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

[hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.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?