US Marine Corps
(MARINES, RAWR!!) for insisting on the highly faulty and problem plagued
F-35B. If the Brits had insisted on building proper through deck carriers,
this wouldn't be an issue (at least the F-35B issues). The QE2 class are
awfully big, and really should just be through deck without the ski jump.

~~~
spartango
Neither the F-35B nor the F-35C carries a gun. The USAF's F-35A is the only
model affected by this issue.

Also, the Marines want the STOVL F-35B for operation on LHA/LHDs, as well as
small island bases with short/limited runways. It's not just the ski-jumping
Brits who want that feature.

With that said, you're right that the STOVL capability has added substantial
complexity to the airframe.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
That's the problem, the Marines want to field their own superfluous air force.
USN carriers routinely go to sea with understrength airwings, its not as if
there's not enough room on CVNs to support Marine F-35Cs.

~~~
tsotha
It's not superfluous. The navy doesn't base its aircraft on improvised forward
landing strips.

Naval aviation is of extremely limited utility as a result of a short range.
If the fighting starts or moves inland the carrier is mostly useless.

~~~
GVIrish
Eh, something like a F/A-18 has somewhat short range but the Super Hornet is
better in that regard and there's always mid-air refueling. It simply doesn't
make sense to jeopardize the success of the backbone of American airpower for
a mission capability that is niche.

I mean, when has the Harrier ever been the difference between success and
failure for a USMC operation? Sure it's nice, but it's also a jet that is very
difficult to fly and prone to crashes.

~~~
tsotha
The Super Hornet has something like a 350 mile radius with a "normal" strike
package. That's not very much, and it gets worse every year as US carrier
fleets are forced further into blue water to deal with the latest Moskit
descendants.

That's why the Navy is so hot to develop the X-47 into something they can
deploy.

If refueling aircraft are available then far more capable land-based aircraft
should have been used anyway.

As far as when the Harrier has made the difference, well, we haven't fought
many pitched battles lately, so it's hard to say. But you can't design a
military with the idea you'll _never_ have to fight a pitched battle.

EDIT: By the way, one of the advantages of the F-35B is supposed to be that
its design is inherently less crash prone. We'll see.

~~~
GVIrish
> As far as when the Harrier has made the difference, well, we haven't fought
> many pitched battles lately, so it's hard to say. But you can't design a
> military with the idea you'll never have to fight a pitched battle.

That's the thing though, by shoehorning that VSTOL requirement into the
program, we've made the F35A and F35C significantly worse aircraft. That in
turn may mean that we may end up in a more difficult conflict because of the
shortcomings of the aircraft.

Sure, if at all possible you want your military to be able to handle all
scenarios. But truth is that the budget is not unlimited (as the USSR found
out) so you have to distribute your eggs such that you get the best
capabilities for the most likely scenarios.

I'm sure the F-35B will be less crash prone than the Harrier as well as more
capable. I just don't think the costs justify it.

~~~
tsotha
>Sure, if at all possible you want your military to be able to handle all
scenarios. But truth is that the budget is not unlimited...

True, but we're spending less on our military as a percentage of GDP than we
have since before WW II. We can afford the F-35B.

------
jokoon
* Stealth is not always about not being detected, it's also about reducing the distance you will start being detected.

* The F35 has battle awareness, but I wonder if those systems could have been integrated into existing airplanes, I'm not a aeronautics or avionics engineers though. Obviously it might increase pilot effectiveness, and decrease the amount of stuff pilots have to learn.

* I also read that the f35 has been designed around many sensor systems, allowing it to see enemy aircrafts much more before they would, giving it more time to react or to avoid dog fights: that's the argument against a non maneuverable aircraft, that information is more important in a fight situation. Also stealth is not always about land radars, it's maybe also about embedded aircraft radars, which are much less capable.

* The only point of VTOL is because air bases are hard to come by and build. It requires a large strip of road to take off, and flat areas are hard to defend. VTOL allows a jet to land in remote areas.

Maybe the F35 is all about electronic, detection and spying and not about dog
fights, maybe the military also doesn't want to talk about the functionalities
that make a difference so that other countries don't pick up on it. Although
it's weird to see that so many will be built, since it seems like a very
specialized jet.

~~~
gaius
It's not specialised at all. The theory was to make a generic jet that could
do any mission and therefore achieve economies of scale for parts etc. But it
turns out that trying to be all things to all men means compromises that make
no one happy. Compare two existing jets, the F16 and the A10 for example. They
have one mission each and they do it well - but you couldn't send one to do
the others mission.

The VTOL capability is also needed for aircraft carriers.

~~~
greedo
The F-16 isn't a single role aircraft; it can dogfight/intercept, perform CAS,
perform SEAD, and conduct interdiction raids.

~~~
smacktoward
True, but it was _designed_ as a single-role aircraft: a lightweight,
inexpensive air superiority fighter. The other roles only came later, when
people realized what a versatile airframe that program had produced.

~~~
greedo
But that's true of most modern aircraft. The F-4 was intended as a fleet
interceptor, and was put into numerous other roles. The S-3 was intended for
ASW and ended up doing recon, ECM, and land attack roles. Even the F-14 ended
up as the Bombcat with the addition of targeting pods.

~~~
gaius
Right - set out with a clear purpose in mind, produce a clean, elegant design,
and be delighted when it can do other things too. That is the Unix philosophy
too, or it was before systemd, the F35 of init systems.

------
redact207
The F-35 is the Duke Nukem Forever of the military aircraft industry. Over
budget, over schedule, trying to be everything but ending up doing nothing
well.

------
Someone
Makes you wonder about [http://isocpp.org/blog/2014/12/five-popular-myths-
about-c-bj...](http://isocpp.org/blog/2014/12/five-popular-myths-about-c-
bjarne-stroustrup):

 _" C++ has been used for demanding embedded systems and critical systems for
years, examples are The Mars Rovers (scene analysis and autonomous
operations), The F-35s and F-16s (flight controls), and many, many more"_

Also: what does that software do? I can think of several:

\- Interface with friend-or-foe detectors \- Check that the plane is in the
air

But I cannot see why either would take four (more, but let's ignore that)
years to develop.

~~~
berkut
The F35's avionics suite is not just for controlling the aircraft (which is
difficult in itself), it's for controlling, analysing and displaying the data
from sensors (radars, RWR, IFF, infra-red, etc) on an integrated display
system, data transfer (can transmit its own sensor info to other aircraft and
receive it from others), and interfacing with a variety of NATO weapon
systems.

The F35's integrated system design was a (possibly too much) very audacious
design, and includes over 10M lines of C++. It was questionable why C++
(instead of using existing ADA software) was used from the "re-inventing the
wheel" perspective, but existing software in ADA very likely wasn't
good/sophisticated enough and would have required significant re-writes
anyway. Over the past 10-15 years there has also been a huge move away from
ADA to more COTS languages/solutions by management in order to "save money".

~~~
Someone
Software can always be improved, and this may need it, but this headline and
my remark are specifically about the gun (also: the plane is flying, isn't it?
If so, I assume that all those detectors, displays, etc. already work to
sufficient extent)

Reading [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/31/new-u-s-
ste...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/31/new-u-s-stealth-jet-
can-t-fire-its-gun-until-2019.html), the plane carries so few bullets that it
may be necessary to make its shots count, but even that shouldn't be that hard
that it takes years and years to develop the software to shoot a gun.

Caveat: I know next to nothing about what the U.S.A. expects these guns to do
or what they can do. My model of what a gun does is "spew out lead when the
pilot presses a button", with very few refinements. A video camera that stops
shooting when the original target goes out of range and a friend-or-foe
detector input that stops shooting, would be nice additions, but since the
missile system works. I would guess that the 'interfacing with a variety of
NATO weapon systems' part shouldn't be that hard for the gun part of the
plane's software. Or are these guns almost auto-firing and do they want to
shoot at enemy vehicles that are in close combat with friendly forces, and
only hit enemies? Maybe even have the gun control steering of the airplane
(target turns left, please follow, so that I can keep firing)? That would
seriously complicate matters.

Or is this a matter of bureaucracy in action in that this module missed a
shipping deadline and now has to wait for the next software release for the
entire plane that will come in 2019?

~~~
berkut
It probably would only take a month to get software to "just" fire the guns
working. But the defence industry I believe (left it 7 years ago, but still
know people in it) still largely use the waterfall model for designing
software a lot up front, and for safety-critical software, there's a lot of
static analysis done on the code, so you can't just write it and ship it.

I think what probably would take so long is integrating this new gun firing
module into the entire software suite, or as you say, waiting for the next
software version.

------
protomyth
oh, this gets worse

"Equipped with a gun, Air Force’s F-35A version barely carries enough
ammunition. Despite being able to shoot 3,300 rounds per minute, it will only
be carrying 180 to 220 rounds."

"The two other versions of F-35 – for the Navy and Marine Corps – have
different configurations with external gun pods, however, they will not have a
software for them either, the Daily Beast reported."

[http://www.defencetalk.com/computer-glitch-prevents-us-
most-...](http://www.defencetalk.com/computer-glitch-prevents-us-most-
advanced-f-35-fighter-jet-from-firing-until-2019-report-61223/#ixzz3NgeCm600)

For comparison, the F-22 has "A 480-round closed loop ammunition feed and
storage subsystem is housed integrally under the right wing root/fuselage for
easy ammo upload and download of empty casings." using the proven M61A2 which
is in a bunch of fighters.

[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22...](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-weapons.htm)

------
xpda
The longer before its operational, the sooner its deployment will be replaced
or reduced by UCAV (combat drones). Technology will make it economical and
tactically advantageous for unmanned aircraft to replace manned fighters and
bombers in many situations. It will be interesting to see how autonomous they
become.

------
nullterminated
Maybe the purpose of the F-35 project is to con the Chinese into building
shitty fighters, too?

~~~
scottlocklin
We actually ended up doing something like this with the F-111; ruining a
generation of Soviet fighter planes (though the Aardvark and Su-24 are pretty
good low level bombers). The F-111, you may recall, was the last "do
everything, all three service branch" jets we attempted to field.

~~~
arethuza
You got us to cancel the lovely TSR-2 in favour of a modified F-111 version
that was itself cancelled....

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2)

Eventually we ended up with a classic Euro-compromise in the form of the
MRCA/Tornado - a swing winged jack of all trades.

~~~
gaius
Not the first time we've fallen for that American scam, you'd think we'd have
learnt
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow#Cancellation](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow#Cancellation)

 _Prior to the cancellation of Black Arrow, NASA had offered to launch British
payloads for free; however, this offer was withdrawn following the decision to
cancel Black Arrow_

So much for the "special relationship" eh?

------
michaelbuddy
I recommend this top 10 video doc. A good though slightly hokey presentation
but good roundup of military aircraft -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IudSJE-
TLxk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IudSJE-TLxk)

------
hackuser
Understanding the F-35: It's about information warfare.

My hypothesis (I have no expertise in this area) is that the public is blind
to fundamental changes in (aerial) warfare, much like people in the 1930s
might have criticized aircraft carriers for poor guns and armor. The articles
below revolutionized my perspective: Warfare is now (or will be) information
technology warfare. The article at the end is best, but first a few excerpts:

1) _Instead of focusing on individual planes, squadrons, or "strike packages"
executing a particular mission, the new concept looks at all the deployed
aircraft as a whole, linked together by secure wireless networks into the
"combat cloud." This cloud would be enabled by "fifth generation" aircraft —
specifically F-22s and a substantial number of F-35s — and their ability to
connect electronically both to each other and to legacy aircraft._ [1] This
combat cloud shares data in a sort of mesh network, so instead of a pilot
seeing only their own plane's sensor data they see the combined sensor data of
all planes in the cloud, and share that with units and command on the ground.

2) Another way to describe it is that the fifth generation aircraft are
primarily forward-deployed nodes in a network (fighting an enemy network
across an air gap); there's even talk of their pilots operating fleets of
drones. [2]

3) The sensor data's UI is much improved, with a massive impact (something HN
readers will appreciate): _" In my fourth gen airplane, I was the fusion
engine, the pilot was the fusion engine. I took the inputs from the RHWG, from
the Radar Homing Warning Gear, from the radar, from the com, multiple radios,
from my instruments. I fused that into what was happening in the battlespace,
all the while I’m trying to do the mechanical things of flying my airplane and
dodging missiles and all these sorts of things," he says. / Combine the fusion
engine, the ISR sensors, the designed-in stealth, the advanced helmet, and the
eight million lines of software driving what it can do ... "What we’ve done
with the fifth generation is the computer takes all those sensory inputs,
fuses it into information. The pilot sees a beautiful God’s eye view of what’s
going on. And instead of having to fuse three pieces of information and decide
if that’s an adversary or not, the airplane is telling him with an extremely
high degree of confidence what that adversary is and what they’re doing and
what all your wingmen are doing. It’s a stunning amount of information,"_
[from the article in #6]

3) Stealth: In this new perspective it's information warfare defense, hiding
data (your position, etc.) from the enemy, or sensor defense.

4) A leak said that F-35's could conduct cyber attacks on radar systems,
effectively hacking the radar's computers via their sensor inputs (based on my
limited understanding of limited info). [I can't find a good link at the
moment]

5) Background: This combination of information warfare components (sensors,
stealth, computers) are part a cohesive plan developed in the 1970s, the
Pentagon's second "Long Range Research and Development Planning Program" or
"Offset Strategy". A third is beginning now; some interesting background at
the links. [3][4]

6) The best overview I've seen of the F-35 and the new form of warfare:
[http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/a-gods-eye-view-of-the-
ba...](http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/a-gods-eye-view-of-the-battlefield-
gen-hostage-on-the-f-35/?print=1)

[1] [http://breakingdefense.com/2013/01/why-the-air-force-
needs-a...](http://breakingdefense.com/2013/01/why-the-air-force-needs-a-lot-
of-f-35s-gen-hostage-on-the-com/)

[2] [http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/pawlikowski-on-air-
force-...](http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/pawlikowski-on-air-force-offset-
strategy-f-35s-flying-drone-fleets/)

[3] [http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/hagel-launches-offset-
str...](http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/hagel-launches-offset-strategy-
lists-key-technologies/)

[4] [http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/dod-to-silicon-valley-
vcs...](http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/dod-to-silicon-valley-vcs-how-bout-
some-help/)

------
smessinis
Better not have an wars till 2019 then.

~~~
nraynaud
it's less and less relevant. With less and less care for civilian casualties
(and cover up by declaring anyone over 15 a enemy) With drones (they are
imprecise, but see 1) With less emphasis on actual ground occupation (the US
as been unable to organize any democratic transition after a war since WWII)
With virtualization of war.

it's still relevant because the transition is not complete, but the clone war
is coming faster than the new plane is coming, you can afford to lose a drone
and you don't want to lose a pilot, you learn faster developing a drone
program.

~~~
ars
> With less and less care for civilian casualties

Did you completely skip history class? In all of recorded history civilian
casualties during a war have never been lower.

~~~
Evolved
Are the statistics for civilian casualties lower because we've actually killed
less civilians or because we've labeled more civilians as enemy combatants?
This could easily skew the numbers in either direction very quickly.

