▶ No.901740>>901742
rewrite it in SPARK XDDDD
▶ No.901742>>901794
>>901740
at least you said spark instead of ada
▶ No.901743
>>901736 (OP)
redo the system and base it on seL4. It's already being used in avionics anyway afaik.
▶ No.901746>>901755
>Please turn JavaScript on and reload the page.
DDoS protection by Cloudflare
>Ray ID: 40f0c6e248cf2b5e
gno
▶ No.901750
>>901736 (OP)
>government project #34235 is delayed, AGAIN!
>yell at TV
>yell should have voted {trump,clinton,bernie,obama}
▶ No.901752>>901753
>The F-35’s core software is written in C++
>using a toy meme language instead of something an order of magnitude less retarded such as C for critical tasks
lol i think we have much bigger problems than "le delay again! yell at government"
▶ No.901753>>901796
>>901752
>C for critical tasks
LOOOOOOOOOL. I expected nothing else from /tech/
▶ No.901755
>>901746
It doesn't need js to display the site tho?
▶ No.901793>>902319
>>901736 (OP)
remove all the bloatnet and replace them with independently operating redundant microcontrollers/SoCs running purpose-written software designed around performing a single task, but at that point you might as well design a wholly new aircraft.
▶ No.901794
>>901742
>>>901742
>it probably is ada you know..mandates
>I would fix it by throwing money at me. Do DoD throw me the money!
▶ No.901795>>901797
>>901736 (OP)
>Lockheeb
>Expecting them to do anything but delay and cripple the project for more taxpayer cash.
▶ No.901796
>>901753
to be clear i meant C would have been massively more sane than C++. C isn't a good language but 99% of the faggots who agree are some web shotter faggots
▶ No.901797
>>901795
>company #5235235 sucks ass like every other tech company
>goyim cry about them sucking and using tax money
>company responds by releasing broken product
>go into war
>plane control crashes because a bird flies within 200 meters of it, triggering pathological case in software and hardware failsafes are not present
▶ No.901813>>901814 >>901896 >>902271 >>902407
Ada was proven to work. Why should they take something that they know works and replace it with something they know is worse? It doesn't make any sense to me. If they wanted to test out a new language like Rust or Go and it was worse, that's one thing, but they know C++ sucks. Everyone knows C++ sucks.
This is the UNIX "it doesn't matter" mantra all over again. "Doesn't matter" always means "sucks". When someone selling a car says "gas mileage doesn't matter" they're saying "the car's gas mileage sucks." Programming languages matter. If someone trying to get you to use a programming language says it doesn't matter, the language sucks.
>The F-35’s core software is written in C++ and runs on commercial off-the-shelf PowerPC architecture processors.
C++ is worse than Ada, but it's also worse than the languages that were previously used in flight software. If the programmers aren't smart enough or just don't care enough to learn Ada, Fortran, Cobol, or whatever, they shouldn't be working on this sort of thing anyway.
>Memory devices too slow, mission data software delayed
Are the memory devices too slow or does the software just suck? If they're using XML or some UNIX-inspired text bullshit, their memory won't go as far.
Why am I retraining myself in Ada? Because since 1979 I
have been trying to write reliable code in C. (Definition:
reliable code never gives wrong answers without an explicit
apology.) Trying and failing. I have been frustrated to
the screaming point by trying to write code that could
survive (some) run-time errors in other people's code linked
with it. I'd look wistfully at BSD's three-argument signal
handlers, which at least offered the possibility of provide
hardware specific recovery code in #ifdefs, but grit my
teeth and struggle on having to write code that would work
in System V as well.
There are times when I feel that clocks are running faster
but the calendar is running backwards. My first serious
programming was done in Burroughs B6700 Extended Algol. I
got used to the idea that if the hardware can't give you the
right answer, it complains, and your ON OVERFLOW statement
has a chance to do something else. That saved my bacon more
than once.
When I met C, it was obviously pathetic compared with the
_real_ languages I'd used, but heck, it ran on a 16-bit
machine, and it was better than 'as'. When the VAX came
out, I was very pleased: "the interrupt on integer overflow
bit is _just_ what I want". Then I was very disappointed:
"the wretched C system _has_ a signal for integer overflow
but makes sure it never happens even when it ought to".
It would be a good thing if hardware designers would
remember that the ANSI C standard provides _two_ forms of
"integer" arithmetic: 'unsigned' arithmetic which must wrap
around, and 'signed' arithmetic which MAY TRAP (or wrap, or
make demons fly out of your nose). "Portable C
programmers", know that they CANNOT rely on integer
arithmetic _not_ trapping, and they know (if they have done
their homework) that there are commercially significant
machines where C integer overflow _is_ trapped, so they
would rather the Alpha trapped so that they could use the
Alpha as a porting base.
▶ No.901814>>901896
>>901813
>muh ada
you'd be hardpressed to find enough engineers for it whereas there are plenty of professional pajeets that can code in c++
▶ No.901827
By not getting rid of reliable software that works by replacing it with unstable software with a billion useless features and then paying some contractors millions of dollars to ll contractors to make it.
My mother is a fed and they are doing this at her work, and they wonder why they are over budget. They literally dumb down the software she has to use so it can be ran on a smart phone. Why would you want to do that? The team behind are so soykaf that they can't even sort records in a way that's not alphabetical or numerical. I could implement that in less that 5 minutes. In fact, I could probably make the whole piece of software myself both faster and cheaper.
It infuriates me whenever my mom talks about about the technology at her work because they keep making terrible decisions.
▶ No.901829>>901861 >>901912
>>901736 (OP)
1. Remove the government
2. rewrite everything in haskell
▶ No.901861
>>901829
>not replacing all the semiconductors with superior EMP-proof vaccuum tubes and rewriting the software in Plankalkül
▶ No.901896>>901901 >>902163
>>901813
>>901814
While it's a government contract that, therefore, does not have professional pajeets, all of the engineers aspire to be professional pajeets. By using sepples, the contractors are growing job skills using a language that is prevalent in industry. Of course, it is prevalent in industry because companies want to use a language that makes their local programmers fungible with pajeets, as pajeets are cheaper. The contractors view using sepples as career growth. There is also the ability to use sexy new technology: many open source projects use C or sepples, and using sepples makes integrating those projects into the code easier. Why should government contractors rewrite X in Ada, when X is an open-source C project? Who is going to maintain that Ada version? What do you do when the engineers who wrote it retire and no one knows how the code works?
▶ No.901901
>>901896
> is an open-source C project?
cuck license strikes again
>>901736 (OP)
Just use what the previous model did and adapt it as needed.
▶ No.901902>>901924 >>902322 >>902671 >>903748
>>901736 (OP)
The F-35s vertical takeoff capabilities are fucking sci-to tier engineering wizardry
Vertical takeoff are not self-stabilizing and require a sophisticated flight computer making micro-adjustments to the thrust throttle and position to maintain stability. The Vets vertical takeoff system is supposedly the most advanced ever built
▶ No.901912
>>901829
Might as well rewrite it in Brainfuck.
▶ No.901924>>901943
>>901902
Not like VTO has been a thing for 60 years.
▶ No.901934>>901938 >>902219
>>901736 (OP)
Start from scratch with electron-based app for rapid development
▶ No.901938>>902219
>>901934
We can let the pilot browse youtube right there in an embedded html segment while he is flying
▶ No.901943>>901959
>>901924
VTO has historically been less-than-efficient. The F35s VTO system is completely overhauled
▶ No.901959>>901974
>>901943
You got scammed, lockheed didn't make a new aircraft, they bought the plans of the Yak-141 from Russia, i mean literally its not even a secret.
They put a USAF sticker on it and bam, give me 3 trillion buck !
▶ No.901974
>>901959
Lolwut? They're nothing alike.
▶ No.902159>>902169
>>901736 (OP)
>F-35 software written in C++
>software is a clusterfuck
Maybe it was true all along that C++ sucks... it's a language that makes simple things complicated, and invites the programmer to dig his own grave. How do you handle a destructor that fails? Think fast! Don't throw an exception or else the universe implodes!
I hear good things about Ada... maybe that should be used instead.
▶ No.902163>>902352
>>901896
Ada is just a language, not some unsurmountable mountain. Any software engineer worth the title should be able to learn it. It's not even "different" like Lisp or Forth. If you can learn Pascal, you can learn Ada.
▶ No.902169>>902185 >>902988 >>902990
>>902159
Using the C language how are you supposed to handle a free() call that fails? What kind of situation is going to cause a free() call to fail?
▶ No.902185>>902272
>>902169
But free can't fail, and if it does, it's a problem in the kernel, not the userspace program calling it.
▶ No.902225
Those devs probably still have 200K yearly salary
▶ No.902271
>>901813
>praising COBOL
Anti-*N*X spammer, while I usually find your purloined tirades amusing, you've crossed the line.
▶ No.902272>>902283 >>902285
>>902185
>free() doesn't fail even if trying to free(NULL)
▶ No.902283
>>902272
don't talk to the c-tards
▶ No.902285>>902309 >>902707
>>902272
>putting a gun to your head
>pulling the trigger
▶ No.902300
I would talk to some Swedes for starters. The Gripen program runs at a fraction of the cost of the JSF, about 1/30 I think.
They integrate parts like radar from lots of different suppliers without much problem.
IIRC some engineer had the bright idea to make the software modular (I think the used "apps" to sell it to management). The company trusted the engineers and now they are doing pretty well.
As for the JSF, that is working as intended, since it's main purposes are to defraud taxpayers across the world and cripple air forces while doing so.
▶ No.902309>>902707 >>902986
>>902285
>what do you do when x fails
>it can't
>here's example where it does
>why would you that tho!
▶ No.902317>>902352 >>902984
There are four problems with the F-35 program:
1. Too much stress is placed on one company, which can't do everything itself.
2. Too many missions for one platform. F-35 is supposed to replace: F-15E, F-16, F-18, A-6, A-10... and dozens of other aircraft in other services.
3. It is introducing too many new concepts into a single airframe, including automated maintenance for fucks sake. Every aircraft designer worth his salt knows more than half of any new design has to be grounded in battle tested components, techniques, concepts...
4. It costs too much. As it is, in the present state, it should cost about $40 million. It doesn't have a functional gun, half the software is nonfunctional, the headset is nonfunctional, it can't fly above certain altitudes.... It costs $130 million, that's the cost of a frigate.
Easiest solution is delegation:
1. Let northrop grumman build a twin engine air superiority fighter F-25 for air force, RCS of 0.01m2
2. Let mcdonnell douglass build a twin engine multirole catobar F-30, RCS of 0.0005m2
3. Let lockheed martin work with mcdonnell douglass to build a single engine VTOL F-35 version for marines, RCS of 1m2
4. Let lockheed martin build a single engine multirole F-35 version for air force, RCS of 0.01m2
5. Let scaled composites and northrop grumman work on a CAS replacement.
▶ No.902319
>>901793
That's how all other fighters were designed.
▶ No.902322>>902365 >>902366
>>901902
They nigged the VTOL system off Yakovlev.
Except Yakovlev used the far more sane arrangement of two mini jets which let it have a slim form factor, while F-35 is fat as fuck because it uses a huge lift fan connected by a drive shaft to the main engine.
▶ No.902352>>902369
>>902163
True dat. I had a class in Uni called "Concepts of Programming Languages" and the prof wanted us to program the same program in Prolog, Scheme, Ada, Fortran, and Cobol. I wrote the exact same program for Ada, Fortran, and Cobol.
>>902317
> mcdonnell douglass
Merged with Boeing in '97
> scaled composites
Bought by NG in '07
Shit, nigga, WHEN the fuck are you?
▶ No.902365>>902369
>>902322
>while F-35 is fat as fuck because it uses a huge lift fan connected by a drive shaft to the main engine.
Which is far more efficient. Stay mad commie
▶ No.902366
>>902322
You cannot win. We spend trillions of dollars one one plane. - Napoleon
▶ No.902369>>902370 >>902848
>>902352
Sorry I'm almost a boomer, and been out of the service for awhile.
>>902365
>Which is far more efficient.
No it isn't, there's roughly same amount of fuel consumption.
Except the difference is that in Yak-141 the thrust is heated evenly, front thrust is sort of warm, and rear thrust is sort of warm, but neither is too hot. Whereas F-35 front thruster is 100% cold, it's literally a helicopter in the front, a ducted fan. Yet due to thermodynamics the rear jet is twice as hot, because all of the front fan's heat is still there, it's just being spewed by the rear jet.
End result? F-35B rear thruster is so hot it bores holes in aircraft carrier decks, so they needed to install ceramic heat absorbing pads from fucking SPACE SHUTTLE on every LHD where F-35 is supposed to land.
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-builds-ship-for-f-35-ship-needs-months-of-upgrade-1697523492
▶ No.902370>>902373
>>902369
It's not the planes fault that the pussy aircraft carrier CANT TAKE THE HEAT. Go big or go home.
▶ No.902373
>>902370
Actually I like the more a Russian colonels joke, he said the F-35B exhaust is intentional, it is an advanced plasma weapon system.
▶ No.902407>>902441
>>901736 (OP)
Who cares if it works?
>>901813
Nice blogpost fam, While I'm not completely against the language matters idea it likely does this screams more of super ultra retarded software engineering and project management where the client doesn't know what they wants.
▶ No.902441>>902487
>>902407
>Who cares if it works?
>gun reticule doesnt show where bullets impact
>its presence on the heads up display is random
▶ No.902487
>>902441
The entire purpose of something as obsolete as "air superiority fighters" in the post-Cold War era is to consume money, not to eliminate the joke airforces of 3rd-world nations that can be flattened in a day with infinitely cheaper strategic bombing and AA missile batteries.
Really, this has been the case ever since computers became powerful enough for BVR missiles to be viable.
▶ No.902489>>902556 >>902559 >>902984
I know I'm just an armchair poster but if I could fix the F-35 program I'd do the following:
- completely scrap F-35B STOVL, if you want to hover use helos
- simplify F-35: scrap fancy helmet and scrap 360 deg view cameras
- redesign underside to be flat and able to hold more ordnance (8x AMRAAM would be nice)
- give it a strong forward looking IRST mostly for A2G
- give it more ammo for the gun
- rewrite all its software in Ada
- change wing config to delta like Mirage 2000 for extra fuel and increased loadout, because its handling is shit anyway might as well sacrifice it further (or hell, even YF-23 diamond config like pic related would be sexy)
Wing configs from a game:
http://www.moddb.com/games/vector-thrust/news/report-045-f-35
▶ No.902492
"Mess", you say? The program is working exactly as intended: making Lockheed Martin billions of dollars.
▶ No.902497>>902514 >>902517 >>902525 >>902532 >>902725 >>903928
>$1 trillion
Hard for most people to understand how much money that is. That could easily make higher education "free" and wipe out all college, housing, and auto debt. Without breaking a sweat it could establish a single-payer national healthcare system. But what's something really crazy you could do with that kind of money?
For $1 trillion, you could setup an array of solar panels on the moon, beam energy back to the Earth using microwaves, and replace the entire US energy infrastructure with clean, abundant, and cheap electric power.
▶ No.902509
this one needs good low level rewrite in language that can be better maintained thats all
▶ No.902514>>902555
>>902497
>That could easily make higher education "free" and wipe out all college, housing, and auto debt. Without breaking a sweat it could establish a single-payer national healthcare system. But what's something really crazy you could do with that kind of money?
>For $1 trillion, you could setup an array of solar panels on the moon, beam energy back to the Earth using microwaves, and replace the entire US energy infrastructure with clean, abundant, and cheap electric power.
And guess who got all that money?
The demokikes used it as welfare when they weren't selling the plans.
The republicucks sold the plans to kikeland, who sold them to the jews of the east.
And you paid for it with blood and soil.
▶ No.902517>>902555
>>902497
>That could easily make higher education "free" and wipe out all college, housing, and auto debt. Without breaking a sweat it could establish a single-payer national healthcare system. But what's something really crazy you could do with that kind of money?
>For $1 trillion, you could setup an array of solar panels on the moon, beam energy back to the Earth using microwaves, and replace the entire US energy infrastructure with clean, abundant, and cheap electric power.
And guess who got all that money?
The demokikes used it as welfare when they weren't selling the plans.
The republicucks sold the plans to kikeland, who sold them to the jews of the east.
And you paid for it with blood and soil.
The only way to improve the F-35 is to kill anyone that was instrumental in its design and production.
▶ No.902525>>902533
>>902497
>That could easily make higher education "free" and wipe out all college, housing, and auto debt.
Nah it couldn't. College debt is 1.2 trillion already and growing every year.
But a trillion dollars could make us a spacefaring organization.
▶ No.902532>>902534 >>902977
>>902497
>put solar panels on the moon
>only works for about 15 days at a time unless you had multiple setups in different places
>would have to be on the edges visible from Earth since the moon is tidally locked and ones on the far side would never be able to beam it to Earth
>even then the wobble that could fuck you up
>any given country is only facing the moon about half the time, so even if you solved the placement problem you couldn't beaming it back 24/7 (assuming that beaming it works at all)
>have to depend on whatever jewish megacorp controls the operation to give you power
What a fucking retarded idea.
▶ No.902533>>902977
>>902525
Wiping out consumer debt isn't necessarily about paying it off. Debt jubilees are the recognition that compound interest grows faster than the economy's ability to pay it, that debts that cannot be paid won't be, and thus it serves society as a whole to cancel it out.
http://michael-hudson.com/2018/01/could-should-jubilee-debt-cancellations-be-reintroduced-today/
▶ No.902534>>903928
>>902532
>only works for about 15 days at a time unless you had multiple setups in different places
Already a massive step up from terrestrial-based solar power, but building a ring around the near and far side edges is the idea, yes.
>any given country is only facing the moon about half the time, so even if you solved the placement problem you couldn't beaming it back 24/7 (assuming that beaming it works at all)
Ah, but you don't beam it directly to the earth's surface, the idea is to relay it from orbiting satellites. In this manner you can provide power 24/7 anywhere on the Earth.
>What a fucking retarded idea.
Two former NASA physicists at the University of Houston don't seem to think so. Here, learn more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lA-z-FCDLA
▶ No.902537>>902538
putting anything on the moon without sufficient protection is retarded idea, unlike the earth it doesnt have the gravity to deal with incoming debrie from stars
▶ No.902538
>>902537
Yes I too can read youtube comments. The question is how often actually are collisions, and is it a task that robotic maintenance can't handle? Keep in mind solar panels on the moon don't have to be as mechanically sophisticated as panels on the Earth.
▶ No.902541>>902692 >>902694
>Reads article, facepalms.
>Wonders, "what in the world is the integration engineer doing?"
>Googles F35 integration engineer
>Two software integration engineer positions open at Lockheed Martin, specifically for the F35.
>Looks like a bunch of people got fired for incompetence / quit / retired
I'd rewrite it in assembly because why not. Also, anyone need a job?
▶ No.902542
▶ No.902555
>>902514
>>902517
That pic about Sanders is somewhat misleading. He hasn't pushed funding for the overall JSF program, and has actually castigated it as exceptionally wasteful on numerous occasions. Rather, Sanders merely says that while the juggernaut of the program rolls onward, requiring contractors to be built by and bases to be stationed at, that they be in Vermont rather than elsewhere.
▶ No.902556>>902613 >>902984
>>902489
If you scrap the helmet, you are going to have to make changes to the canopy to give better rearward vision. E.g. the mig 15s in the korean war were arguably better than the sabres but the sabres had better rearward vis so waxed some korean tail. With all these changes it is pretty much a shit f-22.
▶ No.902559>>902570 >>902984
>>902489
Why not make 3 planes instead?
Let the USMC fags have their weird STOVL meme, give the army a stealthy F-16 replacement and the navy a twin engine canard fighter like pic related.
▶ No.902570>>902984
▶ No.902580
>>901736 (OP)
>soft has bugs
>it's the language's fault
>even though hardware has many issues too
geee, I wonder why
>up til now there were let's say 4 aircraft roles
>that means 4 different aircraft designs that have to be updated every X years each
>that means X/4 average time for a new contract
>it also means that if you want to do multiple roles one after another you need multiple aircraft
>let's just make one plane that can do everything! We'll need to buy less planes and update them less often!
>fast forward to now
>why is it taking so long? Don't these for-profit businesses want to earn less money in the long run?
capitalism works
▶ No.902613>>902770 >>902984
>>902556
>With all these changes it is pretty much a shit f-22.
Exactly! Which is exactly what it was always meant to be, the faggometric STOVL meme notwithstanding: a smaller, cheaper, single engine, "multirole" version of the F-22, basically a shit F-22 that could be exported to the "allies".
A crappy little F-22 fully capable of destroying SAMs, helicopters, convoys and some buildings after the F-22 killed all enemy fighters. I mean the F-35 still is all those things but for a stupid high price tag. For its own good it needs to be simplified and cheapened, and I don't think this is a controversial opinion.
>If you scrap the helmet, you are going to have to make changes to the canopy to give better rearward vision.
IMHO this would only be a problem for the STOVL version, which would be scrapped anyway. I do admit the helmet looks pretty cool, but the F-22 deserves it more. F-22-MLU anyone? Might as well put all that hard-earned money to good use, Lockheed.
▶ No.902648>>902769
Scrap it and bring back the F-14.
▶ No.902671
>>901902
>sophisticated flight computer making micro-adjustments to the thrust throttle and position to maintain stability.
Basic PID control system probably would do the job just fine.
▶ No.902692>>902825
>>902541
for real? broofs?
▶ No.902694
>>902541
same as apple reception debacle
YOU ARE HOLDING IT WRONG
"hiring antenna specialists"
▶ No.902707
>>902285
This.
>>902309
Come on. We aren't in a women coding class here.
▶ No.902723
>>901736 (OP)
>scrap it
>redirect resources to fixing zumwalts
▶ No.902725
>>902497
>not one single system in use today which successfully uses microwaves for wireless power
>hey guys let's beam power from a moving object millions of miles away from the planet
▶ No.902769>>902832
>>902648
F-14 was a piece of shit, way too heavy to be worth its salt as a dog fighter. Aircraft developers get a hard on for new technology light swing wing even if it adds 15.000lbs to the total weight
▶ No.902770>>902836 >>902984
>>902613
The thing that upsets me the most about the F-35 is the fact it is entirely reliant on stealth tech, the only card it has to play is that russia and china don't have the same stealth tech yet. If by some unlucky chance it ran into a mig 29 the F-35 would have it's tail waxed. Doesn't even have the speed to get out of tight situations.
▶ No.902825>>902917
▶ No.902832
>>902769
Your face is a piece of shit. The Tomcat should have been modernized like Grumman envisioned. The Su-333 would have a true contender for naval air superiority.
▶ No.902836>>902839 >>902866 >>902984
>>902770
>If by some unlucky chance it ran into a mig 29 the F-35 would have it's tail waxed.
Total bullshit. F35 would win trivially. Its just way more fucking expensive than it needs to be and in a war the efficiency is going to matter. Ten planes or one.
▶ No.902839>>902840
>>902836
Continued: Unit cost for mig29 is 20 million, unit cost for f35 is 100 million. Modern $.
▶ No.902840
>>902839
Continued: Another interesting thing I just found, the f22 actually cost MORE per unit compared to the f35. f22 unit cost is 150 million.
▶ No.902848>>902875 >>902984
>>902369
>No it isn't, there's roughly same amount of fuel consumption.
>2 separate compressors, 2 separate actuators kits, 2 separate insulation kits, 2 separate fuel management systems, 2 separate cooling systems
LOL, you carry more parts in your plane and you expect it to have the same efficiency? Why do you think Yak41 has 30% more volume than the F35 for the same range and half of the payload?
Also, the engine is not hot due to the fan, the fan might interfere in the consumption but not the exhaust temperature which is determined mainly by the compressor, the temperature of the exhaust is high even in F35A.
The exhaust is hot due to the supercruise capability, to achieve that the engine works at a higher compression rate and temperature as well as higher bypass. It doens't help either that it needs a larger thrust (diameter) due to the fat aerodynamic, which is a result of it's steath capability, increasing the surface area affected by the exhaust.
▶ No.902866>>902871 >>902872
>>902836
Years ago some wargame simulation leaked, it got curbstomped by soviet rustbuckets older then the mig29
▶ No.902871>>902875
>>902866
Exactly, the f-35 wasn't designed with maneuverability in mind. It relies solely on stealth tech.
▶ No.902872>>902874
▶ No.902874
>>902872
I recall it was australia they bought it anyway despite their own horror report
▶ No.902875>>902881 >>902913
>>902848
>F-35
>supercruise
How's the weather in Tel Aviv?
>>902871
>relies solely on stealth tech
>stealth tech
https://archive.fo/L9VPe
▶ No.902881>>902891 >>902913
>>902875
They are just applying higher standards than ever before. Its not WORSE because of these things. They are trying to make it insanely good.
>“On the other hand, we inadvertently scratch the coating system, and we have to repaint it. Or when the mechanics spray the airplane [with LO coating], not all of it is robotically sprayed. There’s some overspray, and they have to go clean that,” he said.
▶ No.902891
>>902881
>2 years after introduction to service, one detached intake panel over Okinawa and god knows how many taxpayer dollars later they still can't even manufacture the damn things properly
>t-this d-doesn't make the plane any worse guise!!1
You'd feel right at home among the likes of /r/starcitizen.
▶ No.902913>>902938
>>902875
>that curvy, curvy belly
Please tell Carlo Kopp is totally wrong and the Lockheed researchers found a way to make that curvy mess stealthy from below.
I have to say though I have a hardon for the curvy-straight intakes. You'd think they increase drag and decrease stealth (compared to the fully straight intakes found on the F-22) but apparently that's not the case.
>>902881
>Or when the mechanics spray the airplane [with LO coating], not all of it is robotically sprayed. There’s some overspray, and they have to go clean that,
Manufacturing a stealth plane in current year. Manufacturing as in spraypainting it by hand. Maybe even tightening the screws by hand. Surely they have enough money to robotocize the process, Jeebus.
▶ No.902917>>902936 >>902964
>>902825
why is there a woman on the cover of their jobs program?
what is she doing there?
▶ No.902936
>>902917
Hiring people and organizing nerf fights
▶ No.902938
>>902913
> Surely they have enough money to robotocize the process
Ask our pal Elon how well that went
▶ No.902962
/k/ here, get the A-10s back you flaming homosexuals
▶ No.902964
>>902917
checking her Shitter followers over time obviously.
▶ No.902974
It had to be complicated so we could sneak botnet in. This is why Israel bought the aircraft and promptly replaced the avionics.
▶ No.902977>>903033
>>902533
If you choose to pay only interest on your student debt so you can invest the money you save from that monthly payment into a fucking iPhone, that's not the banks fault. That's your fault for having no delayed gratification instinct.
If anything student loan interest should be raised to 20% so you retards will pay it off on time, or hopefully study a trade instead of taking a $100,000 loan to study vagina monologues.
>>902532
What do you expect from commie liberals on /tech/, they should get an arts degree instead of wasting our time with their low-IQ ideas.
▶ No.902984>>903287 >>903603
>>902559
>>902489
>>902556
>>902613
>>902770
Way ahead of you >>902317
>>902570
No it's one plane with three functions jammed into it. Kind of like a 10 pound cat being shoved into a 5 pound bag.
>>902836
>F35 would win trivially
Is that why a fucking F-16 beat it in a dogfight, despite the fact that the F-16 was weighed down with fuel tanks, and the F-35 started off in an advantageous position?!?!?
>>902848
>LOL, you carry more parts in your plane and you expect it to have the same efficiency?
I'm going to go with Yak 141 being more efficient.
Yak 141 has a range of 2100km, F-35 has a range of 1700km.
F-35 has 6 tonnes internal fuel, Yak-141 has 4 tonnes internal fuel.
Per ton of fuel Yak 141 is traveling 525km while F-35 is traveling 283km, 1.85:1
F-35 engines are 30 years newer, so it isn't the power plants problem. The reason for Yak being almost 2x more efficient is entirely due to aerodynamics!
By the way a newer version of the Yak plane with more modern engines and 6t fuel called Yak-201, has a range of 4300km.
>Also, the engine is not hot due to the fan, the fan might interfere in the consumption but not the exhaust temperature which is determined mainly by the compressor, the temperature of the exhaust is high even in F35A.
Do you not know how thermodynamics works? To convert the chemical energy of fuel into work requires to burn it, which has waste heat.
In Yak-141 two separate engines are burning fuel, for two separate thrusters, ergo their waste heat per unit thrust is separated into two as well.
In F-35 one single engine is burning fuel, for two separate thrusters, ergo the heat per unit thrust is focused on a single exhaust.
Lockheed being full of engineers like you is whats causing your problem.
>The exhaust is hot due to the supercruise capability
>The exhaust is hot due to the supercruise capability
>The exhaust is hot due to the supercruise capability
>The exhaust is hot due to the supercruise capability
>The exhaust is hot due to the supercruise capability
>The exhaust is hot due to the supercruise capability
>The exhaust is hot due to the supercruise capability
>The exhaust is hot due to the supercruise capability
>The exhaust is hot due to the supercruise capability
F-35 DOES NOT HAVE SUPERCRUISE ABILITY
▶ No.902986>>903070
>>902309
it's fucking supposed to fail in this situation. actually it's UB, by definition.
C may suck a donkey cock (sure it does), but if your brain is incapable of understanding docs written in plain English, you also suck.
▶ No.902988
>>902169
use an UB sanitizer and make sure this cannot happen.
>how are you supposed to handle an 'unlink' call with wrong path under root if your shit is already nuked at this moment?
^ also (you)
▶ No.902990
>>902169
>What kind of situation is going to cause a free() call to fail?
When you don't know what the fuck you're doing and don't know the C specification. If you use it correctly, it cannot fail.
Or if kernel fucked up badly (in this case nothing you can do, all abstractions are broken, equivalent of a bomb)
▶ No.902995>>902996 >>903006
I don't understand this board's pathological hatred of C++. It's a great language.
▶ No.902996
>>902995
How many parts of the FQA were fixed?
▶ No.903006
>>902995
C++ is exceedingly complex. It has all kinds of interesting semantics that programmers can use but the cost is a language that is exceedingly difficult to understand the full scope of its features. Practically speaking, people learn a small subset of the language to use. The problem with this is that there is normally no consensus about which subset to use.
▶ No.903033
>>902977
>commie liberals
You should probably open a book every now and then before you attempt to point the finger at other people having low IQ.
▶ No.903070
>>902986
Apparently your brain is not capable of reading a reply chain 6 replies long.
▶ No.903116>>903281 >>903296
stop giving them funding. government should only buy their finished product not finance them making it. fire all the diversity hires.
▶ No.903133>>903604 >>903679
>>901736 (OP)
They should rewrite it in Rust. Rust makes several classes of errors impossible while improving performance via zero-cost abstractions.
▶ No.903281
>>903116
This
Or alternatively, if government somehow has to fund it, at least remove all lockheed managers from the control loop
▶ No.903287>>903714
>>902984
>Is that why a fucking F-16
<If anything happens ever its proof of absolute ranking and probability has nothing to do with it.
▶ No.903296
>>903116
>diversity hires
Exact opposite problem in the case of the MIC, it's military officers (especially generals/admirals) "retiring" into the boards of contractors, getting "consultant" gigs with contractors, and even straight-up kickbacks from contractors. Simplest fix aside from massively slashing post-Cold War military spending from $1.3T/year to something saner for nuclear deterrence and multilateral peacekeeping like $400B/year is to ban the revolving door between military and contractors, as well as eliminating no-bid contracts.
▶ No.903603>>903714
>>902984
>you know nothing of thermodynamics
>the more fuel you add, the higher the temperature of the combustion/exhaust
YFW you can start a fusion reactor with wood and leaves if you have enough of them.
Seems like jet fuel can melt steel beams after all, brilliant.
▶ No.903604>>903679
>>903133
Indeed, all while allowing fearless concurrency.
▶ No.903679
▶ No.903714>>904157
>>903287
It's supposed to be a generation ahead of F-16, that generally means being better. It's not better. F-35 is slower, less agile, it has a shittier radar, no cannon, and carries fewer weapons. In performance terms it is equivalent to a F-101 or F-102, which are from the 1950s. The sensors are similar in coverage, range and power to what was fielded in 1978.
The stealth is inferior to F-117, which was a jet designed in the 1980, shot down over Serbia in the '90s using missiles from the '60s. This was back when no one knew anything about stealth and it was still a huge paradigm shift. World has had 30 years to get used to stealth, find techniques to defeat it, and put weapons in service that can counter it.
Bottom line:
F-35 performance is 60 years out of date.
F-35 sensors are 40 years out of date
F-35 stealth is 35 years out of date
The fact that its wrapped into a cool looking wrapper is beside the point.
>>903603
Yeah except that's a strawman, this isn't what I said
>the more fuel you add, the higher the temperature of the combustion/exhaust
The more energy you generate per engine, the higher the temperature should be. A Yak rear engine is only generating enough thrust to lift the rear section, two smaller engines lift the front part of the aircraft. A F-35's single engine is generating enough thrust to lift the entire aircraft. Ergo the exhaust temperature is focused. Here I drew a diagram for you.
The fuel thing had to do with some moron adding efficiency to the argument.
▶ No.903734
design looks to me like they forced F22 into lots of compromises so it could do everything
▶ No.903748>>903787
>>901902
>Vertical takeoff are not self-stabilizing and require a sophisticated flight computer making micro-adjustments to the thrust throttle and position to maintain stability. The Vets vertical takeoff system is supposedly the most advanced ever built
Wow, and to thinkt the harrier jet could do this like half a century ago....
▶ No.903787
>>903748
To add to that, I think what the X-31 did was just as, maybe even more advanced and that plane had it's first flight it 1990.
▶ No.903928
>>902497
Its would be better to spend the money harvesting the Herlium 3 off the moon although I doubt you will get energy parity from this
>>902534
> relay it from orbiting satellites
< Wut
1) Inverse square law
2) Inherent losses from store and transmit
wew muh NASA. Look just because two or more ex X agency scientists choose to shoot the shit over a theoretical doesn't make it feasible.
▶ No.904157>>904174
>>903714
It's not a strawman, you simply haven't understood what you were implying and is still making the same mistake in your explanation.
Energy and temperature are not the same thing, the more energy generated doesn't necessarily means the temperature is higher.
If you burn 1 centillion tons of paper in a huge campfire, you will produce tremendous energy that will spread heat across the whole planet's atmosphere for hundreds of years but it won't get hotter and hotter until you have a campfire hotter than the sun, you'll simply get a huge fire at 451F, which is the burning point of paper, it can't burn hotter than it's own burning point and heat transfer can only happen from hot to cold so there's nowhere in that campfire that could get any hotter than 451F.
For something to burn what matters is the temperature. No matter how much energy you throw at something, it can only burn if it reaches it's burning temperature and to do that it needs something at a higher temperature to transfer heat to it.
The F35 burns things because it's exhaust it's hotter, it's not the amount of fuel, it's not amount of the energy generated by the engine, it's not the position of the engine, it's simply the temperature.
Let me give you an example, a GE9X turbofan of 400kN burns a tremendous amount of fuel and generates an outstanding amount of energy yet you could stand at some yards away from it's exhaust and not be burned alive, which is what would happen if you did the same to a J85 turbojet with just 15kN.
▶ No.904174>>904572
>>904157
>Energy and temperature are not the same thing, the more energy generated doesn't necessarily means the temperature is higher.
Nigger we didn't invent a 225% more effective way to burn hydrocarbons for the F-35. Both R-79V-300 and P&W F135 are turbofans with six compressor stages. Both burn jet fuel with relatively same properties.
J85 is a turbojet, a different type of engine, with 8 compressor stages, which causes insane heat concentration. GE9X has only two compressor stages which is why it is cooler, and it's a high bypass turbofan which differs wildly from a low bypass turbofan.
You know fuck all about jet engines and what is causing the problem in F135.
▶ No.904572>>904590
>>904174
>autistic retard tries to look knowledgeable on the interweebs
>says shit easily questionable by anyone with high-school physics knowledge
>gets assblasted and starts spewing fallacies of false authority to hide his embarrassment
KEK
▶ No.904590
>>904572
Yeah I'm sure your picture and three letter response tells the rest of the class exactly how knowledgeable you are.