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

"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.

"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.

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

It is. Lockheed went for the DARPA subsidy for Ada, it was part of their
cooperative attitude that won the fly off.

You have to consider that Lockheed won the contract to build the YF-22 with
an airframe design that would not even fly. The YF-22 that was built is for
the most part the GD entry. Next, Lockheed built their main computer based
on an i960 based MPP. Intel's attempt to build the i432, an i860 based MPP,
nearly bankrupted Intel. Later, lockmart dumped their Avionics division to
BAE systems, due to "competitiveness" issues.

Can't C++ do as well?

No, but C has.

Having flown both, they are not even close to being the same aircraft. The
35 is already light years ahead of the 22. My X/F35 experience was one of
my most memorable test programs I have been involved in. Stepping out of
the Sims and into the aircraft, you found you could push the 35 well past
what the Sims prepared you for. That was a first in my career.

You've flown both?!? (how many folks can say that!) I'd be curious to
hear more about that if possible. What position did/do you hold (civil or
military)? Any (non-classified) details/experiences you can share with us
about flying either jet? Thanks,

Tony

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.

I hear ya, but they expect the new explosive wad will make up the
differance, combined with penetration, speed and accuracy. The problem is
that the weapon is being driven by bay size rather than performance so who
knows if they are really just blowing smoke to have SOMETHING that works in
the small bays, of if it really is/will be better.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"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
=---

"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.

"Boomer" wrote in message
...
I hear ya, but they expect the new explosive wad will make up the
differance, combined with penetration, speed and accuracy. The problem is
that the weapon is being driven by bay size rather than performance so who
knows if they are really just blowing smoke to have SOMETHING that works
in
the small bays, of if it really is/will be better.

Spoon feeding Lockheed a fighter program has been a major driving force for
the USAF for many years.

He has earned the right to be considered credible when speaking ex cathedra.
Can you spell Bascombe Down TPS? You are arguing with the real deal. Not
wise.
"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:05:43 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
wrote:

lowered drastically not because of budget constraints, but the F35 will
be
replacing them as soon as they are available.

You're making claims contrary to the program of record and all
published information, but providing no evidence to support said
claims.

Thus, you're not credible.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

"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