
The F-35’s Terrifying Bug List - bootload
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/02/f-35s-terrifying-bug-list/125638
======
doodlebugging
This is the loudest fighter plane in our inventory. You can hear this thing
coming at least a minute before it gets near you and for several minutes after
depending on flight direction. I can tell from the sound which of our planes
is passing near and this one, the first time I heard it, was clearly not one
with which I was familiar. Beautiful plane but obviously a troubled build
history.

With all the problems noted over the last few years I'm surprised that anyone
wants it. The F-22 has had its problems and production was cut at a very low
number (I think I read that they wanted to shift gears and go with the F-35).
The complexity of these two planes could make them more of a liability in a
conflict.

It makes more sense to me (as a taxpayer) to spend the defense dollar on
things that can be built quickly and for minimal initial cost so that many can
be built to replace those lost to attrition in conflict. They should also be
purpose-built for specific missions just as we built planes in WW2. We have
the technology and we don't need a fleet of flying super-computers that can't
fight their way out of the battlespace. Planes are great support tools for
infantry and armored units who actually win the wars by taking and holding
territory from the enemy. They won't win wars by themselves. Sorry 'bout that,
Air Force.

~~~
greedo
Aircraft that "can be built quickly and for minimal initial cost" don't exist.
Modern fighter aircraft are complex, expensive machines. The engines alone are
a significant portion of the cost. And if you think the F-35 has
supercomputers, you're sorely mistaken. Even the F-22 has old, decade old
CPUs.

The world has moved on since WW2, and the idea of cheap hordes of aircraft, or
spinning up the Arsenal of Democracy to build them in wartime just won't fly.

Ask the Syrians how well their simple Mig-21s and Mig-23s did in the Bekka
Valley in 1982 when they ran up against the Israeli's flying F-15s and F-16s.
Turkey shoot doesn't even begin to describe it. If you bring a biplane to a
modern dogfight, you'll end up a splat mark on the ground.

~~~
jfoutz
That would be a pretty interesting fight. It looks like the 400mph rc jet
engines cost about $4000. decent drone packages are around $1000. let's be
crazy and say $100,000 per drone. around $104,000,000 per F-35.

i'm not sure how well an F-35 would stack up against 1040 400mph targets. the
F-35 is much much quicker, but only has, what 200 bullets? something in that
range.

Or, take it up a notch. blow $10,000,000 per drone. give them an air to air
missile or two. that puts it at a much more reasonable 1 v 10. I get 10 shots,
you get 4.

You're not wrong, but i think you're missing a classic military lesson,
quantity has a quality all it's own.

~~~
apr
So my understanding is that you are proposing to build a swarm of cheap
interceptors. But why would an F-35 even engage your swarm? It would fly
around or over it and strike its target. If your cheap interceptors are
incapable to impose a fight on opposing planes the net effect is that as if
they don't even exist.

~~~
na85
The F-35 is slower and less maneuverable than nearly any contemporary fighter
aircraft.

It cannot avoid an engagement, nor press the attack.

~~~
greedo
Quit reading the press that loves to paint military spending as a waste. The
F-35 isn't a dog, it may not be as fast as the fastest jets, or as
maneuverable as the most agile, but it's not like it's a C-130...

It has stealth, so it can avoid an engagement if need be, or maneuver so the
engagement is on more favorable terms. Try that with a 4th gen aircraft.

~~~
na85
>The F-35 isn't a dog, it may not be as fast as the fastest jets, or as
maneuverable as the most agile

Yes. It's slower, and less agile. Than other fighter aircraft.

It can't win a dogfight. Period.

>It has stealth, so it can avoid an engagement if need be, or maneuver so the
engagement is on more favorable terms.

Which the Chinese will surely counter, since they stole the blueprints. That
stealth is mostly worthless.

~~~
greedo
Glad you're so convinced that it can't win. Period. That is so comforting. Not
all air combat is done in a dogfight. Most A2A kills in the last 30 years have
been BVR shots. Which the F-35 will excel at.

And I'm glad you know the truth about stealth. It is useless you know. That's
why the Russians, the Chinese and now the Germans are starting to build 5th
Gen stealth aircraft. All to prop up the illusion that it's just a boondoggle,
and "mostly worthless."

Back to reality. Stealth is very useful, that's why countries work tirelessly
to find countermeasures. Some of these work to a degree, some have potential.
Stealth isn't magic, it's just a useful tool; like jamming, like AWACs, like
OPFOR training. But to deny its merits is just ignorant.

~~~
na85
>Not all air combat is done in a dogfight.

You're right, almost none of it is.

>Most A2A kills in the last 30 years have been BVR shots. Which the F-35 will
excel at.

Negative, Ghostrider. It still has to be able to catch its prey, which it's
not fast enough to do. And faster aircraft can still prevent it from
disengaging. Speed is life in air combat.

>And I'm glad you know the truth about stealth. It is useless you know. That's
why the Russians, the Chinese and now the Germans are starting to build 5th
Gen stealth aircraft. All to prop up the illusion that it's just a boondoggle,
and "mostly worthless."

What are we, on reddit? You're purposely being snide and also purposely
misinterpreting what I've written. Stealth itself, as a concept, is not
worthless. The F-35's stealth technology has been compromised, therefore it is
of little value against an adversary such as China or Russia.

>Back to reality. Stealth is very useful, that's why countries work tirelessly
to find countermeasures. Some of these work to a degree, some have potential.
Stealth isn't magic, it's just a useful tool; like jamming, like AWACs, like
OPFOR training. But to deny its merits is just ignorant.

I'm now convinced you are trolling. Enjoy your evening.

~~~
richmarr
> I'm now convinced you are trolling. Enjoy your evening.

I think @greedo self-outed with the "quit reading the press" comment...
posturing some secret source of information more authorititive than the
damning reports from test pilots, pentagon office of testing, etc...
Lockheed's PR dept maybe.

~~~
greedo
LOL. Nice try. If you thought I was a sock puppet for LM, it would only take a
few minutes of looking at my comment history.

~~~
richmarr
> LOL. Nice try. If you thought I was a sock puppet for LM, it would only take
> a few minutes of looking at my comment history.

TROLOLOLOLL... your ploy to miss the point doesn't fool me :)

~~~
greedo
;) I wish I was paid by LM.

Thing is, everyone has an axe to grind with the F-35. Despite its
shortcomings, its all we have in the pipeline, until the 6th gen fighters come
online in a decade or so. Without something like the F-35 paired with the
F-22, we have no chance of penetrating a modern IAD.

------
noselasd
Report is here:
[http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/dod/2015f35js...](http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/dod/2015f35jsf.pdf)

------
gherkin0
I'm curious: how do the F-35's development troubles compare to other recent
fighters, like the F-22 or Eurofighter? Are they objectively worse, or are the
memories just fresher?

~~~
DrJokepu
The F-16 used to be called "lawn dart" for a reason.

~~~
gherkin0
Was that due to development problems, though? This article claims the nickname
comes from the fact that it's a single-engine fighter:

[http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,154457,00.html](http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,154457,00.html)

> The F-16 is known in Air Force circles as the "lawn dart" for its tendency
> to plunge back to Earth when its single engine flames out, and in most
> years, engine failure causes more accidents than any other factor.

~~~
neurotech1
The F-16 has made a successful engine-out landing before, when the conditions
allow. Earlier jets like the F-104 were almost impossible to land engine-out.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8)

And how many F-14s were lost as a result of single-engine handling performance
issues? F-14s have departed from controlled flight after one engine stalls,
and entered a flat spin. Yes, the scene in Top Gun was somewhat based on real
events.

A few F/A-18s have been lost due to issues with single-engine performance. The
F/A-18 doesn't have as much issues with asymmetric thrust, single engine
flight isn't always possible.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Virginia_Beach_F/A-18_cra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Virginia_Beach_F/A-18_crash)

------
ralfruns
How can they claim the F35 "shares many—if not necessarily all—of the same
close air support capabilities as the $18.8 million A-10" if it doesn't have a
functioning cannon yet [1]. I thought the A-10 is basically a airframe built
around a cannon.

[1] [http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-
space/strike/20...](http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-
space/strike/2015/01/07/f35-gun-on-track/21401907/)

~~~
gozur88
The A-10 is obsolete _because_ it's an air frame built around a cannon. The
cannon is heavy, and the ammo is heavy. For all that weight the ammo runs out
somewhere between 12 and 20 seconds.

The most efficient way to destroy things on the ground is with guided missiles
and bombs. An F-35 with a brace of SDBs is going to do a lot more damage than
an A-10, both because smart bombs are much more effective on a pound-for-pound
basis and because it can get on station much more quickly. A strike aircraft
with modern optics it can fly above AAA and shoulder launched SAM range and
still engage moving targets on the ground.

The troops like the A-10 because it's loud and impressive and makes them feel
like they haven't been forgotten.

Politicians like the A-10, too, because by staving off the ax once again they
can make it look like they're doing something to support the little guy on the
ground.

The Army brass likes the A-10 because they suspect when the shit hits the fan
the Air Force will decide the multi-role aircraft all belong in some other
role and abandon the Army altogether.

But none of that has any bearing on the effectiveness of the air frame itself.
Not many people realize the A-10 only carried out 20% of the CAS missions in
Afghanistan. The A-10 was the bee's knees when it was new and we were worried
about thousands of Soviet tanks pouring through the Fulda Gap. But it's not
1985 any more.

~~~
Gustomaximus
> The troops like the A-10 because it's loud and impressive and makes them
> feel like they haven't been forgotten.

Even if this is entirely true, moral goes a hell of a long way on in the army
as does the fear this creates with the enemy.

That said I was of the understanding the A-10 was very effective for
supporting troops in areas like Afghanistan and similar low tech ground wars.
The real issue the Air Force are tasked with protecting the country in the
case of a 'real war' with more modernized opponents like China or Russia. In
this case and A-10 is old tech and wont deliver much in terms of defense
capability hence their lack of interest in maintaining/upgrading it.

~~~
rstupek
The troops like the A-10 because it can loiter over them low and slow and
provide support for a longer period than the F-35 will ever be able to. It can
carry a substantial amount of ordinance beyond its impressive 30mm cannon. The
mission of CAS is best served by the A-10 and not a fighter bomber which can't
do either role well

~~~
gozur88
I see a lot of people assert that, but I don't see any reason to believe it's
true. Targeting pods and guided bombs make "low and slow" attacks
unnecessarily risky, and the plane is too slow to get on station in
emergencies.

------
hackuser
Most of this sounds like typical teething pains for an exceptionally complex
project just reaching version 1.0.

 _“Each new version of software, while adding some new capability, failed to
resolve all the deficiencies identified in earlier releases,”_

Doesn't that describe every software update ever released for any system?

------
dudul
That's ok. They'll release a hotfix on steam a few weeks after the release.
Plus a couple of DLCs to improve the in-flight experience :)

------
ilurkedhere
Aren't fighter pilots obsolete at this point?

Much of the complexity in the craft is centered around keeping the poor
bastard flying it, alive. Then there are pretty tight limits on how much
acceleration the human body can receive. Pilot-less craft don't have those
limitions, so I figure they should be much more maneuverable and less
expensive.

~~~
ihsw
The tech simply isn't there yet.

Conventional fighter jets have more speed, travel and strike range, and more
maneuverability. They will outflank drones every time -- I'm not kidding, they
stand absolutely zero chance against fighter jets.

You could send a couple dozen Reaper drones out and a pair of Su27/F15s would
shoot them out of the sky before you can say "Hellfire."

Not to mention modern anti-air defense systems would chew through them like
candy.

What are they good for then? Cheap, high-altitude, medium-range (~1500KM),
endurance (>24hr) missions.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Military drones started with the CIA - I listened to the retired director that
initiated the effort, on NPR. They used drones in countries who either didn't
have radar or had forgotten how to connect it with weapons systems, which
included "almost everywhere". They wanted a sustained (24 hour) observation
platform in the field, and drones filled the bill.

I'm sure they might ultimately get to fighter-jet performance, but at a much
greater cost and reduction in mission time.

------
omginternets
DefenseOne has a pretty terrifying bug where the page reloads with a frequency
of about 2-3 Hz ...

------
nfriedly
Off topic: I love it when websites are 'mobile first' without ever testing on
a mobile browser. Every single link has a "new window" icon that's stretched
to the entire width of my screen:
[http://s18.postimg.org/q551s8byh/tmp_14731_Screenshot_2016_0...](http://s18.postimg.org/q551s8byh/tmp_14731_Screenshot_2016_02_03_22_07_3213990941.png)

~~~
shred45
Actually, It just kind of looks like that. I'm really not sure what is going
on.

[http://imgur.com/LCSA2mx](http://imgur.com/LCSA2mx)

~~~
nfriedly
I'm not sure if that's better or worse... I think worse.

------
spoiledtechie
Wanna know why? Because of the good developers don't actually work for the
military.

~~~
engi_nerd
Your statement is offensive because it's a blanket generality. Maybe if you
had said "the government has difficulty attracting top engineering talent
because of any number of reasons, including workplace culture, comparatively
low pay, etc"...Then that's a point worthy of discussion.

~~~
fma
F35 is made by Lockheed Martin, a private company, not the US government. The
only people involved from the government side would mostly be management paper
pushers or engineers who do IV&V work (independent verification and
validation). Basically just check boxes that say LM completed XYZ and passed
testing.

~~~
engi_nerd
Yes, I'm very aware of who makes the F-35. Lockheed Martin is the prime
contractor and operator of the Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) in Fort
Worth, Texas, where the majority of F-35s will be made (all but two to date
have been made in Fort Worth, but the other two FACOs in Cameri, Italy, and
Nagoya, Japan are now building F-35s). Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems are
the other two major players on the team.

And you are not quite correct on who the people involved on the government
side are. There are management paper pushers, but every engineering team has
government engineers working side by side with their contractor counterparts,
and the program has been run that way from the start. They do far more than
just "check boxes". They have helped with the design and testing all the way
through the program.

~~~
hackuser
> every engineering team has government engineers working side by side with
> their contractor counterparts

I'm curious about the government engineers and their roles: Do you mean
aeronautical and other engineers who do the core development and design work?
Or do they monitor, provide customer input, ensure quality, and do other
oversight of the contractor's engineers? Or something else?

Also, whose payroll are they on? Defense Contract Management Agency? Some
other Dept of Defense group? Air Force?

~~~
engi_nerd
The short answer to every one of those questions is: yes. There are government
people who were involved with design work from the beginning. There are also
engineers who directly participate in test/evaluation (not just in the
supervisory roles, either, I mean engineers who are actually doing tests). And
there are also those who are in a supervisory role. There are DoD people (from
all kinds of agencies), there are DCMA people, people on active duty in the
military...

With a program this big and that has already lasted over 15 years, the answer
is going to be "yes".

~~~
hackuser
Thanks for responding and sharing what you know.

------
jessaustin
_After the report came out Monday, Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, of the F-35 program
executive office, issued a statement to cast the report’s findings in a rather
more flattering light._

Perhaps a posting to the Joint Chiefs is out for Gen. Bogdan, but fortunately
Lockheed is keeping a senior VP's chair warm for him. One expects we'll see
this luminary on the political bloviation shows in five years' time explaining
why we must support our brave allies in ISIS against the savage onslaught of
the Tehran-backed Zoroastrians, and oh-by-the-way buy a couple hundred more of
these flying coffins.

