Software Bug Halts F-22 Flight 579
mgh02114 writes "The new US stealth fighter, the F-22 Raptor, was deployed for the first time to Asia earlier this month. On Feb. 11, twelve Raptors flying from Hawaii to Japan were forced to turn back when a software glitch crashed all of the F-22s' on-board computers as they crossed the international date line. The delay in arrival in Japan was previously reported, with rumors of problems with the software. CNN television, however, this morning reported that every fighter completely lost all navigation and communications when they crossed the international date line. They reportedly had to turn around and follow their tankers by visual contact back to Hawaii. According to the CNN story, if they had not been with their tankers, or the weather had been bad, this would have been serious. CNN has not put up anything on their website yet." The Peoples Daily of China reported on Feb. 17 that two Raptors had landed on Okinawa.
Re:I've been wondering... (Score:1, Insightful)
You obviously aren't to far from the crowd that you've unfairly and wrongly stereotyped if you've got time to post to Slashdot in the first five minutes of a new post and felt the need to take a precious 2 minutes away all your sex-orgies and circle jerks with your friends to point this out.
Chris
Re:Overflow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Real redundancy (Score:1, Insightful)
now if it was a B2 carrying nukes it might be a cause for concern. the shuttle is hugely expensive compared to the raptor and they spend nearly $10mil every year in ensuring the software is perfect. fighters dont get much software development time.
UTC (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and while they're at it, standardize on metric too. Maybe we can save our interstellar probes at the same time we are saving our warplanes.
Design? Lack of foresight? (Score:5, Insightful)
Design problem? Why should navigation software require "local time"? They knew they were crossing the international dateline, so they must be linked to GPS timing systems... why not just use GPS' universal time? (Sure, you want local time eventually for your displays but that's a "view" calculation, not one intrinsic to the navigation software)
Bug tracking problem? Did the testers not think of testing about a time zone change? Did they assume the above that everything would be on a universal time and therefore didn't see the need for crossing time zones?
Why wasn't this a stock reusable code module in Lockheed Martin's labs?!?
(And for a media look at this issue, check out the anime Geneshaft or the movie The Pentagon Wars)
Er what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry (Score:2, Insightful)
We won't even go into the fact that the F-22 is faster with a full weapons load and much faster at both high and low altitudes when fitted with a typical combat load, has a much longer range (up to 2x with combat load), the F-22 also has a superior thrust to weight ratio, has a higher reliablity rate (97% to 86%),
Re:I doubt they lost communication... (Score:2, Insightful)
Moderation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. The F-22 cannot be piloted manually, if all the computers crashed, then so would the planes.
Given this inconsistency, I am disinclined to believe the rest of the story.
Re:Cost Efficiency: EuroFighter vs. F-22 (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes the F-22 is likely worth 84% more than the Eurofighter in terms of performance due to stealth alone.
Incidentally since the F-22 is what the F-35 is based on that $70billion has technically led to the creation of two planes, the later of which is being sold quite widely.
I have worked on Commecial and DoD avionics (Score:5, Insightful)
Commercial avionics software of the sort described is governed by a standard called DO-178B level A or level B. The process is so rigorous that the slogan is "no-one has ever died from software failure in a commercial airliner, yet." DO-178B level A is expensive. It is virtually impossible that a software error of the nature described could get into a certified aircraft.
Having said that, the military is not obliged to follow commercial standards, but there is a trend toward using DO 178-B in military systems in part because the Europeans are starting to require commercial JAA/FAA certification for all aircraft that enter their air space. But even in the more lax military world, every line of code is typically formally reviewed and there are independent testers. The type of error described should have shown up in simulators before the first flight of the aircraft. Test flights should have stimulated the error long before a squadron ever attempted a transpacific flight.
Even worse still, avionics systems are supposed to be isolated from each other. Navigation radios typically share nothing but power with GPS or with engine instruments etc. Great effort prevents one system from disturbing the power of another too. Aircraft typically have two or more separate primary navigation systems plus inertial guidance and old fashion compass + baring/vector navigation. Military aircraft need to survive both normal equipment failures and battle damage. Military radios (including navigation) need to be isolated from other systems for security reasons too. Those NSA guarded encryption systems can not be contaminated by software that has lower security classification (like navigation)without somebody going to federal prison for a long time.
The bottom line is that something very very wrong, negligent, and illegal needed to happen for the described error mode to manifest. That makes me doubt the story.
Re:Cost Efficiency: EuroFighter vs. F-22 (Score:4, Insightful)
The return on investment is HEAVILY in favor of the F-22. There is no aircraft anywhere even close. The Eurofighter is the second best fighter aircraft ever built, but it is miles from being in the same class as the F-22 Raptor.
Position problems more likely (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're going to write software like this, then test it or simulate it at all the wierd places in the world: date line [East/West rollover], equator [north/south chnange], GMT+13 hours [NZ daylight saving time].
Re:Real redundancy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Overflow (Score:3, Insightful)
So... a program that's in danger of being cut back intentionally causes a significant failure! Why not just submit a proposal to cancel the program? These are not the headlines LM wants right now. When lots of money has been spent, people irrationally expect perfection. Flying to Japan participating in exercises and kicking ass would have gone much further to proving the program viability than creating false doubts of reliability!
Re:Fixed (Score:5, Insightful)
It sure doesn't need to be like that.
Our desktop computers crash because we can tolerate crashes. There is some redundancy - if my notebook crashes, I reboot it and, in a couple minutes, I am back to work. If it breaks, I grab another computer and continue.
A plane, on the other hand, should work at all times. When lives depend on some equipment, one should enforce much higher standards than we do on desktop or even mission-critical busines software. Nobody dies if your sales people have a 5 minute outage. Nobody dies if you can't create a patient record. People die when the computers a plane relies upon fail.
It's completely unacceptable - and quite alarming - to see a plane malfunction like that on its first deployment.
Things like that should have been exercised years ago. By now, the code should be rock-stable. Whant kind of quality assurance they did?
Re:Cost Efficiency: EuroFighter vs. F-22 (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if stealth is a requirement. In a real dogfight, the Eurofighter likely wins because maneuverability was foremost in its design, whereas the F-22 has stealth as the foremost design priority. The thought is that engagements are likely to be fought a distance with missles, and the low observability tech will allow the American aircraft to engage long before the enemy can return fire. This does not jive entirely with engagements of the past, which often involve close range encounters to verify enemy, or orders to wait until fired upon to return fire.
Compare this to the ability to put twice as many aircraft in the sky, carrying more munitions (while the F-22 has some stealty weapons bays, maxed out with a full bomb load involves external mounts with has a huge impact on radar visibility). Point is, whether stealth is worth 84% more has more to do with your mission profile and expected enemy/target,
Re:I have worked on Commecial and DoD avionics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno, the Americans seemed to quite like the idea of the AV-8A Harrier [wikipedia.org], a British creation.
Re:Er what? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can trust the what and the when; I wouldn't trust their how or why any further than I could spit.
(This isn't anti-CNN; this is anti-almost-everything news media. Journalists aren't required to learn squat about science or technology for their degree and it tends to show up in every last article they write with even a passing connection to science or technology. Any even cursory overview of stories on any technical subject you know about will reveal this. Remember that "multi-gear rocket" atrocity from a day or two ago?)
Re:Fixed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:UTC (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)
It's because we care about killing innocent civilians, and they are indistinguishable from innocent civilians.
If we can't identify the enemy, it's a good sign we shouldn't be there.
rd
Re:Don't worry (Score:2, Insightful)
We didn't just lose the Vietnam war to the Vietnamese; we lost the war largely to public opinion. When we pulled out (right after the Tet offensive) we were winning the war: most VC operatives had compromised themselves to participate in the Tet offensive, and the North Vietnamese army had taken very heavy casualties.
Certainly, the Vietnamese (and the Iraqis after them) demonstrated that conventional military might fares poorly against a resistance, but the reality of the Vietnam was not so simple as American folklore suggests.
Re:Overflow (Score:2, Insightful)