
US military finds F-35 software is a buggy mess - gregdoesit
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/22/us_military_finds_f35_software_is_a_buggy_mess/
======
madaxe_again
Am I reading this right? The software has bugs, so it limits flying time, so
it limits testing, so they're reducing the number of tests it has to make to
qualify?

That's like going "QA is identifying a lot of bugs. QA are a problem. Fire QA.
There we go. No more bug reports.".

This'll end as well as it has gone so far - I wonder how many pilots will need
to die from malfunctioning hardware and software for them to consider a
different course of action.

~~~
gvb
Two quotes:

 _The reasoning, explained at Aviation Week,_ was that Lockheed Martin
couldn't put together enough units [F-35s - gvb] in that configuration _to run
the Block 2B OUE in time._

 _The Block 2B tests were also impacted by restrictions imposed after a June
2013 engine failure in an F-35A unit. That impacted software tests, because
the restricted flying hours “reduced the number of accessible test points”._

It looks like there are not enough F-35s in the correct configuration to run
the tests. Unfortunately, this is typical of all programs I've been involved
in in my career - software development gets starved for hardware and software
test gets screwed over for lack of both hardware and software. The reason is
simple: hardware is first in the timeline, software is second and gets
hammered by hardware slips, and test is last and gets nailed by both hardware
and software slips.

Nowadays, software can make a lot of progress on surrogate development
systems, but software/hardware integration and software/hardware test still
requires real hardware.

~~~
madaxe_again
Given how utterly blown their timeline is, I'm surprised that it's even a
concern at this point. Safest and most economical option at this juncture
would be to chalk it up to experience and walk away. Who wants or needs a
fighter jet in this day and age anyway? The tech is increasingly obsolete in
modern warfare.

~~~
cmdkeen
Ask the populace of Ukraine what modern warfare looks like, because the US and
its allies haven't been fighting any modern wars for a while.

Russia and China haven't stood still over the past 15 years while we've been
otherwise engaged. What we've done with drones has been excellent, but you're
not going to be loitering for hours over enemy airspace in a "modern war"
against even a close peer adversary.

Drones have a part to play in modern warfare - and some of the smaller man
portable versions are going to be revolutionary. But the ones capable of
playing in the big leagues where you'd quite like them to come back are just
as expensive as manned aircraft.

~~~
cptskippy
> Russia and China haven't stood still over the past 15 years while we've been
> otherwise engaged. What we've done with drones has been excellent, but
> you're not going to be loitering for hours over enemy airspace in a "modern
> war" against even a close peer adversary.

The Su-25 is actually deploy as part of Russian Army regiments for that exact
purpose. If you're not familiar with the Su-25, it is the Russian analog to
the A-10 Warthog. Both aircraft fulfill the Close Air Support (CAS) role for
ground troops and are designed to loiter in enemy airspace for hours. The
Su-25 was used in Chechnya, Georgia, Northern Iraq, and Syria to provide CAS
to group troops.

CAS is inherently dangerous to pilots as is evident by the fact that both the
Su-25 and the A-10 have titanium bathtubs that the pilots sit in to protect
them. The United States has been successful in using Drones in the CAS role in
order to save lives. The cost of a drone is mostly irrelevant until it exceeds
that of a conventional aircraft in the same role. As long as there is at least
a cost and performance parity, the drone will win out because it doesn't put a
pilot in danger.

So I'm not really sure what you're saying but it seems wrong.

~~~
cmdkeen
The Russians don't rely as much combat air support - they do not care about
the cluster munition bans at all making the US seem positively humanitarian.

They'll remove entire map grid squares with artillery. The Russian army has
always been an artillery force that happens to also have lots of tanks, planes
and infantry.

Combine that with the disparity in willingness to take casualties and you can
see why perhaps the West isn't that interested in risking a conflict with
Russia or China over regional aggression. The really interesting part will
come if Putin decides to test NATO over a small Baltic member state...

~~~
cptskippy
That doesn't at all explain why you think the US strategy of CAS is inferior
to the Russian approach.

~~~
yeukhon
In fairness, manned aricarft is superior if the pilot is capable of attacking
and defending at the same time. But mannfed aircarft is expensive because a
good pilot takes many years to train and many hours to fly, and many hours of
real combat to gain real experience. But modern days you don't really have
wars soldiers and pilots are trained through simulation (but virtual and real
life).

unmanned drones are expensive because the technology to develop a good one
takes forever. R&D is expensive (naturally, and commercially). So both sides
have pros and cons. Except, to be real fair, if you can mass produce unmanned
military drones at an affordable cost, unmanned drones are the superiors.

~~~
cptskippy
> In fairness, manned aricarft is superior if the pilot is capable of
> attacking and defending at the same time.

I'm not sure what you're driving at. I'm assuming by your "attacking and
defending" remark that you're referring to fighter aircraft, there are not
currently drones to fulfill the roles of a typical fighter aircraft. Like any
aircraft, drones are best suited for a particular role.

~~~
yeukhon
I am not. When you are flying to do drone attack, you still have to defend
yourself against enemy aircraft and anti-aircraft units like AA, and this
means you are doing both attack (destroying your target) and defending your
mission and your aircraft from getting shot. I am not familiar with how air
battle works, but my understanding is, there are fighter jets to protect
bombers and drones. But still, you need to kind of defend yourself. Bombers
have machine guns equipped for example so bomber can still defend itself.

~~~
cptskippy
There really hasn't been a situation like that since the Korean War. Modern
warfare relies heavily on radar and ballistic missiles. Fighter jets usually
operate far ahead of any ground forces or bombers eliminating threats before
they even pose a risk.

Drones are quickly replacing aircraft like the A-10 because the primary threat
to these aircraft comes from ground fire, drones however operate out of visual
range.

------
a3n
> Mission “data load” software is also causing concern. This software is
> loaded on a mission-by-mission basis, working in conjunction with the
> permanent systems, to operate sensors and respond to conditions for a
> particular battleground (Aviation Week gives identifying hostile radars as
> an example).

"Damn, they have radars here. We'll have to go back and do a software reload,
sorry guys."

I've never been in the military aviation community. But I'd assume that ID'ing
radars is so basic that you'd want to carry it around with you all the time.
You know, just in case.

It does everything. Eventually. Not all at once. And maybe not even when you
need it.

~~~
logfromblammo
Military flight computing hardware isn't designed to carry everything you
might possibly need, for a variety of reasons.

It is technically possible to input your flight plan and everything else you
might use later from the in-cockpit keypad, but that means you will be either
sitting on the ground for a long time or doing the aerial equivalent of
texting while driving.

So what typically happens is that the military commissions a custom bit of
software to translate the output of a common flight planning program into the
specific format that aircraft uses. Then they carry that file to the aircraft
and upload it.

Military avionics now has a ridiculous amount of required data, with dozens of
different kinds of navigation points and a bazillion radios and sensors and
weapons system modules.

So in order to write the custom data file creating software, you need the
hardware spec. And you need to translate data from the flight planning
software's format into the specific form that the flight computer expects. As
you might expect, they never quite match up, because all the software is
divided up among a gazillion contractors, who aren't allowed to publish a
common standard or share code because some stuff is classified.

So it's not a matter of loading all the radars. The code to load even one
radar probably hasn't even been written yet, because the contractor is still
working on the module for the radios.

This problem would be much less severe if the military could hire software
pros directly at anywhere near fair market value.

~~~
xixi77
I would think Lockheed Martin would be able to hire whoever they need, do they
really have to be actual military staff?

~~~
engi_nerd
You would think so, but just like everyone else, hiring the _right_ people is
very difficult for LM. Note that this is not saying anything about how
successful they are at hiring.

------
imglorp
All software has bugs.

The problem here is the mismanagement, the crooked procurement, and the rush
to flight because potential customers and diplomatic influencees are fleeing.

~~~
mrweasel
Mismanagement started very early to the F-35. I know nothing about planes, but
I do know that if you want a software system to do EVERYTHING, it will never
live up to expectation, if it's ever delivered.

The rational of having just the one type of plane makes sense if you're
Ryanair (who only fly Boeing 737-800). Of cause they only have ONE role for
all their plane. Having just one type plane take the role of multiple others
just gives you all of the complications of each of these plane all rolled up
in one, plus a series of its own unique issues.

I understand that Lockheed Martin just tries to deliver a product that
request, but that's really the issue with many government contracts. You get
what you request, and if someone tells you "Yeah, that might be a bad idea",
the contract is just rewarded to a less honest company. It would be a bit
shocking if no one with Lockheed Martin questioned if the F-35 was a good
idea.

At some point someone is going to dictate that the F-35 is done, true or not.
The US will fly them for a short while and the other nations, that can't
afford new planes for another 20-30 years will be stuck with this thing.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
The F-35 was a bad idea. In theory it made sense: fast, high tech, and
stealthy. Then reality settled in:

The plane can only really support a small handful of missiles, nothing close
to the Arsenal the Navy's F-18 used to be able to haul into battle. It's fast,
sure, but that comes at a cost to fuel efficiency, so while infantry in remote
Afghanistan can get air support in less time than a pizza, "one pass, haul
ass" means that if the air strike wasn't perfect, they need to call in a
second strike group and wait again, not to mention the immense cost for the
first few jets and bombs.

The military is trying too hard to make a one-size-fits-all solution, when
there has been one for close air support since Vietnam: the rugged and
powerful A-10. In fact, with more and more of the fighters being forcibly
retired, special ops teams are rightfully concerned, since they could
previously rely on the A-10 to make 10+ passes before having to refuel, giving
ground forces a significant advantage.

The moral of the story is that more tech, more cost, and more complexity does
not always culminate in more value. We have become so accustomed to the notion
that things will always get more advanced, and therefore better, that we have
forgotten to look to the past to replicate the same success in the future.

~~~
spatulan
The A-10 is a disaster that needs to be retired. It's completely incapable of
facing modern air defences, so is useless against enemies like China or
Russia, and has operating costs 30 times higher than a dedicated COIN aircraft
like the Super Tucano, meaning you have a lot fewer aircraft supporting your
troops than you should have, or end up spending way too much money.

~~~
ansible
Here's a long article on the Super-T:

[http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-
slow](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow)

~~~
mrweasel
I think the sad reality is that no western government will be buying Super
Tucano, simply because it's not a jet. The image that buying a propeller
aircraft sends is that your air force is second rate.

~~~
Sanddancer
The US is buying some Super Tucanos, but they seem to be going more to
Afghanistan than staying in the Air Force's arsenal [1]. Though the bigger
problem is that the Air Force really resents having to do fixed wing close air
support, and would much rather have the army just get helicopters for the job,
even if helicopters have weaknesses in such a role, so they don't even like
having to fly the A-10.

[1] [http://dodbuzz.com/2015/03/06/afghan-military-to-receive-
its...](http://dodbuzz.com/2015/03/06/afghan-military-to-receive-its-
first-a-29s-in-december/)

------
patrick_99
I wonder if it makes sense to develop these next gen fighter jets. 10 years
from now, could air forces just use swarms of drones? Stealth wouldn't be as
important when you don't have a pilot that dies when the plane gets taken
down.

------
Shivetya
Reads like the typical big budget product that has a deadline that "absolutely
cannot move" but does move because ain't no one going to sign their name to
that mess. Really comes from having too many people in the decision making
process and none of them accountable.

~~~
mrweasel
Currently the Danish government keep deferring the selection of new fighter
planes for the Royal Danish Air force. Partly because it's a huge decision to
buy plane we can't really afford, but I also suspect it has to do with the
F-35 not being done. It really seems like the plan was to just pick the F-35,
because that was going to be the plane the US and many other allies fly.

I have no proof of this, but I won't be surprised that the moment the F-35 is
deemed operational, the Danish government will announce a contract for buy a
small number of planes. In the mean time all other potential supplies are
going to leave the table because they believe their losing money trying to
bid, and rightfully so.

~~~
noir_lord
Honestly at this point I really wish the UK government had just bought the
Super Hornet under license and handed it to BAe to modernise.

It would have done everything we could reasonably expect to want to do off our
carriers, is a proven design, can carry a heavy payload and has decent legs.

Instead we are going to spend billions on a couple of dozen planes that are
already a disaster.

~~~
gaius
No cats and traps remember? The _only_ plane HMS White Elephant can carry is
the F35, unless we re-open the Harrier factory...

------
Kristine1975
Kudos to these anti-militarist software developers. The world needs more of
your kind!

------
mrharrison
I wonder if this project has struggled so much, because of the increasing
difficulty in acquiring talent and talent getting poached in tech. Perhaps
they left for SpaceX. I'm sure a project like this has an intense amount of
technical debt that needs a stable workforce in order to churn out a quality
product.

~~~
ra1n85
Agreed, but I think there's more to it. The tech industry has a lot of
turnover in general. I would imagine that turnover is only aggravated when you
throw in short term contracts and a high demand for cleared individuals.

~~~
adrianN
Add the most ancient dev environment you can imagine, a hugely bureaucratic
process, waterfall... you can imagine the kind of programmer who stays.

~~~
jcadam
I'll point out salaries for cleared software engineers tend to be above-
average. I've looked outside the defense industry (often) and haven't yet
found another company willing to match (or beat) my current salary.

------
ctstover
This should be no surprise to those following the years of this national
embarrassment. Yes the "potential future war" use case does justify high risk
expenditures, but this crossed over into pork barrel fraud long ago. That is
also on top of the antics of bidding process in the first place. I can't help
but speculate as a laymen that the entire joint strike fighter concept is
flawed. Part of the reason for having separate branches of armed forces is, or
at least should be, strategic and technical diversity. If you consider that it
is a form of investing, it becomes clearer to not put all the eggs in one
basket. Cost is most damn sure a factor in warfare. Functioning fighter jets
is also pretty high on the list.

------
cpncrunch
Jan 2015

~~~
SFjulie1
Indeed, no news since 2015. And that is also news because news were expected
on the following topics:

\- using guns could cause fire ... gun delivery was said rescheduled for 2019;

\- senate asked for an evaluation of A10 vs F35 because A10 was to be retired
and replaced by the F35 the marines where not eager for this;

\- storm hit could cause fire on board;

\- budget was drifting like hell;

\- the 800K$ helmet full of software had a lot of malfunctioning...

And recently there is no more news.

Oh yes.

Canada pulled out. Australia is thinking the same.

There is a new problem in the tank and ...

[https://www.rt.com/business/320487-f35-lockheed-martin-
penta...](https://www.rt.com/business/320487-f35-lockheed-martin-pentagon-us/)

Heads begin to roll.

But what? LM was smart : every production units has been given to enough
different states and organizations not to bribe the MPs (oh no) but to improve
efficiency.

Airbus had trouble coordinating up to 4 countries and nearly died of it, 40+
states is logically way more complex.

EDIT : Did I said that the modern version F16 with all its "modern electronic
warfare" get beaten bad by its 40 yo counterpart? USA industry is declining
bad. The IT bubble has even contaminated the military production.

------
tobltobs
> Mission “data load” software is also causing concern. This software is
> loaded on a mission-by-mission basis, working in conjunction with the
> permanent systems, to operate sensors and respond to conditions for a
> particular battleground

This sounds like a stupid idea to me.

~~~
talmand
Why? Why load information to the system for areas outside the plane's current
mission range? Why load radar information for Southeast Asia when the plane is
currently stationed in Europe?

~~~
tobltobs
> This software is loaded on a mission-by-mission ...

That sounds like they would load different software modules not data.

~~~
talmand
We would need a proper definition from the source. I would assume it's a
mixture of both.

------
awakeasleep
SCF-35 Sunk Cost Fallacy - 35

------
tobltobs
The financial success for the producing company of a military jet has nothing
to do with his fighting capabilities, reliability or whatever. The main factor
is how good the bribery engine works. Take a look at the starfighter history.

------
p_eter_p
I wonder if a "Tech Surge" like the one used to repair the ACA exchange would
help here, or just end up causing more trouble. I'm afraid Brook's Law comes
into effect here.

~~~
engi_nerd
At its base description level, the ACA exchange is something that's been done
before. What made it so complex was the sheer number of systems the exchange
had to properly communicate with. But there were teams of people with enough
domain knowledge to come in, figure out what the problems were, and fix them.
I don't know if aircraft are the same. You might run into the problem that all
the people who have the knowledge who could help you solve the problem are
already working on the problem! Some of this stuff is so specialized and so
different than what is done anywhere else that you won't get experience with
it unless you do it.

I've seen this idea tried in the defense industry a number of times and it's
not really successful.

------
btbuildem
This will be amazing when one of those falls out of the sky over a major US
city during some show-off airshow..

------
adrianb
2015 article

------
miander
Needs [2015] tag.

------
juskrey
X finds Y software is a buggy mess.

