Skip to comments.Pentagon: F-35 Software Remains Seriously Flawed
Posted on 02/14/2014 4:28:52 PM PST by ilovesarah2012
The $397 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program suffers from such severe software problems that aircraft could not conduct operational missions today, the Pentagons chief tester said in his annual report to Congress, which was released to the public yesterday.
Contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. develops the F-35 software in three blocks. The first is designed to support training, followed by a second block for initial combat operations. The final block for full combat operations is expected in 2019, 23 years after the Pentagon signed the contract to acquire just under 2,500 of the aircraft for all four services.
The report from J. Michael Gilmore, director of operational test and evaluation for Defense, said Lockheed Martin delivered an incremental version of the Block 2 F-35 software for installation on the Air Force F-35A variant and the Marine Corps F-35B vertical takeoff aircraft in early 2013, but that software was far from complete.
(Excerpt) Read more at defenseone.com ...
None of this sounds good.
What else new. US tax payer takes in the rear... We should get some of our money back on this BS program.
Nothing that ugly can be a fighter. Except the Mig-15.
F-35: Looking at most expensive weapons system ever
In the rush to stay ahead of China and Russia, the Pentagon started buying the F-35 before testing it, breaking the traditional fly-before-you-buy rule of weapons acquisition. Now taxpayers are paying the price for mistakes that werent caught before production began. A Pentagon document obtained by 60 Minutes catalogues the flawed . . . assumptions and unrealistic . . . estimates that led to a $163 billion cost overrun on what was already the highest priced weapons system in history. David Martin reports on the problem-plagued program and the battles the Pentagon has fought with the planes manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, to bring the costs under control. He also gets a firsthand look at some of the planes game-changing technology for a story to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, Feb. 16 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
We started buying airplanes a good year before we started test flights, says Frank Kendall, the Pentagons chief weapons buyer. I referred to that decision as acquisition malpractice. Kendall says the program is now under control, but says,We need to face the truth in this business. We need to understand what works and what doesnt.
A lot didnt work for the state-of-the-art jet, which the Air Force, Navy and Marines are all counting on to replace virtually all of their current jet fighters. Mistakes included simple things like running lights that didnt conform to FAA standards and tires that wore out much faster than expected. Tires arent rocket science, says Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, the man in charge of the F-35 program. We ought to be able to figure out how to do tires on a multibillion dollar, highly-advanced fighter.”
Is there no accountability at all in government???
“In the rush to stay ahead of China and Russia,...”
A truly admirable goal.
The problem is, meanwhile we are supporting China by buying everything from there.
China is (rapidly) gaining ground.
Bring back American manufacturing. Now.
That’s really depressing.
>>Is there no accountability at all in government???<<
If you see just one example, I’ll bet you made a mistake.
We can bring back manufacturing to the US by eliminating the income tax and repeal some of the job-killing environmental regulations.
ObamaCare software debacle comes to mind...
Wikipedia:As Toyota found out, the "high reliability" C/C++ subsets don't work if they're not strictly used/followed — and C/C++ encourage sloppy programming (granted, not as much as PHP). Trying toUnlike previous aircraft, such as the F-22, much of the new software for the F-35 is written in C and C++, because of programmer availability.
bolt onsafety to C/C++ is like polishing a turd: it isn't going to work.
Another thing that isn't really touched on is how easy/difficult reasoning about a program is; to illustrate I'll compare/contrast C with Ada just in the specification/header definitions:
US put China-made parts in F-35 fighter program
The Pentagon repeatedly waived laws banning Chinese-built components on U.S. weapons in order to keep the $392 billion Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter program on track in 2012 and 2013, even as U.S. officials were voicing concern about China’s espionage and military buildup.
According to Pentagon documents reviewed by Reuters, chief U.S. arms buyer Frank Kendall allowed two F-35 suppliers, Northrop Grumman and Honeywell International, to use Chinese magnets for the new warplane’s radar system, landing gears and other hardware. Without the waivers, both companies could have faced sanctions for violating federal law and the F-35 program could have faced further delays.
“It was a pretty big deal and an unusual situation because there’s a prohibition on doing defense work in China, even if it’s inadvertent,’’ said Frank Kenlon, who recently retired as a senior Pentagon procurement official and now teaches at American University. “I’d never seen this happen before.’’
I read that and think: The F-22 would’ve been a better investment.
We can bring back manufacturing to the US by stopping being such sell-out p_ssies, and stop sending every single American manufacturing plant to communist China.
And stop importing everything.
Go in any store. Walk down any aisle. Pick up anything:
“Made in China”.
...and Lockheed Martin should be banned from ever doing business with the US Military ever again...
23 years? Good grief!
It’s out of date before it leaves the design stage.
Are they sure they are logged on?
Maybe should install Mac OSX instead of Windows 8.
Having to Ctl.+Alt.+Del. in the middle of a dogfight could be disastrous though.
Would I get flamed if I questioned whether the Aerospace Machinists’ Unions continuously striking for higher wages and fringes had anything to do with the outsourcing?
O.K., then I won’t ask it.
Not so; formal verification can utterly prevent bugs — Ironsides, for example, is guaranteed not to have buffer-overflows, unexpected termination or transfer of control.
Want to see HOW FLAWED THE SOFTWARE IS?!?!?
You won’t believe this.....read the text in full before watching the video....
Thats video game footage....
That’s not real. It’s a video capture from Battlefield 2.
We should stop throwing more and more money down this bottomless pit.
Kill it. Kill it now, kill it good and hard, and be done with it.
I’m on the record here at FR as having promised you all that the costs of this white elephant would go through the roof. It was inevitable merely as an engineering project - never mind the issue of being a fighter, or being a defense project for allied nations, etc. The engineering aspects of this project make it 100% certain that it will be an expensive failure.
And the F-23.
Sure fooled me and my friend that sent it to me - thanks......
We are so scr**ed.
I hear what you're saying; from my POV though it seems that design is what's skimped on in "the industry" -- granted, I've never been involved in a safety-critical codebase such as aviation, but there seems to be a lot of
we don't have time to do it right, we need to do it quick mentality that seems to discourage up-front planning. (Indeed, it seems to discourage using the right-tool-for-the-job and encouraging a "sledgehammer"/continuous-debugging method of development and discourage training.)
I'm very impressed/excited about the new Ada 2012 standard which lets you do something like this:
Which ensures a SSN is properly formatted on parameters and return-values of the Social_Security_Number subtype (you can also check with String_Var in Social_Security_Number); there's also pre-/post-conditions, type-invariants and other nice design-by-contract stuff that (unlike annotated comments) won't
-- SSN format: ###-##-#### Subtype Social_Security_Number is String(1..11) with Dynamic_Predicate => (for all Index in Social_Security_Number'Range => (case Index is when 4|7 => Social_Security_Number(Index) = '-', when others => Social_Security_Number(Index) in '0'..'9' ) );
Nobody wanted the P-51 when if first (A model) came out . The D model finally achieved what we wanted
I wonder how many new requirements were made while the software was being developed. I’ve seen government jobs go really bad because some idiots decided to stay abreast of the cutting edge far after the fact. The only way to really do it is to start anew each time, but the same idiots don’t understand that so they aid and abet the company in taking lots of money for a crappy product.
It’s one thing to have a crappy healthcare website, it’s another to have a crappy F-35.
for every P-51 there is an XF-85
You’ll want to make sure you use assertions enabled; the new design-by-contract aspects use the assertion mechanism.
I typically use “-O3 -gnat12 -gnato -fstack-check -gnatE -gnata” as my switches.