Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

"Ian" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
...

|The Tomcat is gone quicker than you can think....
|There is a big push by CNO to axe the F-14 sooner than planned, like
|now is too late...watch and see.
|
|The F/A-18 (I assume you mean the B/C/D models) already has a
|replacement, E/F. I don't think you are following current Naval
|Aviation very well.
|
|There is no need to replace the E/F Hornet, it will be pulling
|fighter/CAP/FAC/Bomber/tanker etc. duties for the next 10 years.
|Totally capable of performing all the above, with no current or
future
|enemy threat that can match it.

Yes, I am aware that the E/F variants are the upgrade to the
current F/A-18 and the F-14. However by the time the FB-22 is
online, even those versions will be dated.

Less dated than the F-22.

You are not considering the F-22's two greatest flaws, the pre-96 Ada
and
the Mil-spec components. The entire procurement of the F/A-18E is a
generation ahead of the F-22.

What language is F-22 software written in? I presume Ada-95?

The F-22 is older than that.

The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based solely on
it being post '96 Ada and having a late infusion of the RPL model. The
system itself has moved on since the parting and coding of the F-22.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ian" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
...

|The Tomcat is gone quicker than you can think....
|There is a big push by CNO to axe the F-14 sooner than planned,
like
|now is too late...watch and see.
|
|The F/A-18 (I assume you mean the B/C/D models) already has a
|replacement, E/F. I don't think you are following current Naval
|Aviation very well.
|
|There is no need to replace the E/F Hornet, it will be pulling
|fighter/CAP/FAC/Bomber/tanker etc. duties for the next 10 years.
|Totally capable of performing all the above, with no current or
future
|enemy threat that can match it.

Yes, I am aware that the E/F variants are the upgrade to the
current F/A-18 and the F-14. However by the time the FB-22 is
online, even those versions will be dated.

Less dated than the F-22.

You are not considering the F-22's two greatest flaws, the pre-96 Ada
and
the Mil-spec components. The entire procurement of the F/A-18E is a
generation ahead of the F-22.

What language is F-22 software written in? I presume Ada-95?

The F-22 is older than that.

Thats interesting cos I'm sure I've read somewhere that Eurofighter is
written in Ada-95 and flight standard C?

"Ian" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ian" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
...

|The Tomcat is gone quicker than you can think....
|There is a big push by CNO to axe the F-14 sooner than planned,
like
|now is too late...watch and see.
|
|The F/A-18 (I assume you mean the B/C/D models) already has a
|replacement, E/F. I don't think you are following current Naval
|Aviation very well.
|
|There is no need to replace the E/F Hornet, it will be pulling
|fighter/CAP/FAC/Bomber/tanker etc. duties for the next 10 years.
|Totally capable of performing all the above, with no current or
future
|enemy threat that can match it.

Yes, I am aware that the E/F variants are the upgrade to the
current F/A-18 and the F-14. However by the time the FB-22 is
online, even those versions will be dated.

Less dated than the F-22.

You are not considering the F-22's two greatest flaws, the pre-96
Ada
and
the Mil-spec components. The entire procurement of the F/A-18E is a
generation ahead of the F-22.

What language is F-22 software written in? I presume Ada-95?

The F-22 is older than that.

Thats interesting cos I'm sure I've read somewhere that Eurofighter is
written in Ada-95 and flight standard C?

After a series of discussions WRT Ada here at ram with Ada experts i was
willing to accept the idea that Ada was fixed by 1996. Perhaps I am using
an incorrect identifier and it is Ada-95

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based solely on
it being post '96 Ada

Ada-95. Like a lot of the F-22 software, which got recoded because it
was easier to support. Which is why a good part of the F-35 software is
based on the F-22 software...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based
solely on
it being post '96 Ada

Ada-95. Like a lot of the F-22 software, which got recoded because it
was easier to support. Which is why a good part of the F-35 software is
based on the F-22 software...

Was to be, but tabbing to the F-22 would be foolish now.

For cryin out loud!
Did everyone read the last 15 posts by Tarver, Chad and R.
David about software and programming? LOL, I'm sure it means a lot to
them but it gives perfect credence to my philosophy that all engineers
should be locked up in a rubber room at night! Too Funny!!
Hey guys! When you get that software and programming crap
worked out,,, let me know so I can go fly the jet ok??? Holy cow!




On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:48:02 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based
solely on
it being post '96 Ada

Ada-95. Like a lot of the F-22 software, which got recoded because it
was easier to support. Which is why a good part of the F-35 software is
based on the F-22 software...

Was to be, but tabbing to the F-22 would be foolish now.

In article ,
fudog50 wrote:

For cryin out loud!
Did everyone read the last 15 posts by Tarver, Chad and R.
David about software and programming? LOL, I'm sure it means a lot to
them but it gives perfect credence to my philosophy that all engineers
should be locked up in a rubber room at night! Too Funny!!
Hey guys! When you get that software and programming crap
worked out,,, let me know so I can go fly the jet ok??? Holy cow!

Well, according to Tarver, the F-22 will never fly because the tail will
fall off or something, has big old strakes attached to it, ruining the
stealth, and is running unmodified 20 year old software.

So you can't fly it... ever. At least according to old Splapsy.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"fudog50" wrote in message
...
For cryin out loud!
Did everyone read the last 15 posts by Tarver, Chad and R.
David about software and programming? LOL, I'm sure it means a lot to
them but it gives perfect credence to my philosophy that all engineers
should be locked up in a rubber room at night! Too Funny!!
Hey guys! When you get that software and programming crap
worked out,,, let me know so I can go fly the jet ok??? Holy cow!

Perhaps never. The days of turning off the autopilot and flying the
airplane yourself are long gone. The software is always there.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:48:02 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The F-35 has a chance of being more successful than the F-22 based
solely on
it being post '96 Ada

Ada-95. Like a lot of the F-22 software, which got recoded because it
was easier to support. Which is why a good part of the F-35 software
is
based on the F-22 software...

Was to be, but tabbing to the F-22 would be foolish now.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

The days of turning off the autopilot and flying the
airplane yourself are long gone.

For the F-22, yep.

For the F/A-18, mostly.

For the F-14, nope!

For other airplanes in service, not even close!

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:aXe%b.122167$jk2.532687@attbi_s53...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

The days of turning off the autopilot and flying the
airplane yourself are long gone.

For the F-22, yep.

For the F-106, yep.

This is not some new idea that snuck up on you Weiss.