Forum: General F-35 Forum

Last edited by sufaviper on Sep 07, 2012 - 07:27 PM; edited 1 time in total

maus92 wrote:

Some production cars have more lines of code than the F-35 will, the difference is the cost can be amortized over a huge fleet of vehicles.

That's a little disengenuous, don't you think?

When you hear the 100, 300, or 500 Million lines of code on cars it is counting the code inbedded in each ECU and other electronics on the vehicle. The 2009 IEEE article stated that the Nav and Radio in the S-Class is 20 million lines of code (or 20% of the code in the car at the time the article was written). Add in say 80 ECU's with 500,000 lines a piece and you are up to 60 million lines, then add in the code in the engine and you have another what 35 million lines. That leaves you with like 5 that the car actually has in it, but don't forget to take out all the other electronics that have embedded codes and BIT's.

Additionally, how much of the code in these cars were written 20+ years ago and have been built upon ever since. How much of it is "dead" in that it doesn't function in the current fleet? Does the auto industry get less out of each line of code than the aviation industry?

To bring it back home to the F-35, I doubt this is an apples-to-apples comparison. My understanding is that when LM says Block 3 will be 8.6 Million lines of code, that is what they are having to write, not what is embedded in the various gear being placed in the aircraft. I can't imagine the software inside the engine, radar, DAS, EOTS, ect. Additionally the consquences of a bug are slightly worse in an aircraft than in a car.

Finally, if it truely is an apples-to-apples comparison, then it is a causes for concern . . . about the cars. How inefficient is the code they are working with? Why can the entire fighter be programmed for less than 10 million lines while the car nav and radio need 20 million lines? The fighter code is rigorously tested to ensure the safety of the aircraft which has cause much of the delays, how did the auto inductry test 20 times the code so fast?

Basically this IEEE article doesn't tell anywhere near the whole story.

Sufa Viper

Update:
Here is a link to the IEEE story maus92 is referencing.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/adv ... ns-on-code

F-16.net Sponsor

maus92 wrote:

Some production cars have more lines of code than the F-35 will, the difference is the cost can be amortized over a huge fleet of vehicles.

Frankly, this is completely and utterly false.

First off, its possible that some cars have more lines of code than the F-35, however lines of code does not equate to complexity. The sheer scale programming tasks required for the F-35 just in Block 1 (aviate and navigate) are of an magnitude greater any car manufacturer would face. A car might have several computers for brakes, engines, ect. They might consider speed, braking pressure, friction and temperature? It might have several hundred data points. However consider that aircraft have that for every single control surface, that must consider temperature, air pressure, angle of attack, speed, ect. Literally you're considering 10,000+ data points, easily. That doesn't even consider system integration with Radar, weapons, sensors and ALIS. All of those systems are far more complex.

So no... its not the same.

wrightwing wrote:

maus92 wrote:

Some production cars have more lines of code than the F-35 will, the difference is the cost can be amortized over a huge fleet of vehicles.

Which cars would these be exactly?

I'm not sure that cars are running at 12M lines of code but with the new onboard systems they might.

Typically your average assembly plant produces 250,000 cars annually running at 60 vehicles per hour on two shifts for 240 days plus some overtime. Max capacity on two shifts is 290,000 units, and three shifts gives you about 350,000. These numbers represent production for sub-compacts, compacts, intermediates and full size cars. Trucks, SUV's production would be similar but sport vehicles and larger trucks run at a slower line speed.

Back in '81 I remember 7 software releases in one model year for a sub-compact before we got it to work right!! It was one of the first vehicles to use a microprocessor to control the engine.

Incidently the LRIP process is used in the auto industry only the ramp-up to full production occurs in months not years. To me all the gnashing of teeth over the ramp up of production for the F-35 is funny. It's typical of any assembly operation.

I have seen a few numbers for 'lines of code for the F-35'. This quote does not seem to clarify the issue but it is there:

Pentagon Defense Acquisitions Board meeting on F-35 progress by Dave Majumdar 07 Sep 2012

"...Additionally, top US defence officials have previously voiced concerns over the F-35's 24 million lines of software code--according to the GAO. Lockheed says the F-35 only has 9.2 million lines of code...."

Rest of article just repeats 'the news' that DAB meets Friday to have a program updated and not a 'decisional day' - whatever that is. Very Happy

Here is an explanation for the 'lines of code' discrepancy - the smaller amount is for the aircraft whilst the larger amound is for the aircraft and associated equipment for maintenance and flight simulation. OK?

Pentagon focused on resolving F-35 software issues By Andrea Shalal-Esa | Mar 30, 2012

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/ ... C420120330

"...Thompson said the program was also stepping up work on the 24 million lines of code needed to fly and operate the new warplane and associated ground-based equipment, such as simulators, Thompson said. "The complexity there gives us pause," he said. "We know we can go fix the mechanical engineering issues associated with structural problems. We're very confident in that. But in terms of fusing together that many lines of code into actual warfighting capability, we realize that could bring us to our knees if it doesn't work."

The Defense Department singled out software development as one of its key concerns about the F-35 in Thursday's report. The new fighter requires nearly 10 million lines of code on board the jet, to integrate the complex sensors, electronic warfare and onboard imagery equipment that will give it far more capability than earlier fighter jets. That is about twice as much software as used on the other stealthy fighter, the F-22...."

hb_pencil wrote:

maus92 wrote:

Some production cars have more lines of code than the F-35 will, the difference is the cost can be amortized over a huge fleet of vehicles.

Frankly, this is completely and utterly false.

First off, its possible that some cars have more lines of code than the F-35, however lines of code does not equate to complexity. The sheer scale programming tasks required for the F-35 just in Block 1 (aviate and navigate) are of an magnitude greater any car manufacturer would face. A car might have several computers for brakes, engines, ect. They might consider speed, braking pressure, friction and temperature? It might have several hundred data points. However consider that aircraft have that for every single control surface, that must consider temperature, air pressure, angle of attack, speed, ect. Literally you're considering 10,000+ data points, easily. That doesn't even consider system integration with Radar, weapons, sensors and ALIS. All of those systems are far more complex.

So no... its not the same.

I'd have to agree. I see a whole lot of redundant or unused (STD vs LS vs GT model) code in a automobile compared to an F-35. The F-35 code is completely different as the aircraft is operating in 3 dimensional space and time and at an exponentially higher rate of speed. A car is stuck in a very slow, planar world (for the most part). This fact would mean far greater complexity just in the math alone for the F-35. If we're talking about C++ code in the F-35, we have to remember the hardware ultimately runs 1s and 0s which is linked to assembly language. When you compile C++ you may end up with way more than ~9 million lines of code in assembly. Adding to the complexity of the code is the fact that you must streamline it so that it processes faster. Based on my experience, 50 lines of C++ can be more complex than 75 lines of Java. You can see this better after you compile both into assembler. This is why I see programming as an art in a lot of ways and is probably why LM chose C++ as it's high order language for the JSF. C++ is widely used and there exists, in the programming industry, a large pool of experience and talent with which to tap into.

The original article at beginning of this thread has apparently been updated on 11 Sep 2012. YMMV.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-fifth-genera ... s-machine/

wrightwing wrote:

maus92 wrote:

Some production cars have more lines of code than the F-35 will, the difference is the cost can be amortized over a huge fleet of vehicles.

Which cars would these be exactly?

Probably the ones with with EVS/FLIR projected on the drivers HUD. Very Happy

It's scheduled to be integrated onto the high end BMWs. The question is if they'll sell more units than the F-35. Even then, I seriously doubt the car will actually have more Lines Of Code than the F-35.

wrightwing wrote:

maus92 wrote:

Some production cars have more lines of code than the F-35 will, the difference is the cost can be amortized over a huge fleet of vehicles.

Which cars would these be exactly?

"The avionics system in the F-22 Raptor, the current U.S. Air Force frontline jet fighter, consists of about 1.7 million lines of software code. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, scheduled to become operational in 2010, will require about 5.7 million lines of code to operate its onboard systems. And Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner, scheduled to be delivered to customers in 2010, requires about 6.5 million lines of software code to operate its avionics and onboard support systems.

These are impressive amounts of software, yet if you bought a premium-class automobile recently, ”it probably contains close to 100 million lines of software code,” says Manfred Broy, a professor of informatics at Technical University, Munich, and a leading expert on software in cars. All that software executes on 70 to 100 microprocessor-based electronic control units (ECUs) networked throughout the body of your car."

http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/adv ... ns-on-code

"GM's Volt: 10 Millions Lines of Code"

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-t ... code/12006

[quote="discofishing... This is why I see programming as an art in a lot of ways and is probably why LM chose C++ as it's high order language for the JSF. C++ is widely used and there exists, in the programming industry, a large pool of experience and talent with which to tap into.[/quote]

Sadly, some of that C++ pool are only "cut and paste" bodies and not the "artist" you reference. "More progress is needed on the complex development activity," said one of the sources. "There's frustration that it's not happening fast enough." from another thread (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20323.html). Complexity does not lend itself to "just in time manufacturing" or else anyone could do it. That said, the data merging and integration of systems in the -35 are not the plain vanilla programs where bodies and money can be thrown at a project to improve the schedule. Concurrency is the nemesis for vAdm. Venlet, how far down that road do you go until the retrofits become not worth it. Dr. M.Gilmore has a similar problem with checking out complex integrated functions when the scope is changing as testing is continuing. "IF" LM is able to solve this problem they will have a brilliant future, not only in the -35 program but in many areas that have similar complexity.

If I remember correctly, a year or two ago, a lot of data pertaining to the F-35 and F-35 related systems was compromised, rather thoroughly, by the PRC. Is it inconceivable that issues and changes which were ongoing with the program before, have been more comprehensively looked at as a result?

The lines of code can't explain everthing, as the requirements are vastly different

"car code" can written by undergraduates with (or without) a few years experience, I assume much of the code that flies F-35 can only be written by the scientists.

Apples and oranges.. the lesser the lines of code that get the job done is a good thing.

popcorn wrote:

Apples and oranges.. the lesser the lines of code that get the job done is a good thing.

Yep! You want maximum hardware/network throughput.

For a long time without sound on old computer I did not follow up on some videos. Not sure now if this video has not been highlighted before now. Anyway it seems to follow the text in the first article mentioned at top of this thread.

Shaping a New Approach to Combat Learning: The Role of the F-35 by Robbin Laird NO DATE

Anyway as usual the article seems to be a mashup of previous articles with probably some new bits. I found the video interesting to say the least (apologies if it has already been highlighted earlier):

Lt Col Berke August 24 2012 from SldInfo.com Plus 3 months ago

VIDEO: http://vimeo.com/48204156#at=0

"Lt. Col. Berke, Commander of VMFAT-501, the Warlords, spoke about the F-35 training experience and its potential impact on USMC operations. He has accumulated over 2800 flight in hours in the F/A-18, F-16, and F-22.

The interview was conducted on August 24, 2012, the day of the 200th sortie by the F-35 team.

Indeed, he is a unique pilot with accumulated F-22 and F-35 flight experience. In this video clip from the interview, he discusses the two planes and the impact of the F-35 on the USN-USMC team approach to innovation and change.

Berke highlighted the importance of the pilot interface and the role of the helmet as part of the pilot to leverage Situational Awareness in an historically unprecedented way.

Of course, on Second Line of Defense we have highlighted the role of the pilot interface, and the cockpit as central discriminators for the F-35. And we interviewed one of the “fathers” of this effort, Mike Skaff from Lockheed Martin.

“This airplane is transformational. For the first time, you have a single platform that covers a spectrum of missions which exceeds what a number of aircraft now deliver to the USMC in operations.”

Lt. Col. compared his experience as a JTAC with what he expects from the F-35 for the ground forces.

“It will be difficult to learn what this aircraft will bring to operations, but the USMC is oriented towards such a learning process.”

Forum: General F-35 Forum

SLD: The 5th Generation Experience Updated