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

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 ,
"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.

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.

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
news


|
|Last time I checked the port of San Diego was a Public Benefit
|Corporation

Yes, it is contracted out to operations of the PRC and PRA.

Boeing contracts out work to Chinese companies
that doesnt mean its Chinese owned either.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

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

The FB-22 would replace the Air Force's F-15E and take
over some missions for long-range bombers such as the B-2 and
B-1. The initial design envisioned a plane that could carry 24
Small Diameter Bombs, which weigh only 250 pounds. Using Global
Positioning System guidance, the small bomb would be as lethal as
a 2,000-pound bomb.

No sir , GPS guidance systems are already available for
2000lb bombs

Depends on what that SDB is aimed at. A 250lb rock is just as lethal for a
tank as a 2000lb bomb would be.


Just so but ISTR GPS guidance isnt optimum for a mobile target

8 x 250lb bombs would be (assuming they all hit their targets) more lethal
for an enemy tank company than one 2000lb bomb.


None of which makes a 250lb more accurated than its 2000 lb
brother which was the claim to which I responded.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Boomer" wrote in message
...
The SDB will have an autopilot which will allow it to reach the target
with
more kinetic energy than a standard JDAM flight profile. Combine that with
a
new explosive package and they SAY it will have the same effectiveness as
a
2000lb bomb. The ER (or is it EX) version will have a potential range of
60
miles.



I rather doubt that the KE fraction will be high enough to
offset more than 1000lbs of HE

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

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



And they define that "territory" as everything from India to
Australia to Siberia and Japan. The whole of the far East. This
has been China's "domain" for thousands of years. The question
is do you want to be shut out of that area?


Siberia has never been part of China's domain and the only attempted
invasion of Japan happened when China itself was occupied
by the Mongols. The large Russian nuclear arsenal is apt
to make the Chinese think twice before any incursion as
would the diffciulties of maintaining a large army.

They simply couldnt bring large enough numbers to
bear to outweight their technological inferiority, the
logistical support just isnt there

Border clashes with India are scarcely likely to lead to major
territorial claims, India has a large population and
nuclear weapons as well as lacking anything that would make it
worth the trouble

As fro Australasia the Chinese cant even muster enough
naval power to take Taiwan let alone cross those distances.

Japan has historically been far more expansionist than China
It invaded parts of Manchuria, Mongolia, China and most
other far eastern nations withing living memory but note that
Korea and Taiwan were part of the Japanese Empire before
WW2

As I recall the only major territorial claims China has
at present are to Taiwan and the Spratly Islands

Keith

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
news

| | I thought that we had moved beyond ADA?
| |
| |How?
|
| Had we not stopped programming in ADA? C++ or something has
| replaced it? Good lord, ADA is like PL1.
|
|The Ada-95 release does not cause older software to be made good.

I am not even aware of an university that teaches ADA.

ADA is certainly taught at a number of universities
and is widely used for real time programming not just
by the military.

I
remember when ADA was first talked about. It was joked about as
the new and improved PL1.

Can't C++ do as well?



For secure real time systems no. The strength of ADA is implementing
error detection at an early stage,. The compiler keeps track of
the relationships between every associated entity in the product
right down to the real-time and concurrent facets of the software
design since tasking is built-in to the language.

Real time systems have to use modules with known, bounded
execution times and a scheduler that can restrict dynamic
process creations to guarantee performance and dymnamic
structures such as pointers and arbitrarily long strings need
to be rigidly controlled.

Keith

Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
Carrier
Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B
will
be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a
carrier
but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear or
Cat
launches.

True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a tailhook).
I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and SPN-41
in their latest incarnations.

R / John

R. David Steele wrote:

I am not a fan of idea of taking an airliner design and making it
a cargo plane.

The 747 had its cockpit placed above the main cabin so they could open
the nose for loading in the cargo variant, i.e., it was designed from
the beginning to carry cargo.