Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Dragon029 (ID: !g8CVZqoPag)
F-35 radar resets mitigated 2016-04-27 04:09:53 Post No. 29752099
[Report] Image search: [Google]
F-35 radar resets mitigated 2016-04-27 04:09:53 Post No. 29752099
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: lightningnearlightning.webm (594KB, 640x480px) Image search:
[Google]
594KB, 640x480px
F-35 radar resets mitigated
Dragon029 (ID: !g8CVZqoPag)
2016-04-27 04:09:53
Post No. 29752099
[Report]
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/26/f-35-chief-software-bugs-no-longer-threat-ioc/83553372/
>The team has flown 44 flights and 96 hours with the new software, and is now seeing a huge improvement in stability Bogdan said after an April 26 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The jets can fly for about 15 hours between shutdown events, he said, which is more than the eight to ten hours of stability the program office deemed “good enough.”
For context; nanosecond differences in timings caused a radar or other sensor reset (it's a bit ambiguous) to occur (on average) about every 4.5 hours.
This was a big drop from the Block 2B software that the USMC had IOC with, which achieved about 32 hours between resets (which is up there with operational, mature AESAs).
The difference was caused because going from 2B to 3i involved upgrading the hardware. New hardware = new bugs.
There's no hardware upgrades required for 3F, which has been in flight testing for a year.
New ETA for USAF IOC is start of October this year due to ALIS being a pain in the ass.
ETA (subject to get better or worse - they have been able to speed up things like the ejection seat fixes) on Block 3F is around the end of 2017.
Both of those dates fall before the Threshold (deadline) dates, meaning that while not ideal, they're still technically on schedule.
And because a guy asked yesterday, but I didn't see it until the thread was archived; Ep.4 is in the editing phase and could be out this weekend (but probably actually next week). It covers Vietnam missile use, the ejection seat, hot fuel / hot weapon bays and maybe costs, but chances are it'll be a 3 part episode and costs will be its own thing soon once they release the LRIP 9 and 10 costs.
>>
>>29752099
poopy plen
>>
>>29752099
Wow! Another F-35 "program killing issue" that turned out to be absolutely nothing! What a fucking surprise!
>>
File: comment sections can be a goldmine.jpg (44KB, 481x377px) Image search:
[Google]
44KB, 481x377px
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/04/mccain-lays-down-law-on-f-35-bulk-buy-kendall-says-it-works/
Looks like Solomon is focusing on the "threat library" nonissue.
>>
>>29752099
And the haters are mysteriously silent.
>>
>The statistics show F-35's software crashes every 4 hours
>"Let's improve the statistics by flying hundred 2h flights"
>>
>>29757615
Except the counting method was not changed.
>>
>>29752099
>huge improvement in stability
Note: he did NOT say they have solved the problem, just improved. Had the problems been solved he would have said so.
> deemed “good enough.”
such words instill confidence - in the most naive.
>>29752238
>Wow! Another F-35 "program killing issue" that turned out to be absolutely nothing!
Like this one.
How about some critical reading, folks? Or do you enjoy feeding on low calorie bait?
I used to work on software testing including acceptance tests. These are tied to contracts and there are careful legal language out there. The choice of words are not rough and careless, they have to think very carefully about what they say. If they say it is fixed then L-M is off the hook. If they say it is an improvement the programme avoids heat and L-M is still obliged to fix the mess.
There are 3 parties here: Government (Congress and GAO in particular), Pentagon (with officers running the acquisition project, and finally L-M with sub contractors. here is a huge chain here and all parties have their own interests.
>>
>>29759324
>do you enjoy feeding on low calorie bait?
[irony intensifies]
>>
>>29759324
>such words instill confidence - in the most naive.
Maybe good enough isn't good enough but its 50% longer than good enough.
>>
>>29752099
Having worked on avionics for almost 9 years in Naval Aviation.... meh. Doesn't surprise nor bother me in the slightest. Still love how using Auto-Nav/Align on a relatively new INS system caused random drifting to occur (like 10 degree's drift per hour) and the entire solution was "don't use auto-nav and instead just manually align".
Seriously... if it's a known issue then it can easily be accounted for. Just like the patriot missile timing issue back during gulf war.
>>
>>29759555
>Maybe good enough isn't good enough but its 50% longer than good enough.
This makes perfect no sense.
>>29759626
>if it's a known issue then it can easily be accounted for
Sure. Trouble is, in the heat of the battle people perform on a less then optimum level after a while. plain exhaustion. At this point "easily" loses all meanings. And people die.
>>
>>29759708
>This makes perfect no sense.
Minimum requirement is 10 hours the recorded time was 15 hours.
You said good enough was naive, but it is well beyond what was deemed good enough.
>>
>>29755484
what haters? You must be a "it's just taxpayer money" type, huh? Bush voter? Perpetual war voter?
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2