Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pentagon: F-35 Software Remains Seriously Flawed
defenseone.com ^ | January 30, 2014 | Bob Brewin

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 Pentagon’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: aerospace
Potential Chinese Espionage? Lockheed Martin (LMT) Uses Chinese Manufacturers For U.S.-Built Stealth F-35 Jet

http://www.ibtimes.com/potential-chinese-espionage-lockheed-martin-lmt-uses-chinese-manufacturers-us-built-stealth-f-35-jet

None of this sounds good.

1 posted on 02/14/2014 4:28:53 PM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

What else new. US tax payer takes in the rear... We should get some of our money back on this BS program.


2 posted on 02/14/2014 4:33:11 PM PST by miliantnutcase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Nothing that ugly can be a fighter. Except the Mig-15.


3 posted on 02/14/2014 4:37:29 PM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miliantnutcase

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 weren’t 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 plane’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, to bring the costs under control. He also gets a firsthand look at some of the plane’s 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 Pentagon’s 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 doesn’t.”

A lot didn’t 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 didn’t conform to FAA standards and tires that wore out much faster than expected. “Tires aren’t 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.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-looking-at-most-expensive-weapons-system-ever/

Is there no accountability at all in government???


4 posted on 02/14/2014 4:41:24 PM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

“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.


5 posted on 02/14/2014 4:43:27 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network ( http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

That’s really depressing.


6 posted on 02/14/2014 4:46:50 PM PST by miliantnutcase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

>>Is there no accountability at all in government???<<

If you see just one example, I’ll bet you made a mistake.


7 posted on 02/14/2014 4:53:52 PM PST by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

We can bring back manufacturing to the US by eliminating the income tax and repeal some of the job-killing environmental regulations.


8 posted on 02/14/2014 4:56:03 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

ObamaCare software debacle comes to mind...


9 posted on 02/14/2014 4:57:35 PM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a Tea Party descendant...steeped in the Constitutional Republic given to us by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
More likely that they're using the wrong tool(s) for the job.
Wikipedia:
Unlike 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.
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 to bolt on safety 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:

C Ada
// The following will return an integer; there is no guarantee that
// it will be non-negative; therefore to write robust code you must
// explicitly test for that condition. [min_int >= x >= max_int]
int size( Obj* input );
-- The following function is guaranteed to return a value in the
-- subset of "Natural" numbers [0..Integer'Last] or else raise
-- the Constraint_Error exception.
Function Size( Input : Object ) return Natural;
The same can be said for input-parameters, and even enumerations (discrete-values, commonly representing states) which are represented in C as an integer (which means you cannot make such guarantees) but in Ada really are discrete-values that are not interchangeable with other types (integer in the case of C). Multiply all those uncertainties by all your function inputs and function outputs and you've got a [comparatively] huge possible problem-space.
10 posted on 02/14/2014 4:59:34 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

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.’’

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101309177


11 posted on 02/14/2014 5:00:18 PM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

I read that and think: The F-22 would’ve been a better investment.


12 posted on 02/14/2014 5:00:44 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

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”.


13 posted on 02/14/2014 5:01:29 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network ( http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

...and Lockheed Martin should be banned from ever doing business with the US Military ever again...


14 posted on 02/14/2014 5:01:50 PM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a Tea Party descendant...steeped in the Constitutional Republic given to us by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

23 years? Good grief!

It’s out of date before it leaves the design stage.


15 posted on 02/14/2014 5:15:09 PM PST by hattend (Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Are they sure they are logged on?

Maybe should install Mac OSX instead of Windows 8.


16 posted on 02/14/2014 5:22:36 PM PST by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
New software is always a little buggy.

Having to Ctl.+Alt.+Del. in the middle of a dogfight could be disastrous though.

17 posted on 02/14/2014 5:25:47 PM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

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?

I would?!

O.K., then I won’t ask it.

Thanks.


18 posted on 02/14/2014 5:36:02 PM PST by Tucker39 ("Having their conscience seared with a hot iron.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
New software is always a little buggy.

Not so; formal verification can utterly prevent bugs — Ironsides, for example, is guaranteed not to have buffer-overflows, unexpected termination or transfer of control.

19 posted on 02/14/2014 5:36:53 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Want to see HOW FLAWED THE SOFTWARE IS?!?!?

You won’t believe this.....read the text in full before watching the video....

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150113735642761


20 posted on 02/14/2014 5:54:22 PM PST by Arlis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arlis

Thats video game footage....


21 posted on 02/14/2014 6:02:14 PM PST by panzerkamphwageneinz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Arlis

That’s not real. It’s a video capture from Battlefield 2.


22 posted on 02/14/2014 6:33:57 PM PST by scramjet (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: miliantnutcase

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.


23 posted on 02/14/2014 7:21:19 PM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
The F-22 would’ve been a better investment.

And the F-23.

24 posted on 02/14/2014 7:23:30 PM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: panzerkamphwageneinz

Sure fooled me and my friend that sent it to me - thanks......


25 posted on 02/14/2014 7:52:10 PM PST by Arlis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
somewhere, PukinDog is laughing...
26 posted on 02/14/2014 8:54:27 PM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

We are so scr**ed.


27 posted on 02/14/2014 8:57:43 PM PST by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
As a C/C++ weenie, I agree entirely. Mission critical code that involves lives need to be in Ada or MISRA C or something safer than C/C++. Barring that, a *whole* lot more testing and review need to be done than what appears to have been done so far on this codebase.

FRegards,
PrairieDawg
28 posted on 02/14/2014 9:09:00 PM PST by PrairieDawg (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PrairieDawg
As a C/C++ weenie, I agree entirely. Mission critical code that involves lives need to be in Ada or MISRA C or something safer than C/C++. Barring that, a *whole* lot more testing and review need to be done than what appears to have been done so far on this codebase.

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:

    -- 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'
          )
         );
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 go stale.
29 posted on 02/14/2014 9:36:49 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Maybe the availability of the GNAT toolchain will get people to play more with Ada. The 2012 version has some OO constructs AND all the safety (Ravenscar profile, etc) stuff that is needed. Plus, in my experience (limited though it is) I've seen that if you can *compile* an Ada program, it'll almost always do what you thought it would (less debug due to more stringent compiler). Hmm. Maybe I'll go download the latest and do some playing...

Fregards,
PrairieDawg
30 posted on 02/14/2014 9:58:25 PM PST by PrairieDawg (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PrairieDawg

Nobody wanted the P-51 when if first (A model) came out . The D model finally achieved what we wanted


31 posted on 02/14/2014 11:59:47 PM PST by Eaglefixer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

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.


32 posted on 02/15/2014 4:22:14 AM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trebb

It’s one thing to have a crappy healthcare website, it’s another to have a crappy F-35.


33 posted on 02/15/2014 5:37:49 AM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Eaglefixer

for every P-51 there is an XF-85


34 posted on 02/15/2014 7:05:49 AM PST by class8601_nuke (don't just be critical, be prompt critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PrairieDawg

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.


35 posted on 02/15/2014 7:26:07 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Thanks - I copied them down and will give them a go. I'll probably restart with John Barnes 2005 book and then go look at the 2012 updates to see what's going on. Thanks again!

FRegards,
PrairieDawg
36 posted on 02/15/2014 9:19:40 AM PST by PrairieDawg (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson