Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    Super complicated, super expensive pieces of equipment and software have issues that need to be iterated upon and fixed. What's news or "bad" about that? That's how literally everything works. Does a piece of equipment or software exist that was released with absolutely zero issues?

    The argument of whether something should have issues is a different discussion, we live in the world as it is now, not how we wish it was. I agree that it shouldn't have those issues, but it does, and there's no one better equipped (or qualified, but that's debatable) than Lockheed Martin to fix the issues with a piece of Lockheed Martin equipment/technology with Lockheed Martin developed software.

    I agree though that we shouldn't be chained to these defense contractors, but...we are for now, so what we should and shouldn't be doing right now about THIS issue is a pointless discussion because we're stuck with them.

    Your point about cloud based software is, IMO, largely irrelevant because the technology CAN work and that's all that matters in application is whether or not it works. And in my experience it's been reliable (it's worked for me every time I've needed it, obviously YMMV) so it CAN be reliable too...provided the people developing stuff with it know wtf they're doing.
    While teething problems are nothing new, the F-35 is a very special case.

  2. #22
    LOL imagine if people had the same reaction to this problem that they had with the ACA web site/enrollment roll out problems....and that cost overrun was pennies on the dollar vs this problem.
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  3. #23
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    LOL imagine if people had the same reaction to this problem that they had with the ACA web site/enrollment roll out problems....and that cost overrun was pennies on the dollar vs this problem.
    Significant differences though.

    In this case, the problem was that what was being asked for in the F-35 was truly beyond our capabilities at the time in which it started. The price tag of developing new things is going to be fluid by nature, sometimes challenges that SEEM simple and straightforward are anything but, and when your project assumes technological progression that hasn't happened yet then there's a huge problem if that progression doesn't end up happening at the rate you were expecting.

    Rolling out a web site is a lot less 'future tech we haven't developed yet' and more 'something we should be pretty good at at this point, because we've been doing it for a bit now'.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    Significant differences though.

    In this case, the problem was that what was being asked for in the F-35 was truly beyond our capabilities at the time in which it started. The price tag of developing new things is going to be fluid by nature, sometimes challenges that SEEM simple and straightforward are anything but, and when your project assumes technological progression that hasn't happened yet then there's a huge problem if that progression doesn't end up happening at the rate you were expecting.

    Rolling out a web site is a lot less 'future tech we haven't developed yet' and more 'something we should be pretty good at at this point, because we've been doing it for a bit now'.
    Precisely. The best way to put it is that in many ways the F-35 was a sixth generation fighter implemented with fifth generation technology (the f-22 being fifth gen). The f-35s that first flew in. 2007 are very different than the ones that are built today. The past 20 years has seen changes in computers, internal structures, basic parts, coatings. Many many things.

    The technology behind the f-35 is essential and will see many applications. But the right model going forward is to separate capital technology development from aircraft development and adopt a 1950s style incrimentalist approach.

    Ina different world the US would have bought 2000 “f-24” fighters in the mid 2000s... smaller fighters derived more closely from the f-22, and started the f-22 successor program in 2015 that would see what we call “f-35” tech done with another decade of R&D behind it.

    Basically the model should be:
    1) technical development and research
    2) implement first generation in expensive 400 unit air superiority fighter

    3) implement second generation in cheaper smaller 1500-2000 unit multirole aircraft
    4)bridge to next gen tech development
    5) implement bridge in late model (2) and (3).

  5. #25
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Precisely. The best way to put it is that in many ways the F-35 was a sixth generation fighter implemented with fifth generation technology (the f-22 being fifth gen). The f-35s that first flew in. 2007 are very different than the ones that are built today. The past 20 years has seen changes in computers, internal structures, basic parts, coatings. Many many things.

    The technology behind the f-35 is essential and will see many applications. But the right model going forward is to separate capital technology development from aircraft development and adopt a 1950s style incrimentalist approach.

    Ina different world the US would have bought 2000 “f-24” fighters in the mid 2000s... smaller fighters derived more closely from the f-22, and started the f-22 successor program in 2015 that would see what we call “f-35” tech done with another decade of R&D behind it.

    Basically the model should be:
    1) technical development and research
    2) implement first generation in expensive 400 unit air superiority fighter

    3) implement second generation in cheaper smaller 1500-2000 unit multirole aircraft
    4)bridge to next gen tech development
    5) implement bridge in late model (2) and (3).



    OH YEAH SKROE, BU BUT DO THEY LOOK COOL?



    I mean look the Su-47 has fins, does the F-35 have fins? i don't think so
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    OH YEAH SKROE, BU BUT DO THEY LOOK COOL?



    I mean look the Su-47 has fins, does the F-35 have fins? i don't think so
    Haha. Honestly my preferred rout would be to build 500 B-21 raiders and dedicate 300 of them to carrying just the new AIM-260 missile (an new extremely long range air to air missile). The Air Force put out new B-21 renders last week. I was gonna make an aerospace thread about it over the weekend.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    I mean look the Su-47 has fins, does the F-35 have fins? i don't think so
    I liked it better when it was called the X29.

  8. #28
    Legendary! Thekri's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    6,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Yeah maybe we should just buy f-16s until the end of time. No problem with that.

    /s by the way.

    Alis as a concept, which includes Odin now, is a crucial technological advance. But sure let’s go buy more of a plane that first flew in the 1970s.

    Maybe we can cut spending on technological development and get some more of that saucy healthcare thing.

    /spit on that notion by the way.
    Or maybe, just maybe, we could get better results if we actually started holding defense companies accountable for the shit they push on the military.

    Nobody is objecting to the F-35 being advanced, they are objecting to it being an expensive pile of junk that doesn't work. Same as people rightfully object to the Zumwalts not being capable of doing literally anything at all, even 6 years after the first one launched. As long as we keep tolerating this sort of behavior, we are going to keep getting increasingly expensive crap that we can't actually give to our warfighters. We had to buy more Arleigh Burke's because the Zumwalt sucks, and now we are buying more F-16X because the F-35 just can't get the job done. When you have to order 17 more 1980s destroyers because your space age looking disasters can't even fire their guns, that is a problem with how we do acquisition.

    The solution is NOT buying more obsolete crap. The solution is getting better at building the advanced stuff, and we can't do that until we actually start holding defense companies feet to the fire for this. When the 737 Max turned out to have development problems (Which are actually comparatively mild compared to the F-35) it has damn near killed one of the largest manufacturing companies in the world, because airlines don't tolerate that. However there has been no real consequences for the F-35, the Zumwalt or any other acquisition mess.

    Yes, I am aware that problems with the military acquisition programs are not new. I know all about the Alvin York and the MBT-70, and countless other projects, but that doesn't make our current problems any better. We are stalled out on an entire generation of technology, and it is completely fair for people to be mad about it.

  9. #29
    Merely a Setback breadisfunny's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    flying the exodar...into the sun.
    Posts
    25,923
    Quote Originally Posted by sarahtasher View Post
    Why, give the contract for the follow up program to the same defence firm.

    ALIS (the failure) is dead. Long live ODIN (by the same guys)

    Will surely work this time. After all, it got a juvenile name and will be cloud based. Yeah

    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ill-years-away
    odin is the name of a germanic god. yeah totally childish....i bet your just upset because it's german.
    r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
    i will never forgive you for this blizzard.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post

    Nobody is objecting to the F-35 being advanced, they are objecting to it being an expensive pile of junk that doesn't work. .
    At first, maybe, but they are working now - the Israelis have used theirs in combat already, striking targets in Syria while remaining undetected. I will give you being expensive though.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by breadisfunny View Post
    odin is the name of a germanic god. yeah totally childish....i bet your just upset because it's german.
    Well, people could point out that Odin was seeing which is not a very auspicious name for a stealth fighter...

  12. #32
    Pit Lord smityx's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Walmart Basment FEMA Camp 7
    Posts
    2,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    And your point is....?
    Easier access for the Russians, Chinese and the best Korea.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by smityx View Post
    Easier access for the Russians, Chinese and the best Korea.
    At the time the discussion seemed to be more around how reliable it was, I wasn't aware that cloud based stuff had security issues. If that's the case, yeah...don't use cloud based stuff, or the program damn well better include significant upgrades to the security aspect of it as well as functionality.

  14. #34
    Legendary! Thekri's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    6,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus View Post
    At first, maybe, but they are working now - the Israelis have used theirs in combat already, striking targets in Syria while remaining undetected. I will give you being expensive though.
    Well actually ours are in service too, so it depends on the definition of "Works". Our F-35s "work" in the sense that they can maintain roughly the same level of combat capability as an F-16, only with triple the maintenance footprint, half the readiness rate, and 10 times the cost. The do not "work" in the sense of being a fully functional fifth generation that dominates their airspace.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    Well actually ours are in service too, so it depends on the definition of "Works". Our F-35s "work" in the sense that they can maintain roughly the same level of combat capability as an F-16, only with triple the maintenance footprint, half the readiness rate, and 10 times the cost. The do not "work" in the sense of being a fully functional fifth generation that dominates their airspace.
    Personally, I find that there is since august 1945 an almost schizophrenic component to weapon designs. Everyone play pretend that one day, Americans F-15 or F-35 are going to shoot Russian MiG-29s, while everyone know damn well it's never going to happen (1) That's what is baffling with the F-35, a supposedly marvel of technology who is going to bomb people without even a 1960 vintage Soviet AA gun.

    (1)Well it could, but it would en with mushrooms making a moot point of who have the best fighter.

  16. #36
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by sarahtasher View Post
    While teething problems are nothing new, the F-35 is a very special case.
    Not as special as you might think. Major changes in technology often cause new weapon systems to have significant issues.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by sarahtasher View Post
    Personally, I find that there is since august 1945 an almost schizophrenic component to weapon designs. Everyone play pretend that one day, Americans F-15 or F-35 are going to shoot Russian MiG-29s, while everyone know damn well it's never going to happen (1) That's what is baffling with the F-35, a supposedly marvel of technology who is going to bomb people without even a 1960 vintage Soviet AA gun.

    (1)Well it could, but it would en with mushrooms making a moot point of who have the best fighter.
    MiG Alley........

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowmouse View Post
    Wasn't that the plot of the Remo Williams movie? If I recall, a corrupt defense contractor was developing a missile system that wasn't going to work, but it would be replaced with the next one and swept under the carpet.
    Also, a subplot in Robocop.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by sarahtasher View Post
    Why, give the contract for the follow up program to the same defence firm.

    ALIS (the failure) is dead. Long live ODIN (by the same guys)

    Will surely work this time. After all, it got a juvenile name and will be cloud based. Yeah

    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ill-years-away
    For some reason, i thought this was Blizzard related. lol
    The hunter hoe with the least beloe.

  19. #39
    Legendary! Ihavewaffles's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    The spice must flow!
    Posts
    6,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Precisely. The best way to put it is that in many ways the F-35 was a sixth generation fighter implemented with fifth generation technology (the f-22 being fifth gen). The f-35s that first flew in. 2007 are very different than the ones that are built today. The past 20 years has seen changes in computers, internal structures, basic parts, coatings. Many many things.
    F35 is no damn 6th gen, they will have improvements n prob be advanced drones.
    F35 is a barely functioning 5th gen...

    U talk so much nonsense, blizz should hire u for WC3.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •