A Broken Computer System Is Costing F-35 Maintainers 45,000 Hours a Year (taskandpurpose.com) 91
schwit1 shared this report from the defense news site Task & Purpose:
The computer-based logistics system of the F-35 stealth fighter jet made by Lockheed Martin, which has been plagued by delays, will be replaced by another network made by the same company, a Pentagon official said on Tuesday.
The Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) was designed to underpin the F-35 fleet's daily operations, ranging from mission planning and flight scheduling to repairs and scheduled maintenance, as well as the tracking and ordering of parts... ALIS was blamed for delaying aircraft maintenance, one of the very things it was meant to facilitate.
"One Air Force unit estimated that it spent the equivalent of more than 45,000 hours per year performing additional tasks and manual workarounds because ALIS was not functioning as needed," the GAO said in a November report.
The computer-based logistics system of the F-35 stealth fighter jet made by Lockheed Martin, which has been plagued by delays, will be replaced by another network made by the same company, a Pentagon official said on Tuesday.
The Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) was designed to underpin the F-35 fleet's daily operations, ranging from mission planning and flight scheduling to repairs and scheduled maintenance, as well as the tracking and ordering of parts... ALIS was blamed for delaying aircraft maintenance, one of the very things it was meant to facilitate.
"One Air Force unit estimated that it spent the equivalent of more than 45,000 hours per year performing additional tasks and manual workarounds because ALIS was not functioning as needed," the GAO said in a November report.
Isn't this (Score:5, Informative)
The airplane that the navy doesn't even want but congress is forcing them to purchase?
Re: Isn't this (Score:5, Insightful)
The Navyâ(TM)s greatest concern is that itâ(TM)s a single engine vs duel engine plane. They prefer their aircraft with redundancy and resiliency.
It will also be interesting to see how the stealth coating holds up in a salt-rich environment.
And itâ(TM)s ability to provide the capabilities needed by naval aircraft (ordnance carrying and dogfighting) beyond stealth remains questionable.
But, I am not privy to the reports on this aircraft beyond what is reported in aviation journals. The naysayers might not have the full picture. But, having to replace the maintenance system at, what will likely be, taxpayer expense is another strike.
Re: (Score:1)
It will also be interesting to see how the stealth coating holds up in a salt-rich environment.
Probably pretty similar to the coatings on the ships themselves.
Re: Isn't this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The stealth coating on aircraft is rich in iron oxide and has traditionally NOT fared well in wet weather, let alone salty conditions.
One of the reasons the Serbians were able to nail a F117 (other than the predictable flight path) was because it was wet that night, which severely compromised the stealth of the aircraft.
It's going to be "interesting" how the F35s fare, and it should be borne in mind that they're only stealthy to any amount on a 35 degree cone along the boresight of the aircraft anyway. As s
Re: (Score:3)
Probably pretty similar to the coatings on the ships themselves.
Not if it's anything like the stealth bomber - which needed a new paint job if it went out in the rain:
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: Isn't this (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I did some of this ~30 years ago. We used to just call it "Aircraft Stripper," and it was brutal. Aircraft used to be painted with Imron and all sorts of the other best stuff Dow and PPG could throw at it without restrictions. It is still advertised as Aircraft Stripper, I have no idea if it is the same or different. Just like today McKay parts dip is like kerosene but 45 years ago a tiny spec would raise a chemical burn blister on the inside of your arm in about 30 seconds. The new stuff could be hot,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Barnacles?
Re: (Score:1)
It's the same color, yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Airplane has been all but replaced twice now in costs for integrated avionics replacement, new RAM coating, and failed wings.
Re:Isn't this (Score:5, Informative)
Somewhat. This is the jet which has hypoxia issues for its pilots, shaking issues during catapult launches off carriers, cockpit displays so bright pilots have difficulty flying at night, and software which continually needs patched [breakingdefense.com].
This is also the plane which can't beat the plane it's supposed to replace [jalopnik.com] in a dogfight.
Re:Isn't this (Score:4, Interesting)
Somewhat. This is the jet which has hypoxia issues for its pilots, shaking issues during catapult launches off carriers, cockpit displays so bright pilots have difficulty flying at night,
This isn't just an F-35 thing. It's happening with every jet in production in the last 20 years. The Super Hornet and the Navy's jet trainer, the Goshawk, also have these problems. The issue is OBOGS (Onboard Oxygen Generating Systems), which replaced the traditional system of having oxygen tanks on the aircraft. OBOGS makes O2 for pilots as they fly, getting it from the atmosphere outside the aircraft during sorties, which is nice in theory, because it saves weight from eliminating the onboard O2 tanks. But in practice, its been unreliable and problem ridden [thedrive.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wondering if it will be something like the F-22 hypoxia issue which wasn't just the OBOGS but also the g-suit gear which was contributing to pilots experiencing hypoxic symptoms:
https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsroot-cause-f22-raptor-hypoxia-identified-usaf/
The whole OBOGS situation is something we're watching closely down here in Oz given we're also operating the Super Hornet, Growler and F-35...
The Navy doesn't want it... (Score:4, Interesting)
... but the Marine Corps does. They've hung the destiny of their entire air ops on this abomination. They've committed to it totally. The Marines are nominally an independent service, but are organizationally under the Department of the Navy, and so get their budget from the Navy. There have been voices in the USMC suggesting that the Marines should get even bigger and become fully independent, with their own department. The Navy worries that if the Dept. of the Navy cancels F-35 purchases, that the Marines will push for that independence, creating a rift in the sea services, and yet another bloated Pentagon department that eats even more money, which means a smaller split for the other branches.
On the maritime side, the Marines have become the tail wagging the F-35 dog. The Navy knows it's junk. Which is why they keep buying Super Hornets, even with their limitations. The Navy feels its in an impossible spot.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the Marine Corps wanted A10s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
close air support is handled by the Air Force, who don't want to spend money on "Army" stuff
And even more, they don't want to hand the A10 section to the army, which would make loads of sense. Army does already have pilots after all, just not fixed wing.
Re: (Score:2)
While the f-35 is a flying turd bowl in my opinion also, it's an answer to prayers for the Marine Corps. Since the Marines rely on the AF and Navy for air superiority they don't want or need air superiority fighters. They want a replacement for the Harrier and they got it. It has the advanced targeting systems they need and it works and integrates well with the existing ground weapons systems. It appears to have everything the Marines wanted in a ground support aircraft and it has the ability to maybe d
Re: (Score:2)
"While the f-35 is a flying turd bowl in my opinion also, it's an answer to prayers for the Marine Corps"
Until it isn't. There are better solutions for ground support starting with turning the Osprey into a Bomb/gun truck miniature version of the C141J
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Isn't this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Thats votes, jobs and every next city/state/federal election.
Why is this so hard? (Score:5, Interesting)
Then again, I've worked on government contracts and have seen first hand how "simple" jobs turn complex. Not because they're fundamentally difficult, but the bureaucracy makes it damn near impossible to substitute a 2" paper clip that's too small for the job with a 3" that's the perfect fit. If you spec'd out 2" 3 years ago then your stuck with 2".
I've thought about this... (Score:4, Insightful)
And the problem is the lack of automation.
In government projects, much time is wasted because this is taxpayer money after all, and it has to be used carefully, with good choiced, and checked and signed off. Which takes forever beause it is very much still paperwork and people running around and talking and manually checking for adherence to policies. Which apart from key decisions that only humans can make, should be completely automated by now. Input policies as decided by lawmakers once, process requested changes in milliseconds, done.
Which is especially silly, since that process has obviously been perverted to do exactly what it shouldn't. Like helping old boys clubs and pork barrel spending and such.
While the mechanisms have still been kept. To keep up appearances.
That doesn't mean that process is the problem! It is only pointless, *given* that perversion. Kill the perversion, and the best choice is that automation, instead of doing away with it.
It is a common pattern in US politics. The corporate enemies of the American people perverted their country's institutions and then get Amerians to argue completely doing away with it, the corporations blame the results of that perversion on "the government". Convenitently leaving away that said institution, that originally protected Americans from them, is now merely their hand puppet.
E.g. The "small government" argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Translating the behavior and attributes of a complex system into something that can be verified autonomously is not a simple task, and neither is translating lawmaker policies into unambiguous code.
Do you have an example of what you're talking about?
I agree with the overall idea that the well-intended bureaucratic checks and documentation are part of what makes government work so slow and expensive, but I don't see how these things can be easily automated. When it's a performance requirement for a piece of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like you said: in most cases, it's not the difficulty of the job that matters. It's the difficulty of the procedures surrounding the job.
Never, ever, underestimate the power of bureaucracy to turn things into shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Go Ask ALIS (Score:2)
One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you
Don't do anything at all
Re: (Score:1)
Everyone is winning when a project needs more time and money.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the problem is the number of variables involved (so many components of the system), plus it's an intermittent issue, so it's hard to lock down.
Pulling the OBOGS and replacing it with O2 tanks would involve significant engineering along with increased system weight and maintenance requirements (O2 bottles & lines are heavy plus require specialist maintenance to refill, equipment on the ship/base, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice thought and worth evaluating. That said, there still has to be space to add the tank (space is a premium, especially in fighters) and the gear to pressurise it with the OBOGS output.
Of interest, on the F-22 the hypoxia issues were primarily due to the life support gear the pilot actually wore (a special g-suit for use in the F-22 as opposed to other g-suits for F-16s, F-15s, etc :) ). Not sure if this is a factor with the Supers but it's certainly indicative of the complexity of the system (everyone wa
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lockeed is a profit-oriented company.
It costing everyoe but them as much as they will bear is their enitre point of existence. Like a leech. Or a bad pathogen.
Profit ain't the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lockeed is a profit-oriented company.
It costing everyoe but them as much as they will bear is their enitre point of existence. Like a leech. Or a bad pathogen.
The greatest combat aircraft in history were all made by "profit oriented companies".
The P-51 Mustang. The Supermarine Spitfire. The F-86 Sabre. The B-17 Flying Fortress. The F-16 Fighting Falcon.
Every single one of them produced by for-profit companies, privately designed, and making millions for their manufacturers. Sometimes billions.
Compare them to their non-profit equivalents. Soviet MiGs. Chinese copies of Soviet MiG's. Even the very best of them... the MiG-21... fell short of for-profit contemporaries like the F-4 Phantom and Mirage III.
What makes the F-35 different from all of the above is that while an F4U Corsair or an F-14 Tomcat was designed to be the best at what it did, the F-35 was designed from the outset to be a jobs program that would provide a 40 year revenue stream for Lockheed Martin. Being good at being a fighter was way down the list of reasons it was created. That's why Lockheed put manufacturers in 48 of 50 states. The F-35 isn't about winning air battles. The F-35 is a political investment creating a perpetual rent-seeking enterprise that the government can't realistically cancel. Real fighter aficionados have been saying from the beginning that the F-35 should be canceled, and everyone involved, from industry to government, should be sacked from the jobs for promoting this flying pyramid scheme.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
You give some great examples of combat aircraft - the thing that is common to all of them is that they were built before 1975.
In the last 20 years, we have accomplished almost nothing in the field of aeronautics. We just have charlatans like Boeing cranking out cheaper versions of 50 year old planes with lethal design flaws.
Re: (Score:3)
And the MIGs could be serviced with hand tools at remote unimproved airfields.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for that can be found by reading and understanding the philosophies in Arthur C Clarke's short story "Superiority"
Not so long ago a US guided missile frigate captain pointed out that he can be kept quite busy firing off $2-5million worth of ordinance to keep a _single_ $30k inbound missile away - and he ruefully pointed out that $2-5 million buys a LOT of $30k missiles, whilst a guided missile frigate only has so much storage space onboard. (This is why the USN is investing so heavily in laser d
Re: (Score:3)
Wonder how many of the smaller shops who supply parts to Lockheed are owned by politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Compare them to their non-profit equivalents. Soviet MiGs. Chinese copies of Soviet MiG's. Even the very best of them... the MiG-21... fell short of for-profit contemporaries like the F-4 Phantom and Mirage III.
While I don't disagree with your sentiment, those were not non-profits. That was the state itself (or state-owned enterprises) doing the building that had plenty of disincentives to working efficiently.
Re: (Score:2)
> The greatest combat aircraft in history were all made by "profit oriented companies".
All producing to government specifications and with strict checking of their homework.
Almost without exception when the "profit oriented companies" were allowed to produce something without oversight it was a flying turd.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Which means precisely squat in this topic.
Re: (Score:1)
Nation that try that fail too
Does it matter what language the system uses (Score:2)
Just curious, that's all. I would not even know if there is a correlation between this and the F-35's problems.
Re: (Score:1)
Because we're pathetic shit-flinging monkeys with slightly more lethal shit. Virtually all living humans can be pressured into dressing up murder as moral.
If I have such a low opinion of humanity, it's only because I want so much more for us.
Re: (Score:3)
Get your head out of the 60's. The last thing the Pentagon wants is war. It's expensive, kills their own personnel, rubbishes their equipment. If you want to look for scapegoats, it is the civilian "leadership" which bangs the drums for killing people.
Re: (Score:2)
"The last thing the Pentagon wants is war"
HOWEVER, the suppliers to the pentagon want to sell MORE materials and the easiest way to do so is to keep kicking up "bushfire wars"
Eisenhower warned about this in 1962. The "military-industrial" complex tail has been wagging the dog for a very long time in the USA and if anyone believes the real GDP of military-related spend is anywhere close to 4%, then they're probably front and centre at a trump supporters love-fest. (conservative estimates outside the USA put
Re: (Score:1)
The US filled its tech/mil production lines with workers selected for very political and non academic reasons.
The top Germans showed the USA how to do tech that was decades beyond the rest of the world.
The US took that generational advantage, used it for a few decades and then lost the advanced German "methods" to local US politics decades later.
Should have kept the nations education level up and only selected the very best
Re: What has happened to our aerospace engineering (Score:1)
Isn't part of the problem that we're not really doing mass production anymore? When you're machining everything to order in small batches, you need highly skilled workers. When you're operating an assembly line you should be able to make good use of very average workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? The top experts had that skill to accept a project
Stop working with the best experts in the USA
Mass production/small batches was never a problem as the industrial and design skill level could do both without any slow down/problems.
It very hard to get the skill
Re: (Score:2)
As an example, in the early '70s my great uncle made spy satellite lens holders (tubes, etc.) for xerox (I think). There were processes as small as at the end of the day you shut down, cleaned the machine, and turned it on again overnight to maintain the running temps in bearings, etc. When making things by hand the resting temperature vs. the working temperature on a mill was enough to put the product outside those extremely tight tolerances.
To put it in context (Score:5, Informative)
While I can't fathom the stupidity of this system, 45,000 hours represents the full time employment of 20-25 people a year in a military that has around 1.3 million active duty members. So in terms of a manpower it's a drop in the ocean. However the effect on a high value frontline asset is mind boggling.
Re: (Score:3)
An analogy might be the "Change Oil" light in your cars. Old cars didn't have it, they'd just say "every 3000 miles." Now they indicate a percent oil life remaining. What is is based on? Miles? Hours of operat
Not quite valid context - Look at TFA (Score:3)
If you RFTA, the actual quote is:
One Air Force unit estimated that it spent the equivalent of more than 45,000 hours per year performing additional tasks and manual workarounds because ALIS was not functioning as needed,
It doesn't define what an Air Force "unit" is, but if this was at the fighter squadron level (staffed with about 200 people, about half of which are maintainers), this number starts to get very significant - about 25% of the people who are supposed to be working on the aircraft are actually futzing around with ALIS which is not part of the squadron tasking.
Re: (Score:1)
The "frontline" part is not an issue as work is still been done and mil money is flowing.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my immediate math as well. 45,000 hours = 22.5 FTE.
New features are being added and old features maintained for nearly 500 stealth combat aircraft, and "difficulties" are impacting about 22 people.
All things considered, that's lower than I expected considering the intense wording of the article. Part of me is like "I wish our software was that good, but then most of us would lose our jobs."
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing (Score:2)
Of course, it is classified . . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Classifying things is mostly used to hide embarrassing facts.
Re: (Score:3)
Lockheed Martin designed the system.
Re: (Score:3)
Er, what? Both companies are a waste of taxpayer dollars IMO. Not sure what you are talking about. Weirdo.
Not that much? (Score:3)
45000 hours is 23 people? With a unit price of $90 million that's just another drop in the bucket.
Boondoggle (Score:2)
The F-35 was, is, and always will be a boondoggle. Trying to design one plane to fulfill all tactical roles is stupid. The stealth...isn't really - apparently all you have to do is drop your radar frequency, and anyway stealth doesn't help against thermal sensors.
It's great to use against goat herders, but in a serious conflict you can't afford to risk $100,000,000-plus planes that can be taken out by an infantryman with a shoulder-fired missile costing $50k.
Re: (Score:1)
The F-35 was, is, and always will be a boondoggle. Trying to design one plane to fulfill all tactical roles is stupid.
Kids today grow up on SC2, that means the generals of tomorrow will have grown up on SC2. The only strategies they know are "mass voidray," "mass ling," or "reaper rush." Expecting them to be capable of doing more than 1 thing is an absurd expectation, this is simply preparing for that Idiocracy-augmented Human war machine of the future to maintain US military dominance long after people have lost all semblance of sapience.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Though, designing JSF as a unified replacement for relatively popular and affordable F-16 and the carrier-based F-18 probably was a sensible idea. But requiring that JSF be also a suitable replacement for VSTOL aircraft and tacking on a mirriad of missions on top of what should have been an affordable mass produced workhorse fighter-bomber for USA and allies seriously compromised the whole project. It's ok to criticize it publicly now because so much was invested into F-35 that it's past the point o
yet another perfect example of the peter principle (Score:2)
if you want something done, don't use a bureaucracy ... shouldn't our government be forced to outsource to a constant stream of vetted new businesses? government funding should be spread like manure which is toxic until it's spread evenly on a field
Evil government (Score:1)
The advantage of doing shitty work on a single-buyer, single-seller project is no-one knows how to fix the mistakes. The software vendor is being paid extra to fix the coding bugs it delivered.
What makes the US government evil, isn't the 'progressive' and 'liberal' policies that old, rich, white Christians complain about: It's not punishing corporations for inferior practices and products.