Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Axel <axel@bungmunch.edu>]

Beekeeper <bkpr2000@fas.harvard.edu> proves the law of fives:

>On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:26:20 -0400, hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <8e9u09$411$1@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, Axel 
>><axel@bungmunch.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
>>> proves the law of fives:
>>> 
>>> >This, from David Kim:
>>> >
>>> >>"counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg> 
>>> >>finally
>>> >>loses it:
>>> >>
>>> >>>This, from Axel:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>>> >>>>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself 
>>> >>>>>> > that has had
>>> >>>>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to 
>>> >>>>>> > maintain any
>>> >>>>>> kind
>>> >>>>>> > of credibility.
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth 
>>> >>>>>> to ask for
>>> >>>>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a 
>>> >>>>>> fart why it
>>> >>>>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that 
>>> >>>>>> there's a
>>> >>>>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll 
>>> >>>>>> give you a
>>> >>>>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random 
>>> >>>>>> words in
>>> >>>>>> this post.
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S 
>>> >>>>>> > > refers to a
>>> >>>>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software 
>>> >>>>>> > > configurations are
>>> >>>>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one 
>>> >>>>>> > > correspondence.
>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>>> >>>>>> transportability.
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common 
>>> >>>>>> Integrated
>>> >>>>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are 
>>> >>>>>> installed
>>> >>>>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can 
>>> >>>>>> compensate
>>> >>>>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" 
>>> >>>>>> function in
>>> >>>>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a 
>>> >>>>>> crazy person
>>> >>>>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram 
>>> >>>>>> > understand
>>> >>>>>> > Software,
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty 
>>> >>>>>> using the
>>> >>>>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall 
>>> >>>>>> Street Journal
>>> >>>>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about 
>>> >>>>>> it. Glad
>>> >>>>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 
>>> >>>>>> (scheduled to
>>> >>>>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be 
>>> >>>>>> delivered at
>>> >>>>>> the end of October).
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference 
>>> >>>>>> > > previously
>>> >>>>>> provided:
>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates 
>>> >>>>>> > > the sensor
>>> >>>>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>>> >>>>>> > >
>>> >>>>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion 
>>> >>>>>> > > and weapons
>>> >>>>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>> > John
>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>>> >>>>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the 
>>> >>>>>> bridge>
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both 
>>> >>>>>> seem to now
>>> >>>>>> be relevant.)
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
>>> >>
>>> >>I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
>>> >
>>> >GOOD MORNING, MINIATURE SAXOPHONE
>>> 
>>> GOOD MORNING, BATHROOM FLOOR!
>>
>>GOOD MORNING, F-22 INTAKE!
>
>GOOD MORNING, I ALMOST LOST TO GO-BOTS!

GOOD MORNING, MY CLOSET CONTAINS JOAN COLLINS!

--
|  This little nugget of wisdom brought to you by:  |
|  -------------------->Axel<---------------------  |
|                     mhm23x3                       |
|                        @                          |
|                    hotmail.com                    |
|                                                   |
|  "Meow.  Even if you have no place to do it but   |
|        your own newsgroup in alt.bonehead.*"      |
|            --Ayatollah Meow                       |
 ---------------------------------------------------