Home » Air » Air Force » Concerns Linger Over F-35 Software Delays

Concerns Linger Over F-35 Software Delays

by Brendan McGarry on April 24, 2013

Top U.S. Defense Department officials say they’re concerned the slow pace of software development may delay the delivery of the most lethal version of the F-35 fighter jet beyond 2017.

The program manager, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, told lawmakers today the issue was his top priority.

“My biggest concern in development is software,” Bogdan said in remarks prepared for a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. “I see more risk to the delivery of Block 3F, our full warfighting capability, by 2017.”

That model of the Lockheed Martin Corp.-made aircraft is designed to be equipped with a suite of internal and external weapons, including the GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition, laser-guided Paveway II bomb, Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile and infrared Sidewinder missile.

The program office will have a better estimate of the planned delivery date this summer after reviewing at least six months of flight testing data, Bogdan said.

The Joint Strike Fighter is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons acquisition program, estimated to cost almost $400 billion for a total of 2,457 aircraft, according to a 2011 defense acquisition report. It’s designed to replace such aircraft as the F-16, A-10, F/A-18 and AV-8B.

The department next year plans to spend $8.4 billion to buy 29 F-35 Lightning IIs, including 19 for the Air Force, six for the Marine Corps and four for the Navy, according to its budget request released earlier this month.

The concerns over software remain despite making a “major shift” in oversight the past year, Bogdan said. That change has resulted in faster software development and integration, reduced coding errors and better collaboration between the program office and Lockheed, he said.

The Bethesda, Maryland-based company and its subcontractors “still need to improve both the speed and quality of software development to be able to catch up from previous software delays,” Bogdan said.

The Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, Frank Kendall, echoed those comments during a separate briefing with reporters to announce an updated effort to improve how the department buys goods and services. “We still got a fair amount of software to write,” he said. “There are some risks there.”

The military is about 40 percent through the F-35 test program, Kendall said.

In addition to software, “there are still a few other issues we haven’t quite put to bed yet, but I’m feeling cautiously optimistic,” he said without elaborating. “I won’t say there won’t be any additional schedule slips.”

The department is working to reduce program expenses by negotiating better terms on production contracts, Kendall said. “I want to keep the pressure on to drive it down as much as we can,” he said.

Kendall described sustaining the aircraft as “our biggest opportunity” to find long-term savings. The cost of keeping the F-35 in service for 50 years is estimated at more than $1 trillion and the Pentagon plans to hold competitions for the work.

“We can achieve the greatest results there,” he said.

Share |

{ 211 comments… read them below or add one }

William_C1 April 25, 2013 at 1:04 am

In before people shouting "kill it!" without suggesting any realistic alternatives. And please remember that upgraded F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s won't cut it, the F-22 can't operate off a carrier, and there are no other STOVL fighters in production or development.

Reply

STemplar April 25, 2013 at 2:13 am

Seems like the supporters are the ones that should be providing the suggestions of what to do with this lead turkey.

Reply

William_C1 April 25, 2013 at 2:59 am

Like it or not we're well into the process of fielding the aircraft, what does restarting at the beginning accomplish? Do you really think the military will get the funding for 2-3 separate fighter programs, even if avionics and engine commonality is a goal?

Reply

STemplar April 25, 2013 at 3:48 am

That isn't a suggestion about what to do about this platforms unquestionable shortfalls. I didn't sat cancel it did l? I said what is your answer(s) to those shortfalls and l hope youve got more to say than just keep spending money without taking steps now to address the shortfalls. If you cant even aknowledge this platgorm cant keep all the promises made then you aren't interested in a grown up conversation.

Reply

Zard April 25, 2013 at 12:18 pm

Ahem, my answer would be to adopt agile software development practices, get a continuous integration testbed going. Works every time.

STemplar April 25, 2013 at 3:40 pm

OK, since none of the fans can seem to make the suggestions allow me.

-The combat radius isn't enough for the western Pacific, doesn't matter if there were no problems it simply needs longer legs so it is time to start work on CFTs, not after we deploy the thing and realize it needs them, but now.

-It's not going to be as maneuverable as promised and the helmet mounted cueing system is going to fall short, if they even get it working, so it is time to throw real effort at things like NCADE and develop air2air missiles with longer legs to help it out.

-Passive stealth is fine but its glory days are past. Expecting to be able to replay Bosnia and Kosovo and hang gen 3 and 4 weapons from this thing are gone. There needs to be a program stood up immediately to develop the longest range PGM missiles that can fit into the internal bays , to again lengthen the aircraft's reach.

Kole April 25, 2013 at 5:43 pm

The F-15C "Golden Eagles" have the most capable Radar in a fighter to date; the nose is huge. Radar technology moves faster than Stealth, and it is less expensive to do. The E/A-18G with modern DRFM jammers has already given the F-22A some fits. Sounds much better to me than an entire airplane.

oblatt1 April 28, 2013 at 10:55 am

William_C1s only reply is always… "failure is the only option"

Reply

Charley A April 25, 2013 at 8:03 am

Really now? The Navy mentioned fully funded classified upgrades slated for the SH fleet in a HASC hearing earlier this week that are intended to keep SH in service until at least the 2030s.

Reply

BlackOwl18E April 25, 2013 at 9:08 am
USS ENTERPRISE April 25, 2013 at 10:58 am

Sadly, you have a valid point. But I simply have to ask, how will the F/A-18E/F not cut it? I mean, its a good air frame, relatively knew, modern, advanced technology. Perhaps the F-15s with AESA aren't half bad either. Now F-16s, though, are the ones that need to be replaced, as they have clocked A LOT of time on their air frames. Finally, while the F-22 can't operate from carriers (thanks a lot Navy) it operates from forward air bases that cover much of the theater of operations. Just what I think, really.

Reply

BishopOne April 25, 2013 at 11:18 am

The F/A-18E/F is indeed a good airframe no agrument there. (Actually anyone would be fool to say otherwise.)

However in this day in age and the coming future, there's one word that makes projects like the F-35 more promsing then other weapon platforms and that is "Stealth".

The F-35 and its era of aircraft are going to have to bolster a means of stealth capabilites to keep up or keep ahead advancing radar technology.

Maybe the next gen of F-18 will bolster such design. That would be very intresting to see.

Reply

Ben April 25, 2013 at 12:29 pm

Yeah, but here's the kicker: The F-35 isn't even that stealthy.

Range is equally as important as stealth, since you can't penetrate defenses that you can't even reach. Sure you can strap on a few external tanks but that sacrifices precious stealth characteristics.

The proposed new Super Hornet is a much better range/stealth pairing (and it's a whole hell of a lot cheaper).

Reply

BishopOne April 25, 2013 at 2:06 pm

However the F-35 has the wide varied multi-role option that gives commanders more options on the field.

The new F-18 well no doubtly support the same concept of being a multi-role aircraft however its carrier based, where the F-35 doesn't have to be limited to the carrier. The F-35 also offers that VTOL capbility then you tack on its stealth design. Its a project even with all it faults thats worth keeping if you ask me.

I believe some where down the road these F-35 are going to be the next angels on a your shoulders when shit goes south.

USS ENTERPRISE April 25, 2013 at 3:01 pm

The F-35's RCS, last I heard, was the size of a metal beach ball, or something like that. What is the range of an F-35, without out EFTs? I would imagine its smaller than the F-15 or F-22.

wpnexp April 25, 2013 at 4:19 pm

Bet the F-35 is far ahead of the best version of the F/A-18 there is in stealthiness. You simply can't take a non-stealthy designed airframe and make it stealthy. Now, on the edges, it really comes down to how much survivability stealth really buys. As radars improve, they will likely still push the steathy aircraft back, so it comes down to the the investment cost verse the value of stealth. But, you should not fool yourself into thinking that modestly improving the legacy aircraft will increase there survivability in a high threat environment.

gaylord_gaylordson April 25, 2013 at 8:03 pm

The F35 has all aspect VLO stealth. It has exceeded it's requirements for VLO.

How the hell is that not stealthy?

Did you look at a blog and then decide that?

Don't answer. I already know.

duuude April 28, 2013 at 5:22 am

Build fresh copies of improved, existing designs.

If the USAF seriously wanted a new high performance airframe, all it needed to do was to integrate the F-22's supercruising engine with the F-16XL together with the multi-axis thrust vectoring and the avionic advancements since then.

The USN might as well drop the F-35 and navalize the YF-23.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 28, 2013 at 11:43 am

And what happens to the billions (and years) spent on making the F-35? Also, do you know how hard it would be to make the YF-23 a naval aircraft? Folding wings, tail hooks, anti-corrision body, etc.

Reply

duuude April 29, 2013 at 1:19 pm

It couldn't be any harder than making the F-35 carrier capable

duuude April 29, 2013 at 1:21 pm

As for the billions spent, they're gone. Sunk costs. It's already an overpriced Brewster Buffalo.

Mark April 25, 2013 at 1:05 pm

What I can't understand is how the equipment will send the main code the processed data,( when making a game like black ops the programmers have to create everything in the environment and then integrate and display, ) then integrate and display, so why is it in 15 years of devoplement the military programmers (having spent millions more then game programers) can't finish a much easier and less complicated readied program?

Reply

blight_ April 25, 2013 at 2:34 pm

You're also forgetting that aerospace programmers are working with a niche language (Ada) and niche embedded operating systems, to begin with.
http://archive.adaic.com/docs/reports/ajpo/transihttp://www.ghs.com/products/safety_critical/integrity-do-178b.html http://www.ghs.com/products/AdaMULTI_IDE.html

Around the F-22 and the JSF, there has been a gradual march to industry standards with some Ada mixed in. I suspect there will be more C and C++ than Ada, but then you have to port the code from Ada -> new language, or you get to ensure that the two can talk to each other in a bug-free fashion.

http://www.ldra.com/index.php/en/solutions/by-sta

"F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter) JSF++ AV Standard

Formal Release of JSF++ AV Coding Standard

Lockheed Martin has formally released the JSF++ AV (Air Vehicle) Coding Standard (December 2005). LDRA is the tool of choice by LMCO for the JSF project. A copy of the standard can be obtained by clicking on the link below:

LDRA tool suite – The tool of choice for the JSF++ AV Coding Standard

As provider of the LDRA tool suite, the JSF software test tool of choice, LDRA has worked closely with prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (LMCO) during the critical System Design and Development (SDD) phase of the project. Most recently, this technology partnership has seen LDRA assisting with the development of a C++ coding standard specifically for the JSF Air Vehicle Systems division.

As part of this close collaboration the LDRA tool suite has been enhanced to incorporate the necessary technical features required in order to implement the software test process of the LMCO Air Vehicle (AV) coding standard. This enhanced version of the LDRA tool suite provides users with an automated process for seamlessly checking the C++ standards required by the JSF project. The key benefits to the programme are that software is developed to a consistent style, is portable to other architectures, free from common errors and easily understandable and maintainable by any team member."

And if they are cooking up new standards, chances are delays are inevitable.

Game developers use new engines sparingly, and develop new rendering engines from old rendering engines. If anything, the best comparison is console gaming where devs optimize software within unique hardware architecture limits (though this is no longer the case if PS4 and next xBox are going back to x86 from Cell and PPC, respectively).

Reply

Mark's Dumb April 25, 2013 at 2:50 pm

I think Developing Software to Balance the Aerodynamics of Otherwise Unstable air frames is much more difficult then producing Black ops. All jet fighters need specially tailored Avionics Software just to stay aloft. Thats not even beginning to mention temperature control, weapon systems, G-force controls, Thrust vectoring algorithms, Oxygen systems, Radar, Counter measures, etc ,etc, etc. So please don't try to compare your video game with Aeronautics software Bud.

Reply

blight_ April 25, 2013 at 3:22 pm

Most code is recycled code. It can be a godsend and a cause of grief. Redoing code can address badly written code or data structures chosen based on old hardware parameters important in early code, and may be best if you are migrating standards or even languages (and clearly, they are). It also means more bugs, like the famous F-22 International Date Line bug.

Recycling code brings other problems. Parameters which may be appropriate for an F-22 may not work well when recycled en masse for F-35 electronics. And recycling ports compatibility issues which require band-aid patches or extensive modification.

What's more interesting is when an aircraft program has new electronics across the board and everything is tested together for the first times. Bugs that don't crop up in a simulated environment start appearing, and more issues may appear beyond the flight simulator in actual flight.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:03 pm

I think that is what is happening with the F-35. Despite they have a few commonalities, for the most part, the F-35 is way different in comparison to the F-22. Recycling code just makes no sense.

Marks April 25, 2013 at 3:24 pm

But all of what you said was long ago created before the first flight took place. Thanks Blight for sharing that. At least we see it is more specialized programming. But we had a flying test bed aircraft to work out all the sensor integration starting a year or two before they even had the fly off between Lockheed and Boeing.

Reply

blight_ April 25, 2013 at 3:46 pm

The demonstrators are essentially different aircraft. They were mostly for show, except the -B variant, which decided it for Lockheed over Boeing. None or little of the advanced doodadery promised for JSF was in existence for the demonstrators, or was demonstrated in a very beta state and not tested very heavily. That is what they are doing now.

From the GAO: http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589454.pdf

"The lines of code necessary for the JSF’s capabilities have now grown to
over 24 million—9.5 million on board the aircraft. By comparison, JSF
has about 3 times more on-board software lines of code than the F-22A
Raptor and 6 times more than the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. This has
added work and increased the overall complexity of the effort. The
software on-board the aircraft and needed for operations has grown 37
percent since the critical design review in 2005. While software growth
appears to be moderating, contractor officials report that almost half of
the on-board software has yet to complete integration and test—typically
the most challenging phase of software development. JSF software
growth is not much different than other recent defense acquisitions which
have experienced from 30 to 100 percent growth in software code over
time. However, the sheer number of lines of code for the JSF makes the
growth a notable cost and schedule challenge"

In short, demonstrators use COTS where possible to "stand in" for future awesome systems. Then for development, you twiddle your thumbs and hope the subcontractors in your team can deliver products, then you integrate products with other products and hope everything works. Lockheed has to herd its subcontractor cats while writing the sensor fusion code to get everything to work together, which is hard to do unless you have near-final versions of the products you are integrating.

blight_ April 25, 2013 at 3:58 pm

Re the demonstrator
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_

"The X-35 demonstrators, by any standard, were much simpler than the F-35 Lightning IIs that will be rolling out of the Lockheed Martin factory in Fort Worth, Texas. The demonstrators, for example, used a number of off-the-shelf components to speed design and fabrication. The fast pace of the program meant that only essential functions and capabilities were provided and tested. For instance, the X aircraft did not carry or drop weapons or include mission avionics. The demonstrators also did not carry signature treatments."

Of course, once Lockmart won they added more stuff. The article goes on to state:

"The demonstrators have been transformed into operational fighters during the current System Design and Development phase of the program. The ****pit has been refined. Full avionics functionality has been added. Engine thrust has increased. Capability and durability of the lift system have been improved. Internal weapon bays, radar, targeting system, and low-observable treatments are functional. New technologies that didn’t actually fly on the demonstrators—such as the electrohydrostatic actuators, integrated power package, or IPP, and helmet-mounted display—now function as integral parts of the F-35."

Every item in that paragraph was paid for by taxpayers as Development cost.

And in defense of Lockheed, the demonstrators were put together by Skunk Works, following established principles of delivering aircraft with OTS parts. However, the military was promised an aircraft with advanced not-yet-off-the-shelf parts, and Lockheed will deliver what the customer wants.

@GreensboroVet April 26, 2013 at 4:33 pm

I'm with you Williiam_C1. This program is too important and 40% to quit because some people are crying its tooo hard. Last dam time I checked, this was America and some of us still believe that the hard stuff is what we do best.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 6:05 pm

HaHaHa. Hard stuff … you mean like war crimes? Money printing?

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 9:12 pm

North Korea does both of those things, in case you wanted to know.

Reply

pedestrian April 25, 2013 at 1:55 am
eric April 25, 2013 at 5:58 am

the jsf is just a sympton of a failing system, that's the scary part.

Reply

Tinto April 25, 2013 at 7:24 am

Never ending Fleesing of our Defense Department by the Contractors. What project in the last 50 years that has not been Overbudget and Late. Remember, Eisenhower warned about the Defense Contractor Complex.

At the same time, our own Services are not without Stain, good equipment Surplused or Destroid. Remember we have to sue our budget up or loose it. I worked many years in the Defense Industry, have seen fraud on both sides.

Reply

Mark April 25, 2013 at 3:26 pm

A-10

Reply

Sanem April 25, 2013 at 7:52 am

the reason that there are no alternative is because they killed all alternatives (USAF F-22 and J-UCAS, RN Harrier)
if they stopped wasting such obscene amounts of money on the F-35, they could develop cheap and effective alternatives, like the UCLASS or a STOVL UCAV
not that it matters, F-35 will never see IOC

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 25, 2013 at 10:59 am

Trouble is, we have already wasted hundreds of Billions on the F-35 program. Pulling out right now would be even worse than the F-22 procurement fiasco.

Reply

Cranky Observer April 25, 2013 at 7:52 pm

Google "sunk cost fallacy".

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 9:14 pm

No, BS ENTERPRISE is a mental. Just tell him to take his meds. He cannot read or process written information like normal people.

Reply

WhatMeWorry April 25, 2013 at 8:15 am

With the cost of the F-35 will military planners even consider deploying the aircraft in hostile conflicts for fear of losing one or more.

Reply

Josh April 25, 2013 at 10:15 am

No. There has already been $400 billion poured into this program. They aren't going to all of a sudden cut it. So all the people screaming to cancel the program need to shut up and sit down because it's not going to happen. You just better hope that Lockheed Martin fixes these problems. If Lockheed Martin fixes the problems and produces a plane that meets the requirements for the JSF, it will be an excellent fighter. But that's the tough part, fixing the problems.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 25, 2013 at 11:49 pm

No, Josh idiot. Real, qualified, and honest engineers already know the answer to the "fixing the problems" part. In short, they cannot be fixed. The tough part is taking the rational and obvious step to deal with the problems, i.e. canceling the JSF program. You can take it to the bank, idiot.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 9:15 pm

The cost of the JSF program makes it impossible to be cancelled. But from your tone, it seems you are concerned from the product that will be mad from the program. Mad bro?

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 25, 2013 at 11:01 am

Well, a lot of the money is spent on R&D, so they might not be so afraid to hurl a few F-35s in, especially considering that if they don't use the F-35, they have to turn to the "more expensive" F-22. Its kinda like the argument of whether or not we should use the B-2. Expensive, but works. (Given time, that is).

Reply

Restore Palestine April 25, 2013 at 11:56 pm

That's BS, BS ENTERPRISE mental.

They will never use the F-35s against countries that have the tools to shoot them down like ducks. But against small, poor, powerless countries without an air force or air defense system, that's a different question.

Cut the BS, and go take your meds, loony.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:24 pm

Okay great. China and Russia I am guessing. Let me say this. If war broke out today, or tomorrow, the USA would win. Simple as that. Argue about whatever you want. But the sheer economic stress would bring your heroic nations down hard. I am not saying the US won't suffer, but we would emerge victorious.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 7:14 pm

The meds, loony. The meds.

gaylord_gaylordson April 25, 2013 at 8:07 pm

In a word, no. Of course not.

…and 5 thumbs up for that comment.

Shows the level of acumen we are dealing with here.

There are some platforms that will be used sparingly, but these will only show up if they crash. IE Abbotabad.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 12:00 am

Imagine sending these expensive pieces of crap out on a mission and losing half or all of them to SAMs or enemy fighters that cost 30 to 50 times less.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:24 pm

Who said they will be lost?

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 8:20 pm

People with healthy, normal brains and a good, real education.

Have you taken your meds yet?

BlackOwl18E April 25, 2013 at 9:07 am

USN Admiral, director of the Navy’s air warfare division, confirms classified systems being added to Super Hornet that will keep it formidable through late 2020s-early 2030s: http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId

Reply

wpnexp April 25, 2013 at 4:30 pm

Formidable and capable are two different things. He didn't say they would survive in a high threat environment. Do you really think that they would survive an engagement say int he Taiwan Straits? SA-20s can already cover the entire island of Taiwan, much less in the straits. The F-22 could likely survive, but we certainly didn't buy enough of them either.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 25, 2013 at 4:45 pm

F-22s are deployed in that area. Also, I don't think the SA-20s can track the F-35; its just to advanced for the systems. The F-35 isn't the stealthiest plane out there, but stop pretending it has a massive RCS.

Reply

William_C1 April 26, 2013 at 1:02 am

"Formidable" doesn't cut it. We need something superior to the next generation of Chinese and Russian aircraft. An aircraft that could be considered the "hi" in the old "hi-lo mix" concept.

Reply

BlackOwl18E April 26, 2013 at 1:06 am

If you want that we should kill the F-35C and let the Navy move forward with F/A-XX. The F-35 sure won't cut it. The Super Hornet will at least be able to hold its own and with the right pilots, the best of which are in the US Navy, it will still be lethal and effective.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:22 pm

F-18, like I have maintained, is a seriously underrated aircraft. It is quite a capable platform, and the navy pilots that fly them do the Hornets justice. Now, personally, I would say that we go ahead and start funding the preliminary research for the F/A-XX. Put in a little bit of money, and have it spent over a a "long" period of time.

Reply

blight_ April 25, 2013 at 10:08 am

They'll probably spin off all the tech they can from JSF to justify it hanging on as an R&D program instead of something meant to replace standard Hornets.

I suppose it would have been too lazy to produce JSF's with less cutting-edge electronics. We set the 5th gen bar so high we can't produce them cheaply and effectively.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 25, 2013 at 11:02 am

Yeah. How are those PAK FA's and J-20's coming along? I would imagine that they have to be raising a few eyebrows. I can't imagine that they are exactly cheap either.

Reply

BishopOne April 25, 2013 at 11:22 am

Last time I heard the PAK FA won't be tasting operational status untile 2015, if it doesn't run into any major set backs.

If you ask me, from what I've seen the PAK FA larger design and engine setup kind of negates its stealth capabilites. If nothing it just makes it a bit hard to track on radar.

The J-20 is basically a clone so one can only imagine how thats turning out.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 25, 2013 at 4:48 pm

The J-20 has canards, which is a big no-no on stealthy planes. Now, I will find it impossible to believe that the Russians won't hit any set backs on the PAK FA project. They are dealing with something completely new. And finally, the shape I am seeing is rather large. Like, even a "massive" F-15 is dwarfed by the PAK FA's predecessor, the SU-27.

Reply

tee April 25, 2013 at 5:27 pm

Russian T-50 Fighter Jet to Start State Flight Test in 2014

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/russian-t-50-fighter-j

Reply

Stratege April 26, 2013 at 8:33 am

"If you ask me, from what I've seen the PAK FA larger design and engine setup kind of negates its stealth capabilites. If nothing it just makes it a bit hard to track on radar. "

- Existing PAK-FA's engine is an interim solution.
- This engine setup hardly affects frontal aspect

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:09 pm

FRONTAL ASPECT. What happens if its scanned from another angle? That is the point here. I realize that shape isn't the largest factor in RCS reduction, (RAM coatings take that job) but it does have an effect.

gaylord_gaylordson April 25, 2013 at 8:16 pm

The feeling in the ONI is that they will not be able to deploy these in effective numbers till the mid 2020s at the earliest and that these are not on a par with the F22 or F35.

The US is on it's 7th generation of stealth. LRS-B being the 6th….and certain classified projects are laying out the ground rules for the development of the 7th.

The Russians and Chinese are perhaps on a second iteration of stealth design…capable of producing capable weapons systems, yes, but there is definitely not much hand wringing in the pentagon. In public, yes, but in private there are more serious concerns. Advanced SAMs would be one of them.

The design of the PAKFA for maneuver/energy fighting is an acknowledgment in public that the Russian AF (VVS) is not yet capable of reliably harnessing the kinds of material science, EW, precision manufacturing etc needed to make a VLO fighter in the US mold. Frankly, the Chinese effort is much more serious about reducing observability.

Reply

Stratege April 26, 2013 at 9:02 am

"The design of the PAKFA for maneuver/energy fighting is an acknowledgment in public that the Russian AF (VVS) is not yet capable of reliably harnessing the kinds of material science,"

PAK-FA was designed with stealth requirement. For what reasons you think that Russians are not expirienced in material science? What acknowledgment in public? As for precision manufacturing, Sukhoi did machine-tool extension years ago.

"Frankly, the Chinese effort is much more serious about reducing observability."

This is ridiculous. J-20's canards ruins frontal stealth. Their prototypes looks clumsy as an compilation of stolen F-22's and F-35's parts. J-20 in terms of aerodynamics looks awful (at least, not very promising), considering its role.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 1:16 pm

You are obviously not trained in any technical discipline. Don't make arbitrary, uninformed comments about subjects you know absolutely nothing about. Don't even repeat others' comments that you find pleasing.

The canards on J-20 were put in precisely for improved aerodynamics and maneuverability, at least with respect to the F-22. They don't ruin frontal stealth. Why and how would they? Design of jet fighters is a complex engineering endeavor. Your weird layman sense of aesthetics means nothing. Don't bother use it again in the future. It makes you look stupider than you already are.

blight_ April 26, 2013 at 3:12 pm

Indeed, short of having an RCS test stand and a radar set, none of us can empirically test our theories on RCS.

Or if you have a RCS solver, like Epsilon, you can try in silico.
http://www.roke.co.uk/epsilon/

Then you can test to your heart's content, yes?

wdan April 25, 2013 at 2:45 pm

the "most lethal version"?…didn't know that there was a lethal version at all, short of falling on the enemies' officer's club…upgraded 15's/16's and 18's are what is needed, already have supply chains, maintenance and common training with other countries…cut our losses and RUN NOW!!!

Reply

gaylord_gaylordson April 25, 2013 at 8:18 pm

..and your expertise in low observables engineering and tactical fighter evaluation comes from where?

…your hindquarters?

Reply

STemplar April 25, 2013 at 10:55 pm

No, that's where your mother birthed you though.

Reply

blight_ April 25, 2013 at 3:36 pm

http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589454.pdf

What's interesting is the procurement cost rises pretty quick, even as the JSF order count stabilizes around 2.4k. Development holds around 50->60B.

Without adjusting for inflation, this is competitive with the B-2's procurement costs. Though I suppose we will hit the inflation-adjusted value soon enough.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 25, 2013 at 4:49 pm

I wouldn't say that the orders for the F-35 have "stabilized" yet. The RAF might know their direction, but what about Canada, Aussies, and maybe even the USA?

Reply

wpnexp April 25, 2013 at 4:43 pm

what you need to understand is that the F-35 will always continue to have more and better computers and software. F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s are limited to older computers, older software codes, limited computer memory, and a host of obsolence issues. Even the B-2 was designed with ancient computer systems, although the size of the aircraft will make it somewhat easier to upgrade over time. If you try to upgrade the legacy aircraft to do what an F-35 will do, don't you think they will have the same or more complicated software problems? But, the F-35 is designed to grow its software over many decades. Try to run 9 million lines of code in an F/A-18 and watch the computer crash, making the whole plane useless. The code being written for the F-35 will continue until most of us are dead. And every year the plane will continue to get more lethal. But eventually, even the F-35 will need to be replaced as new computing techniques are developed. But holding on the the legacy birds does not get you as much as what the F-35 has to offer.

Reply

Sanem April 25, 2013 at 5:36 pm

the F-35 is billions worth of computer power, it's 10 years ahead of everything else

except it won't be operational for another 10 years. by then older aircraft will be outfitted with new hardware and software, and new aircraft will have F-35 grade hardware off the shelf, at a fraction of the price, bugs worked out

not to mention much F-35 technology will be simply outdated by then, namely stealth and sensors, and its computers and software will be capable but outdated by comparsion

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 25, 2013 at 5:44 pm

Not true. Much of the money spent is to keep the plane updated. Besides, I doubt that Flankers and Fulcrums are out fitted with the best radars and computers available, now or in ten years.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 25, 2013 at 11:39 pm

Somebody needs to put a shock collar on you. You definitely need a shocking reminder very time you fail to take your pills on time because of your compulsive BS bombing trip to this forum and let the medication level in your blood drop below the threshold.

Everybody will benefit, especially yourself.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:15 pm

Hey! Use facts, not your impressive rage.

Sanem April 26, 2013 at 7:08 am

well if you look at the F-22 and the B-2 you see that a fortune is spent on just keeping their old technology working, which becomes quickly outdated, while installing new technology and software upgrades are prone to budget cuts

my point is that much of the hardware and basic software will not be replaced, not for a long time, but will quickly become outdated or matched by much cheaper plug-in alternatives. and where you can relatively easy upgrade older aircraft with new technology, the whole point of the F-35 integrated package is that it will be stuck with its "old" technology

as for future F-35 opponents, the PAK FA is already designed to beat it, and Russia is constantly looking at installing new radars and avionics to older and newly built Su-27. upgrading the F-35 software will help little when its stealth is compromised, its ECM is blocked by newer and more powerful processors, and its engaged with optically guided missiles that'll ignore its counter-measures

Reply

blight_ April 26, 2013 at 8:29 am

Go COTS and ride the wave of Moore's Law.

However, in embedded systems land it's a slooow trickle from commercial sector's Moore's Law. There are a number of reliability demands above commercial aerospace, and not every embedded system in use by the military has a COTS analogue from the commercial aviation sector to start the trickle-down.

However, forking development from commercial products would be a good start. However, there are security risks innate to commercial architecture that people will complain about.

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:14 pm

Well, if your theory about the technology is correct, than if the PAK FA will be officially revealed and put into service in 2014-2015, won't it be outfitted with computers that are "old"? I realize that technology gets outdated very quickly, with modern advancement. But really, we are all in the same boat here.

Belesari April 25, 2013 at 6:16 pm

You want a suggestion of how to replace the F-35? Dont make it a jack of all trades stealth/stovl/attack/fighter/etc. They are always more expensive and under perform.

F-14 Super Tomcat.
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14x.htm

Or Tomcat 21.

There is nothing present now which can do the job we need so lets use what worked. The A-6 was perfect for its job. And it was damn flexable. So build off of that. Same for the Tomcat.

Then start preliminary work on a STO/VL aircraft for the Marines. NO STEALTH. Attack aircraft. And continue work on the UCAV's…or whatever you want to call them. UCLASS whatever.

Then after these are accomplished take a look at future aircraft and remember the lessons of Joint hell.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 25, 2013 at 6:26 pm

Well, I agree that the the plane shouldn't be asked to do literally every role in the US military, but the trouble is you can't ignore stealth. Ever since the F-117, you have seen that aircraft have been geared to be more and more stealthy. An F-14, while an amazing piece of engineering, is far from stealthy. Same with the A-6. So while the idea is great in our minds, it wouldn't, sadly, work on the battlefield.

Reply

Belesari April 25, 2013 at 7:44 pm

Stealth is awesome. The problem? Every country is now working or has stealth defeating radar. Not only that but Aegis and other high powered radars like those found on DDG's can see damn near everything. They are just to powerful.

Add to that the EW advances……..

Stealth is OK. The problem is the price of it.

Reply

Big-Dean April 25, 2013 at 11:18 pm

Sheer power in the electromagnetic spectrum can overcome just about anything. Couple that with networked radar and super low freg and stealth isn't such an advantage anymore. Didn't the air force learn that lesson in Bosnia?

Reply

blight_ April 26, 2013 at 8:24 am

No, because clearly Serbia is N=1 fluke. I suspect the additional problem is that in Bosnia they hadn't completely nailed down enemy air defense, used predictable routes and had human spotters on the ground give advance notice of when and where a stealth fighter had taken off, and with some guesswork they could reasonably approximate where the fighter would be, bring additional resources to bear and fire everything at a single F-117.

The Serbs did incredibly good, but to date it hasn't been replicated, and chances are it required a unique set of circumstances that combined Serbian ingenuity and diligence with American complacency and sloppiness.

Sanem April 26, 2013 at 8:10 am

a cheap STOVL for Marines or any forward operating unit would be an excellent idea
stealth is an expensive luxery here, it limits its ability to operate from forward bases and for close air support chances are it'll get shot at anyway
UAVs are an excellent option in this role, being easier to operate, not risking pilot lives, generally being cheaper… if stealth is not chosen then it doesn't need to "silent" anyway, and units in the field could take direct control of it on attack runs. going for a large number of light UAVs with small amunitions would also allow for large numbers of expendable attack craft, an excellent choice in such a high attrition environement
I'm not saying it should be the only asset, but within an integrated military network (without which the F-35 could not operate either btw) such a low cost, easy to operate asset would be much more interesting for forward air support, not unlike ground units use small UAVs for unit support

stealth is a capacity, and potentially a very valuable one. but the question is if it warrants the cost, especially when the USAF already declared that AESA equiped F-15s would be capable of detecting stealth aircraft at stand off ranges

Reply

blight_ April 26, 2013 at 8:26 am

In a close support role, JSF is fairly likely to encounter radar-guided AA, in the form of guns and missiles. There's also IR-guided weapons system, and the Mk1 eyeball if the JSF is flying low and slow.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:17 pm

That is why we need the A-10.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:18 pm

Knowing that the F-15 can detect stealth aircraft from "safe" distances is very reassuring. I am guessing it can see the F-35.

Reply

Big-Dean April 25, 2013 at 11:13 pm

The only time joint aircraft was a success is when the air force used the Navy version, not visa-versa i.e. the F-4 Phantom

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:25 pm

The F-4 shot down a lot, but it never fulfilled all of its requirements effectively.

Reply

retired462 April 26, 2013 at 8:16 am

Cut the "buy" by 75%, and build more F-15, F-16, F-18, and F-22's.

Reply

blight_ April 26, 2013 at 8:22 am

The -15, -16 and -18 lines are open, but if the next shooting war against someone with real radar begins, it'll be Brewster Buffalo vs Mitsubishi Zeroes all over again. The American military was too embarrassed by WW2 such that it has embraced technological superiority as its panacea to everything.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:19 pm

"Real radar". Okay. Who is that again? Let me point out, a war with China would ruin its economy, and a war with Russia would even further deplete its economy.

Reply

Belesari April 26, 2013 at 6:25 pm

The Germans, and Japanese both had technologically superior machines in most instances. They got bombed to shit.

Having been told by people who Know that Naval Radars can see through stealth aircraft I doubt it matters. EW comes into play there.

We aren't talking brewster buffalo vs Zero's. We are talking about P-40's vs Zero's.

I'd rather have enough P-40's and lose a few pilots than a have not enough Zero's and lose the war.

Stealth is only worth it the first days of combat after that? Not really. So have a small number of Stealthy High performance strike aircraft and Fighters. Then a have a large amount of High performance dependable non stealthy fighters/bombers/attack.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 9:22 pm

Quantity over Quality, supposedly. But a little bit of both give the best outcome.

Reply

blight_ April 26, 2013 at 9:08 am

Digging out more information on the electronics of the JSF. Starting with Integrated Core Processor:
http://www.embeddedstar.com/press/content/2004/2/

"Mercury Computer Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: MRCY) announced that Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) has licensed its RACE++® Series multicomputers for use in the Integrated Core Processing (ICP) system of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)."

RACE++ is a COTS product, and was used on the JSF demonstrator. That /should/ have made hardware development go more smoothly.
http://www.mrcy.com/products/boards/race_powerpc7
http://www.mrcy.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?i

The latter describes the rugged version of the RACE++. The Level4 conduction cooled variant can operate at 70,000 feet and be stored at 100,000 ft. Perhaps the JSF needs something like the level 3: 0-70,000 feet operation, 0-100,000 feet storage, 50G z-axis shock, 80G x and y-axis, operating temp -40 to 71C. Yeech.

Reply

wmcritter April 26, 2013 at 1:44 pm

"It’s designed to replace such aircraft as the F-16, A-10, F/A-18 and AV-8B."
How on God's green Earth is the F-35 supposed to replace the A-10?????? It can't go low and slow, it can't linger, it can't take a hit, and it can't saw a tank in half with it's gun. It literally has zero capabilities of the A-10. At least the F-35 can do a few things that an F-16, F-15, F-18, or AV-8B can do. But it can do absolutely nothing an A-10 can do. Trying to use an F-35 for CAS will be a disaster and get a lot of good people killed. It's absolutely insane.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 2:10 pm

The US government is insane, and has been insane for decades. Insanity is the norm, not the exception in America.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:12 pm

Takes one to know one.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 8:55 pm

Before taking your psychiatric medication or after?

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 9:14 pm

Well it seems you have been off them for a while. You would be the most qualified out here to answer that question.

johnvarry April 26, 2013 at 6:46 pm

Anyone remember the A-16 with two 30mm gunpod nightmare that almost was? It was decided A-10 was more survivable.

Unless the F-35 is coated in some magic armor that deflects bullets I dont see F-35 replacing A-10 in CAS role. Besides, Boeing will soon be able to do new build A-10's.

Reply

blight_ April 26, 2013 at 7:07 pm

I think the Air Force is now assuming they will loiter high in the sky in stealth mode, dropping JDAMs and SDB's without actually descending from heaven to strafe a target, let alone shoot it with rockets.

I suppose Army will have to procure some Super Tucanoes (or AT6-B armed trainers) to work in tandem with helicopter gunships.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 9:21 pm

That is the most logical course of action. If I were to do a CAS mission, I would want A-10s and F-15Es loiter sky high, and Apaches and Tucanoes jumping in when we have a little nest of resistance.

Reply

Big-Dean April 27, 2013 at 12:17 pm

The air farce also said that in addition to the F-35 replacing the F-16, F-15, F-15E, A-10, AV-8B, F-18, B-52, Apache, Osprey, B-1, F-22, F-111, F-4, Army and Marine Corp, drones and missiles, they also said it's going to replace the Beatles, rock and roll, toilet paper and beer.

THAT"S why the darn thing cost so much and is behind schedule, getting the "code" to understand and play Beatles songs-talk about mission creep. ;-P

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 27, 2013 at 12:44 pm

Yeah, basically, at one point or another, Lockheed has come out and "suggested" that the F-35 is the answer to everything in the air force, and should replace everything. Thank god that won't happen.

Reply

kiki May 8, 2013 at 10:24 am

Must be Russian 1950 technology. This planes look obsolete and the design so paltry.

Reply

Mark April 25, 2013 at 1:09 pm

They already have this.

Reply

Zard April 25, 2013 at 4:31 pm

No they don't.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 25, 2013 at 4:43 pm

Uh, you can make a non-stealthy shape stealthy, just not completely. But then again, no aircraft is completely invisible to radar (F-22 included). Yes, the F-35 is ahead in stealthiness. But what about all other categories? Is it better than the F-18E/F or the F-15SE?

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 25, 2013 at 5:46 pm

There is not such thing as an F-15 "Golden Eagle". Also, I think its important to note that the E/A-18G isn't operated by any of our enemies; in fact, there is hardly anything that comes close to the E/A-18.

Reply

gaylord_gaylordson April 25, 2013 at 8:00 pm

APG-77 and APG-81 are a LOT more capable.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 25, 2013 at 5:49 pm

If an F-22 used C++ or Java, they would be even easier to hack. Also, while I can see how too much coding can be problematic, if you have good engineers, it won't be a problem. Yes, we need more engineers, but I can see that we a have a few in the pipeline. But asking for very few lines of code is ludicrous. Its like saying during the industrial revolution, machines shouldn't too much gears, because it would be hard to track and fix.

Reply

platypusfriend April 25, 2013 at 6:12 pm

The Pentagon should just spin-up a huge, Pragmatic-REST web API, and have the 35's make CRUD calls via satellite to…… oh….. bad idea? Sorry….

Reply

blight_ April 25, 2013 at 8:24 pm

They used to use Ada exclusively, I think F-22 is a combination of Ada and C, JSF is running on C and C++ , with code ported from Ada85.

C and C are industry standard. Ada's more secure, more comprehensive and was written for the DoD in the first place, which meant if you knew Ada, you were probably going to work for aerospace. If you wanted to work someone else, Ada skills might not sell as well.

From f-22raptor.com:

"In 1979, the DoD created its first draft documentation on Ada, and the language was first standardized in 1983. [...]
ADA in the F-22
Ninety percent of the software for the F-22 is written in Ada. Exceptions to the Ada requirement are granted only for special processing or maintenance requirements.

For some of the higher risk software, such as sensor data fusion, specific algorithm testbeds have been constructed. Prototype software, which is instrumented to measure performance (correlation times, accuracy, etc.) has been operational since the start of Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase of the F-22 program."

I have no experience with Ada, so this is somewhat interesting: http://www.adahome.com/articles/1997-03/ada_vs_cp

I bet LinkedIn knows how many people have Ada programming skills

Reply

Restore Palestine April 25, 2013 at 11:42 pm

Why and how would "they" be easier to hack if C++ or Java were used, BS ENTERPRISE?

Reply

John April 26, 2013 at 12:28 am

That's non-sense. Using C++ or Java doesn't automatically make it more susceptible to hacking.

I never said we should strive for fewer lines of code. Having more powerful hw means we will ask for more poweful sw, which will inevitable have more lines of code (meaning more moving parts) which means it has more things that need to be fixed (or debugged). It's just a fact of life.

Reply

Kole April 25, 2013 at 6:54 pm

There is such thing as an F-15C "Golden Eagle." It is a USAF F-15C with AN/APG-63(v3). (AESA Radar) Google it.

Reply

Cranky Observer April 25, 2013 at 7:54 pm

Yeah, discussion of the sunk cost fallacy seems to have been eliminated from DoD training.

Reply

William_C1 April 26, 2013 at 12:54 am

So you're talking about the Pacific? Well you want more range than F-35, so that means a bigger aircraft, probably a design with two engines, bigger than the F-22 even.

How will you make it cost less than the F-35? How will you possibly afford to operate it in the numbers needed to replace existing F-16s, F/A-18s, and other aircraft?

Reply

gaylord_gaylordson April 25, 2013 at 7:59 pm

Aww. Cute. Did you read that on the internet somewhere?

"passive stealth is fine but it's glory days are past".

Tell that to every single major airforce in the World. They'd be thrilled to have an internet educated expert save them all this money!

Reply

blight_ April 28, 2013 at 8:57 pm

I wonder if the combat radius problem can be solved with maritime patrol aircraft and some kind of compact parasite aircraft, or arming them with long-range BVR missiles.

Reply

blight_ April 25, 2013 at 8:20 pm

Technically, we're not supposed to know that. Short of a model or RCS test stand data, it's basically the word of the Air Force; or the assumption that the threshold met by the RCS of the JSF is low enough to work in its mission profile.

Reply

Ben April 25, 2013 at 9:45 pm

First: The F-35 isn't a VTOL, it's a STOVL.

Second: The F/A-18 isn't limited to a carrier. It can operate from any standard runway.

Third: The STOVL is a joke. Since it launches under its own power instead of catapulting it burns extra fuel and carries a reduced loadout. That equates to less range and less bombs on target. At ~$300 mil a pop it better be able to perform a lot better than that.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 25, 2013 at 10:38 pm

Ach. Mass confusion ensues. I was thinking that you somehow mashed up that Russian backwards winged bat with the Eagle. Alright, I see it.

Reply

STemplar April 25, 2013 at 10:53 pm

I was referring specifically to the notion of penetrating contested air space and simply dropping short range munitions like JDAMs. Those days are gone. No one intends to fly aircraft, stealth or otherwise into contested air space given the penchant for every government to also slap ER on the back of every single PGM we use.

Reply

John April 26, 2013 at 12:35 am

"If you wanted to work someone else, Ada skills might not sell as well."

Maybe that's why the coding is running into problem, because they have a hard time recruiting good coders. Think about it. Would you consider getting into a programming career where your skill won't be needed outside of the DoD world? Or get into C++ or Java where pay is good and you can jump job to job without having to learn new skill?

Reply

BlackOwl18E April 26, 2013 at 1:10 am

The Super Hornet can also operate from austere runways and has good short field performance when loaded lightly.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:00 pm

While I agree with you, I think its important to note that a fighter sort of revs up its afterburners even in on CATOBAR arrangement.

Reply

Mark April 26, 2013 at 12:25 pm
platypusfriend April 26, 2013 at 12:28 pm

You're right. Java is totally invulnerable to attacks!!

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:05 pm

Because C++ is a relatively common computer language and coding method.

Reply

platypusfriend April 26, 2013 at 12:29 pm

And that, like my API comment, was a joke.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 12:46 pm

Are you suffering from the same mental illnesses of BS ENTERPRISE?

It's only one freaking line ending in a question mark. And you can't even handle that?! You worthless piece of ****.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 12:47 pm

You yourself is a joke.

Reply

blight_ April 26, 2013 at 3:16 pm

Interesting link.

That said, I feel that programmers see C and Cplusplus as Latin, and our common tongue languages have become wildly varied: Java,Python, Perl, Ruby and so forth.

And then Ada, Fortran, Cobol as Aramaic, or something. I've been forced to read Fortran for classes (F77, the funnest one), but have no experience with Ada or Cobol. I suspect we teach to C because our teachers taught to C, and not because of any structural advantage of C or C over Ada.

Sticking to some C/C , Python. There's Java, Perl, Ruby, but I think OpenMPI, CUDA and OpenCL are higher priorities.

Reply

blight_ April 26, 2013 at 3:24 pm

And another ada link: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming

"In addition to its support for good software engineering practices, which are applicable to general-purpose programming, Ada has powerful specialised features supporting low-level programming for real-time, safety-critical and embedded systems. Such features include, among others, machine code insertions, address arithmetic, low-level access to memory, control over bitwise representation of data, bit manipulations, and a well-defined, statically provable concurrent computing model called the Ravenscar Profile."

I imagine the small things make it a favorite in medical systems, the nuclear power industry and aerospace/defense.

Reply

blight_ April 26, 2013 at 3:21 pm

Everything depends on the task at hand. Custom-code takes time to write. Re-using old code comes with caveats. Porting code written in older languages comes with caveats.

And then writing new code for new hardware; and writing simple bug-free code that anticipates all situations while not being exceedingly bloated is…ideal. But difficult in complex systems.

And remember, every new system from a subcontractor has a team of programmers coding for it. Then they'll write up documentation and give it to Lockheed to integrate. Contractor software upgrades may break contractor hardware, lockheed software, lockheed hardware. Same with contractor hardware. Changes by lockheed to hardware or software may cause conflict with contractor software/hardware.

Plenty of potential for things to happen.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:07 pm

C++ and Java are more common than, say, an exclusively produced computer language used just on the F-35. I am not saying they are EASY to hack, just, compared to something completely new, more vulnerable. Especially considering Chinese stance on cyber WARFARE.

Reply

blight_ April 26, 2013 at 3:41 pm

http://info.apigee.com/Portals/62317/docs/web%20a

I groan at your acronyms (which I confess to not being familiar with)

Reply

Zard April 26, 2013 at 4:49 pm

Clearly you have no idea what continuous integration is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_integrati

Reply

blight_ April 26, 2013 at 5:31 pm

Isn't this how the linux kernel grows and grows?

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 5:58 pm

Fight Wikipedia with Wikipedia.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:02 pm

I am guessing that is why so many countries have gone with the F/A-18. Makes me wonder, is there a possibility that Blighty might go for the Super Hornet? I mean, it would increase their compatibility with other US and allied troops.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:05 pm

Your wording and attitude is what gets most people.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:08 pm

Precisely my point. A mass hacking of Lockheed's systems could infect the coding, if it got deep enough.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:11 pm

Man, you are dumb and drunk. I don't agree with everything Stratege says, but he got the canards bang on. Canards increase surface area. Radar bounces off surface area. There you go. Complex endeavor you say? Then get out of it, and leave it to trained pros.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:11 pm

Or you could make yourself a radar. Good luck though.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 6:17 pm

Also, I think its important to note that the F-117 was actually kinda getting old. Modern stealth is well, stealthy. Though, what I want to know is where do we go from here? Soon we have to get past just radar stealth. Maybe visual stealth?

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 6:20 pm

Thanks for the honesty. HaHa.

No, security problems are NOT the result of any so-called "relatively common computer language" such as C++.

Blaming computer vulnerabilities on a programming language is like blaming rogue elements in the government (e.g. Dick Cheney) on English as the language of instruction in school.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 7:51 pm

What part of C++ and Java are vulnerable to being hacked?

And this computer language "exclusively produced for the F-35", will it get compiled by an exclusive compiler into a machine language exclusively produced for the F-35?

Looks like you need a freaking exclusive psychiatrist armed with a spectrum of exclusively produced psychiatric medications just for you.

Reply

blight_ April 26, 2013 at 11:39 pm

Ada's not /that/ rare now. It does have other applications asides from the military.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 8:51 pm

If you are properly medicated, everybody will benefit, especially yourself. Is that not a fact?

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 8:57 pm

Your meds, BS ENTERPRISE.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 9:08 pm

Take your meds and see if you would hear something else.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 9:13 pm

Do you have ANYTHING new or constructive to say? You are getting quite boring, RP. Or, should I say, R.I.P.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 9:14 pm

If it was fact, you should get around to doing it.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 9:16 pm

Match point. Enterprise 1, RIP 0. Apollo 11.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 9:17 pm

Sad man. The F-35 hasn't even flown against your glorified missile systems from the mother-land. Don't talk about normal brains; its something you don't have access to, I am afraid.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 9:17 pm

Look who is talking!

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 9:18 pm

Nice. You just put down practically everyone on this site. Leave, dear sir. You simply can't keep up with the intelligence brought up by other esteemed members of this site.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 9:19 pm

A computer is nothing without programming, if I am not mistaken. Its like a book with no words.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 9:20 pm

loony BSer, your meds!

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 9:20 pm

I find it interesting how you are now embracing an American project, and defending it, just for the sake of being the opposite of everyone else.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 9:27 pm

take your meds and read again.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 9:29 pm

Loony retard, programming is not the same as programming language. Take your meds and turn off the computer. You are wasting everybody's time here.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 9:30 pm

Your meds, BS ENTERPRISE

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 9:33 pm

Take your meds and go to bed

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 10:07 pm

Funny how you down vote me on every comment I make, not matter how correct it is. Apollo 11.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 10:08 pm

Apollo 11

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 10:10 pm

That is not even what I said. Apollo 11.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 10:44 pm

Your savior, if you follow my advice and take your meds on time.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 10:46 pm

What happened to "Arabian Gulf"? Is it "Apollo Gulf" now, loony?

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 10:48 pm

Loony retard, you say nothing. You BS about everything.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 11:15 pm

HaHaHaHa. The meds, loony. The meds.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 11:21 pm

Well, I certainly wish I could medicate you from here. See if you can reach me by sticking your fingers into the power outlet. I will know you are close by when I hear some mental BS'ing non-stop.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 11:23 pm

Hitting close to home, eh? Apollo 11.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 11:23 pm

Apollo 11.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 11:25 pm

Neil Armstrong. "Arabian Gulf" is STemplar's tag.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 11:31 pm

No, loony retard, your medication is for you and only you. I can tell that you have not been taking your meds as directed. That's why you are BS'ing non-stop here. Where are your parents / guardians / custodians? What's the name and number of your psychiatrist? Does your psychiatrist know that you are posting rubbish here every day?

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 11:38 pm

Neil Armstrong.

Reply

blight_ April 26, 2013 at 11:43 pm

It'd be hard to understand what to do with a bunch of binary, or a bunch of source code without the hardware. It's insightful to see, but "infect the coding" is an odd statement to make.

If you mean someone is going to hack into Lockmart, alter the source code repos to insert backdoors and do it without triggering a timestamp and repo tracking…that's pretty ludicrous.

It's more likely the code gets pulled and analyzed for information, in an attempt to infer capability. But…

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 11:46 pm

The US government is under the control of Wall Street mafia and death merchants of the military industrial complex. It's not about defense. It's about money for the fat cats. Remember that.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 11:48 pm

Yeah, life hack: don't listen to anything that is said from someone that goes under the user name "Restore Palestine" or believes that every single piece of history with the America even mentioned in it is a conspiracy.

Reply

blight_ April 26, 2013 at 11:50 pm

Define old. the JSF's RACE++ computers are PPC and 1ghz. Not a speed racer by commercial standards, but the RACE++ computers are rugged and will keep on trucking when an Intel machine goes "ack!"

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 26, 2013 at 11:53 pm

But……. what? My point is that a virus can be inserted in a such way that it infects the entire F-35 program. Yes, it sounds a bit conspiracy theory-ish (and I am not a fan of those) but it is possible, and such an attack would be horrendously expensive. My point is what you said in your third paragraph. Finally, are each an every F-35 programmed individually? Or are they loaded up with the programming by sticking in a flash drive or something?

Reply

Restore Palestine April 26, 2013 at 11:56 pm

He is a good liar.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 27, 2013 at 12:21 am

He's your psychiatrist? Darn. That partly explains your delusions and hallucinations. Wasn't Neil Armstrong receiving some psychological therapy himself at some point in his latter years?

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 27, 2013 at 11:18 am

No one can compare to that hero. Get lost. Your idea of heroes include Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, etc. All mass murderers.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 27, 2013 at 12:03 am

HaHa. As if it would make any difference to me, you nutjob.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 27, 2013 at 12:36 am

ROTFLMFAO

If your meds taste bitter, you can just swallow them. Chewing is not required, nor recommended in most cases.

Reply

blight_ April 28, 2013 at 8:53 pm

It depends on how code is stored in Lockmartland.

If you use a code repository that detects changes, plus offsite backups that can be used as a reference to delta any changes if you suspect an electronic attack, then "hacking" to "change" source code to make the development team compile bad code is less likely.

Generally when people talk about viruses, it's a seperate executable…but in secure computing that isn't intended to flexibly run outside programs, it's difficult to insert viruses or worms; instead you exploit weaknesses in target code.

Re paragraph three, I mean to say an electronic attacker pulls source code and analyzes its references for insights into the aircraft's capability. For example, functions that regulate critical maxima of certain aircraft pilot inputs may provide insights into how the F-35 is meant to maneuver in combat, since they would be coded in knowing the maximum limits of the airframe, based on simulations and test pilots. And knowing an aircraft's limits, even in silico is better than nothing.

Source code that interfaces with weapon pylons may indirectly provide information about what weapons are meant to go to certain hardpoints. Code that monitors the fuel system can be used to guess parameters about the engines. Fuel economy, overall fuel capacity? The fuel capacity of the -35 is probably in the source somewhere, and used to guess fuel capacity of the aircraft, and with average density of the fuel known, probably to enable the fly-by-wire system to compensate for changes in fuel since it changes the aircraft's weight.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 27, 2013 at 11:21 am

"Old" would be like the early computers put into 4th generation fighters, which, to my knowledge, have been uprated so many times that they aren't even considered the same computer system as before. But mostly, I said "old" because I was using the term loosely.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 27, 2013 at 11:57 pm

Awww. BS ENTERPRISE is hallucinating again. Those are YOUR heroes, as evidenced by your warmongering and passion for mass murder of helpless civilians, women and children in small 3rd world countries.

There is a good reason why I am constantly reminding you to take your psychiatric medications. You and people like you are a threat to mankind.

Reply

Restore Palestine April 28, 2013 at 12:44 am

I don't remember ever coming here after waking up in the morning. I have never incited anyone. You are obviously hallucinating, BsOne.

I spend on average less than 20 minutes a day here. It takes me on average only about 30 seconds or less to post a message.

I am sure there are many here who post far more comments (usually worthless, warmongering BS) than I do.

Your questions would be better directed at yourself, BsOne.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 28, 2013 at 11:45 am

I like how everything you just said is incorrect and backwards. Neil Armstrong.

Reply

BishopOne April 29, 2013 at 9:43 am

So far since I've started posting on here, the only person I have every confronted is you.

So trying to direct my own questions towards myself holds no grounds. Oh and I'm pretty sure there are tons of other who post stupid shit out their ass, but recently I've seen your post the most.

But hey I've said my piece of mind. Please proceed with your further enlightening insights.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 28, 2013 at 11:46 am

Says the person who wants to Restore Palestine, destroy Israel, and spread lies and terrorism on a global scale.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 28, 2013 at 11:49 am

How about this: CFTs, EFTs, and aerial refueling. The F-22 has flown from the US to Japan, and SK. It can make the distance just fine.

Reply

platypusfriend April 28, 2013 at 12:54 pm

Good post and good analogies. I agree that GPU-focused technologies are becoming more-important. I think C is valuable for those programmers who want to A) Write code that runs really fast, and B) Not use Assembly; there is no real advantage to using it, otherwise (especially since it's not object-oriented). Don't forget about Erlang…

Reply

blight_ April 28, 2013 at 8:56 pm

Do we know if they were combat loaded? Or flying empty with lots of extra fuel tanks?

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 28, 2013 at 10:21 pm

I don't really know if it matters. Even without CFTs or EFTs, aircraft can air-ro-air refuel. Also, once again, forward air bases (Guam, Hawaii, Japan, and even SK) are close enough to the action, so fuel can be left to the air to air refueling aircraft. Though, I would imagine, people with seriously disagree, and down vote me (again).

Reply

platypusfriend April 29, 2013 at 10:03 am

That's exactly right.

Reply

USS ENTERPRISE April 29, 2013 at 5:21 pm

Wrong. Quite badly. Only a handful (and that its optimistic) YF-23s were built. Simply finding one that can fly would be hard. (Yes, see the sarcasm).

Reply

Restore Palestine April 30, 2013 at 12:00 am

Loony, how about a break from your schizophrenic BS bombing session, and take your prescribed medications.

Reply

Restore Palestine May 1, 2013 at 12:46 am

The golden days of America's aircraft industry have been long gone.

In the next 15 years, Asia will have more engineers than rest of the world combined. Even the EU will graduate more engineers than the US, or North America for that matter.

Considering the embarrassing failure of the F-22 and the F-35 programs and the time it has taken US and EU engineers to fix the pathetic problems of the F-35, the future of US aircraft industry looks nothing short of a toilet bowl.

Reply

blight_ May 1, 2013 at 9:37 am

And that's pretty funny, considering how many foreign students come to the US for engineering degrees. What happens over the next few years decides whether or not they will return to their native land, or stay here.

The big picture is not who graduates more engineers, but where the jobs are. If you put it into perspective, it's only a couple of thousands of dollars to move an engineer from one country to the next. And if you can pay the engineer less in exchange for offering said engineer reduced cost of living and better quality of life…?

Reply

Restore Palestine May 2, 2013 at 1:10 am

You can get a fairly good picture of employment trends by gleaning the internet for the locations of Microsoft's new research centers and layoffs. Do the same for IBM, Motorola, Nokia, Applied Material, GE, … and the likes.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: