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

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

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

The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.

But the newer compilers and other software tools they've developed
*can*.

Perhaps, but i have yet to see a compiler upgrade work without altering
the
sofware.

That's true, but the folks who have been working with the Ada-95 tools
noticed that it's easier to alter the software to run under Ada-95 than
it is to keep using the older Ada. Cheaper to maintain, faster to
develop.

As in the old software doesn't work.

The low competence of Lockmart's avionics group is why they sold it to BAE
Systems.

Wch is why a lot of that F-35 code you're so happy about is
just modified Ada code from the F-22 suite - and why a good chunk of
the
F-22 code is Ada-95 (newer and better development tools make
maintaining
the code so much easier it was cost-effective to rewrite it).

Let me clue you, the F-35 is tabbed to the Eurofighter.

That's an odd statement. "Tabbed to?" In common usage, that means
they're connected directly, but sine they aren't you must mean something
else.

Think real hard.

Are you aware of BAE Systems?

Yes, they're making a lot of the ECM and other systems *hardware* for
the F-35. To be controlled by the software that LockMart is developing
for controlling the whole plane.

Bull****.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

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

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

The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.

But the newer compilers and other software tools they've developed
*can*.

Perhaps, but i have yet to see a compiler upgrade work without altering
the
sofware.

That's true, but the folks who have been working with the Ada-95 tools
noticed that it's easier to alter the software to run under Ada-95 than
it is to keep using the older Ada. Cheaper to maintain, faster to
develop.

As in the old software doesn't work.

No, as in "the old software worked, but they improved it and brought it
up to Ada-95 to make it easier to work with."

The low competence of Lockmart's avionics group is why they sold it to BAE
Systems.

Nope.

Let me clue you, the F-35 is tabbed to the Eurofighter.

That's an odd statement. "Tabbed to?" In common usage, that means
they're connected directly, but sine they aren't you must mean
something else.

Think real hard.

I think you wrote something deliberately vague, so you could pretend it
was profound. You failed.

Are you aware of BAE Systems?

Yes, they're making a lot of the ECM and other systems *hardware*
for the F-35. To be controlled by the software that LockMart is
developing for controlling the whole plane.

Bull****.

Not actually a refutation, there...

--
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:

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

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

The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made
good.

But the newer compilers and other software tools they've developed
*can*.

Perhaps, but i have yet to see a compiler upgrade work without
altering
the
sofware.

That's true, but the folks who have been working with the Ada-95 tools
noticed that it's easier to alter the software to run under Ada-95
than
it is to keep using the older Ada. Cheaper to maintain, faster to
develop.

As in the old software doesn't work.

No, as in "the old software worked, but they improved it and brought it
up to Ada-95 to make it easier to work with."

The low competence of Lockmart's avionics group is why they sold it to
BAE
Systems.

Nope.

Yes, Simmons and all of Lockmart's avionics group are now part of BAE
Systems.

If you are this far outside what is real, why are you posting to this
thread, Irby?

Is it to "help" Lockmart? If that is the case I am certain Lockmart would
perfer you to shut up.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Yes, Simmons and all of Lockmart's avionics group are now part of BAE
Systems.

Wrong, as usual.

Note, for example, that the core processing units of the F-35 are
*still* being made by Lockheed Martin Tactical Systems, which is *still*
part of the LockMart organization as of this particular day. You seem
to not know about "Maritime Systems and Sensors," which is still a
*large* LockMart subsidiary (part of the Electronic Systems business
unit.

(Insults deleted)

--
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:

Yes, Simmons and all of Lockmart's avionics group are now part of BAE
Systems.

Wrong, as usual.

Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...

Wrong, as usual.

Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.

Get a room, guys!

__!_!__
Gizmo

"gizmo-goddard" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...

Wrong, as usual.

Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.

Get a room, guys!

Poor Chad, so distantly seperated from reality.

So, if the Commanche is dead, can USAF justify pouring more money down the
F-22 rathole?

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Yes, you are wrong as usual, Chad.

Funny how you can't ever seem to find anything to back your opinions
up...

It's like talking to a movie PR person.

"Lockheed Martin Sells One of Many Avionics Subsidiaries."

Tarver reads:

"Lockheed Martin Sells... Avionics Subsidiaries."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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