Congress Investigating F-35 Failures:

[Matt Collins]

Congressmen Gaetz & Moulton Lead Bipartisan Legislation Holding Lockheed Martin and DoD Accountable for F-35 Aircraft Failures​

Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Congressmen Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Seth Moulton (D-MA) will introduce a bipartisan resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors are in breach of contract with respect to the F-35 deliverables and that the Department of Defense (DoD) has failed to adequately hold the program accountable.

Last month, Rep. Gaetz spoke in the House Armed Services Committee about the federal government stifling innovation by giving Lockheed Martin “full-system performance” to fix their own failed F-35 program all while House appropriators have taken away funds service members need for child care and using those funds instead to buy more F-35s.

“The federal government should not give 'full-system performance' contracts to companies responsible for their own failures. Today, I introduced a resolution to hold contractors accountable for breaching their F-35 obligations, while the Department of Defense has failed to enforce accountability.

It’s unacceptable to leave the American taxpayer on the hook for a broken system and allow appropriators in Congress to divest funds from service members’ child care to invest in broken F-35s. We must stop rewarding failure and prioritize our military families,” said Congressman Gaetz.

“For two decades, across multiple administrations and Congresses, Lockheed Martin has failed to deliver on the F-35. Every step in the program's journey has been late, wildly over budget, and has produced a plane that does not perform as required. It's time to hold Lockheed Martin publicly accountable for failing the American taxpayer,” said Congressman Moulton.

Full text of Congressman Gaetz’s resolution can be found HERE. Additionally, exclusive coverage of the resolution by Breitbart News can be found HERE.

 

[fisharmor]

If you ask the bureaucratic brass about this they'll all say that every fighter program is always over budget and late, and that there's nothing abnormal here.
The trouble is, we have a century of examples to look at and while it might be a regular occurrence in the last 30 years, it's not the rule. There are plenty of aircraft that buck this trend.

Almost every figher used by the US during WWII had a turnaround time of a year, from concept to production. The P-51 in particular went from a wild boast to a prototype in 102 days.
The F-86 Saber took four years to go from proposal to production in four years (1945 to 1949) but the entire paradigm for a fighter plane got turned on its head in the process (moreso than the F-35 has!), so it naturally took a bit of time.

Contrast that to the fact that you can find videos from a full decade ago of people asking why TF the F-35 is so behind schedule and declaring the whole thing a boondoggle.

And none of this happened in a vacuum. Lockheed had been having financial trouble and scandals since the 70s and got a federal bailout way back then - before Harley even. So it's no doubt that they've institutionalized failure at this point and everyone is operating under the assumption that the F-35 is too big to fail. We can probably thank Lockheed for planting the seeds of the bank bailout of 2008.
Lockheed will continue to get bailed out in perpetuity until either someone sees the sense in ending this and going back to sensible aircraft (or going full drone, which we're probably past due for) or the US government goes insolvent.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Big business and big government are the same. Failure is rewarded.

 

[TheCount]

Contrast that to the fact that you can find videos from a full decade ago of people asking why TF the F-35 is so behind schedule and declaring the whole thing a boondoggle.

If you scratch the surface of any of those you'll find one of three things: 1) a different vendor trying to sell their competing fighter, 2) certain people within the DoD with their own, highly specific goals (like procuring their own service-specific plane instead), or 3) liars getting free publicity.


It's almost impossible to have a conversation about it without it immediately devolving to the meme level.

 

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba63OVl1MHw

 

[fisharmor]

If you scratch the surface of any of those you'll find one of three things: 1) a different vendor trying to sell their competing fighter, 2) certain people within the DoD with their own, highly specific goals (like procuring their own service-specific plane instead), or 3) liars getting free publicity.


It's almost impossible to have a conversation about it without it immediately devolving to the meme level.

Ok hold on. I offered examples of where fighter development took 4 years on the outside from concept to production. There are a lot more in the intervening 70 years since the F-86 took flight.
Then I said you can find videos from a full decade ago saying "what the fuck is the holdup here".
This thread is dedicated to a 2024 asking of "what the fuck is the holdup here".

You've completely missed the point. The point is, for most of aviation history companies were able to make entirely new, revolutionary, whizbang platforms in a couple years. Other companies could have developed and fielded over 2 different fighters in the amount of time JUST in between the start of people asking "what the fuck is the holdup" and the current date.

They've spent three decades trying to get this thing in the air and operational. The point at this point isn't that the naysayers might have ulterior motives.
The point is in any 3-decade period throughout the entire history of aviation, the landscape has completely changed. And they're still trying to figure out how to make this one plane work.

There's no room for conversation anymore - or at least, there shouldn't be. If this was your car and you contracted to have it fixed and the repair shop ignored the contract you signed and took 15 times longer than any other repair shop to fix your car and it still wasn't fixed, you'd have sued them into oblivion at this point.

We're a decade past "get it done in one year or we're taking all your assets". The point of this program is graft, plain and simple. There's no other way to reasonably read this situation.

 

[TheCount]

Ok hold on. I offered examples of where fighter development took 4 years on the outside from concept to production.

Do you notice anything about the time period that those fighters have in common?

There are a lot more in the intervening 70 years since the F-86 took flight.
Then I said you can find videos from a full decade ago saying "what the fuck is the holdup here".
This thread is dedicated to a 2024 asking of "what the fuck is the holdup here".

You've completely missed the point. The point is, for most of aviation history companies were able to make entirely new, revolutionary, whizbang platforms in a couple years. Other companies could have developed and fielded over 2 different fighters in the amount of time JUST in between the start of people asking "what the fuck is the holdup" and the current date.

They've spent three decades trying to get this thing in the air and operational. The point at this point isn't that the naysayers might have ulterior motives.
The point is in any 3-decade period throughout the entire history of aviation, the landscape has completely changed. And they're still trying to figure out how to make this one plane work.

There's no room for conversation anymore - or at least, there shouldn't be. If this was your car and you contracted to have it fixed and the repair shop ignored the contract you signed and took 15 times longer than any other repair shop to fix your car and it still wasn't fixed, you'd have sued them into oblivion at this point.

We're a decade past "get it done in one year or we're taking all your assets". The point of this program is graft, plain and simple. There's no other way to reasonably read this situation.

What do you mean they're trying to get it in the air and operational?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Congressmen Gaetz & Moulton Lead Bipartisan Legislation Holding Lockheed Martin and DoD Accountable for F-35 Aircraft Failures

[...]

Last month, Rep. Gaetz spoke in the House Armed Services Committee about the federal government stifling innovation by giving Lockheed Martin “full-system performance” to fix their own failed F-35 program all while House appropriators have taken away funds service members need for child care and using those funds instead to buy more F-35s.

[...]

"It’s unacceptable to leave the American taxpayer on the hook for a broken system and allow appropriators in Congress to divest funds from service members’ child care to invest in broken F-35s. We must stop rewarding failure and prioritize our military families,” said Congressman Gaetz.

“[...[ Every step in the program's journey has been late, wildly over budget, and has produced a plane that does not perform as required. It's time to hold Lockheed Martin publicly accountable for failing the American taxpayer,” said Congressman Moulton.

Failures?

What failures?

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." -- Murray Rothbard
​

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If you scratch the surface of any of those you'll find one of three things: 1) a different vendor trying to sell their competing fighter, 2) certain people within the DoD with their own, highly specific goals (like procuring their own service-specific plane instead), or 3) liars getting free publicity.


It's almost impossible to have a conversation about it without it immediately devolving to the meme level.

And which is Ron Paul? 1, 2, or 3?




https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/0...-more-military-spending-is-not-more-security/

 

[acptulsa]

If you scratch the surface of any of those you'll find one of three things: 1) a different vendor trying to sell their competing fighter, 2) certain people within the DoD with their own, highly specific goals (like procuring their own service-specific plane instead), or 3) liars getting free publicity.


It's almost impossible to have a conversation about it without it immediately devolving to the meme level.

Horsefeathers.

This thing has a gestation period longer than some aircraft models' service lives.

It's suffering from the same we have the tech now to go full Flash Gordon attitude that rendered the XB-70 unable to execute its most basic core mission. As a result of that, we wound up operating B-52 far into its own antiquity. They were still operating at human retirement age, over sixty years.

This boondoggle is going to keep the F-15, -16 and -18 operating well after other countries render them obsolete.

 

[fisharmor]

Do you notice anything about the time period that those fighters have in common?

You're probably not referring to the fact that those time periods were all playing with absolute bleeding edge tech and physical phenomena that were barely understood and nobody had the use of computers in any of their efforts, as opposed to spending three decades trying to combine already developed tech like the F-35 is.

Horsefeathers.

This thing has a gestation period longer than some aircraft models' service lives.

Yes, exactly my point.

 

[TheCount]

You're probably not referring to the fact that those time periods were all playing with absolute bleeding edge tech and physical phenomena that were barely understood and nobody had the use of computers in any of their efforts, as opposed to spending three decades trying to combine already developed tech like the F-35 is.

You mean the bleeding edge German tech that suddenly changed the design of US fighters like the F-86 when we acquired their scientists after the war?


Yes, it's really amazing how quickly the F-86 was developed and produced. Why, after three years of development it looked like this:

But then one year later, after a postwar peek at some German designs, it looked like this:

Also, if you think the F-35 was already developed tech that's really revealing.

 

[acptulsa]

Also, if you think the F-35 was already developed tech that's really revealing.

Isn't it interesting how you always start a sentence, "...if you think..." when you know they did not say the words you're putting in their mouths.

 

[fisharmor]

Isn't it interesting how you always start a sentence, "...if you think..." when you know they did not say the words you're putting in their mouths.

It's more interesting to me that TheCount seems to be asserting that the F-35 has been developed during the entire three decade period I mentioned.

It's even more interesting that he thinks somehow pointing out that non-US citizens did some of the aerospace development back then is some kind of point. It has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation, unless he's trying to trash US engineering, which is just fine with me if the subject is the F-35.

 

[vita3]

Pretty sure Israel just did some level of real damage to Iran w: it’s missle launches form F35’s..

 

[devil21]

yawn

 

[TheCount]

Isn't it interesting how you always start a sentence, "...if you think..." when you know they did not say the words you're putting in their mouths.

Whatever you say, bro

spending three decades trying to combine already developed tech like the F-35 is.

 

[TheTexan]

I would propose a hypothesis, that the internationalization of the jet, both in terms of design and manufacture, contributed significantly to the delays:

https://simpleflying.com/how-many-international-parts-us-f-35-fighter-jet/

The design of the jet was already strained by trying to make it universal across US military branches, even moreso when trying to make it universal across European, Japanese, and Australian militaries.

The decision to have the parts manufactured all over the world was almost certainly more related to getting buy-in from these other countries than actual pragmatic manufacturing concerns.

They basically took an already-complex jet, added complex international requirements to it, and then made the manufacturing process as complex as possible.

I'm shocked the fucking thing ever got finished at all.

 

[ClaytonB]

Basically, the aircraft's brain decided that the plane was on the ground because the malfunctioning weight-on-wheels sensors all detected the weight of the aircraft on the 2nd touch-and-go, but did not properly detect that the aircraft was actually airborne, not on the ground. This switched the aircraft's mode to ground-laws, which made the aircraft uncontrollable.



This is an excellent lesson in the limitations of mechanical intelligence (a better term than "artificial intelligence") These aircraft are chock full of AI systems. These are high-reliability AI systems that have all kinds of safeguards and are engineered with unimaginable precision, including proof-based design methods, meaning, the software is analyzed by special programs that construct formally-verifiable mathematical proofs that the software itself cannot cause a failure as long as the associated hardware remains in its designated operating ranges. But even with all of that, the software got confused and thought it was on the ground, when it was not.

Autonomous AI systems should be regarded with infinite suspicion. And autonomous AI systems without any human in the loop should be treated as an unlimited liability on whoever deploys them. Personally, I would categorize such systems under the legal category of "attractive nuisance". An attractive nuisance is something like a construction hole that has a door leading into it which is not locked, taped or otherwise marked as dangerous, so the door appears to be safe to use but is actually a death-trap. Or if you leave a dangerous machete laying out that is brightly colored and looks like a toy and a child cuts themselves on it because they thought it was a toy, that is an attractive nuisance. The fact that you didn't intend harm is irrelevant -- the fact that you did not take the obvious, common-sense precaution to prevent harm that was completely foreseeable... is relevant.

A lot of people are going to go to jail for dangerous, nuisance AI and robotics systems. Sorry, I know that's a slightly OT rant, but it's an issue that is more relevant today than it was even 5 years ago. We can learn these lessons without having to go full School of Hard Knocks. All it takes is the slightest bit of effort and willingness to self-criticize ...

 

[nobody's_hero]

Basically, the aircraft's brain decided that the plane was on the ground because the malfunctioning weight-on-wheels sensors all detected the weight of the aircraft on the 2nd touch-and-go, but did not properly detect that the aircraft was actually airborne, not on the ground. This switched the aircraft's mode to ground-laws, which made the aircraft uncontrollable.



This is an excellent lesson in the limitations of mechanical intelligence (a better term than "artificial intelligence") These aircraft are chock full of AI systems. These are high-reliability AI systems that have all kinds of safeguards and are engineered with unimaginable precision, including proof-based design methods, meaning, the software is analyzed by special programs that construct formally-verifiable mathematical proofs that the software itself cannot cause a failure as long as the associated hardware remains in its designated operating ranges. But even with all of that, the software got confused and thought it was on the ground, when it was not.

Autonomous AI systems should be regarded with infinite suspicion. And autonomous AI systems without any human in the loop should be treated as an unlimited liability on whoever deploys them. Personally, I would categorize such systems under the legal category of "attractive nuisance". An attractive nuisance is something like a construction hole that has a door leading into it which is not locked, taped or otherwise marked as dangerous, so the door appears to be safe to use but is actually a death-trap. Or if you leave a dangerous machete laying out that is brightly colored and looks like a toy and a child cuts themselves on it because they thought it was a toy, that is an attractive nuisance. The fact that you didn't intend harm is irrelevant -- the fact that you did not take the obvious, common-sense precaution to prevent harm that was completely foreseeable... is relevant.

A lot of people are going to go to jail for dangerous, nuisance AI and robotics systems. Sorry, I know that's a slightly OT rant, but it's an issue that is more relevant today than it was even 5 years ago. We can learn these lessons without having to go full School of Hard Knocks. All it takes is the slightest bit of effort and willingness to self-criticize ...

It sounds like the "Subaru" of airplanes.

I had a friend who bought fairly new model Subaru. He didn't have it long.

The car by default doesn't seem to really want you to drive it. He said it has some useful features under ideal driving circumstances, but it will fight you for control unless you disable the features.

He had it about two weeks before someone rear-ended him. I guess those safety features didn't really matter in the end.