F-35's dodgy software in the spotlight again

America's toothless Tiger Moth, the F‑35, has copped another backhander from US government auditors: the US Government Accountability Office reckons its logistics software isn't ready for battlefield deployment. The GAO also warns that the US$16.7bn Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) could, instead, swallow anything …

[elDog]

Just trust US. We've been flying by the seat of our pants for a long time

After all, we invented democracy (not a Greek word) and revolution against tyranny (no classical concepts those).

We invented throwing a ball and hitting it with a stick or shoving a ball down some open orifice (basket-ball).

We invented flight (the beloved Wright Bros) and took to the air to defend democracy in the skies over Olde Europe.

Now we have invented the most incredible flying machine that money can buy. It has heated toilet seats (for only $1776 per wipe) and special hammers to tap down those pesky popping rivets (at a mere $199.99 per hammer - extra if you want replacement rivets.)

Some of these are slated to be flying in the nice airspace above Vermont (thanks Bernie, Leahy, Welch) at decibal levels never heard before (and will never be heard again thanks to ruptured ear-drums.)

These dinosaurs with wings only serve one purpose - to feather the beds of the corporate sponsors. They aren't there to Make America Safe Again (MASA) or to deter those evil miscreants of the Levant.

Too much money is flowing from the taxes directly to the thieves. Doesn't pass Go - doesn't pass the tax department. Just goes into the banks, offshore or on; machts nicht.

[Mark 85]

Re: Just trust US. We've been flying by the seat of our pants for a long time

Wow... I thought I was cynical.

Things will get interesting hopefully soon. Seems they did a "fly-off" war game of kill or be killed (think "top gun" only more intense as these were all vetern pilots) between the F-15 and the F-22. The F-22 cleaned up with no losses. There's one pending between the F-35 and the F-22. My money will be on the F-22.

[Yag]

Re: Just trust US. We've been flying by the seat of our pants for a long time

A dedicated interceptor versus a strike aircraft is a bit one sided.

[Mark 85]

Re: Just trust US. We've been flying by the seat of our pants for a long time

A dedicated interceptor versus a strike aircraft is a bit one sided.

That's quite true. I recall that they did want a fly-off/wargame between the F-35 and the F-15 but someone well placed in the DoD killed that fast.

[lglethal]

Re: Just trust US. We've been flying by the seat of our pants for a long time

Well naturally. There is a reason the F-22 is not being exported to anyone (not even close allies like Australia). It is the pinnacle of combat jets (and with a price tag to match). The F-35 is to be the normal workhorse for the US "allied forces" and that's why its being bought into by dozens of countries including such "friendly" nations as Turkey. If it could take the F-22 in a straight fight, there's no way the US would have allowed it to be a multi-country program...

[Vic]

Re: Just trust US. We've been flying by the seat of our pants for a long time

Well naturally. There is a reason the F-22 is not being exported to anyone (not even close allies like Australia). It is the pinnacle of combat jets (and with a price tag to match)

Given the never-ending cost-overruns on te F-35, I tihnk it might be premature to consider the F-35 as cheaper than the F-22...

Vic.

[Chris King]

Re: Just trust US. We've been flying by the seat of our pants for a long time

"There is a reason the F-22 is not being exported to anyone (not even close allies like Australia). It is the pinnacle of combat jets (and with a price tag to match)."

That, and the fact they stopped manufacturing them almost four years ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Just trust US. We've been flying by the seat of our pants for a long time

The Australian request to purchase them was submitted some 10 years ago (to replace the F/A-18's). They were still in production then...

[Known Hero]

Re: Just trust US. We've been flying by the seat of our pants for a long time

Cynical ??? I thought although slightly sarcastic but spot on the mark.

Every word a truth.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Just trust US. We've been flying by the seat of our pants for a long time

"the most incredible flying machine"

"Incredible" seems to be the operative word here.

[Sgt_Oddball]

Re: Just trust US. We've been flying by the seat of our pants for a long time

Sorry to be a pendant but America was the first for powered flight.

Gliders were already in use and grew up down the road from Brompton, home of Sir George Cayley, the man who wrote the first book on aerodynamics and creator of the Cayley flyer (which also gave rise to the quote if man was meant to fly God would have given us wings by the first pilot of said glider after breaking a leg).

As for so many firsts in aerospace most of it came on the coat-tails of others.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now: Slower, less maneuverable and with an all new blue screen heads up display

It would be a little embarrassing if "antiquated" F15s and F16s flown by 3rd world countries blew our F35s out of the air.

You think useless would have a lower price tag.

[Voland's right hand]

Re: Now: Slower, less maneuverable and with an all new blue screen heads up display

if "antiquated" F15s and F16s flown by 3rd world countries blew our F35s out of the air

If they manage to close in to within visual range, probably they will.

F35's survival chances against recent Russian (and their chinese clones) fighters within visual range are likely to be worse than the Eurofighter (slower and less maneuverable). So if it encounters a well trained air force using even remotely up-to-date aircraft its only chance is to cleanly kill all of its opponents outside visual range with long range missiles. If it does not - it is toast.

Eurofighter WVR kill score against the by now aging Su-30 is 0:12. The RAF had its arse handed to them on a plate by the Indians last year. They scored zero "kills" after close in and they "lost" all of their aircraft. F15 WVR kill rate is 1:9. Though that one can be believed to be rigged deliberately to justify buying more F-22s): Reference for both: http://theaviationist.com/2015/08/08/have-indian-su-30s-really-dominated-raf-typhoons-in-aerial-combat-with-a-12-0-scoreline-most-probably-not/

I would not expect F35 to fare any better within visual range. Probably worse.

[SkippyBing]

Re: Now: Slower, less maneuverable and with an all new blue screen heads up display

'The RAF had its arse handed to them on a plate by the Indians last year.'

According to the Indians, you did read the link you posted right?

[lglethal]

Re: Now: Slower, less maneuverable and with an all new blue screen heads up display

In this day and age, if your fighters are getting within visual range of the opposition then you're doing it wrong.

Dogfighting is no longer a necessary skill for fighter pilots, you fly to within missile range (i.e. radar range only), fire your missile and keep an eye out for missiles coming at you. Fire some jamming missiles to block the other persons missiles if necessary and then return to base. If the enemy gets close enough to see you, your SAM defences should be making their life hell, if you get close enough to the enemy to see them, then you better hope you've already taken out there SAM defences. And if you, have why are their airports still in operation?

Dogfighting stats are just willywaving and don't have any bearing on reality....

[Solmyr ibn Wali Barad]

Re: Now: Slower, less maneuverable and with an all new blue screen heads up display

"Dogfighting is no longer a necessary skill for fighter pilots, you fly to within missile range"

Similar claims were prevalent in sixties. Before Vietnam.

Let's hope that such a claim will not be subjected to extensive testing this time around.

[Mark 85]

@lglethal -- Re: Now: Slower, less maneuverable and with an all new blue screen heads up display

I don't know if you're old enough but do remember or hear about the F-4 in Vietnam? The first versions had no guns. They suffered serious losses to the NVAF. Once they got guns, the odds were better. Since that time, all US fighters have had a gun and while missiles might get credit for most of the kills, I'd rather be in plane with a gun... just in case.

[lglethal]

Re: @lglethal -- Now: Slower, less maneuverable and with an all new blue screen heads up display

I'm not that old fortunately, however, the vast majority of those losses weren't from dogfighting with the North Vietnam Airforce but from ground to air losses (if my quick skim of Wikipedia was right). Additionally, the current generation of radars doesnt really allow for pilots to get surprised in the middle of the sky by an enemy squadron. The detail you can pick out with modern radars is frankly ridiculous! :)

Still we've been lucky enough to have avoided an air war for a while, so I'm hoping my conjecture stays just that for a while longer. We dont need the Yanks and the Ruskies taking pot shots at each other over Syria anytime soon...

[JLV]

Re: Now: Slower, less maneuverable and with an all new blue screen heads up display

Careful there. We haven't had a real air war between 2 same-class, gen 3+ jet-capable, nations in over 30 years. What you say sounds credible (and more so than the reverse which is used to justify this sorry excuse for a flying $ shredder).

But... still a conjecture. Wars have a way of shooting down some of those.

[Voland's right hand]

Re: Now: Slower, less maneuverable and with an all new blue screen heads up display

@SkippyBing.

According to the Indians, you did read the link you posted right? Yes, I did as well as other (neither Indian, nor UK) sources.

If you note - RAF claim is that it did not use their jets full capability. Deliberately... Yeah, right. Cough... Cough... Cough... Sorry, choked on my coffee while laughing. As far as lame excuses go, this just broke the lame-o-meter.

Indians quite deliberately failed to mention that the worst of the wipeout was in 1:1 WVR. In a 1:1 within visual range the fact that Sukhoi has vector thrust, is supermaneuverable and has a very wide short range missile engagement field of view comes to play - it can wipe out anyone and anything that is not - f.e. the Eurofighter. The 0:12 number looks about right too.

The issue is that some of the tactics which give it the 1:1 WVR advantate also result in it exposing itself if the target happens to have a wingman. RAF's non-1:1 WVR results looked better, but Indians still won most of those too by the way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Now: Slower, less maneuverable and with an all new blue screen heads up display

'The RAF had its arse handed to them on a plate by the Indians last year.'

Yeah, we've got an Indian Buffet like that here too.

As long as it's curry, I don't complain....

[JeffyPoooh]

'Superiority', by Arthur C. Clarke

Somebody failed to read 'Superiority', by Arthur C. Clarke.

Available online.

[Chozo]

Re: 'Superiority', by Arthur C. Clarke

German battle tank development during WWII is a good example for those not into Science Fiction. Where designs became more destructively awesome but correspondingly complex to build and unreliable to operate with low production rates.

[Paul Hovnanian]

Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS)

I wonder if they will still write up problems in this new system the way they did back in the 'old days':

Pilot's report: "Engine #3 is leaking oil."

Mechanic's response: "Oil leakage is normal."

Pilot's report: "Engines #1, 2 and 4 lack normal oil leakage."

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS)

I think those jokes have been around since the Wright brothers :p

More here:

http://bootstrike.com/LaughterHell/Smart/smart16.php

[Yag]

Re: Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS)

And one of the best joke is about the B-36 and its 10 engines - 6 turboprops and 4 turbofans.

As said on wikipedia :

As engine fires occurred with the B-36's radial engines, some crews humorously changed the aircraft's slogan from "six turning, four burning" into "two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking, and two more unaccounted for."

[Magani]

Anyone seen the rabbit hole?

ALIS is meant to "diagnose mechanical problems, order and track replacement parts, and guide maintenance crews through repairs. It also allows pilots to plan missions and later review their performance."

Let me get my head around this. In a one-app-fits-all kind of scenario, they've designed an inventory management system and combined it with a flight planning application, a system monitoring application and a performance review ability. Awesome! Someone please tell me that there's an Easter Egg of Angry Birds somewhere under the 'About ALIS' menu option.

Talk about feature creep. Utter madness.

It would seem that someone's view of ALIS was originally Through The Looking Glass.

[Mark 85]

Re: Anyone seen the rabbit hole?

And the system admin login will still end up as "admin" "passw0rd".

[billse10]

Re: Anyone seen the rabbit hole?

cheer up, it could be MongoDB .. there won't be a password ....

[Neil Barnes]

Re: Anyone seen the rabbit hole?

Indeed. It's a complete smorgasbord of functionality, everything in one packet. What idiot even *considered* that sticking mission planning and analysis in the same package as spares ordering?

Surely there are perfectly good systems out there to manage spares and repairs? Even if not off the shelf, I'm sure whoever supplies the airlines or the Fedexes of this world would be very happy to help the US government out. Mission analysis? Handful of GoPros scattered around the airframe and a black box logger - we've been analysing missions since the 1940s...

This is something that needs the Unix approach: lots of little packages doing one thing each and doing it well. What they seem to (nearly) have is systemd for the air.

[maffski]

Re: Anyone seen the rabbit hole?

What idiot even *considered* that sticking mission planning and analysis in the same package as spares ordering?

There is actually *some* (flawed) logic to it - one of the things ALIS is intended to do is ground testing - effectively it turns the aircraft into a mission simulator, loading a mission package, simulating the flight, feeding in false threat data and so on - the idea being to monitor how the planes systems respond to detect equipment failures and increase availability.

Of course the sane thing would be to write the code once and include it in two separate systems.

As an aside, this ground testing system needs exclusive access the the aircraft and takes so long to run that it's actually currently reducing availability - and generating more false error reports then detecting genuine errors. But, like everything in the F-35 program, it's being developed in public.

[PNGuinn]

"feeding in false threat data and so on"

While it's airborne? And in battle?

Can we? Can we? PLEAAASE miss?

Something tells me that option might not end too well.

[Voland's right hand]

Re: Anyone seen the rabbit hole?

What idiot even *considered* that sticking mission planning and analysis in the same package as spares ordering?

It is called "moving to the cloud". Though shall not question the idea of moving to the cloud.

[Anonymous Custard]

Re: Anyone seen the rabbit hole?

Ah so that's the misunderstanding.

They obviously heard that the plane should take off and head to the clouds, and thought they were talking about its software instead...

[PNGuinn]

Re: Anyone seen the rabbit hole? @NB

Funny you should say that.

I was about to post "Wasn't written by someone called Pottering by any chance?" when I read the last line of your post.

BTW, are you suggesting that they've got a little way to go before it's as vile as systemd?

[YARR]

Re: Anyone seen the rabbit hole?

How else can they fund the Aurora project without faking gross inefficiency in unclassified defence projects?

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Anyone seen the rabbit hole?

"What they seem to (nearly) have is systemd for the air."

Hammer, meet mail head.

Certainly one of the better analogies I've seen recently :-)

[allthecoolshortnamesweretaken]

Re: Anyone seen the rabbit hole?

The spare-parts-and-inventory bit could be done by, say, two dozen experienced NCOs with telephones and a card file index. And it would work much, much better.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Anyone seen the rabbit hole?

One does not need to code 'Angry Birds' into ALIS when one can simulate angry Raptors from inside the app. Complete with leaderboards and mission evaluation. On the bright side, suppliers may improve delivery, if angry maintenance workers can plan airstrikes on their HQs. But even with DoD style guides, this must be a rather complex system to test and secure.. And if it's not secure, what could possibly go wrong?

Otherwise, the TCO for the F-35 is looking much worse than it already did.

[Voland's right hand]

Re: Anyone seen the rabbit hole?

Otherwise, the TCO for the F-35 is looking much worse than it already did.

OOOPS. It just hit me. You missed on which TCO to consider here.

Can someone enlightened on the subject explain to me how the f*** does a USA mil-only cloud based maintenance system work for an export fighter. Will it be necessary this POS to be integrated into every customer's flight control, spares and logistics? Will it be necessary to link during operations HMS "Lizzy 2" and whatever her sistership is to be called into what is effectively a USA system in order to do mission planning? Are they British flagged ships or I have missed what flag they are supposed to be carrying?

Whoever came up with that was smoking something phenomenally cool. Worst of all, he was not sharing - that is criminal.

[Vic]

Re: Anyone seen the rabbit hole?

Can someone enlightened on the subject explain to me how the f*** does a USA mil-only cloud based maintenance system work for an export fighter

That's a future disaster. We haven't got there yet.

So far, we're looking at whether or not it's possible to get the thing airborne when you're the manufacturing country. And it's not looking good...

Vic.

[yoganmahew]

Combat agility?

"By continuing to respond to issues on a case-by-case basis rather than in a holistic manner, there is no guarantee that DOD will address the highest risks by the start of full-rate production in 2019, and as a result, DOD may encounter further schedule and development delays, which could affect operations and potentially lead to cost increases."

It's useful to be agile sometimes. Other times... less so.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality: it does not matter.

As long as all the parties involved in this debacle get to keep the shedloads of cash they dragged out of this project, this project has delivered on its true purpose. I can't see any other explanation, nor can I see this approach change in the near future if it continues to be successful - it's the same tax-to-equity process that you've seen in the UK with all the failed government IT projects.

If you do not enforce hard penalties on abusers, this is what you will get, again and again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The reality: it does not matter.

and there will never be hard penalties enforced on abusers as there is private money politics and former military are allowed to join the Military Industrial Complex to soon after leaving the Military.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The reality: it does not matter.

there is private money politics and former military are allowed to join the Military Industrial Complex to soon after leaving the Military.

The ones that have acquired a high rank by keeping well away from any action are the worst. They should get therapy for their guilt complex ("I wasn't there, maaaan") because they're usually a dangerous combination of entitled and clueless, and thus guaranteed to endanger the lives of those at the front line.

[Anonymous Coward]

And how does ALIS apply to countries other than the US

Say, if the UK buys them, will we need our our ALIS or will we be beholden to the US maintaining theirs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: And how does ALIS apply to countries other than the US

If you need your own you hopefully won't be so dumb as to combine all the disparate functions into a single monolithic system, and won't waste quite as much money on it as we are. The good news is (if there is any) would be guaranteed employment for many thousands of UK software and systems people, since this isn't something likely to be outsourced.

[RedCardinal]

Re: And how does ALIS apply to countries other than the US

Th UK is beholden to buy them, for our new aircaft carrier that doesnt actually have any aircraft on it....

[Paul Hovnanian]

Re: And how does ALIS apply to countries other than the US

You will have to build your own system. And name it Portia. So when you are speaking to your American counterparts, they will just mutter to themselves, "Porsche? What's he talking about?"

[channel extended]

Ransomware?

Are the providers of the software also ransomware writers? And will the DOD pay in bitcoin?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plan B

I think we're going to need a RATO Typhoon variant....

[jake]

How could ElReg POSSIBLY ...

... insult the ageless Tiger Moth? That's just rude!

[Solmyr ibn Wali Barad]

Re: Tiger Moth

Produced 1931–1944

Number built 8,868

Status Retired from military service, still in civil use

Ha! Striking similarities indeed. Or not.

If one wanted to find an actual soulmate of F-35, then F-111 is a good candidate. This was also marketed as 'jack-of-all-trades' and 'the last plane you'll ever need', but practice turned out to be somewhat different. Only Australia found a good niche for them.

[Paul Smith]

Hacking opertunities

Just think of the possibilities for fun you could have if you hacked into Alis. Those are not your target coordinates, these are. Detect an fault on a minor sensor, better be safe and shut down the engine just in case.

[Vic]

Re: Hacking opertunities

Detect an fault on a minor sensor, better be safe and shut down the engine just in case.

I don't think you'd need to hack ALIS for that...

Vic.

[Paul Hovnanian]

Re: Hacking opertunities

ALIS: "I've just picked up a fault in the AE-35 unit. It's going to go 100% failure within 72 hours."

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hacking opertunities

Just think of the possibilities for fun you could have if you hacked into Alis

Better than living next door to her.

Now, let's see who gets that one on a Monday :)

[[e-mail]]

Re: Hacking opertunities

Alis? Who the f*** is Alis?

(I prefer Roy 'Chubby' Brown's version :-) )

[Mark 85]

Re: Hacking opertunities

Alis? Who the f*** is Alis?

I think she owns the restaurant... and also makes a Thanksgiving meal that can't be beat.

[PaulAb]

For just a few $m.....

I would be willing to hold onto a spanner or two and rush it across the world to an ailing F35.

I think this would be cheap at the price, and probably in the eye's of the morons with responsibility over this will think so too. I await my contract with interest.

I'm also quite good at software and believe I could comprehensively program the 'You just crashed' flashing LED, for just a few $m more.

Now, wheres my Arduino.

[Vic]

Re: For just a few $m.....

I'm also quite good at software and believe I could comprehensively program the 'You just crashed' flashing LED, for just a few $m more.

What a pointless exercise. "You've just crashed" is not a message any pilot needs - the evidence is already apparent.

What you want is a "you're about to crash" flashing LED. I suggest using a 555 for that...

Vic.

[Fred Flintstone]

Re: For just a few $m.....

What you want is a "you're about to crash" flashing LED. I suggest using a 555 for that...

Given the customary 99.999(etc) % profit margin made on such work I think you may be using too many parts. You can get LEDs that have all the flash circuitry built in, so it's a resistor and such an LED, done :).

[Stevie]

Bah!

We had this phenomenon back in the late 70s. Computer-based systems are prone to being enhanced unil they stop working at all.

"Mission Accomplished".

The next phase is to quietly shelve whatever it is and agree never to speak of it again.

[Mike Rodgers]

I think I'd be scared sh**less if I had to fly that thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy British. BAE Harrier. Know system. Large skill base.

[gazthejourno]

... and out of production for 20+ years. No new UK tradesmen trained on the airframes since 2009. No from-new production of the engines. No significant systems upgrades since the mid-2000s.

Yep, buy Harrier.

[Vic]

and out of production for 20+ years. No new UK tradesmen trained on the airframes since 2009. No from-new production of the engines. No significant systems upgrades since the mid-2000s.

There are, howver, plenty of trained craftsmen in the country who could have resurrected the Harrier if necessary.

Yep, buy Harrier.

Whilst not exactly a bright move, it would still make more sense than buying F-35.

What we should really have done is to hold BAe's feet to the fire to deliver the modular carriers they sold us, and then either work out how to retro-fit a boiler, or else fit EMALS. But that would involve having a government with a motto that wasn't "go back to your constituencies and prepare for non-executive directorships"...

Vic.

[Anonymous Coward]

But that would involve having a government with a motto that wasn't "go back to your constituencies and prepare for non-executive directorships"...

I worked there. You don't know half of it.

If you want fun, formally put the flaws of someone's pet project that is already 50% over budget on record as independent observer when they finally get to a first demo. That produces more fireworks than Chinese New Year in London :).