Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    The C++ standard for the F-35 Fighter Jet [video]

    (www.youtube.com)
    327 points AareyBaba | 14 comments | 07 Dec 25 18:07 UTC | HN request time: 0.596s | source | bottom
    Show context
    bri3d ◴[07 Dec 25 22:19 UTC] No.46185823[source]▶
    https://web.archive.org/web/20111219004314/http://journal.th... (referenced, at least tangentially, in the video) is a piece from the engineering lead which does a great job discussing Why C++. The short summary is "they couldn't find enough people to write Ada, and even if they could, they also couldn't find enough Ada middleware and toolchain."

    I actually think Ada would be an easier sell today than it was back then. It seems to me that the software field overall has become more open to a wider variety of languages and concepts, and knowing Ada wouldn't be perceived as widely as career pidgeonholing today. Plus, Ada is having a bit of a resurgence with stuff like NVidia picking SPARK.

    replies(5): >>46188588 #>>46188799 #>>46189574 #>>46190668 #>>46196352 #
    ecshafer ◴[08 Dec 25 05:43 UTC] No.46188799[source]▶
    I've always strongly disliked this argument of not enough X programmers. If the DoD enforces the requirement for Ada, Universities, job training centers, and companies will follow. People can learn new languages. And the F35 and America's combat readiness would be in a better place today with Ada instead of C++.
    replies(7): >>46189342 #>>46189545 #>>46189754 #>>46190651 #>>46191046 #>>46192553 #>>46192991 #
    1. blub ◴[08 Dec 25 07:16 UTC] No.46189342[source]▶
    The exact opposite of what you suggest already happened: Ada was mandated and then the mandate was revoked. It’s generally a bad idea to be the only customer of a specific product, because it increases costs.

    > And the F35 and America's combat readiness would be in a better place today with Ada instead of C++

    What’s the problem with the F35 and combat readiness? Many EU countries are falling over each-other to buy it.

    replies(5): >>46189493 #>>46189607 #>>46189625 #>>46191934 #>>46192565 #
    2. KolmogorovComp ◴[08 Dec 25 07:38 UTC] No.46189493[source]▶
    > Many EU countries are falling over each-other to buy it

    They are not buying it for its capabilities though, but to please their US ally/bully which would have retaliated economically otherwise.

    See the very recent Swiss case were theirs pilots had chosen another aircraft (the french Rafale), only to be disavowed by their politics later on.

    replies(3): >>46189678 #>>46189720 #>>46190178 #
    3. pixelesque ◴[08 Dec 25 08:00 UTC] No.46189607[source]▶
    > What’s the problem with the F35 and combat readiness?

    Block 4 is very delayed for starters.

    4. pandemic_region ◴[08 Dec 25 08:03 UTC] No.46189625[source]▶
    > Many EU countries are falling over each-other to buy it.

    It's because we are obliged to want more freedom.

    5. gghffguhvc ◴[08 Dec 25 08:12 UTC] No.46189678[source]▶
    The pilots might have reassessed after Pakistan seemed to have shot three of them down from over 200km range. Intel failure blamed but likely many factors of which some presumably may be attributed to the planes.
    replies(1): >>46194580 #
    6. varjag ◴[08 Dec 25 08:20 UTC] No.46189720[source]▶
    Much of existing European F-35 fleet predates Trump's first term. In fact now quite the opposite happens: other options being eyed from reliable partners, even if technically inferior.
    7. blub ◴[08 Dec 25 09:22 UTC] No.46190178[source]▶
    Maybe the EU shouldn’t have transformed themselves into US vassals then.

    Nobody respects weakness, not even an ally. Ironically showing a spine and decoupling from the US on some topics would have hurt more short term, but would have been healthier in the long term.

    replies(1): >>46191649 #
    8. jack_tripper ◴[08 Dec 25 12:52 UTC] No.46191649{3}[source]▶
    >Maybe the EU shouldn’t have transformed themselves into US vassals then.

    I share the same opinion. If you're (on paper) the biggest economic block in the world, but you can be so easily bullied, then you've already failed >20 years ago.

    But I don't think it was bullying, but the other way around. EU countries were just buying favoritism for US military protection, because it was still way cheaper than ripping the bandaid and building its own domestic military industry of similar power and scale.

    Most defense spending uses the same motivation. You're not seeking to buying the best or cheapest hardware, you seek to buy powerful friends.

    9. baud147258 ◴[08 Dec 25 13:23 UTC] No.46191934[source]▶
    > What’s the problem with the F35 and combat readiness?

    For example, the UK would like to use its own air-to-ground missile (the spear missile) with its own F-35 jets, but it's held back by Lockheed Martin's Block 4 software update delays.

    replies(1): >>46193190 #
    10. ecshafer ◴[08 Dec 25 14:25 UTC] No.46192565[source]▶
    The F35 was like 10 years and $50B over budget.
    11. p_l ◴[08 Dec 25 15:18 UTC] No.46193190[source]▶
    Also by the software being black box for everyone outside of USA / Lockheed-Martin.
    12. psunavy03 ◴[08 Dec 25 16:52 UTC] No.46194580{3}[source]▶
    Pakistan has never downed an F-35.
    replies(2): >>46194772 #>>46199380 #
    13. KolmogorovComp ◴[08 Dec 25 17:06 UTC] No.46194772{4}[source]▶
    They were talking about the Rafales. But I think the comment is irrelevant anyway as the scandal happened before that iirc.
    14. gghffguhvc ◴[08 Dec 25 23:51 UTC] No.46199380{4}[source]▶
    I poorly worded it. Rafales allegedly shot down. After that happened, perhaps the pilots wanting them over F35s might have a different opinion. F35s might be harder to get a lock on at that distance and might have better situational awareness capabilities.