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

[hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.net>]

In article <9K4O4.919$wb7.88787@news.flash.net>, "Ken Garlington" 
<Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:

> "hoKEy wOLf" <yep@nope.net> wrote in message
> news:yep-7663B5.19194027042000@allnews.infi.net...
> > In article <8e9eh9$fsj$14@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, David Kim
> > <dlkim@wistech.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > "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.
> >
> > SEE?
> 
> SAW!

Today, Bullwinkle stands nearly 300 feet above sea level.