F-35 Official Returns to AFA Year After Criticizing Lockheed Martin

F-35 Official Returns to AFA Year After Criticizing Lockheed Martin

The Pentagon’s top officer overseeing the F-35 program put Lockheed Martin, the lead contractor, on notice last year with some unexpected straight talk about his views of the program saying the relationship between Lockheed and the Pentagon’s Joint Program Office is the “worst I’ve ever seen.”

A year later, Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan is set to return to the Air Force Association’s annual conference, but the same fireworks are not expected as the F-35 Joint Program Office and Congress has seen progress in the F-35 program.

Air Force leaders have said publicly they are confident the A-model of the F-35 – the Air Force’s version — will achieve initial operational capability by 2016.


Initial operational capability, or IOC, is the target date each service sets for fielding an initial combat capable force. The IOC dates for the different F-35s have changed several times, starting with 2010–2012, according to a March 2013 report on the program by the Government Accountability Office.

Currently, there are 78 F-35s flying today amongst the services to include the Marine Corps, according to Lockheed Martin.  The contractor expects to have 90 by the end of the 2013 and by the end of 2016 the military will have 200 F-35s in the air, and more than 50 percent of them by the Air Force, said Mike Rein, a Lockheed Martin spokesman.

The Defense Department next year plans to spend $8.4 billion to buy 29 F-35s, including 19 for the Air Force, six for the Marine Corps, and four for the Navy. The funding includes $6.4 billion in procurement, $1.9 billion in research and development, and $187 million in spare parts.

The missed deadlines and cost overruns of the F-35 Lightning II, the most expensive weapons system in U.S. military history, have been well documented. But there are some critics who have begun to offer praise to the program.

Among them is Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He told a group of reporters on Tuesday he is more confident in the program, though, he was cautious to point to any one common factor that has put it over the top.

His confidence follows steps forward in testing as well as a recent vertical night landing by the Marine Corps version of the F-35. Test pilot Lt. Col. C.R. “Jimi” Clift completed the first ever vertical night landing aboard the USS Wasp at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland on Aug. 14.

Still Lockheed Martin knows it still has work to do to completely return to the good graces of Bogdan and the Joint Program Office. Bogdan, in Congressional testimony, cited the F-35s advanced software as one of the largest challenges still facing the program.

The F-35 requires more than 8 million lines of code, compared with about 2 million for the F-16 and less than 1 million for other fourth-generation fighter aircraft, Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed vice president of F-35 program integration and business development, said in June.

F-35 program engineers still have to upgrade the software inside the cockpit from the Block 2 to the Block 3i. Critics like Winslow Wheeler director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Project on Government Oversight, said he won’t believe the F-35 has met IOC until the F-35 has the Block 3i onboard.

Lockheed, for its part, responded to Air Force concerns over a lag in the development of F-35 software by boosting its software workforce by 200 engineers.

O’Bryan told reporters that Lockheed “pulled the best and brightest from throughout our organization” to boost the software program, with many from outside the aeronautics division and specializing in space, ship-board, and sensor technology.

The company also invested $100 million to build a second laboratory, he said, where the engineers are now working around the clock in shifts to write, test, and verify the code.

Bogdan will speak on Sept. 17 about the program. One year ago, he said the Pentagon and the Joint Program Office will have to “fundamentally change the way we do business with Lockheed Martin.”

He conceded last year that Lockheed had made improvements. The question is did they do enough to avoid a second public tongue lashing from the Pentagon’s top F-35 officer.

Tags: , ,

Join the Conversation

They “added 200 software engineers! OMG! That mean they probably have 500 engineers working on it.

But this makes me wonder how much of the coding is outsourced to India-probably most of it. Which explains why this program is a miserable failure.

No working helmet. So the gun is completely out of the picture. No ability to launch a rail-mounted missile (like AIM132 ASRAAM or AIM-9) from internal carry (note the mechanics of how the F-22 does that from the side bays).. External carry of these missiles also requires helmet cueing. AMRAAM can be jammed down so its’ PK is in question and well only 2 are carried. Then too because of aircraft weight and performance, against emerging threats, if it is able to get a lock, will be firing up-hill. The enemy down hill. Air to ground? One would have hoped that they would have real, guided weapons targeting figured out by now. Why are these people so slow? 12 years after contract award and there are no credible mission systems to drop and hit targets with live weapons. Ship ops? How did they do with changing out that $27M F-35B motor aboard ship? No? That and so much more. At this stage, it appears IOC will be nothing more than a marketing gimmick.

The PAkFA T-50 will obliterate the F-35. Let’s not waste our money. One good thing. Time is not on the F-35s side

There is an “Interesting Article” in Aviation Week today about Boeing & Saab doing a joint venture for the “T-X Program” that at the end of it and I quote ( Beyond that, a source close to USAF leadership notes that “it is not a long step to an affordable air defense fighter to replace (Air National) Guard F-15/F-16 units ) So maybe the Air Force is looking at a Plan B. For an Affordable Gen 4++ . Which would be very smart.
.
Boeing And Saab To Propose Gripen For T-X
. http://​www​.aviationweek​.com/​A​r​t​i​c​l​e​.​a​s​p​x​?​i​d​=​/​a​rti

I still fail to see how this program is making progress when no mission systems on the jet actually work and I still fail to see how this jet is worth it when it is so expensive it is causing cuts in every other area of the DoD budget to endure sequestration and pay for it. The USN has made it public that they may need to cut two carriers to pay for this airplane. DoD civilians are taking cuts in their pay and LM shareholders are getting richer off every delay. IOC will be a joke.

“The F-35 requires more than 8 million lines of code, compared with about 2 million for the F-16 and less than 1 million for other fourth-generation fighter aircraft, Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed vice president of F-35 program integration and business development, said in June.”

An old time, old school computer programmer — who would nowadays be a “software engineer” — worked for a firm where his compensation, and those of his colleagues, were tied to numbers of lines of code written. He later noted what ought to have been obvious, which is the huge inherent incentive in such a scheme to produce enormously bloated, grossly inefficient code.

One of his peers pointed proudly to having taken a single line of tight code and blown it out to twelve. Not having accomplished any improvement in computational efficiency or software maintainability, but having padded his bonus generously.

“Lockheed, for its part, responded to Air Force concerns over a lag in the development of F-35 software by boosting its software workforce by 200 engineers.”

It is as though Frederick Brooks never wrote _The Mythical Man-Month_. Facepalm.

By the way, the programmer referenced above worked for the same firm as did Brooks. And learned the same hard lessons about nontechnical MBA management fundamentally misunderstanding software. There is not a one-to-one relationship between LOCs (lines of code) and the finished compiled product.

The F-35 is like Windows 8, it has been fashionable to hate on but the winds are changing…

Just as a item for comparison, 8 million lines of code is a lot, but my Chevy Volt has 10 million, and it works flawlessly.
I really wish the F-35 hadn’t been designed with STOVL capability. If the F-35A and the F-35C had been the only criteria the designers had to work around, I would bet the F-35 would have been half again the aircraft it is now.
As it is, it will probably be a rather good, albeit not great, aircraft when it is actually deployed, but it could have been much better.

Still unaffordable both in acquisition and sustainment. This program is starting to cause major atrophy to other defense needs which will become more acute as sequestration continues. It’s a one trick pony that relys on ROE that aren’t likely to exist outside of WW III, If ROE are restrictive (AKA normal) the F-35 is going to be at a sever disadvantage with it’s lack of kinematic performance, and lack of internal carriage AIM-9X. That said, it still lacks the range and payload needed to pivot to the Pacific.

So what we have is a F-16 replacement that still costs more than an F-22, when what we now need, to pivot to the Pacific, are F-15E and F-22 replacements.

F-35 is an expensive short range, light attack aircraft with some LO features. It is NOT an air superiority fighter, nor a penetrating long range bomber, two platforms sorely needed. As more international partners reduce or cancel their planned orders, the unit costs will not come down, thus leading to Pentagon quantity reductions, and unit costs further spiraling out of control.
The F-35 program enjoys considerable congressional support due to wide dispersion of the supplier base, so it’s not going away. This is going to lead to unilateral disarmament and a general hollowing out of military readiness. :(

Come friends, what is the longest way to display “Hello World” to the government

“Hey, what’s with all the comment lines? Are you padding the linecount!”

wc –l F22program.c

9999999 F22program.c

GOVERNMENT WIN!!!

In the old days, NASA or DARPA or any of the other research labs would’ve worked on the helmet system and passed it off when it was ready. The customer is more and more divorced from the product to the point that it’s no longer funny…

Yeah it took 3–5 years in the 70s for the F-15 to get from blue print design to Operational Squadron. The F-35 been in limbo for almost 20 years. Mean while we ignore real warplanes like the death of the F-22 and not looking for F-15 upgrades this is weak sauce by the USAF leadership.

One old school computer programmer to another, I agree with you torque. The concept of paying programmers by the line of code is a gross mistake that will benefit no-one. Better to pay them by unit of functioning code, by sub-routine, as we used to call it in my language of choice. But you’d need to assign different values to match the differing complexity of each module.

Of course, they could go back to the method used in the good old days … an hourly rate with a slave master and a whip driving production. Much better, imo.

Dave

I got news for you, all piloted planes will be made obsolete by drones. Including the T-50. Give me ten $5M drones over one $50M manned plane every time.

It seems to me that this project was conceived incorrectly from the start. Wouldn’t it have been better to keep each function separate in different aircraft? If you want a bomber, design a bomber. If you want an air dominance fighter, design one.

Attempting to combine the two into one is surely a big mistake.

Dave

Designing three aircraft to use the same engine F-135/F-136 would not have been a mortal sin. Designing three aircraft to use similar avionics also would not have been a sin. But pushing commonality so deep into the design; and especially when most of the cost-savings would be from common avionics and common engines?

It isn’t as it falls under ITAR/EAR restrictions.

Luckily, our export partners are keeping the F-15 current. The new Saudi planes will be fly-by-wire and have new dashboards among other changes. The Korean and Singapore versions added AESA radars and a bunch of current weapons, and the new Korean competition (if Boeing wins it) will introduce a bunch of stealth mods. Too bad the USAF ain’t buying them.

Weaponhead, to think that we need replacements for the –22 and –15E is insane — To operate in the Pacific, you need long range, big payload, and the performance and (in the case of F-22’s target sets and missions) the ability to defeat access-denial systems… All the things the –15E and –22 have in abundance — Why you would even propose replacements for some of the newest and best platforms for the Pacific arena is beyond comprehension. Assuming no carriers able to enter the area (a high likelihood), what would you propose, using B-2s, B-52s and B-1s exclusively to maintain air superiority? The F-22 and F-15E can handle ANYTHING the Pacific can put in the air against them, while the B’s can obliterate any target unwise enough to stay in place. If you want replacements for anything, how about we start with a replacement for the misconceptions about the –22… It is an operational nightmare to any country that thinks their SAMs and 4th-gens can offer protection, make no mistake about that.

Lockheed and Boeing both use a standard billing estimate of 8 man hours per line of code. That’s just for writing the code, and does not include any testing or other verification. Of course, for every $1 either company spends on engineers to write flight code, they get $1.15 back from the government so you figure out why the number of lines of code have exploded and the time it takes to write the code has gone through the roof? I wish I could get someone to pay me $1.15 for every dollar I spent. I could spend myself rich. Only a moron agrees to a contract like that and apparently you are collectively a bunch of morons because your “representatives” in our republican form of government sign you up for that kind of contract every day without anyone so much as making a peep of dissent.

Mule, my compliments to you — I’m SO glad there are people still out there like yourself with some common sense — Thank you for that post, you raised my spirits :-)

All aircraft have common elements, such as electronics, avionics, radars, fuselage, wings, fins, wheels, control surfaces, etc., regardless of their external/internal design and functionality. Why is it that most of you consider common designs and components (ala F35) at odds with military functionality? That is, if an F16 and F35A basically perform the same military roles (attack aircraft, but not necessarily air superiority) why can’t they share the same common elements (engines and avionics) as other “related” aircraft, such as VSTOL (F35B) and carrier-based (F35C) fighters/bombers?

Um…forcing people to use a inferior product (Windows 8) in a pretty package with a few extra’s then saying look how much people want it is.….….well. It probably isn’t helping your case.

I don’t think anyone is contending that aircraft shouldn’t share common parts; as you said, it’s quite “common”. But there is a HUGE difference between an F-15 and F-16 using a common engine and what you see displayed in the F-35. Each –35 design is tied to the design of another, so that any silly change like the placement of the arresting hook in the –C version has impacts on the design of the other; worse yet, any major design change required for one version can have serious implications for the performance of ALL 3. This is exactly why you see performance specs being lowered repeatedly (a virtual “No-No” for any other program), time frames being kicked out, capabilities not being ready, and should illustrate what is so disturbing and silly about the –35… In order to keep it “affordable”, they tied the designs together ASSUMING things would just pan out, and instead we’re left with an under-performing, very late-to-delivery, extremely expensive aircraft — You know, all the things it was supposed to NOT be. Sure, it will in all likelihood end up being a great aircraft; but we’ve pumped billions into this program and almost none of what we were sold (cheap to buy, cheap to operate, usable in today’s wars) is actually true; and most of its “needed” capabilities won’t even be ready until 2020+, if ever… What was so necessary in the wonderful PowerPoints we’ve all seen over the past 10 years about an aircraft that won’t be “fully capable” until some 10 years from NOW (20 years after prototype.… All politics and money, guys..Politics and money. Anyone who agrees that cancelling the F-22 (with BTW meets all KPPs, including supercruise, all-aspect stealth, super-maneuverability, world-class air-air with air-ground enhancements on-going) in orde to direct funding to the –35 obviously can’t see the tremendous advantage we gained by beginning with an F-15C and evolving it into an F-15E — Look at every multi-role fighter out there today, they model themselves almost directly on what the –15E has to offer (range, speed, throw weight, air-air,…)

Matt, the best drones will always be one software release short of the performance needed to dominate the best pilots. Your confidence in drones is dangerous, unless you convince our enemies. In that case, I support you ;) .

Including the Gripen, all of the announced T-X competitors are actually too big and costly for the specified mission. They are quite a bit bigger and heavier than the T-38. It is my opinion that there will be pressure from the bidders to adjust the requirements of the spec to include a real military capability, like the F-5, and the source selection process has no discipline to keep the jet small. There are good arguments to be made that we need more jets, no matter how limited their capability, to bulk up the USAF numbers. The luxury of a dedicated trainer can not be justified when the USAF has half the fighters it had in 1990. The Gripen is well qualified for this game. Its capability can be dialed down to whatever the final spec says by offloading equipment and features. The Gripen allows a buffet of already proven performance features, electronics and weapons. Most of them have already been engineered, integrated, and flight tested. Not insignificantly, the technical and financial risk is low. Some of the other competitors can also make the “proven and tested” argument, but the Gripen goes way beyond them. I like their chances, especially against the T-50.

@taxpayer: Would you modify your opinion if the fuselage, fins, wheels and control surfaces were only superficially similar, but don’t share any common parts.? Does the argument you promote actually exist anywhere but in your head? Consider that in order to ensure military functionality of the whole aircraft system, each of the parts you mention are optimized for the specific variant. There are hardly no common components, at least in the airframe. I am confident there will eventually be no commonality in the engine either, because the F-35C needs more thrust, and the STOVL propulsion system is already unique. I am not sure a Navy engine can be installed in an Air Force engine bay now. Are you?

You have no idea what your talking about.……

So, many Arm Chair Generals that have little of no idea what there talking about.……

I say sell our F-35 to our potential enemies and upgrade the F-16/A-10.…The Wright Patt beurocracy still hasn’t learned the lesson’s that John Boyd forced down their throats. As he told one General about the F-XX that would eventually become the F-15 “I could F**** Up and do better than this.

1. The 3 different models have gone from 70% commonality in design to 30% commonality in reality, so basically 3 different aircraft. And I just watched a documentary on future air power made in early 2000s where a marine LTC test pilot with F 35 program said each type would cost 40 million a unit.….…..

2. The B model needs to be scrapped, too expensive, to complex (drive shaft btwn engine and lift fan is prone to failure due to high stress placed on it by transfer of power from engine to fan), and doctrinally due the marines really need a VTOL aircraft? Upgrade the Harriers, a proven design. B model design re lift fan negatively impacts other two models design, an example is large bulkhead behind cockpit for lift fan negatively impacts situationally awareness because it blocks 6 o’clock position view on all models.

3. Does it bother anyone else there is 8 million lines of coded need for this plane to fly and function in its advertised missions? Again a lot of this code is needed for B model.

4. Stop this madness. Upgrade F 15s, 16s, 18s (and buy more) and re start F 22 production.

5. In non peer to peer conflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan are two examples) where air dominance has been gained park expensive platforms and don’t waste the hours on their airframes. Use A-10’s, Super Tucanos, Broncos, and I would bring back the A-4 Skyhawks (good range, carries a lot of ordinance, 2 guns, maneuverable, lower cost to operate vs. F 18),this will give the Navy something to fly to the fight.

6. Drones are neat, until your signal to it is jammed, enemy jacks your link and takes control of it, or thing malfunctions and lands in Iran (if that’s what really happened). Put pilots in planes in greater numbers.

1) Commonality was completely driven by the desire for Lockheed to monopolize the entire US fighter market. All monopolists claim economies of scale as the reason why they shoudl have the monopoly but we know it is always a lie.

2) The marines B model has already done it’s damage by crippling the A and C models with excess weight (and extra 2 tonnes) increased drag, poor aerodynamics and poor layout.

3) Always remember that Lockheed makes money on every bug in the codebase. Thats why they chose the most bug prone language available that is why they chose to hire the cheapest least experienced engineers they could find. 8 million isn’t a big deal these days unless you do it the way Lockheed is managing the project.

4) The F-35 isn’t just a largest decrease in American air-power we have ever seen. It makes Lockheed the sole supplier of American fighter aircraft forever. The shills are quite right on one point. All alternatives after the F-35, and all follow on aircraft, will be far worse then the F-35. Lockheed will make absolutely sure of that.
The F-35 locks in the decline of American air-power.

5) As Syria shows the US cannot even threaten a small non-regional power anymore. Our military is broken. If the target is not an isolated island with a few thousand people we pretty much cant do it anymore.

6) There is going to be an even bigger push for drones. The military usefulness of them is irrelevant. What they do is free up the personnel budget to be spent by contractors. So drones will be more expensive then manned platforms and less capable — fitting well into the new contractor paradigm — deliver less cost more.

The real drone innovation is happening in China.

Sell F-35 to our enemies, love it, lol. Good one!

Progress has been made on the helmet, every recent report states that. The F-22 has that feature for the side bays because it was designed to launch the AIM-9M and early AIM-9X both of which require the seeker to achieve a lock on target BEFORE launch. The AIM-132 and AIM-9X Block II both have a lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) capability which can be done by EODAS. So they have the capability to be used from the internal bays of the F-35. When is a matter of budgeting for the launcher and testing.

Currently up to 4 AIM-120s can be carried, later plans are for 6. Eventually I hope to see the capability to carry 4 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9X or AIM-132. Of course sooner or later we need to get a next generation missile into service, sooner ideally.

The F-35’s service ceiling is 60,000 feet, which is pretty common. Changing out the engine on a ship? Ever see what is involved in swapping out the engine on a Harrier? The engine configuration of the F-35B is naturally more complicated than on the A and C but at lease you don’t have to remove the wings! P&W doesn’t have an excuse to not bring the cost down for B’s motor. Some pack of government types will be on hounding them around until they do.

The F-35 is a VLO tactical strike fighter that does not fall into the “light” category by any means. Range is respectable compared to the aircraft it is replacing, these range concerns arise from looking at the Pacific where many want a range that necessitates a significantly larger aircraft. People complain about the cost of the F-35 but who is going to pay for such a new development?

The M-346 doesn’t seem that much larger than the T-38. It and the variant of the BAE Hawk being offered are the closet to “pure” trainers. I’m guessing Boeing and Saab are hoping that if their Gripen NG trainer wins they would have a good shot at winning future contracts to replace ANG F-16s.

1. Commonality was a goal of the DoD and Government to reduce operating costs, not an “evil capitalist Lockheed Martin” scheme.

2. The B model did impose restrictions on the design of the A and C. But crippling? That space used for the lift-fan and other components of the STOVL variant is used for more fuel in the others. The aerodynamics aren’t on the level of the F-22, but it’s still a clean design which doesn’t have to be loaded down with external fuel tanks to achieve a respectable range. Poor layout? Compared to what?

3. Another “evil capitalist contractor Lockheed Martin” scheme? For the most “bug prone language” available C++ is extremely widely used and there are far more knowledgeable in it than those familiar with ADA. This is one of the lessons the DoD took from the ‘90s and the F-22 program when they released that government was no longer the driving force in software development.

4. Yet another “evil capitalist contractor Lockheed Martin” scheme.

5. Why the hell do we want to get involved in Syria helping rebels who hate us? Not getting involved in their civil war means we cannot even threaten them? We could bomb them back to the stone age if we needed to, but how does that help us?

6. More “evil capitalist contractors” etc.

7. Indeed, China seems quite adept at creating drones like yourself.

Sorry William, but if you want to be low observable (LO), the F-35 is definitely in the ‘light’ category. The internal carriage capabilities are quite ‘light’. It is possible to carry additional ordnance outside the bays, but as soon as you start hanging ordance outside the bays, you’re not LO anymore. Then you’re just an overpriced F-16, or an underpowered F-15.

Having worked in the industry for 15 years, I’ve seen how contracts can exceed original cost estimates. Most DOD contracts are cost plus. When it comes to cost overrun, both the customer and the contractor can shoulder the blame. The customer in creating requirements creep, ” Boy it would be nice if it could also do XXX”. And the contractor for proposing unrealistic capability at a ridiculous low price just to get the contract award and then agreeing to added pet functions of some of the customer minions without adding cost to the original contract.
Some contracts today are being awarded as fixed price alleviating some of the cost overruns forcing the contractor to develop and deliver the product as proposed on schedule and not allowing the customer to add capability.

All I can say is…Don’t believe everything you read.

Very true. The blame lies in generals who have unrealistic ideas on what technology can do (perhaps due to lack of experience, or perhaps very skewed advisors during their attempts to learn more) and a contractor who would rather say “yes” than “no” to the biggest customer who pretends to have deep pockets but doesn’t.

Not sure any chief designer would last long by saying no to the US government. Guy at the top says “yes, do what they say, let the billable hours grow!”

I’m still dreaming that Have Dash (stealth missile+mounting hardware) is still out there somewhere. Unrealistic?

Next best thing: H1B hires?

In contract price over runs I blame contracting officials for not putting contract over runs on the contractor. They (the contractor) reads and signs a statement that they agree with the terms and stipulations of the contract. The statement should include that contractor is responsible the contract and not for milking the contract for more income. Contracts are not written ‘Cost Plus”.

3. Then the f-35 really have something in common with windows 8. Would you install windows 8 on fighter jet because it’s the most popular and because the license is cheaper? You might have a bigger volume of experienced C++ programmer, but does that mean that they got what it need for the job? Which standard did they learned, if any? You can find the specification of Ada at http://​www​.adaic​.org/​a​d​a​-​r​e​s​o​u​r​c​e​s​/​s​t​a​n​d​a​r​ds/ , what about C++? Is it freely available? Again (in C++) to which standard did the compiler implemented C++?

That fact that the DoD stopped to support Ada does not mean that Ada is not adapted for the job. It wouldn’t be their first bad move, wouldn’t it? IMHO it would have been better to push for its learning in schools, replacing java. C/C++ is one of the worst programming language when it’s time to find bug in your code. And that decision was in the 90s. In such time Ada had the reputation to be very slow and I am not sure that free compiler were available, notion of web security was almost non existent and pretty much everything was about C; by now it is not much slower than C –but much faster compared to other popular programming language such as java– and anybody can use a free Ada compiler (either gcc directly or gnat gpl). (of course you don’t want to rely on that free compiler for such critical task, but at least it mean that anybody can learn it if they want to)

There are a lot of good reason for using Ada in large scale projects, one of them being that its a strong typed language; the extra character required pay off when it’s time to validate your code. Lockheed itself used it for other projects like for air traffic control, and that project was on time and on budget. They had to fix a bug on the f-22 software, the patch got produced very very fast (about 1 week I think). They even got their own validation tool, not a big surprise when Ada is build around a library named ASIS.

The biggest obstacle for learning Ada is a lack of fundamental programming principles. It is very well defined, and its specification are free and open. Experienced programmer claim that any good software engineer can learn a new programming language in a few weeks. Even once stretched to 1 month, how is that compare to the current delay of the f-35 scale? I consider it as yet another attempt at saving money that did not produced the expected benefits.

By the way, I am not an experienced programmer, but Ada is my first programming language, but something sure is that you should not draw your conclusion about Ada from a lexinton article.

>6. More “evil capitalist contractors” etc.

6.It more like an “epic capitalist fail”. LOL

According to a recent avionics intelligence article, they used some of the Ada code from the f-22 too. That’s entirely realizable since Ada was designed from the start to interact with other programming language (i.e. fortran, cobol, C).

So everything related to the hmd is coded in C/C++?

I am a solutions architect, before the updates there were some bugs…Now though it is running much better. Windows at least is trying to innovate, more then I can say of apple of late. I speak from a position of knowledge, I am writing right now on a MBP, and I am struggling to find reasons of giving money away to Apple, when my macbook is soo much less capable. I use Windows 8 for all of my work needs in a VM. The only thing that Windows is missing from my perspective is a proper bash shell and a ssh client.

I am in a wait and see pattern, I am really getting pissed that my macbook can’t do simple things like run EMC java applets, that are supposed to be computer agnostic. I have been on Macs since 2004 now so I really know, hard for me to switch but I am considering it seriously, especially with some of these hybrid tablets coming out.

I for one, do want one operating system between my desktop/laptop/tablet and phone. Maybe everyone doesn’t, but iOS does nothing but give me grief. Why no file manager for gods sake.

Are you really trying to bring a debate windows vs. apple over here? While I have seen very good parody of these on youtube, thi is endless. In an effort to go back to the previous comment:

>Windows at least is trying to innovate
LOL like implementing more and more infringing license, since windows Xp microsoft want that you buy a license for each instance of windows that you intend to run. And that preprogrammed disobedience regarding drivers (i.e. a printer). Or the uncountable number of antitrust way of getting more market share for its products. Like introducing closed interfaces and to get hardware manufacturer developing around them to make sure that when you need the piece of hardware X, then you’ll need windows. In short a bunch of madness for which there is no place in defence industry.

________________

The blame for your java applet should go to Oracle (you applet might be bound to a very specidif version of java), that very company that transformed a programming language fairly safe but slow, into something that was advised to uninstall unless its really required.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.