Boeing Awarded Two Contracts

[robert arndt]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/Business/810879C56DA8BF2686256E0C00194866?OpenDocument&Headline=Boeing+lands+two+fighter+contracts

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

Rob

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/Business/810879C56DA8BF2
> 686256E0C00194866?OpenDocument&Headline=Boeing+lands+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.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/Business/810879C56DA8BF2
> >
686256E0C00194866?OpenDocument&Headline=Boeing+lands+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.

Nice speculation Chad, but as usual, you are mistaken. The Navy loves the
F-18 and it is advantaged over even the F-35, due to it's COTS design.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...

> > 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.
>
> Nice speculation Chad, but as usual, you are mistaken.

Nope. The recent buy of 210 is only the second batch out of what was
supposed to be 538, and it's not likely to be extended (since this buy
is only good through 2010). The 2010 date was supposed to be the end of
the oroginal F/A-18E/F buy, and about half of this buy are F/A-18G
Growlers to replace the Prowler. So the F-18 has been cut back by about
200 planes. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

> The Navy loves the F-18 and it is advantaged over even the F-35, due
> to it's COTS design.

....which is why they're cutting back on the F-18 buy so much, and
substituting F-18G models for the regular ones?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > . com...
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Nice speculation Chad, but as usual, you are mistaken.
>
> Nope. The recent buy of 210 is only the second batch out of what was
> supposed to be 538, and it's not likely to be extended (since this buy
> is only good through 2010).

Actually, the original purchase was for 526 and if you check Boeing's
website there are about 20 additions, today. As posted by Doering, IIRC.

> The 2010 date was supposed to be the end of
> the oroginal F/A-18E/F buy, and about half of this buy are F/A-18G
> Growlers to replace the Prowler. So the F-18 has been cut back by about
> 200 planes. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

No, the F/A-18 was always intended to replace all execept the F/A-18As.
What has happened is that the Navy has bought the second option of the
original contract and added R&D money for an electronics bird designated
"G". In combat, the F/A-18E exibited extraordinary reliability and this
pleased the Navy greatly.

> > The Navy loves the F-18 and it is advantaged over even the F-35, due
> > to it's COTS design.
>
> ...which is why they're cutting back on the F-18 buy so much, and
> substituting F-18G models for the regular ones?

LOL

Buy a vowel son ...

[fudog50]

Tarver,
Nice of you to speak for the entire Navy, 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). But bad for long term sparing and support. TAT on
COTS sucks, we rob mission birds at home to support deployed assets.
In addition, proper training is rarely given to maintain a COTS
system, so you need underfunded CETS support to follow you everywhere.
COTS problems are programatic. So, you might be right about the
Contractors, PMA guys and bean-counters loving COTS, but certainly not
from a front line maintenance manager standpoint.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:50:27 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
>> In article >,
>> (robert arndt) wrote:
>>
>> >
>http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/Business/810879C56DA8BF2
>> >
>686256E0C00194866?OpenDocument&Headline=Boeing+lands+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.
>
>Nice speculation Chad, but as usual, you are mistaken. The Navy loves the
>F-18 and it is advantaged over even the F-35, due to it's COTS design.
>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > . com...
> >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Nice speculation Chad, but as usual, you are mistaken.
> >
> > Nope. The recent buy of 210 is only the second batch out of what was
> > supposed to be 538, and it's not likely to be extended (since this buy
> > is only good through 2010).
>
> Actually, the original purchase was for 526 and if you check Boeing's
> website there are about 20 additions, today. As posted by Doering, IIRC.

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).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > > . com...
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Nice speculation Chad, but as usual, you are mistaken.
> > >
> > > Nope. The recent buy of 210 is only the second batch out of what was
> > > supposed to be 538, and it's not likely to be extended (since this buy
> > > is only good through 2010).
> >
> > Actually, the original purchase was for 526 and if you check Boeing's
> > website there are about 20 additions, today. As posted by Doering,
IIRC.
>
> 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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

And I *do* get how business is done. When you've got a new plane with a
bunch of new capabilities coming up, you buy less of the old ones. It's
been that way in the military for longer than any of us have been alive.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Thomas Schoene]

Chad Irby wrote:
> In article >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
>>
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/Business/810879C56DA8B
F2
>>
686256E0C00194866?OpenDocument&Headline=Boeing+lands+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)

[Chad Irby]

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.

[fudog50]

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.
>

[fudog50]

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.
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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]

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.
>

[fudog50]

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.
>> >
>>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.
> >
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"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]

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.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> 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]

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
...
>> 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"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
> ...
> >> 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.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

[Thomas Schoene]

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)

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.