Boeing Awarded Two Contracts

"fudog50" wrote in message
...
Is that what you call sailors on ships, Tarver? You can call them
whatever you want, but just to let you know, we don't call ourselves
"guys on boats"!!! LOL And what in the world do you know about "where
the rubber meets the deck"??? Please, stick to what you know.

Hmmm, you are on a a Navy flightline and you don't call them "boats".

I think perhaps you are a fraud, foodog.

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:11:19 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Guys on boats??? LOL

Sure. Where the rubber meets the deck.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:56:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Tarver,
Nice of you to speak for the entire Navy,

Guys on boats like the F-18Es reliability.

but you must be only
speaking of the Contractors, PMA guys and bean counters that can't
see the forest through the trees. COTS is good if you have the
sparing
and support, (rare).

LOL

OK

COTS allows engineers to buy parts, as opposed to designing to now
expired
component Mil-specs. The first real benifit of COTS was seen in
Desert
Storm, where the USAF had greatly improved missiles. Allowing
engineers
to
buy parts to test solid fuels created technology during the 1980s and
the
in
service reliabity data tied to Mil-Hbk 217F. Once an engineer adopts
the
way of thinking that some parts/lines* count is directly tied to
reliabilty,
(statistical) then they will "design for reliability by using less
lines/parts.

* software code.

I'm done with you, you can't even accept anothers point of view. Plus
you insulted me, which there was no call for. Have fun ****ing off
everyone dude, have a nice day....

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:50:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Is that what you call sailors on ships, Tarver? You can call them
whatever you want, but just to let you know, we don't call ourselves
"guys on boats"!!! LOL And what in the world do you know about "where
the rubber meets the deck"??? Please, stick to what you know.

Hmmm, you are on a a Navy flightline and you don't call them "boats".

I think perhaps you are a fraud, foodog.

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:11:19 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Guys on boats??? LOL

Sure. Where the rubber meets the deck.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:56:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Tarver,
Nice of you to speak for the entire Navy,

Guys on boats like the F-18Es reliability.

but you must be only
speaking of the Contractors, PMA guys and bean counters that can't
see the forest through the trees. COTS is good if you have the
sparing
and support, (rare).

LOL

OK

COTS allows engineers to buy parts, as opposed to designing to now
expired
component Mil-specs. The first real benifit of COTS was seen in
Desert
Storm, where the USAF had greatly improved missiles. Allowing
engineers
to
buy parts to test solid fuels created technology during the 1980s and
the
in
service reliabity data tied to Mil-Hbk 217F. Once an engineer adopts
the
way of thinking that some parts/lines* count is directly tied to
reliabilty,
(statistical) then they will "design for reliability by using less
lines/parts.

* software code.

"fudog50" wrote in message
news
I'm done with you, you can't even accept anothers point of view.

Dude, your point of view is a demonstration of denial.

Plus
you insulted me,

I consider your references to my background experiance being lacking to be
very insulting. Perhaps you would do better to run with ram's gutter
trolls, where the truth doesn't matter. (Ferrin, Irby, Willshaw, et al)
which there was no call for. Have fun ****ing off
everyone dude, have a nice day....

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:50:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Is that what you call sailors on ships, Tarver? You can call them
whatever you want, but just to let you know, we don't call ourselves
"guys on boats"!!! LOL And what in the world do you know about "where
the rubber meets the deck"??? Please, stick to what you know.

Hmmm, you are on a a Navy flightline and you don't call them "boats".

I think perhaps you are a fraud, foodog.

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:11:19 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Guys on boats??? LOL

Sure. Where the rubber meets the deck.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:56:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Tarver,
Nice of you to speak for the entire Navy,

Guys on boats like the F-18Es reliability.

but you must be only
speaking of the Contractors, PMA guys and bean counters that
can't
see the forest through the trees. COTS is good if you have the
sparing
and support, (rare).

LOL

OK

COTS allows engineers to buy parts, as opposed to designing to now
expired
component Mil-specs. The first real benifit of COTS was seen in
Desert
Storm, where the USAF had greatly improved missiles. Allowing
engineers
to
buy parts to test solid fuels created technology during the 1980s
and
the
in
service reliabity data tied to Mil-Hbk 217F. Once an engineer
adopts
the
way of thinking that some parts/lines* count is directly tied to
reliabilty,
(statistical) then they will "design for reliability by using less
lines/parts.

* software code.

Denial? I'd say it's more first hand "frustration" at the acquisition
system. It's your inability to discuss a subject rationally Tarver,
and no I'm not a fraud, I'd be happy to show you my sea counter (64
months AT SEA) and shellback certificate from the Enterprise (dated
April 4th, 1982). I've served on 5 different carriers, soon to be a
6th. In 22 years active, I have held almost every job on the
flightdeck from Blue Shirt-Plane Captain-Avionics Technician-Final
Checker-FDC-Maintenance Control Chief-QA Officer and MMCO. I have done
tours in EA-6B's, E-2's, P-3's, EP-3's, S-3's and C-130's. My Shore
jobs have included 2 tours as an instructor at NATTC and NAMTRA (MTS)
and now Fleet Acquisition as a voice of the Fleet, the customer. I am
NOT denying that COTS is the way of the future, my point is that it
isn't gonna work long term unless the proper follow on support for
training,logistics and pubs is funded. It is NOT working now. It may
work for you, but it is NOT working for us now. ( the ONLY reason it
is working now for F-18E/F is that the stuff is brand new and hasn't
started breaking yet). If you' would like, I'll send you the monthly
briefs to the Commodores (Pt Mugu for E-2's and Whidbey for Prowlers
and P-3's) with the Planeside Assessment Tools, (cockpit charts),
which shows the #1 Integrated Logistics Support complaint from the
squadrons is " Excessive TAT's on COTS and interim support equipment."
#2 is "inadequate pubs and training for COTS" The metrics are all
there. Send me your email, I'll get it to you. Or you can go to the
NAVAIR NAVRIIP website and download them yourself, (oh wait you can't,
you need approval access). COTS is cheaper, but can't we afford the
best long term solution for our sailors? Like I said in previous posts
COTS would work great if the follow on logistics/training and pubs
were all properly funded. We can get there with COTS, but it takes a
lot of howling about reality from people like myself and my Team here.
You need to read the posts, not just get all emotional about a few
words. No we don't call them "boats"!!!! Carriers are Ships!!! And I
still feel the same way about Engineers, (this time I'll add the
loggies)- Both of them need to be locked up in rubber rooms at night.
The truth does matter, we just seem to have a different perspective of
it, just leave it at that,,,,oh wait you can't,,,I know you will have
to get the last word in ,,,so go for it...

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:10:01 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
news
I'm done with you, you can't even accept anothers point of view.

Dude, your point of view is a demonstration of denial.

Plus
you insulted me,

I consider your references to my background experiance being lacking to be
very insulting. Perhaps you would do better to run with ram's gutter
trolls, where the truth doesn't matter. (Ferrin, Irby, Willshaw, et al)
which there was no call for. Have fun ****ing off
everyone dude, have a nice day....

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:50:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Is that what you call sailors on ships, Tarver? You can call them
whatever you want, but just to let you know, we don't call ourselves
"guys on boats"!!! LOL And what in the world do you know about "where
the rubber meets the deck"??? Please, stick to what you know.

Hmmm, you are on a a Navy flightline and you don't call them "boats".

I think perhaps you are a fraud, foodog.

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:11:19 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Guys on boats??? LOL

Sure. Where the rubber meets the deck.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:56:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Tarver,
Nice of you to speak for the entire Navy,

Guys on boats like the F-18Es reliability.

but you must be only
speaking of the Contractors, PMA guys and bean counters that
can't
see the forest through the trees. COTS is good if you have the
sparing
and support, (rare).

LOL

OK

COTS allows engineers to buy parts, as opposed to designing to now
expired
component Mil-specs. The first real benifit of COTS was seen in
Desert
Storm, where the USAF had greatly improved missiles. Allowing
engineers
to
buy parts to test solid fuels created technology during the 1980s
and
the
in
service reliabity data tied to Mil-Hbk 217F. Once an engineer
adopts
the
way of thinking that some parts/lines* count is directly tied to
reliabilty,
(statistical) then they will "design for reliability by using less
lines/parts.

* software code.

"fudog50" wrote in message
...
Denial? I'd say it's more first hand "frustration" at the acquisition
system. It's your inability to discuss a subject rationally Tarver,
and no I'm not a fraud, I'd be happy to show you my sea counter (64
months AT SEA) and shellback certificate from the Enterprise (dated
April 4th, 1982). I've served on 5 different carriers, soon to be a
6th. In 22 years active, I have held almost every job on the
flightdeck from Blue Shirt-Plane Captain-Avionics Technician-Final
Checker-FDC-Maintenance Control Chief-QA Officer and MMCO. I have done
tours in EA-6B's, E-2's, P-3's, EP-3's, S-3's and C-130's. My Shore
jobs have included 2 tours as an instructor at NATTC and NAMTRA (MTS)
and now Fleet Acquisition as a voice of the Fleet, the customer.

Then you know sailors call them boats.

I am
NOT denying that COTS is the way of the future, my point is that it
isn't gonna work long term unless the proper follow on support for
training,logistics and pubs is funded.

It is already funded through Rome labs, by way of AFRL.

Not only did the Navy score by choosing to follow a path with a future, it
also got the whole RPL model for the price of a few publications. I find
the whole thing quite ironic, as RPL was a client on Edwards and the
accuracy of Dryden's F-18 simulator made the Super Bug possible, the pirates
have stolen the whole store.

It is NOT working now. It may
work for you, but it is NOT working for us now. ( the ONLY reason it
is working now for F-18E/F is that the stuff is brand new and hasn't
started breaking yet).

OK, now, let's go over this again:

time between squawks:

F-14 0.4 hours

F-18 14 hours

And that is with the As still sandbagging the numbers.

If you' would like, I'll send you the monthly
briefs to the Commodores (Pt Mugu for E-2's and Whidbey for Prowlers
and P-3's) with the Planeside Assessment Tools, (cockpit charts),
which shows the #1 Integrated Logistics Support complaint from the
squadrons is " Excessive TAT's on COTS and interim support equipment."

Is the system maintaining tracability?

Keep in mind that the RPL model is intended to meet several criterion of the
NSN bin mil-spec model.

#2 is "inadequate pubs and training for COTS" The metrics are all
there. Send me your email, I'll get it to you. Or you can go to the
NAVAIR NAVRIIP website and download them yourself, (oh wait you can't,
you need approval access).

I made up the RPL model in the first place, so I don't need it explined to
me.

COTS is cheaper, but can't we afford the
best long term solution for our sailors?

Let me help you out on that one:

The military once purchased 90% in dollar values of all electronics, today
that number is 8% and falling. The military can no longer drive the market
and therefore the delivery of integratable part functions is dependant on
the commercial market. Costs are directly tied to reliability and a proper
application of the lessons of Mil-Hbk 217F lead directly to a recognition
ofm how to design for reliability.

Consider for a moment, the MiG29, a magnificient design implementing a
fascinating application of mechanical feedback loops in 3rd generation
aircraft, but by day three of an engagement the system was be predicted to
be degraded to the point where the aircraft would be toast.

Like I said in previous posts
COTS would work great if the follow on logistics/training and pubs
were all properly funded. We can get there with COTS, but it takes a
lot of howling about reality from people like myself and my Team here.

There is no going back, make someone build you a bridge.

You need to read the posts, not just get all emotional about a few
words. No we don't call them "boats"!!!! Carriers are Ships!!!

I have had sailors correct me that those are boats, so I'll be nice to them
instead.

And I
still feel the same way about Engineers, (this time I'll add the
loggies)- Both of them need to be locked up in rubber rooms at night.
The truth does matter, we just seem to have a different perspective of
it, just leave it at that,,,,oh wait you can't,,,I know you will have
to get the last word in ,,,so go for it...

We are the only ones who know how things work, so you better be nice.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:10:01 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
news
I'm done with you, you can't even accept anothers point of view.

Dude, your point of view is a demonstration of denial.

Plus
you insulted me,

I consider your references to my background experiance being lacking to
be
very insulting. Perhaps you would do better to run with ram's gutter
trolls, where the truth doesn't matter. (Ferrin, Irby, Willshaw, et al)
which there was no call for. Have fun ****ing off
everyone dude, have a nice day....

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:50:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Is that what you call sailors on ships, Tarver? You can call them
whatever you want, but just to let you know, we don't call ourselves
"guys on boats"!!! LOL And what in the world do you know about
"where
the rubber meets the deck"??? Please, stick to what you know.

Hmmm, you are on a a Navy flightline and you don't call them "boats".

I think perhaps you are a fraud, foodog.

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:11:19 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Guys on boats??? LOL

Sure. Where the rubber meets the deck.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:56:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Tarver,
Nice of you to speak for the entire Navy,

Guys on boats like the F-18Es reliability.

but you must be only
speaking of the Contractors, PMA guys and bean counters that
can't
see the forest through the trees. COTS is good if you have the
sparing
and support, (rare).

LOL

OK

COTS allows engineers to buy parts, as opposed to designing to
now
expired
component Mil-specs. The first real benifit of COTS was seen in
Desert
Storm, where the USAF had greatly improved missiles. Allowing
engineers
to
buy parts to test solid fuels created technology during the
1980s
and
the
in
service reliabity data tied to Mil-Hbk 217F. Once an engineer
adopts
the
way of thinking that some parts/lines* count is directly tied to
reliabilty,
(statistical) then they will "design for reliability by using
less
lines/parts.

* software code.

fudog50 wrote:
Denial? I'd say it's more first hand "frustration" at the acquisition
system. It's your inability to discuss a subject rationally Tarver,

Inability to discuss subjects ratioanlly has been Tarver's modus operandi
for the decade or more that I've been reading this group. He's been right
twice or three times in my recollection (something less than 0.01% of the
time, probably), which I assume were statistical flukes. Any regular poster
here will quickly learn to stuff him into a killfile and leave him there.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...
fudog50 wrote:
Denial? I'd say it's more first hand "frustration" at the acquisition
system. It's your inability to discuss a subject rationally Tarver,

Inability to discuss subjects ratioanlly has been Tarver's modus operandi
for the decade or more that I've been reading this group.

Fundog and I are having a serious discussion, about a real issue, that is
affecting aviation, both civil and military. He is personally being tossed
about by something new and I am helping him.

So, back in your hole, Schoene. If we need someone to do a Google search,
we will notify you.