Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

WatcherZero said:
F-35 Program Officer has approved the US taking deliveries of TR-3 with 'Truncated' software after testing, though as recently as May this truncated software was crashing and requiring a reboot several times each flight.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the other users will follow the US lead, or if they will hold out. I suspect the pressure on training and standing fleets up will mean they have little choice but to follow.
 
At last Forest Green, some movement in the production of the F-35 after the year long pause. I would think that all the problems with the software have been suitably checked out before being sent out to the F-35s, I do not want anything to go wrong with them again.
 
FighterJock said:
At last Forest Green, some movement in the production of the F-35 after the year long pause. I would think that all the problems with the software have been suitably checked out before being sent out to the F-35s, I do not want anything to go wrong with them again.
Click to expand...
I can only assume that they've got most of the code modules running and stable, so they can ship the planes in that state.

But certain features won't work at all.
 
'But certain features won't work at all'

That does not sound promising Scott Kenny. I would have thought that the programers would have checked every line of code before sending the software out. Otherwise it is an accident waiting to happen.
 
What they mean by Truncated is some software modules have been omitted entirely because they aren't stable, so yes there will be missing functionality, their may even be some stuff that was working in the previous version of the F-35 but isnt initially enabled in this version.
 
FighterJock said:
I would have thought that the programers would have checked every line of code before sending the software out. Otherwise it is an accident waiting to happen.
Click to expand...
Testing, and failures, are more complicated than that. You check all decision points in each subroutine, against the extremes of their ranges. Then you check the subroutines work with each other. Then you check all the code in one box works together. Then you check all the boxes on the aircraft work together. And it's this sort of level where instabilities happen, such as subtle dependencies on execution time for different bits of code. It's likely even more complicated on F-35 because what we know of the software suggests they've crammed multiple functions into the same box.

It's not simply does each line of code say what it's supposed to say, but does the entire set of software work together.
 
Too True DWG Too True. As someone who used to code when I was younger I know that feeling.
 
FighterJock said:
Too True DWG Too True. As someone who used to code when I was younger I know that feeling.
Click to expand...
"99 bugs in the code on the screen, 99 bugs in the code!/
Take one down, patch it around, 1,208 bugs in the code on the screen!"


FighterJock said:
'But certain features won't work at all'

That does not sound promising Scott Kenny. I would have thought that the programers would have checked every line of code before sending the software out. Otherwise it is an accident waiting to happen.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have all the planes I paid for delivered if at reduced capability than some 200 birds sitting there waiting for the software to decide to f*ing work today
 
WatcherZero said:
What they mean by Truncated is some software modules have been omitted entirely because they aren't stable, so yes there will be missing functionality, their may even be some stuff that was working in the previous version of the F-35 but isnt initially enabled in this version.
Click to expand...
It is like in BMW cars.
Heated seat costs 20 dollars a month.

But then it is:
Do you want to use Chaff?
That is 2000 dollars a month.
Do you want to pay now?
Please wait while we are processing your payment....
 
That will make the Italian Navy the first export customer for the SPEAR 3 missile, that is great news indeed.
 
WatcherZero said:
I think second, Saudi Arabia in 2022 signed a licensing agreement allowing local production of CAMM and SPEAR 3.
Click to expand...

https://www.janes.com/osint-insight...da-sami-sign-agreement-on-missile-maintenance

They do. But its dependent on orders being placed. And to my knowledge it hasn't happened yet. The Saudi's have placed orders for CAMM (for MMSC), but not CAMM-ER and Spear (nor Starstreak with Thales under their SAMI/Thales collaboration).

But....Saudi orders tend to be very discrete, but Thales or MBDA via BAE would be forced under stock market rules to report sales, usually under the heading 'an undisclosed middle eastern customer'...mind you that always used to mean Saudi...but can mean Qatar and UAE these days...
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Ainen said:
Would be mildly funny(or not just mildly) if networked pods on other aircraft will get seamless integration with F-35s' data fusion faster than their own integral EOTS...
Click to expand...

Likely. The internals of the F-35 mount are always going to lag behind the podded solutions.
 
Josh_TN said:
Likely. The internals of the F-35 mount are always going to lag behind the podded solutions.
Click to expand...
To some extent this is perhaps true, but I think the present F-35 EOTS situation is at something of an extreme right now because of the endless software troubles. All of that ongoing difficulty and meanwhile some people think NGAD should be unmanned because it would be easier to do than a manned version? Good luck to anyone in that next level of software hell.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
To some extent this is perhaps true, but I think the present F-35 EOTS situation is at something of an extreme right now because of the endless software troubles. All of that ongoing difficulty and meanwhile some people think NGAD should be unmanned because it would be easier to do than a manned version? Good luck to anyone in that next level of software hell.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom