The split between the F-35 vehicle systems and mission systems is described in [0].<p>&quot;This new design approach breaks avionics into two categories: mission systems and vehicle systems. The former includes tools that help the aircraft do its job, such as sensors, displays, and weapons. The latter are subsystems that help the aircraft function correctly, such as power generation, cooling, and flight control.&quot;<p>For more on the Vehicle Managment Computers, see [1], particularly:<p>&quot;&quot;Each F-35 will have three boxes, making it a triple-redundant system,&quot; said Tom Burbage, executive vice president and general manager of the Lockheed Martin JSF program.  &quot;Each box &#x27;votes&#x27; and compares its decision with that of
 the others before executing a command -- a process that takes place in much less than the blink of an eye.  If one or even two boxes were to be damaged or malfunction, the aircraft would continue to operate normally.&quot; The all-digital VMCs, which save weight and space while improving precision, are at the heart of the distributed F-35 Vehicle System.&quot;<p>When we say &quot;Block 3i&quot; we are talking about the mission systems hardware[2] and software that are all about &quot;sensors, displays, and weapons&quot;. All I intended was to point out this difference, and to point out that the vehicle systems are controlled by physically distinct components and simply saying &quot;The F-35 software&quot; isn&#x27;t completely accurate.<p>You&#x27;ll note I made no claim about safety, nor do I intend to do so. Future performance of the system does not necessarily depend on its past performance. Allow me to point out,though, that through 50,000+ flight test hours, no F-35 has been lost through a flight control failure (again, no guarantee that there isn&#x27;t some latent failure case awaiting discovery!) And, as an engineer who is struggling to tame some complexity on a rather bothersome flight test instrumentation system, I&#x27;m well aware of risks (I love Risks Digest!). Heck, check some of my post history, I&#x27;m often exhorting people to read John Gall&#x27;s Systemantics and heed its lessons.<p>Discuss technical failings of the program if you wish, but remarks about the &quot;record of this team&quot; and a google search to &quot;f35 failed project&quot; are rather offputting and are, in my humble opinion, needlessly negative.<p>[0]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.militaryaerospace.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;print&#x2F;volume-14&#x2F;issue-5&#x2F;features&#x2F;special-report&#x2F;f-35-jet-fighters-to-take-integrated-avionics-to-a-whole-new-level.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.militaryaerospace.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;print&#x2F;volume-14&#x2F;is...</a><p>[1]:<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.prnewswire.com&#x2F;news-releases&#x2F;first-lockheed-martin-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-vehicle-management-computer-delivered-55707452.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.prnewswire.com&#x2F;news-releases&#x2F;first-lockheed-marti...</a><p>[2]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www2.l-3com.com&#x2F;displays&#x2F;pdfs&#x2F;redesign&#x2F;ICP(2011)_LR.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www2.l-3com.com&#x2F;displays&#x2F;pdfs&#x2F;redesign&#x2F;ICP(2011)_LR.p...</a>