F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
in summary, the middleware cuts it back from 3-4 years to 6 months
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was your link that you used as a source, now it seems you don't like it
"
.. Lockheed Martin-designed software middleware that enables experts to upgrade COTS hardware and software without rewriting millions of lines of code. “We built the middleware to protect us so we can make changes without overhauling the software code,” Branyan says.
The middleware enables systems designers to refresh key COTS components such as the Freescale PowerPC processors without major changes to the avionics, he continues. In the past, certifying a refresh of multifunction displays would take three to four years, now with the isolated middleware, the most recent refresh was completed in only six months, he adds
"
"
.. Lockheed Martin-designed software middleware that enables experts to upgrade COTS hardware and software without rewriting millions of lines of code. “We built the middleware to protect us so we can make changes without overhauling the software code,” Branyan says.
The middleware enables systems designers to refresh key COTS components such as the Freescale PowerPC processors without major changes to the avionics, he continues. In the past, certifying a refresh of multifunction displays would take three to four years, now with the isolated middleware, the most recent refresh was completed in only six months, he adds
"
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSFfan
Please understand that people here are trying to help you - ORAC in particular. As has been said before, it's hard to listen when you're on transmit - and around here, there are many people who've forgotten more about military procurement in general and aircraft / Dave-A/B/C than you currently know - do yourself a favour and listen. Politeness also helps!
Merry Christmas to one and all.
S41
Please understand that people here are trying to help you - ORAC in particular. As has been said before, it's hard to listen when you're on transmit - and around here, there are many people who've forgotten more about military procurement in general and aircraft / Dave-A/B/C than you currently know - do yourself a favour and listen. Politeness also helps!
Merry Christmas to one and all.
S41
To continue the notion of software development... There are those who say "x million lines of code, bfd dude, there's more than that in Vista or a Lexus."
However, PC/Mac code and indeed most non-vehicle-related-code runs on ridiculously cheap hardware, so my "development test" force can include dozens of systems running 24/7. My OT force (Beta test) can be in the thousands. This will unearth glitches faster than a handful of jets flying a one- to two-hour sortie every other day, plus a flying test bed and a SIL.
A lot of systems (like automotive) are also not very integrated. Aside from getting power from the same place, I rather doubt that any automotive fuel injection control has any connection whatsoever to the GPS/entertainment complex.
Not that every military aircraft doesn't have challenges in avionics and software development. It's to be expected. However, in the case of JSF the scope of the task has been underestimated, on the testimony of multiple program leaders and reviewers.
However, PC/Mac code and indeed most non-vehicle-related-code runs on ridiculously cheap hardware, so my "development test" force can include dozens of systems running 24/7. My OT force (Beta test) can be in the thousands. This will unearth glitches faster than a handful of jets flying a one- to two-hour sortie every other day, plus a flying test bed and a SIL.
A lot of systems (like automotive) are also not very integrated. Aside from getting power from the same place, I rather doubt that any automotive fuel injection control has any connection whatsoever to the GPS/entertainment complex.
Not that every military aircraft doesn't have challenges in avionics and software development. It's to be expected. However, in the case of JSF the scope of the task has been underestimated, on the testimony of multiple program leaders and reviewers.
Software
I find it very interesting indeed to hear about how these things have worked in a Military context. It's not so different from the software industry at large. This kind of development is usually known as "waterfall" in the industry and it's out of fashion at the moment. The fashion is called "agile" but as in most of life people talk a lot about it and claim to be doing it but they're up to the SOS most of the time.
I think that in areas which are extraordinarily well understood and where one is really doing nothing even slightly innovative or new then you can plan and debate in advance. Fortunately I have never worked in such a boring place and I am not sure one exists. Normally you need to do a little bit of work and then have a think about it, change direction if needed and then do another little bit of work. Each bit of work you do has to function correctly and be useful so that your customer (or someone representing one) can try it out. In this way you don't end up going through a long procedure for the sake of an idea that ends up being a dead end or unnecessary. Your decisions are based on what you learned from your latest little bit of work and feedback and they tend to get better over time as you realise that your initial concepts were not quite right.
When it succeeds it's quite amazing but it's not easy to get people to work like this - it requires quite a lot of people skills. For example, you have only 1 input to your team and nobody is allowed to pester other individuals but they always try to so everyone has to learn to resist improper pressures. There is also only 1 feature list with one priority ordering which sounds logical but management always try to give you "5 top priorities" since they can't choose what they care about most and frequently forget several and add more.
But when it works, you get this wonderful, short feedback loop. You do something, try it out and get a response from your users quickly and then you learn more about what's important to them and the next time you're better.
You don't become faster but it's more a case of how many things you successfully don't do because they aren't really as important or useful as someone initially thought. This saves your time for stuff that really matters.
There has to be a realisation that one has to follow some things where they lead in preference to where you thought they would go.
It is difficult to arrange this flexibility to apply to large groups of people who are working on a planned project in which each team depends on the work of another. If you can design out this reliance then you are going to "win big".
Very successful software companies tend to have solved these issues in a way which suits their specific domain but it doesn't mean they have all the answers to suit everyone else. Anyhow in my line it's a "war-winning" ability to do all this well and all the harder because it's entirely about people who all differ in their perception and understanding.
I think that in areas which are extraordinarily well understood and where one is really doing nothing even slightly innovative or new then you can plan and debate in advance. Fortunately I have never worked in such a boring place and I am not sure one exists. Normally you need to do a little bit of work and then have a think about it, change direction if needed and then do another little bit of work. Each bit of work you do has to function correctly and be useful so that your customer (or someone representing one) can try it out. In this way you don't end up going through a long procedure for the sake of an idea that ends up being a dead end or unnecessary. Your decisions are based on what you learned from your latest little bit of work and feedback and they tend to get better over time as you realise that your initial concepts were not quite right.
When it succeeds it's quite amazing but it's not easy to get people to work like this - it requires quite a lot of people skills. For example, you have only 1 input to your team and nobody is allowed to pester other individuals but they always try to so everyone has to learn to resist improper pressures. There is also only 1 feature list with one priority ordering which sounds logical but management always try to give you "5 top priorities" since they can't choose what they care about most and frequently forget several and add more.
But when it works, you get this wonderful, short feedback loop. You do something, try it out and get a response from your users quickly and then you learn more about what's important to them and the next time you're better.
You don't become faster but it's more a case of how many things you successfully don't do because they aren't really as important or useful as someone initially thought. This saves your time for stuff that really matters.
There has to be a realisation that one has to follow some things where they lead in preference to where you thought they would go.
It is difficult to arrange this flexibility to apply to large groups of people who are working on a planned project in which each team depends on the work of another. If you can design out this reliance then you are going to "win big".
Very successful software companies tend to have solved these issues in a way which suits their specific domain but it doesn't mean they have all the answers to suit everyone else. Anyhow in my line it's a "war-winning" ability to do all this well and all the harder because it's entirely about people who all differ in their perception and understanding.
Last edited by t43562; 23rd Dec 2012 at 14:24.
OK Orca, as it’s Christmas I’ll bite:
Oh dear, oh dear - what a bitter rant against QFIs!
Did some nasty QFI imply once that you weren’t quite the ace that you thought you were?
As for your uncritical endorsement of all other forms of instructor I quote from a previous post of mine:
Oh dear, oh dear - what a bitter rant against QFIs!
Did some nasty QFI imply once that you weren’t quite the ace that you thought you were?
As for your uncritical endorsement of all other forms of instructor I quote from a previous post of mine:
After that (being a QFI), I went to Chivenor to fly DF/GA Hunters and was appalled at the lack of professionalism of some of the PAIs. Quite a few of them made not the slightest effort to ‘instruct’ properly, expecting the student to get things right just from hearing the Phase Brief. On the ground their stock-in-trade consisted of constant humiliation of the students, (Particularly ex-Creamies), while their instructional patter during a demo pass might run to “S***t! I’m almost as spastic as you are”. On my Air-to-Air dual the PAI gave me so much hassle that I only fired the gun once. After a solo cine sortie I managed to teach myself the technique and achieved 45% average for the course on the flag, having had not a word of worthwhile airborne instruction from a PAI.
In my view people like that should have been 1020'd off the unit for deliberate dereliction of duty - for petulantly refusing to carry out the job they had been trained for.
Later on I discovered that a large part of the PAI course consisted of weapon sortie after weapon sortie (solo), just to build up the student PAI’s personal weapon skill, with not much time devoted to actual instructional practice. The resultant skill level allowed them to ‘lord it’ over their students.
Fortunately, not all PAIs were like that. Some could use correct instructional techniques and actually improve student standards.
In my view people like that should have been 1020'd off the unit for deliberate dereliction of duty - for petulantly refusing to carry out the job they had been trained for.
Later on I discovered that a large part of the PAI course consisted of weapon sortie after weapon sortie (solo), just to build up the student PAI’s personal weapon skill, with not much time devoted to actual instructional practice. The resultant skill level allowed them to ‘lord it’ over their students.
Fortunately, not all PAIs were like that. Some could use correct instructional techniques and actually improve student standards.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr, nope, 'twas meant as (accurate
) banter and even re-reading it I'm not entirely sure which bit you could possibly call bitter. I even gave them a chuck up for their stall stuff and said they were useful up until flying a warplane...which is a reasonably long period of time.
One or two probably told me I was rubbish - but then again, I can't have been that bad...solely judging from the fact that I have never been forced to fly an aeroplane where I got any help.. That was banter too. , for good measure.
Still, not to worry, happy christmas!
Banter, however rubbish or ill-recieved apart, when I was at Group LM put together a syllabus for F-35 that appeared to make QFIs unnecessary...when I left I think CFS were doing a study to see if they agreed. I assume they didn't.
) banter and even re-reading it I'm not entirely sure which bit you could possibly call bitter. I even gave them a chuck up for their stall stuff and said they were useful up until flying a warplane...which is a reasonably long period of time.One or two probably told me I was rubbish - but then again, I can't have been that bad...solely judging from the fact that I have never been forced to fly an aeroplane where I got any help.
. That was banter too. , for good measure.Still, not to worry, happy christmas!
Banter, however rubbish or ill-recieved apart, when I was at Group LM put together a syllabus for F-35 that appeared to make QFIs unnecessary...when I left I think CFS were doing a study to see if they agreed. I assume they didn't.
some nasty QFI imply once that you weren’t quite the ace that you thought you were?
PS always use ground features for the circuit at home base, after all that's where you'll do 90% of your check rides!
Last edited by Easy Street; 23rd Dec 2012 at 20:31.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I said I wouldn't!
Tend to agree with Mudmover. I came from both camps - serving at Valley, Chiv and on Squadrons various, up to Sqn Cdr level. There was, in my now latent view, a need for all instructional disciplines, albeit the non-QFI chappies invariably seemed to have the better gift of banter and volume - as witnessed on several recent fora here. And how rear seaters could ever claim to be suited for the QWI qualification was always quite beyond me. None of them had even peered through a gunsight in the air, let alone having to fly the thing as well, yet all were experts on the cine debrief - which required little, if any, instructional technique. That said, I liked most, but only most, of them.
Aside from the general tendency to share the common line of "not like that you tw8t, like this", it was my experience that the few decent QWIs and TWIs etc all gained their instructional expertise from long and well-honed CFS practices. I think I did, albeit, I could never ever quite match their bull**** in the bar! A calm and subtle approach invariably had the more persuasive and lasting affect.
Now I'll sit back and wait for the inevitable
Tend to agree with Mudmover. I came from both camps - serving at Valley, Chiv and on Squadrons various, up to Sqn Cdr level. There was, in my now latent view, a need for all instructional disciplines, albeit the non-QFI chappies invariably seemed to have the better gift of banter and volume - as witnessed on several recent fora here. And how rear seaters could ever claim to be suited for the QWI qualification was always quite beyond me. None of them had even peered through a gunsight in the air, let alone having to fly the thing as well, yet all were experts on the cine debrief - which required little, if any, instructional technique. That said, I liked most, but only most, of them.
Aside from the general tendency to share the common line of "not like that you tw8t, like this", it was my experience that the few decent QWIs and TWIs etc all gained their instructional expertise from long and well-honed CFS practices. I think I did, albeit, I could never ever quite match their bull**** in the bar! A calm and subtle approach invariably had the more persuasive and lasting affect.
Now I'll sit back and wait for the inevitable
Last edited by cuefaye; 23rd Dec 2012 at 21:53.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In a hole with an owl
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I'd admit that we of the QWI persuasion may've lacked the instructional technique finesse of CFS's finest, the QWI pay we received each month certainly made up for any feelings of inadequacy.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no right to comment on this specific issue but it would appear that some folks just do not get military banter.
We all sometimes like to say, 'Those who can, do.. those who can't, instruct'
But the bottom line is that all instructors are selected, they might not be perfect, but we all appreciate they are not idiots.
Are they selected because they are incompetant and have no idea of how to teach our pilots the basic skills that will set them on a path to fame, fortune, medals and glory, or are they selected solely to belittle and humilate? (humour folks, humour
)
Much respect to ALL instructors, but if you can't take a joke, get out of the kitchen.
We all sometimes like to say, 'Those who can, do.. those who can't, instruct'
But the bottom line is that all instructors are selected, they might not be perfect, but we all appreciate they are not idiots.
Are they selected because they are incompetant and have no idea of how to teach our pilots the basic skills that will set them on a path to fame, fortune, medals and glory, or are they selected solely to belittle and humilate? (humour folks, humour
)Much respect to ALL instructors, but if you can't take a joke, get out of the kitchen.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bouncing around the Holding pattern
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"PS always use ground features for the circuit at home base, after all that's where you'll do 90% of your check rides!"
Easy, I'm sure you did an ACO check on me once...
Easy, I'm sure you did an ACO check on me once...
I can see it now...here are some F35s being maintained on the flightline...
...and here are some wheelie bins awaiting collection...
The B Word
...and here are some wheelie bins awaiting collection...
The B Word
Last edited by The B Word; 27th Dec 2012 at 11:09.
hot start: not enough air flow through the (combustion) can. 