DOD Report: F-35 Software At Risk For 'Several-Month Delays'
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program faces the risk of "several-month delays" in software development that could add pressure to the schedule for building, testing and buying fully capable aircraft, the Defense Department warns in a report to Congress.
Yes well, a "fully capable" F-35 has no chance of happening until aircraft with TR-2 hardware (which is needed to drive Block 3 software) arrive with LRIP-6 deliveries.
Add up testing time for actual, complete, alleged go-to-war, SDD-finished aircraft and this is all some years off.
An intelligent buyer of military equipment will not have something to evaluate until 2020 at the earliest. LRIP jets have more in common with a "YF-35" than they do with an "F-35".
3 comments:
Considering most allies and partners originally required and planned to acquire Block IV F-35s as their baseline Combat coded buys, one also must take into account what the costs will be to retrofit the 'Block 3' baseline deliveries most partners will now apparently be accepting.
Block IV will be a considerable upgrade requirement, both in software and hardware terms necessary to modernize the F-35 into the eventual Block V model, which too was an original selling point and expected capability to meet requirements by the mid-20s.
If an Air Force has the luxury to SLEP and upgrade current force structure (without substantial restrictions to performance and ops), or the luxury to Lease a short-term gap-filler... then such Air Force and country would arguably be best off if NOT being part of the original partnership MOU and instead wait to buy a proven Block IV under FMS (if indeed going the F-35 route). My opinion at least.
Small allies should get a small group of targetting specialists and 1000 cruismissiles each. First days of the war problem solved.
No need to buy expensive F-35's when you can just hang them under most combat aircraft.
Looks like a by-product of "feature creep".
In the software world, the more crap (features) you shove into your application, the more potential issues you will face. The more delays the project will have! The angrier the customer/client gets!
Then again, they're using C++, aren't they?
C++ is fairly loose in the way it allows a programmer to do things. Ada is much more strict and expressly aimed for mission critical applications like the F-35 avionics software...What I'm saying is that there is higher potential for software issues if you use C++ over Ada. (Especially with complexity on this level!)
By the way, they're using C++ because there are more C++ programmers out there than there are Ada programmers. (That's the real reason. Not because C++ has proven attributes for military solutions as its record.)
Typically, when you write software and you want it to be robust; you keep things simple, small, and for a specific purpose. You don't allow it to do anything else outside of the design requirements. (If anything goes wrong, it must fall back to a "Fail Safe" mode that offers only basic functionality.)
What Lockheed Martin is suffering from, is a consequence of letting the Marketing Dept run the company. (You can tell by the awesome propaganda material for the F-35 and the failure to meet objectives.)
Its no different to any other technology company in the civilian field. The very moment one lets Marketing run things, the more BS and over-promise they will make in order to secure a sale.
Marketing: Over-promise, under-deliver.
A technology company must be run by competent engineers with business experience. Marketing should do nothing more than promote what the engineers have made working.
Post a Comment