Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Software glitches continue to dog the nation’s newest fighter jet.

Five of six Air Force F-35 fighter jets were unable to take off during a recent exercise due to software bugs that continue to hamstring the world’s most sophisticated—and most expensive—warplane.

During a mock deployment at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, just one of the $100 million Lockheed Martin ( LMT -0.40% ) F-35s was able to boot its software successfully and get itself airborne during an exercise designed to test the readiness of the F-35, FlightGlobal reports. Nonetheless, the Air Force plans to declare its F-35s combat-ready later this year.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/28/f-35-fail ... air-force/

paging kleany

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Maybe the F35 is so smart it thinks it is a bus.

We should make accommodations. Perhaps a surgical vehicle change, so that it feels better about itself.

Is anyone defending this? The whole program has been a disaster and will be a case study for how not to do everything.

We all lose.

The flawed software is only one of many of its problems. It doesn't perform well in air-to-air combat simulations.

CitadelGrad wrote:The flawed software is only one of many of its problems. It doesn't perform well in air-to-air combat simulations.

In Ace Combat series, the F22 STILL outperforms the F35 across the board, the only positive is that it can be launched from a carrier.

And in Ace Combat 5

[spoiler]'s second to last mission, that shit don't matter because with the Kestrel sinking you can STILL launch in the F22 for the "Aces" mission [/spoiler]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

DSUrocks07 wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:The flawed software is only one of many of its problems. It doesn't perform well in air-to-air combat simulations.

In Ace Combat series, the F22 STILL outperforms the F35 across the board, the only positive is that it can be launched from a carrier.

And in Ace Combat 5

[spoiler]'s second to last mission, that shit don't matter because with the Kestrel sinking you can STILL launch in the F22 for the "Aces" mission [/spoiler]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

You suck at spoilers



Sent from my computer using my keyboard

bandl wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote: In Ace Combat series, the F22 STILL outperforms the F35 across the board, the only positive is that it can be launched from a carrier.

And in Ace Combat 5

[spoiler]'s second to last mission, that **** don't matter because with the Kestrel sinking you can STILL launch in the F22 for the "Aces" mission [/spoiler]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

You suck at spoilers



Sent from my computer using my keyboard

[spoiler]Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk[/spoiler]

DSUrocks07 wrote:

bandl wrote: You suck at spoilers



Sent from my computer using my keyboard

[spoiler]Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk[/spoiler]

You're not doing it right

DSUrocks07 wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:The flawed software is only one of many of its problems. It doesn't perform well in air-to-air combat simulations.

In Ace Combat series, the F22 STILL outperforms the F35 across the board, the only positive is that it can be launched from a carrier.

And in Ace Combat 5

[spoiler]'s second to last mission, that shit don't matter because with the Kestrel sinking you can STILL launch in the F22 for the "Aces" mission [/spoiler]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

You sound like an authority on combat aircraft with all that stick time.

I bet I know where you stayed last night:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgX7i0C-IK4[/youtube]

Give Tony Stark a week & they'd all be flying.

93henfan wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote: In Ace Combat series, the F22 STILL outperforms the F35 across the board, the only positive is that it can be launched from a carrier.

And in Ace Combat 5

[spoiler]'s second to last mission, that **** don't matter because with the Kestrel sinking you can STILL launch in the F22 for the "Aces" mission [/spoiler]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

You sound like an authority on combat aircraft with all that stick time.

I bet I know where you stayed last night:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgX7i0C-IK4[/youtube]

even the Japs think the F22 is better.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Do we censor the F22 footage we send to the Japs, at least all the most naughty bits in the most sensitive areas?

Payback's a bitch!

93henfan wrote:Is anyone defending this? The whole program has been a disaster and will be a case study for how not to do everything.

We all lose.

I'm not sure if I've ever defended the F-35. I worked with the PMO on some risk analyses and requirements gathering on the USMC variant but I've never understand the need to cram all the technology into one aircraft.


I have said that too much time and capital (money and political) is invested in this thing for it to just go away.

I have said that being beleaguered with problems now doesn't mean it won't be a great asset when it's ready for prime time. I direct you to research the C-17. It's not apples to apples..but it's pretty close.

I'm interested to see how it performs against the A-10. I'd like to see how it stacks up against the low & slow, close air support of the A-10.

93henfan wrote:Do we censor the F22 footage we send to the Japs, at least all the most naughty bits in the most sensitive areas?

Payback's a bitch!

You never see the missiles firing.

Ibanez wrote:

93henfan wrote:Is anyone defending this? The whole program has been a disaster and will be a case study for how not to do everything.

We all lose.

I'm not sure if I've ever defended the F-35. I worked with the PMO on some risk analyses and requirements gathering on the USMC variant but I've never understand the need to cram all the technology into one aircraft.


I have said that too much time and capital (money and political) is invested in this thing for it to just go away.

I have said that being beleaguered with problems now doesn't mean it won't be a great asset when it's ready for prime time. I direct you to research the C-17. It's not apples to apples..but it's pretty close.

I'm interested to see how it performs against the A-10. I'd like to see how it stacks up against the low & slow, close air support of the A-10.

I've stated this before years ago. My job in the Marine Corps was close air support. I got to work with Air Force A-10 pilots only once in my career, and we could not get them to work as close to our friendlies as we normally did with our Hornets and Harriers. They were so timid as to be useless. Of course, this was almost 20 years ago and during peacetime, so perhaps they grew some balls during the recent wars.

My point: close air support depends on being... you guessed it.... close.

The F-35, I understand, will attempt to ID and target from much higher altitude. And it won't have that killer gatling gun on crack in the nose. I just don't see how (if the Air Force reports honestly - which I wouldn't hold my breath) it can compete in a true close air support role with an A-10.

CitadelGrad wrote:The flawed software is only one of many of its problems. It doesn't perform well in air-to-air combat simulations.

Did the F-35s have trouble getting off the tarmac during the simulations?

Because, it seems like "successfully taking off" would be the air-to-air combat equivalent of a teacher giving free points for putting your name on the test.

93henfan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: I'm not sure if I've ever defended the F-35. I worked with the PMO on some risk analyses and requirements gathering on the USMC variant but I've never understand the need to cram all the technology into one aircraft.


I have said that too much time and capital (money and political) is invested in this thing for it to just go away.

I have said that being beleaguered with problems now doesn't mean it won't be a great asset when it's ready for prime time. I direct you to research the C-17. It's not apples to apples..but it's pretty close.

I'm interested to see how it performs against the A-10. I'd like to see how it stacks up against the low & slow, close air support of the A-10.

I've stated this before years ago. My job in the Marine Corps was close air support. I got to work with Air Force A-10 pilots only once in my career, and we could not get them to work as close to our friendlies as we normally did with our Hornets and Harriers. They were so timid as to be useless. Of course, this was almost 20 years ago and during peacetime, so perhaps they grew some balls during the recent wars.

My point: close air support depends on being... you guessed it.... close.

The F-35, I understand, will attempt to ID and target from much higher altitude. And it won't have that killer gatling gun on crack in the nose. I just don't see how (if the Air Force reports honestly - which I wouldn't hold my breath) it can compete in a true close air support role with an F-35.

I've only seen them. There are other aircraft that I've worked with, which I won't go into, that are far more impressive than the F-35.

But, it's apples to oranges. F-35 pilots will have to rely on systems more than those Warthog pilots will. To me, part of the "appeal" of the A-10 is that you hear that Gatling gun and it instill fears. It's like our version of a Stuka dive bomber.

Wouldn't drones make the perfect close air support vehicle? Operate it from wherever the heck you want (including the battlefield) and no life lost if it gets shot down.

Heck, I'd probably robotize the whole military if I was President (leaving specialized missions for human soldiers). Nothing instills fear like staring down soulless automatons, all working together in sync, that are programmed to kill you.

∞∞∞ wrote:Wouldn't drones make the perfect close air support vehicle? Operate it from wherever the heck you want (including the battlefield) and no life lost if it gets shot down.

Heck, I'd probably robotize the whole military if I was President (leaving specialized missions for human soldiers). Nothing instills fear like staring down soulless automatons, all working together in sync, that are programmed to kill you.

Once ground robots are up to the task, sure. You can't win a war with air power alone. That's been proven time and again.

∞∞∞ wrote:Wouldn't drones make the perfect close air support vehicle? Operate it from wherever the heck you want (including the battlefield) and no life lost if it gets shot down.

Heck, I'd probably robotize the whole military if I was President (leaving specialized missions for human soldiers). Nothing instills fear like staring down soulless automatons, all working together in sync, that are programmed to kill you.

Have you seen the drone sub hunter?

93henfan wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:Wouldn't drones make the perfect close air support vehicle? Operate it from wherever the heck you want (including the battlefield) and no life lost if it gets shot down.

Heck, I'd probably robotize the whole military if I was President (leaving specialized missions for human soldiers). Nothing instills fear like staring down soulless automatons, all working together in sync, that are programmed to kill you.

Once ground robots are up to the task, sure. You can't win a war with air power alone. That's been proven time and again.

Heck yeah. I'd bet if CS ran the government, we coulda used the money they put into the F-35 into developing a badass Terminator-type robot. Militarized robots, self-driving tanks, drones...I'd love to see other nations fuck with that efficient machine. We'll eventually get there though, but I bet it's possible now if we just invested the resources. Just hire the top tech engineers in the world, pay them handsomely, and get your ROI...basically do what we did with the Manhattan Project.

This shit's all good until the robots self actualize and decide that we are a drag to them.

Yes, yes, I know. Premise of thousands of Sci-Fi books and movies. Still scary to think about.

DSUrocks07 wrote: even the Japs think the F22 is better.

CAA Flagship wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote: even the Japs think the F22 is better.

Is the tie painted on that shirt? Like those old tuxedo tee shirts?