Boeing Awarded Two Contracts

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

"Chad Irby" wrote:

I've seen different numbers, but even with the 526, that's a lot less
planes (less than 450, and 90 of those will be G models, instead of
the
500+ F/A-18E/F).

210 + 222 = 432

You don't really get how business is done, Irby.

Well, since 432 is less than 450, and both are less than the 538/526,
that's a decrease.

The third option is still on the table.

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:


http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/bus.../810879C56DA8B
F2

686256E0C00194866?OpenDocument&Headline=Boeing+lan ds+two+fighter+contracts

More Super Hornets and the EA-18G Growler go-ahead...

It's only the second batch of Super Hornets, it's looking like that
third batch isn't going to be bought. And it looks like the 90
Growlers
are going to be part of that 210.

Aviation Week gives a slightly different breakdown. Of the 210 total, it
says 128 are to be two-seaters. Of those, 56 are planned to be EA-18s,
though this number is subject to change. (I suppose it could reach 90, but
not without shortchanging the two-seat VFA squadrons.)

Of note, AvWeek also says the Navy wants to disband one of four
expeditionary EA-6B squadrons due to airframe shortages. The Air Force is,
unsurprisingly, not pleased.

--
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)

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

(about the purchase of the F/A-18E/F)

The third option is still on the table.

Not really. The third batch was suposed to come in by 2010 or so, and
the current contract got extended to 2011 (and almost half of those are
going to end up being F-18G models). Not many folks think there's a
chance of more past that, especially with much newer and stealthy planes
on the way with more capabilities.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Just more fuel for the fire Tarver, and backs up my firm belief that
all engineers should be locked up in rubber rooms at night. Or, better
yet, they should be made to go out to the front lines, or do a cruise
with a system of COTS and no support. Been there, done that. It sucks.
And I stand by my statements of excessive TAT's. Sure, when the stuff
is new, it meets MTBF, but after a coupla cruises and 100's of cat
shots/traps/salt water, it fails to meet MTBF. Then who's gonna buy
the spares while the gear is waiting on a shelf for a contract to fix
it? Been there, Tarver, COTS sucks from a frontline maintenance
manager standpoint. I'd rather have my Navy techs fixing the stuff
(with proper training and SE) onboard in IM3 or at the shore AIMD with
a short TAT than have something go to the states for months to get
fixed. Plus, COTS traditionally has a high false failure removal rate,
(due to inadequate 'O' Level training from the contractor that the
Navy rarely buys), so more gear is needlessly sitting on a shelf at
the depot or contractor facility waiting for money to pay some crab to
run it up on a bench and find out it really ain't broke. You have no
idea about the logisitics, support, and lack of training problems
that COTS involves. I'll give you this, the Program Managers are
turning our 'O' Level AT's into truly nothing more than "box
swappers". It's very degrading. Our AT's are smarter than that, and
their motivation for learning and maintaining a high tech COTS system
is unmatched. There are numerous current COTS systems getting ready to
go to OT in the program I am with that will be nothing but headaches
for us maintenance guys. My job is to act as a Fleet rep to try and
knock some sense into the engineer guys, and put some semblance of
maintainability into these systems. Talk to the Fleet people (you're
hearing from one now) about COTS Tarver. OBTW, we aren't talking about
testing solid fuels for an air force missle, the thread here is about
Navy Super Hornets. We have a difference of opinion on COTS, and I'm
thinking it comes from where you work and your background. Lets just
leave it at that.

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.

Guys on boats??? LOL

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
...
Just more fuel for the fire Tarver, and backs up my firm belief that
all engineers should be locked up in rubber rooms at night. Or, better
yet, they should be made to go out to the front lines, or do a cruise
with a system of COTS and no support. Been there, done that. It sucks.

Interseting theory, but you are living in the past. COTS is all there is,
Mil-spec components are no more. The RPL Model is mature at 20 years old
and it is the only basis for a Mil-Hbk 217 F calculation, as Mil-Secs for
components are expired. To pretend that Mil-Spec is a basis is fraud.

"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.

Today is Jan 6th 2003, and I am a Fleet Rep on active duty, a
customer. I am not living in the past, I live to meet tomorrows flight
schedule and do my best to overcome shortsighted programatic
philosophies and engineering failures to put a safe and reliable
product in the air for our crew to fly. Tarver I don't believe you
actually go to work and say you are gonna screw the customer. However,
because of your lack of ability to see a different viewpoint and
inexperience with actually working on any Navy Jet, or as an end-user
on any product, your basis for even commenting on this subject is a
fraud. to You are living in a totally different world totally digested
from the reality of a flightdeck or flightline. So like I said, we
have a difference of opinion, due to your background and job, just
leave it at that.

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:10:45 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Just more fuel for the fire Tarver, and backs up my firm belief that
all engineers should be locked up in rubber rooms at night. Or, better
yet, they should be made to go out to the front lines, or do a cruise
with a system of COTS and no support. Been there, done that. It sucks.

Interseting theory, but you are living in the past. COTS is all there is,
Mil-spec components are no more. The RPL Model is mature at 20 years old
and it is the only basis for a Mil-Hbk 217 F calculation, as Mil-Secs for
components are expired. To pretend that Mil-Spec is a basis is fraud.

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.


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
...
Today is Jan 6th 2003, and I am a Fleet Rep on active duty, a
customer. I am not living in the past, I live to meet tomorrows flight
schedule and do my best to overcome shortsighted programatic
philosophies and engineering failures to put a safe and reliable
product in the air for our crew to fly.

None of that changes the fact that most mil-specs for electronic components
are out of review and therefore no longer valid. There is no option outside
accepting COTS, as it has been the only game in town since 2000.

The F/A-18E is the first COTS airplane, in what way do you feel its
logistics are compromised?

Tarver I don't believe you
actually go to work and say you are gonna screw the customer. However,
because of your lack of ability to see a different viewpoint and
inexperience with actually working on any Navy Jet, or as an end-user
on any product, your basis for even commenting on this subject is a
fraud.

Well no, actually my design is part of the new Boeing 747 Amended type
certificate. Plus some guys called SPAWAR want my toys and so does NAVAIR
AW1. Perhaps you little bull**** flle rep job has ill prepared you to post
at ram, on this level.

to You are living in a totally different world totally digested
from the reality of a flightdeck or flightline. So like I said, we
have a difference of opinion, due to your background and job, just
leave it at that.

Let us agree that you are wrong, but have too much pride to deal with that
fact.

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:10:45 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Just more fuel for the fire Tarver, and backs up my firm belief that
all engineers should be locked up in rubber rooms at night. Or, better
yet, they should be made to go out to the front lines, or do a cruise
with a system of COTS and no support. Been there, done that. It sucks.

Interseting theory, but you are living in the past. COTS is all there
is,
Mil-spec components are no more. The RPL Model is mature at 20 years old
and it is the only basis for a Mil-Hbk 217 F calculation, as Mil-Secs for
components are expired. To pretend that Mil-Spec is a basis is fraud.