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

[Beekeeper <bkpr2000@fas.harvard.edu>]

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!