
F-35’s gun that can’t shoot straight adds to its roster of flaws - wslh
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-30/f-35-s-gun-that-can-t-shoot-straight-adds-to-its-roster-of-flaws
======
EdwardCoffin
Butler Lampson, in his lecture _Hints and Principles for Computer System
Design_ [1], has the following anecdote:

 _I remember hearing from the chief program officer for the software of the
new joint fighter the F-35, in the US, five or so years ago. He said "I'm the
chief software program officer, and I'm absolutely certain that the approved
requirements for the software for this plane cannot be met, and there's
nothing I can do about it because there are so many forces being brought to
bear on these requirements."_ (45:45 - 46:18)

[1] [https://www.heidelberg-laureate-forum.org/video/lecture-
hint...](https://www.heidelberg-laureate-forum.org/video/lecture-hints-and-
principles-for-computer-system-design.html) (27 August 2015)

~~~
nabla9
The Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) system determined essential
to keep F-35 flying and maintained is now scrapped and they start from
beginning.

~~~
nl
_and they start from beginning_

It sounds more like they switch to an existing system that works.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-
pentagon-f35/f-35-log...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-
pentagon-f35/f-35-logistics-system-to-be-reinvented-and-renamed-official-says-
idUSKBN1ZE00D)

~~~
acqq
> works.

I wouldn't be so sure:

"ODIN will be based in the cloud and designed to deliver data in near real
time on aircraft and system performance under heightened cyber security
provisions, Lord said."

Independently of that "cloud based" ODIN as a replacement of ALIS ("
_Autonomic_ Logistics Information System"), the mentioned ALIS doesn't seem to
me as what Lampson's source worried about.

~~~
Mirioron
I do not want to hear the phrase "cloud computing" anywhere near a fighter
jet, unless they're talking and the plane (a computer) flying through clouds.

~~~
nl
It's a ground based logistics program for scheduling servicing etc.

~~~
pests
Ground cloud, got it.

------
opwieurposiu
The F-35 project is a stealth Jobs program that pretends to be a stealth
airplane program. Seen through this lens, things are actually going ok. It
concentrates incompetence in the defense sector, where it can do less harm.
(as long as we dont get a real war)

~~~
friendlybus
What does a competent fighter jet program look like?

~~~
hef19898
The F-117. Great story, was finished in budget and ahead of time. But then it
was a _black_ program without any political oversight. Basically a couple of
brilliant engineers closed into a room with the sole task to built a stealth
plane.

EDIT: They used components from the F-16 and F-15 programs. Being a black
program, this was hidden in spare parts needs for these other planes. I have
congress report lying around somewhere which complains about excess spare
needs for the F-16 from that period. So, maybe some of the F-117 costs are
driving costs of other programs.

~~~
cameldrv
The F-117 had very limited requirements compared to the F-35. What's killing
the F-35 is the extreme complexity of the program.

The requirements for the F-117 were basically that it had to be stealthy, and
had to be able to carry a minimal payload a reasonable range. There was no
radar, no vertical takeoff, no carrier landings, no air-to-air, no sensor
fusion, no datalinks, no cooperative engagement, etc etc etc.

It's poorly understood how the combination of high performance requirements,
complexity, and flexibility mix. Optimizing a system for performance generally
requires cutting across domains. Subsystems need to be designed jointly to
wring out performance. This means there are many dependencies between the
subsystems, so if one thing changes on one subsystem, it may affect a number
of other subsystems. If you then add flexibility to the mix -- you want a
modular system like the F-35, all of this optimization work has to be done on
every combination of parts. Now combine this with a complex set of mission
requirements -- every change has to be optimized for multiple missions and
multiple aircraft variants. Due to the optimized and complex nature of the
aircraft, each change will also affect many subsystems.

Because the system is so complex, no person or even a small group of people
can have the entire system in their head, so it's hard to know exactly what
will be affected with a subsystem change. Subsystems affected by a change will
furthermore not even be built by the same company. This all means that each
change has to go through very slow formal processes to make sure it keeps
working.

All of this is to say that layering on all of these categories of requirements
has an exponential effect. If the F-35 didn't have to be high performance, or
if it didn't have three variants, or if it didn't have to perform multiple
missions, the project would have been much easier.

~~~
tempestn
So does it follow from that that the entire concept is flawed, and what should
have been designed instead are multiple different aircraft?

~~~
cameldrv
Yes, it should have been multiple aircraft, or the scope should have been
reduced. It's hard enough to make an aircraft that's good on an aircraft
carrier and on land. Adding the vertical landing (B model) version compromised
the whole program.

VTOL is a very specialized capability, and there's never been another airplane
that has VTOL as an optional feature. You have to design the plane and its
engine around this capability, and you compromise on many other things to get
it. The A and C models then have to live with many of these design
compromises. Even the basic shape of the aircraft, with such a wide front
fuselage reduces the performance of the F-35, even though on the A and C
models there's no need to be so wide since there's no lift fan.

Meanwhile, it's not even clear that the Marines need a VTOL airplane. The B
model has the ability to operate off Navy helicopter carriers, which gives
them significantly more punch, but there's basically no real scenario where a
helicopter carrier would need it. In a real war, there will always be full
deck carriers anywhere a helicopter carrier is. In theory the helicopter
carriers would offer additional capacity, but carrier air wings have been
scaled back, and full deck carriers only go to sea with 60-65 aircraft even
though they have the capacity for 90. If the Marines wanted more of their own
air assets they could have just bought C models and operated them off the big
carriers like they already do with the F-18.

The B model is also significantly lower performance. It has to takeoff at
lower weights, and it has the huge extra weight of the lift fan. This means it
has a much shorter range and carries less weapons. If they had simply bought C
models and put them on the big carriers, the overall capability would be
greater.

~~~
wahern
Maybe someone more knowledgable about the history can chime in, but the first
thought that entered my mind when you were discussing full deck carriers is
that the F-35 was designed from the very beginning for international sales.
Only a few nations have full deck carriers, while many more have helicopter
carriers. It's not surprising then that there are 2 allies with F-35Bs, 3
allies with plans for the F-35B, and none for the F-35C:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B_2)

~~~
cameldrv
Yes, that's true, but look at the F-35 orders. There are 563 orders for the B
model out of 3200 total. The foreign customers are the UK with 138, to operate
on their Queen Elizabeth carriers, 30 for Italy to operate on their small
carriers, and 42 to Japan for the same.

In 2010, the UK decided to make the QE carriers ski-jump and operate the B
model for cost reasons, however they considered making them CATOBAR and
operate the C model. If the B model had not existed, they would have simply
spent another couple of billion dollars to make them CATOBAR.

It's probably not practical from a budget and political standpoint for Japan
and Italy to make CATOBAR carriers, but does it really make sense to
compromise a 3200 aircraft program that's the backbone of the USAF and USN's
fleet so that Italy and Japan can buy 72 aircraft? Italy and Japan could just
buy tanker aircraft for long range power projection.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement#Planned_purchases)

~~~
craftinator
Your comments make up the most competent and comprehensive analysis I've seen
on the F35 program; way more thorough than those presented in Congress or by
the various involved aerospace companies. Are you involved in the project in
any way?

~~~
cameldrv
I'm just an interested observer, but my observations are hardly unique. The
same points have been made in many forums including congressional hearings.

~~~
craftinator
Much of what I've seen in congressional hearings is so watered down and blame-
shifted it is difficult to assemble into a coherent story. You did a great job
of the spark notes version

------
tra3
I'm writing a post on software estimation, how it's difficult to estimate
things correctly. One of the arguments that I want to make is that estimating
poorly is not restricted to the software industry (obvious in retrospect).
Military and public infrastructure projects are an excellent source of poorly
estimated projects.

I've been collecting data about F35 specfically, 'cause it's so recent and the
cost overruns are just mind boggling.

Anyway, here's an article from last year [0] that discusses how project
management for the F35 prorgram reclassifies "blockers" and "criticals" into
"major" and "medium" (severity levels of the issue). Especially like how the
IFF transponder fails to send out a distress call if a pilot ejects, or how
the arresting hook (for carrier landings) bends the airframe.

[0]: [https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2018/08/f-35-program-
cutt...](https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2018/08/f-35-program-cutting-
corners-to-complete-development/)

~~~
mdorazio
Just be careful what generalizations you draw. I've been in enough proposal
development meetings to know that the estimates that make it to the
client/government entity aren't always the _actual_ estimate. In many cases,
one or more persons provided a pretty good estimate and it got shot down
immediately because if the proposal included it, it would be rejected.
Basically, if there's a good chance the client will eat the cost overruns (as
governments usually do for military/space/infrastructure projects), there's a
big incentive to deliberately underestimate even when you know the actual
number will be significantly higher.

~~~
chasd00
I was about to say, estimates better be aligned to the sales team expectations
or they'll be changed so that they do align. It's only after the project is
sold do you get a chance to look at the reality of the situation.

------
dralley
The project was doomed to this fate from the moment the requirements document
was handed down, much like the Space Shuttle's last minute redesign. The F35
is 3 different planes crammed into one airframe.

~~~
rstupek
Ironically so they could save money by not developing 3 different aircraft!

~~~
stanley
I don't have raw numbers, but last I checked the cost estimates of maintaining
these aircraft over the long term is still projected to be cheaper than the
alternative.

Some of the aircraft flown by the USAF and the US Navy have higher annual
operational costs than the sticker price of those same aircraft. The F-35 is
an attempt to avoid repeating the same mistakes, but obviously, easier said
than done.

~~~
_s
The operating costs for air or sea going vehicles is a lot of the time - at
minimum - their purchase price, per year.

Buy a kayak for $100? You need around $100/yr in storage, cleaning and upkeep
for it.

Buy a glider for $10k? You need around $10k/yr in maintenance, hangarage,
taxes, insurance etc.

Buy a jet for $1M? You’ll spend that much on a hanger, crew, fuel, taxes,
mechanics, parts, insurance etc etc.

Get an aircraft carrier for $1B? You’ll spend that much on crew, ports,
maintenance, munition, training etc etc.

Sure you _can_ do it cheaper, but it’s a good rule of thumb from a budgetary
point of view.

------
throw0101a
Canada is currently going through a competition to replace its (non-Super)
Hornet fighters:

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Canadian_procurement)

The two main candidates are the F-35 and the F-18 Super Hornet (the Saab
Gripen is unlikely).

There was much drama with this because the previous government announced a
sole source contract. Then there was confusions as to how much it was actually
going to cost. The original plans got cancelled, and now we have an RFP.

Of course the F-35 is a so-called fifth generation fighter, and there's
already sketches about six generation stuff:

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth-generation_jet_fighter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth-generation_jet_fighter)

Soemtimes I think Canada should skip the 5G, buy the Super Hornets (and
perhaps some Growlers), and then leap frog to 6G.

~~~
tpmx
Sweden has just this week decided it needs to own some proper firefighting
aircraft.

I suggest we trade SAAB Gripen aircraft for Bombardier Super Scoopers at a 1:1
ratio. List prices look roughly similar.

~~~
tpmx
Bonus video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNmenvJ_FKM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNmenvJ_FKM)

------
tpmx
Related movie recommendation: The Pentagon Wars (1998). The one where "Toby"
from "West Wing" (Richard Schiff) is put in charge of product managing the
Bradley Fighting Vehicle that eventually tries to address every single need
from every part of the army.

~~~
maze-le
Absolutely. This film is a "must-see" for every aspiring project manager. It
is very much on point with my experience on projects for big clients:

* Continuously changing list of requirements

* Incoherent decision making process

* Unrealistic deadlines

* Upper management that pats itself on the back for ridiculous decisions

It really is a good case study for failed communication in big organizations.

~~~
tpmx
Besides all of that, it's also a really well-crafted movie.

------
ipnon
Being in the process of reading The Machine That Changed the World (a book
about the development of lean production in Japan in response to the
shortcomings of mass production in the United States), I can't help but see
the parallel between Toyota's ability to quickly adapt to the changing demands
of different export markets with an industrial process that creates variations
on a theme in direct response to the demands of the customer. Contrast this
with Ford's approach of throwing all resources into the same identical
product, depending on the sheer scale of the production to absorb the
inevitable defects in quality and supply-chain timing.

------
meerita
While the A-10 is not comparable with the F-35 playground, it was a plane that
saved the budget and fit well into the military. The service made, the
capabilities and the cost was really good. Same with the F-15. I think the
F-35 is the result of hubris.

~~~
VLM
The A10 is only viewed as successful today because its very old.

Back in initial production in the Carter years they discovered awful metal
fatigue problems in the wings. In the early Reagan years they bolted on braces
to toughen up the joint. Still kept failing. Around the turn of the century
barely before the GWOT the air force realized the wings were failing so fast
they'd run out of replacement wings around 2010, so right after the GWOT
started (which is getting to be one human generation ago...) they rushed a
contract thru to slap repairs on the existing wings and then replace entirely
with new wings. As of late 2010s the wing replacement project (about $2B) and
the air force desire to get rid of the A10 were dueling with each other, kinda
crazy. AFAIK that battle continues today. With new wings we'll be flying those
things into mid century.

There's never been an engineering project that hasn't had teething problems.

Currently, the F35 does not have its wings falling off, the gun mounts merely
need beefing up. Thats better than the A10 track record. If thats the worst
problem the F35 has, that's pretty good!

There's also a lot of irony in that the A10 has been under seemingly
continuous avionics upgrades for its entire life; you could probably build a
F-35 with 1970s avionics for an 1970s price.. so unfair to compare a price tag
for a 1970s plane that's been infinitely upgraded since, with a 2020s plane
and its 2020s price tag. Also the leadership of the air force has been trying
to get rid of the A10 for some decades now. Some doctrine insists close air
support should be an army helo job, not an air force strategic bomber job.

The problem with the A10 is if you don't expect soviet tanks to pour across
Germany there's no point in a giant flying gun. And if you need air launched
anti-armor, the army does a better job with human on board helos and the air
force does a better job with drone launched missiles. It just doesn't seem to
have a point anymore. It can be made to work, and has worked, but the
alternatives are a better match. The troops can and have been supported with a
A10, but they'd be better and more quickly supported with multiple apache
helos or a swarm of existing drone platforms for the same cost and effort.

~~~
larrywright
> The problem with the A10 is if you don't expect soviet tanks to pour across
> Germany there's no point in a giant flying gun.

You should check out some videos on YouTube of the A-10 in action in
Afghanistan and Iraq - particularly the ones from soldiers on the ground. It’s
a devastating and effective weapon. The only thing that delivers comparable
capabilities is the helicopters (and maybe the AC-130), but none of them have
a gun like the A-10.

I’m not military, but know plenty of people who are (and I’ve read a lot about
this). My understanding is that ground forces love the A-10 for what it can do
for them. They can communicate with it and give the pilots precise
instructions about where to deliver the rounds. Drones can’t do that.

~~~
edaemon
Ground troops do love the A-10 but there's plenty of reasons the brass has
decided to retire it.

The A-10 was specifically made for CAS against Soviet armor. It's essentially
a 30mm cannon with wings. The nature of warfare has made that role much less
feasible, though; armor is more effective, anti-aircraft weapons are more
deadly, and detection methods are more accurate. There isn't a lot of room for
big, slow, low-flying planes like the A-10 in modern warfare.

Nowadays it obviously isn't used against mass formations of Soviet armor.
Drones are capable of delivering the same kind of support that the A-10 is
used for, just not necessarily the drones the US military uses today.

~~~
onepointsixC
The thing is it was ineffective against Soviet Armor within a few short years
it reached active service. It's 30mm was of little to no effectiveness against
T-72's. It would instead have to use it's Maverick missiles against tanks. But
at that point why not use something which can carry more Maverick's instead of
a flying 30mm?

------
kaonashi
The F-35 is doing excellently at it's actual engineered purpose, which is to
extract the maximum amount of money from the DoD and into the hands of
contractors while at the same time being completely unassailable politically.
Better than digging ditches and filling them back in, I suppose.

------
tomohawk
This is the problem with pouring all of the requirements into one bucket. A
single plane that does air superiority (F-15), stealth (F-117), naval air
superiority (F-18), ground attack (A-10), vertical/short take off (Harrier),
etc - it's just not going to work.

What the US really needs are a small number of stealth fighters (F-22), a
larger number of air superiority fighters (F-15 silent eagles), a whole bunch
of light attack aircraft (A-29s), and something to replace the A-10.

Sure, an A-29 is a prop plane that stands no chance against an F-15, but it is
phenomenally cheap to operate, and fits a very large number of mission needs
that the high performance jets are too expensive for.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano)

------
arethuza
Are US Air Force F-35s expected to be engaging ground targets with their guns?

~~~
AdrianB1
Yes; by comparison, Vulcan rounds are extremely cheap versus guided rockets
(tens a dollars per round versus hundred thousand dollars plus per missile),
so if you have a low threat engagement like a sniper in a house in Afghanistan
it is very effective to shoot 50 cannon rounds at it. Same for a small truck
convoy, a plane can get on the target faster than an attack helicopter just
because it is 3 times faster at low altitudes.

It is not meant to replace an Apache or Cobra helicopter, but to occasionally
take out ground targets.

~~~
Brave-Steak
How long can a plane like the F-35 fire on a target with the cannon before it
passes over it?

~~~
AdrianB1
The time is not the important factor, the number of shells on target is. These
guns have very high rates of fire, dozens of shells per second. A plane can
empty the entire cannon load in 5-6 seconds.

------
akmarinov
only 800 issues for software of this scale? That's not too bad actually.

~~~
NohatCoder
Depends on the type of issues. For instance a "module x won't boot" issue is
pretty severe, and it means that there is likely a ton of new issues surfacing
once you fix that. Also, for an adequately broken piece of software the number
of registered issues mostly depend on how much work has been put into
registering issues.

------
thedudeabides5
How many missile carrying drones do you think we could make for the cost of
one $80mm F35?

The next big war is going to be won with a lot of small, disposable vehicles
rather than a couple of “can’t fail” elite machines.

Kinda like Taranto, where a handful of British _biplanes_ took down three
Italian _battleships_

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto)

~~~
rmah
_How many missile carrying drones do you think we could make for the cost of
one $80mm F35_

You can buy five MQ-9 Reaper drones ($16mil each), or three MC-C Gray Eagles
($31mil each). These things have flight performance similar to early ww-2 era
bombers but with tiny munitions payloads. That is, they are very slow, high-
altitude, high-endurance and non-maneuverable. Their only real plus is that
they are small and thus have a small radar cross section. They are sitting
ducks for any sort of half-way decent air defense. I suspect that any fighter
jet or SAM built in the last half century would swat such drones out of the
sky without breaking a sweat.

~~~
nostrademons
Those are still built by dedicated defense contractors with a military
purchasing process. It's like comparing Graf Spee with Vittoria Veneto, not
comparing a Swordfish biplane with Vittoria Veneto.

I haven't really seen anyone analyze the threat model of attaching a shaped
charge & microchip to a balsa model airplane or plastic DJI drone. The cost of
_those_ is in the $1000 range (including the chip and warhead), and they're
virtually invisible to radar, or to the naked eye for that matter. Hell, for
the cost of a single AMRAAM missile you could field > 1000 drones. You lose on
range (~20 miles max) and performance (~200 mph), but for close air support,
you probably don't need it: just blanket the whole airspace with tens of
thousands of tiny drones so that the whole battlefield becomes a giant no-fly
zone.

~~~
xoa
> _You lose on range (~20 miles max)_

Just because it's still a super cool feat 17 years later, from 2003:
[https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/model-
plane-f...](https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/model-plane-flies-
atlantic)

> _11-pound Model Airplane Flies the Atlantic_

> _Named TAM-5, the 11-pound plane flew 1,888 miles from Canada to Ireland in
> 38 hours, 53 minutes. It set world records for longest distance and longest
> time ever flown by a model airplane._

> _[...]To qualify for flight records, a model airplane has to weigh less than
> 11 pounds, including fuel. So, TAM-5 had room to carry just under 3 quarts
> of gas. This meant that the plane had to get the equivalent of about 3,000
> miles per gallon of fuel, Brown says._

> _The biggest challenge in building the model, Brown says, was figuring out
> how to make TAM-5’s engine efficient enough to cross the ocean. Most model
> airplanes use alcohol-based fuels. Instead, Hill used Coleman lantern fuel
> because, he says, it’s more pure and performs better. He tweaked a regular
> model airplane engine to make the valves smaller and more efficient._

> _The plane also carried an impressive set of electronics. Every hour during
> the flight, crewmembers were able to get information about the plane’s
> location from a Global Positioning System (GPS) device on board. The GPS
> device communicated with a satellite orbiting Earth to determine the plane’s
> exact latitude, longitude, and speed._

> _The route was programmed into the computerized autopilot, which
> automatically adjusted the plane’s direction to stay on course. There was
> also a transmitter on board that sent signals directly to crewmembers on the
> ground when the plane was within 70 miles of its launch and landing sites._

So that's 2003-class "impressive set of electronics", with artificial fuel
restrictions for record purposes to boot, yet nearly a couple thousand miles
of range. Only going about 50 MPH granted, but presumably a weaponized design
would only need to burst speed briefly and slow loiter might actually be a
strength in some CAS scenarios. Napkin math'ing it, seems feasibly dangerous,
3 US quarts of kerosene is about 5 lbs and a couple lbs of shaped RDX is
plenty to do some real damage if a pinpoint strike. Just saying that I think
you're even more right than you suggest there! A scenario of fielding
thousands/tens of thousands of cheap drones offers chances for a pretty
radical rethink in doctrine.

~~~
user5994461
Interesting read, although the derived applications are not great. ^^

Now for more military applications, I think some of the calculations might
break down due to weight. Missiles/shell can be in the order of hundreds of
pounds, with the heavier ones above a ton.

The use case for military being more oriented toward heavy vehicles, tanks and
buildings, I don't think a few pounds of explosive would be anywhere near
enough. The plane would have to increase in size (structure and fuel) in
similar proportions to the load it has to carry, certainly negating a lot of
the efficiency.

Well, if we streamline a model plane as a one off directed explosive, that
will eventually be a missile and long range ballistic missiles are not a
novelty.

~~~
nostrademons
> The use case for military being more oriented toward heavy vehicles, tanks
> and buildings, I don't think a few pounds of explosive would be anywhere
> near enough.

That describes a bazooka warhead perfectly, and they had no problem
penetrating tanks. More recently, TOW anti-tank missiles are used to great
effectiveness by many armies (including us) and their warhead is only 13 lbs.

One of the amazing things about shaped charges is that penetration depends
only on the diameter of the charge, not its weight or velocity, and it can
penetrate 7-10x its diameter in armor. So a 4-inch diameter shaped charge can
blow through a meter of solid steel.

The other interesting development is that nearly all the advances in armor
designed to defeat shaped charges (ceramics, Chobham armor, reactive armor)
have an assumption that the same spot will never be hit twice in battle. The
first shot basically destroys the (roughly 1 sq. foot) armor tile, which is
useless for further protection, but this doesn't matter because in a
traditional gun/missile tank duel the chance that the exact same spot will be
hit twice is miniscule. This assumption falls apart with advances in robotics
and AI. You could imagine a drone swarm where instead of launching themselves
at the target, they _land_ on the target, crawl to the most vulnerable parts
(on top of turret or on the magazines/engines, for example) or those that have
sustained previous battle damage, and then detonate themselves.

~~~
user5994461
Awesome, I thought of shaped charges as well, but trying to keep the post
short.

I assumed the goal was to have something similar to the model plane and
particularly its incredibly range and efficiency. 1 gallon for 1000 miles. The
plane shape and aerodynamics certainly help the efficiency.

However if there was an explosive charge to carry, the charge certainly can't
improve the plane structure or aerodynamics (hence reducing the efficiency of
the plane overall) and I'm not sure the charge could be shaped and mounted in
the most optimal way (reducing the efficiently of the explosive itself).

So while the model plane might be incredibly efficient at flying, I question
whether it could be anywhere near as good for the new purpose.

------
WalterBright
There's a long history of these sorts of things:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_\(ship\))

~~~
esjeon
You mean this part, right?

> Four more heavy guns were intended for the stern, but the cannon foundry
> could not cast guns as fast as the navy yard could build ships, and Vasa
> waited nearly a year after construction was finished for its armament. When
> the ship sailed in August 1628, eight of the planned armament of 72 guns had
> still not been delivered

~~~
gerdesj
Perhaps not quite so bad as the Vasa -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Rose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Rose)
At least the Mary Rose had served for over 30 years but it seems that upgrades
went over the top. A 500 ton ship was turned into a 700 ton ship.

------
bazooka_penguin
Considering its primary function is to launch targeted explosives or paint
targets for other weapons platforms, without being targeted itself, the
vestigal gun being inaccurate seems like a small problem.

------
sidlls
This thing is right out of the Pentagon Wars. “It. Takes. Teamwork.”

I’m not surprised, though; this is typical of defense contracting boondoggles.

------
sillywalk
Incredibly, but not surprisingly, they've already built 450+ aircraft, but I
believe just started Operational Evaluation & Testing in December 2018. When
more flaws are found, the aircraft will need retrofits. Same thing goes for
the Ford Class carriers.

------
zepearl
Which airplanes are currently supposed to be replaced by the F-35? Everything
(basically from the A-10 to the F-22) or only specific (sub-ranges of)
models/variants?

~~~
redis_mlc
What was planned in the past, and the reality today, are not the same thing.

There's over 2,000 F-16's in the field, and that qty. of F-35's will never be
built because of the cost and mfg. capacity.

So likely the F-35 will be used where possible, backed up by thousands of
older planes.

To give you an idea of how serious the cost/mfg. problem is, the late 1950s
F-5 is in heavy use for the foreseeable future - training, adversarial Top Gun
fighters, research, drones - you name it. The little fighter (4,000 made) is
saving us billions now.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5)

~~~
zepearl
Thanks about the reminder about the F-16s - wasn't aware that so many were
still active.

I think that I remember that the F-5 was in the original "Top Gun" movie, that
it was near its end-life when the movie was shown (I investigated after
watching the movie), and that in the movie it had the role of a simulated MIG-
antagonist. (gosh, I LOVED that movie when I saw it as a teenager)

Maybe the stagnation of engineering/production of F-35 and/or alternative
models is caused by Russia/China not pushing for similar capabilities? There
have been news about some new fighters but I didn't read anything about them
being mass-produced... .

------
credit_guy
F-35 is a popular bashing target on Hacker News. I think this is unfair.

Yes, the program is worth $1.5TN, the most expensive procurement program in
history. But that's for its entire lifetime, of about 60 years. Per unit, an
F-35 will cost about $100MM (even less than $80MM for the main version, F-35A
[0]). A few days ago we've seen the first Boeing 777X taking a test flight.
That's a commercial aircraft with a list price of $400MM per unit. It's
essentially a big long tube with wings and engines. Yes, the tube is carbon
fiber, the wings are foldable, the engines are the newest crown jewels of GE,
but it's not a fighter aircraft designed to withstand 10G acceleration, be
subject to catapulted take-off and arrested landing on an aircraft carrier, be
able to go supersonic, and well, obviously it's not stealthy. So, given all
that, the cost of an F-35 is not exorbitant.

Oh, and you bet the F-35 is a huge jobs program as well. But it's not minimum
wage jobs we are talking about. It's high end jobs. And the F-35 is a
profitable export as well. An export that will benefit the US, but will
benefit the buyers too. Poland will buy F-35. Poland is looking nervously at
Ukraine, and how Russian troops and tanks are occupying big chunks of it. The
day they get some F-35s in their hangars is the day they'll start sleeping a
bit easier at night. Japan has some nice naval ships that are aircraft
carriers in all but name [1]. But to be meaningful, they need aircraft, and
F-35B will do the job. UK's Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier will also
use F-35B. No other fighter jet will fit the bill, either for the Japanese or
for the British aircraft carriers, as they are somewhat on the short side and
F-35B can take off on short runways. Israel is already using F-35s for combat
missions.

For those who think manned military aircraft are a thing of the past, take a
moment to remember the drone that Iran captured a few years ago [2]. Drones
can be hijacked, or rendered ineffective via electronic warfare. Manned
aircraft less so. The US is not shying away from heavily investing in drones,
but manned aircraft will have a place in the military picture for decades to
come.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izumo-
class_destroyer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izumo-class_destroyer)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident)

------
neonate
[http://archive.md/S8WAg](http://archive.md/S8WAg)

------
Gunax
The Bradley fighting airplane.

------
m1gu3l
at what point will we be willing to accept that this is a failed project?

------
alopex_plenus
good news for people all over the world, i guess

------
Pfhreak
Right now, there is a post on the front page about an American community that
is flooded with sewage every time it rains. Reading about the F 35 makes me so
incredibly frustrated when I think about all the good we could do with even a
small portion of its budget.

~~~
merpnderp
You have a lot more faith in the ability of government to turn money into
progress than I do. The exact same corrupt policies of farming out money to
political connections for the F-35 program, resulting in marginal
services/products, is what will happen in nearly every local government.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that we're coasting on the infrastructure
of the past and aren't really capable of organizing successful new projects
that aren't destined to fail from all the corruption.

~~~
dr_dshiv
Faith in _the US govt_ , I think you mean. Government is remarkably effective
at turning money into progress in the Netherlands. (Not that citizens don't
complain incessantly)

~~~
lowdose
I assume this is a snark, more than 300 mayors to govern 1 city the size of
New York doesn't seem like an effective government to me.

~~~
Pfhreak
Is the correct effectiveness metric the number of people involved or the
outcomes for the people served by that government? I don't really care how
big/small our government is if everyone is experiencing a high quality of
life.

------
cultus
$1.5 trillion for an inferior plane. The sunk cost fallacy is amazing.

~~~
HenryKissinger
The oft touted 1.5 trillion figure is the total estimated cost of the program
over 55 years.

[https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/09/04/f-35-program-
update...](https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/09/04/f-35-program-update/)

~~~
danShumway
Is that taking into account inflation? ~20 million per year 40 years ago is
comparatively a lot more money than it would be today.

I can't tell if the 55 year period should make the total program cost seem
better or worse to me.

~~~
evgen
Yes, it is in 2020 dollars and future costs are adjusted for expected
inflation.

------
josefresco
This reads like a hit piece on Lockheed Martin Corp.

~~~
climate_realist
I think the abysmal record of the plane and the huge amount of money spent on
it are more likely why it seems that way. It's really hard to say nice things
about people who actually shine turds for a living.

------
rtkwe
The whole program is just a nightmare which kind of seems inevitable when
you're trying to make a plane to replace every other (edit: small) plane in
the US fleet...

------
levosmetalo
You need to remember that F-35 is a peace project. It is supposed to suck up
money from the military industry that would otherwise be employed to do much
more harm to the humans than F-35 would ever be able to.

~~~
chungus_khan
That sounds like a symptom of a hideously corrupt country.

------
29athrowaway
As long as people take pride in being #1 in military spending rather than
actual results, these problems will continue to exist.

I can spend 500 trillion dollars in an armored rubber duck with an attached
gun to it, that does not make me the strongest superpower on earth.

