Radar glitch requires F-35 fighter jet pilots to turn it off and on again

[unhappycamper]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/08/radar-glitch-requires-f-35-fighter-jet-pilots-to-turn-it-off-and-on-again



Troubled warplane that has yet to see any cyber security testing hit with yet another bug affecting flight performance requiring software update

Radar glitch requires F-35 fighter jet pilots to turn it off and on again
Samuel Gibbs
Tuesday 8 March 2016 07.43 EST

The much maligned F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has yet another problem with its software: the radar stops working requiring the pilot to turn it off and on again.

The Lockheed Martin plane, which has been in development since 2001 and is the most software-driven warplane ever built, has experienced several failures and setbacks that have seen its cost balloon and its delivery delayed. Each jet is now expected to cost about £100m.

From structural problems that made it vulnerable to lightning strikes – ironic given it’s called the Lightning II – to weight issues, bugs within its software and its complete lack of cyber security testing, the plane has caused concern among the UK, US and other buyers. And now a glitch with the radar, which appeared late last year, could potentially hinder its performance against less developed fighter jets.

US air force major general Harrigian told analyst firm IHS Jane’s: “What would happen is they’d get a signal that says either a radar degrade or a radar fail – something that would force us to restart the radar.

--

I view the F-35 as:

[w0nderer]

1. heh

ghostrider 2, in pursuit of bogey
ghostrider 2, radar failure, please advice
roger that ghostrider 2, try rebooting it


at least they don't have to call microsoft support line, hold, enter a CC and get 'reboot and reinstall' instructions during ACM

[PeoViejo]

2. Don't tell me they used an MS OS.

Figures. Wat, no Ctl-Alt-Delete?

[flamin lib]

3. Just hit the instrument panel real hard . . . nt

[Ford_Prefect]

4. What is really disturbing, after the cost, is that a plane 1st made in 1974 can out-perfrorm it

in nearly every performance category it was built for. On a wet day it cannot turn or engage in combat. A squad of well tuned Douglas A-4's could bring it down. Most of its advanced combat and control systems don't work to reasonable performance levels when they work at all.

But the REALLY BIG NEWS is that recent advances in radar technology appear to be able to defeat the stealth technology that is the core of the plane's design and construction. So if they ever get the thing off the ground and into combat, or just patrolling over an island in the South China Sea, it will be vulnerable to radar guided missiles and tracking systems.

One other bad sign is that several allies were offered early purchase orders and declined in favor of the F-22 or advanced versions of the F-16 (you know: the plane it is supposed to replace which out flew it in testing and mock combat).

They promote this as a plane that can stand off and defend itself. If there is a confrontation with Chinese or Russian aircraft there will be LOTS of them in waves not merely one or 2. They tried this kind of do-it-all design several times before and discovered that you cannot ask one plane to do all of the different combat roles at one time. Over and over and over they have found it out.
In Vietnam they were so sure the missiles on the F4 Phantom were sufficient to deter any threat that they designed the plane with NO provision to mount, aim, or operate cannon or machine guns. Guess what? They needed guns because missiles do not always hit the target and occasionally do not detonate as intended. This was only the most visible version of failure to anticipate real world needs in weapon design. One other feature of this condition is that while the F4 was adaptable enough to compensate for that particular flaw, the complexity and core design of the F-35 make it virtually impossible to adapt it should some similar critical need arise in the field.

This is a plane in development since 2001. That's 15 years. Some of the more successful combat aircraft have air frame time longer than that. You have to wonder just what the deal is with that degree of delay time. I cannot help but feel that there are fundamental flaws in the design that have been patched over and over so that the original causes cannot be seen. By this point the plane should have been dropped and less complicated designs adopted which might at least cover the real world needs and missions and could have been in the air. But I guess that is but one legacy of the no-bid weapons purchasing gifted to us by the G.W..Bush gang and a compliant Congress: lack of development oversight and budget management.

[bemildred]

5. The Microsoft solution for hard to fix bugs: reboot. nt