New tactical tomahawk

[BOB URZ]

http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?PUBLICATION_ID=32&ARTICLE_ID=205527&pc=enl

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, remove > wrote:

>
http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?PUBLICATION_ID=32&ARTICLE_ID=205527&pc=enl

"The concept for Block IV arose from a challenge by the Pentagon to implement
the U.S. Navy's vision of a low-cost "Tactical" Tomahawk system that would
provide affordable, responsive fire power, affordable follow-on production,
and significantly reduce life cycle cost. "

WattabunchaBS.

Missile Systems Group made an unsolicited proposal to USN for a follow-on
program to legacy Tomahawk, and proposed making it 50% cheaper by
re-designing some things and using procurement reform. It took
literally an act of congress to make it happen.

Now the spinmeisters are at work trying to re-define history.

Kudos to the Tucson crew for making it happen on-time and budget.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Ragnar]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, remove >
wrote:
>
> >
>
http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?PUBLICATION_ID=32&ARTICLE_ID=205527&pc=enl
>
> "The concept for Block IV arose from a challenge by the Pentagon to
implement
> the U.S. Navy's vision of a low-cost "Tactical" Tomahawk system that would
> provide affordable, responsive fire power, affordable follow-on
production,
> and significantly reduce life cycle cost. "
>
> WattabunchaBS.
>
> Missile Systems Group made an unsolicited proposal to USN for a follow-on
> program to legacy Tomahawk, and proposed making it 50% cheaper by
> re-designing some things and using procurement reform. It took
> literally an act of congress to make it happen.

And you have cites for this?

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Ragnar" > wrote:

> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, remove >
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
>
http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?PUBLICATION_ID=32&ARTICLE_ID=205527&pc=enl
> >
> > "The concept for Block IV arose from a challenge by the Pentagon to
> implement
> > the U.S. Navy's vision of a low-cost "Tactical" Tomahawk system that would
> > provide affordable, responsive fire power, affordable follow-on
> production,
> > and significantly reduce life cycle cost. "
> >
> > WattabunchaBS.
> >
> > Missile Systems Group made an unsolicited proposal to USN for a follow-on
> > program to legacy Tomahawk, and proposed making it 50% cheaper by
> > re-designing some things and using procurement reform. It took
> > literally an act of congress to make it happen.
>
> And you have cites for this?

Yes

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Ragnar]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Ragnar" >
wrote:
>
> > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, remove
>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?PUBLICATION_ID=32&ARTICLE_ID=205527&pc=enl
> > >
> > > "The concept for Block IV arose from a challenge by the Pentagon to
> > implement
> > > the U.S. Navy's vision of a low-cost "Tactical" Tomahawk system that
would
> > > provide affordable, responsive fire power, affordable follow-on
> > production,
> > > and significantly reduce life cycle cost. "
> > >
> > > WattabunchaBS.
> > >
> > > Missile Systems Group made an unsolicited proposal to USN for a
follow-on
> > > program to legacy Tomahawk, and proposed making it 50% cheaper by
> > > re-designing some things and using procurement reform. It took
> > > literally an act of congress to make it happen.
> >
> > And you have cites for this?
>
> Yes

Yet you fail to provide them when asked. That speaks volumes.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Ragnar"
>
> wrote:
> >
> > > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, remove
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?PUBLICATION_ID=32&ARTICLE_ID=205527&pc=enl
> > > >
> > > > "The concept for Block IV arose from a challenge by the Pentagon to
> > > implement
> > > > the U.S. Navy's vision of a low-cost "Tactical" Tomahawk system that
> would
> > > > provide affordable, responsive fire power, affordable follow-on
> > > production,
> > > > and significantly reduce life cycle cost. "
> > > >
> > > > WattabunchaBS.
> > > >
> > > > Missile Systems Group made an unsolicited proposal to USN for a
> follow-on
> > > > program to legacy Tomahawk, and proposed making it 50% cheaper by
> > > > re-designing some things and using procurement reform. It took
> > > > literally an act of congress to make it happen.
> > >
> > > And you have cites for this?
> >
> > Yes
>
> Yet you fail to provide them when asked. That speaks volumes.

From what I have read, Raytheon did submit the original proposal for TT
without their being a RFP issued. But left unsaid was how "unsolicited" that
was; did DoD say, "Hey, we can't justify buying more and more Tomahawks at
the existing price and with the restrictions upon operational use they are
burdened with, so can you come up with a cheaper option that increases the
tactical usefullness of the system?" Who knows?

Brooks
>
>

[Ragnar]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, "Ragnar"
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >, remove
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?PUBLICATION_ID=32&ARTICLE_ID=205527&pc=enl
> > > > >
> > > > > "The concept for Block IV arose from a challenge by the Pentagon
to
> > > > implement
> > > > > the U.S. Navy's vision of a low-cost "Tactical" Tomahawk system
that
> > would
> > > > > provide affordable, responsive fire power, affordable follow-on
> > > > production,
> > > > > and significantly reduce life cycle cost. "
> > > > >
> > > > > WattabunchaBS.
> > > > >
> > > > > Missile Systems Group made an unsolicited proposal to USN for a
> > follow-on
> > > > > program to legacy Tomahawk, and proposed making it 50% cheaper by
> > > > > re-designing some things and using procurement reform. It took
> > > > > literally an act of congress to make it happen.
> > > >
> > > > And you have cites for this?
> > >
> > > Yes
> >
> > Yet you fail to provide them when asked. That speaks volumes.
>
> From what I have read, Raytheon did submit the original proposal for TT
> without their being a RFP issued. But left unsaid was how "unsolicited"
that
> was; did DoD say, "Hey, we can't justify buying more and more Tomahawks at
> the existing price and with the restrictions upon operational use they are
> burdened with, so can you come up with a cheaper option that increases the
> tactical usefullness of the system?" Who knows?

Who knows? Apparently Harry thinks he does, yet he doesn't seem to be able
to present any proof.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, "Ragnar"
> >
> > wrote:

>
http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?PUBLICATION_ID=32&ARTICLE_ID=205527&pc=enl
> > > > >
> > > > > "The concept for Block IV arose from a challenge by the Pentagon to
> > > > implement
> > > > > the U.S. Navy's vision of a low-cost "Tactical" Tomahawk system that
> > would
> > > > > provide affordable, responsive fire power, affordable follow-on
> > > > production,
> > > > > and significantly reduce life cycle cost. "
> > > > >
> > > > > WattabunchaBS.
> > > > >
> > > > > Missile Systems Group made an unsolicited proposal to USN for a
> > follow-on
> > > > > program to legacy Tomahawk, and proposed making it 50% cheaper by
> > > > > re-designing some things and using procurement reform. It took
> > > > > literally an act of congress to make it happen.
> > > >
> > > > And you have cites for this?
> > >
> > > Yes
> >
> > Yet you fail to provide them when asked. That speaks volumes.

I work for the company. You? Do your own research.
(yes, I recognize that is Ragnar's ignorant comment, but it's easier to
answer in one post)
>
> From what I have read, Raytheon did submit the original proposal for TT
> without their being a RFP issued. But left unsaid was how "unsolicited" that
> was; did DoD say, "Hey, we can't justify buying more and more Tomahawks at
> the existing price and with the restrictions upon operational use they are
> burdened with, so can you come up with a cheaper option that increases the
> tactical usefullness of the system?" Who knows?

DoD was struggling with the price/performance and was not going to buy more.
Plus the existing design was woefully out-of-date from an electronics
standpoint. By making the unsolicited proposal, Raytheon was illustrating
to the Navy just how good and cheap a modern design could be.
But you could only hit those cost targets if you used acquisition reform
techniques. I heard from someone involved that the Navy was not
ready to do an acq reform missile program and had to be dragged into it.
From the initial eye-opening exercise, the new program took shape.
You can read between the lines all the politics involved, and see who is
now claiming credit for the idea. Thus my disdain. Why is it so hard for
some people to give credit where it is due?
rhetorical question.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Kevin Brooks]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, "Ragnar"
> > >
> > > wrote:
>
> >
>
http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?PUBLICATION_ID=32&ARTICLE_ID=205527&pc=enl
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The concept for Block IV arose from a challenge by the Pentagon
to
> > > > > implement
> > > > > > the U.S. Navy's vision of a low-cost "Tactical" Tomahawk system
that
> > > would
> > > > > > provide affordable, responsive fire power, affordable follow-on
> > > > > production,
> > > > > > and significantly reduce life cycle cost. "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WattabunchaBS.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Missile Systems Group made an unsolicited proposal to USN for a
> > > follow-on
> > > > > > program to legacy Tomahawk, and proposed making it 50% cheaper
by
> > > > > > re-designing some things and using procurement reform. It took
> > > > > > literally an act of congress to make it happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > And you have cites for this?
> > > >
> > > > Yes
> > >
> > > Yet you fail to provide them when asked. That speaks volumes.
>
> I work for the company. You? Do your own research.
> (yes, I recognize that is Ragnar's ignorant comment, but it's easier to
> answer in one post)
> >
> > From what I have read, Raytheon did submit the original proposal for TT
> > without their being a RFP issued. But left unsaid was how "unsolicited"
that
> > was; did DoD say, "Hey, we can't justify buying more and more Tomahawks
at
> > the existing price and with the restrictions upon operational use they
are
> > burdened with, so can you come up with a cheaper option that increases
the
> > tactical usefullness of the system?" Who knows?
>
> DoD was struggling with the price/performance and was not going to buy
more.
> Plus the existing design was woefully out-of-date from an electronics
> standpoint. By making the unsolicited proposal, Raytheon was illustrating
> to the Navy just how good and cheap a modern design could be.
> But you could only hit those cost targets if you used acquisition reform
> techniques. I heard from someone involved that the Navy was not
> ready to do an acq reform missile program and had to be dragged into it.
> From the initial eye-opening exercise, the new program took shape.
> You can read between the lines all the politics involved, and see who is
> now claiming credit for the idea. Thus my disdain. Why is it so hard for
> some people to give credit where it is due?
> rhetorical question.

Harry, I have no problem giving such credit, and I can see that your
explanation is a very realistic one. But it is also likely that *somebody*
at DoD was championing this approach, too--whether the chicken or the egg
came first is the question. A quick web search indicated that it likely was
an unsolicited proposal, but no details seem to be readily available. Are
you claiming that noone at DoD could possibly have encouraged Raytheon to
submit such a proposal?

Brooks

>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

[Ragnar]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, "Ragnar"
> > >
> > > wrote:
>
> >
>
http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?PUBLICATION_ID=32&ARTICLE_ID=205527&pc=enl
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The concept for Block IV arose from a challenge by the Pentagon
to
> > > > > implement
> > > > > > the U.S. Navy's vision of a low-cost "Tactical" Tomahawk system
that
> > > would
> > > > > > provide affordable, responsive fire power, affordable follow-on
> > > > > production,
> > > > > > and significantly reduce life cycle cost. "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WattabunchaBS.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Missile Systems Group made an unsolicited proposal to USN for a
> > > follow-on
> > > > > > program to legacy Tomahawk, and proposed making it 50% cheaper
by
> > > > > > re-designing some things and using procurement reform. It took
> > > > > > literally an act of congress to make it happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > And you have cites for this?
> > > >
> > > > Yes
> > >
> > > Yet you fail to provide them when asked. That speaks volumes.
>
> I work for the company. You? Do your own research.
> (yes, I recognize that is Ragnar's ignorant comment, but it's easier to
> answer in one post)

Yes, still no answer. Strange that the one guy with inside info refuses to
provide it. Makes me wonder what he really knows.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:


> > DoD was struggling with the price/performance and was not going to buy
> more.
> > Plus the existing design was woefully out-of-date from an electronics
> > standpoint. By making the unsolicited proposal, Raytheon was illustrating
> > to the Navy just how good and cheap a modern design could be.
> > But you could only hit those cost targets if you used acquisition reform
> > techniques. I heard from someone involved that the Navy was not
> > ready to do an acq reform missile program and had to be dragged into it.
> > From the initial eye-opening exercise, the new program took shape.
> > You can read between the lines all the politics involved, and see who is
> > now claiming credit for the idea. Thus my disdain. Why is it so hard for
> > some people to give credit where it is due?
> > rhetorical question.
>
> Harry, I have no problem giving such credit, and I can see that your
> explanation is a very realistic one. But it is also likely that *somebody*
> at DoD was championing this approach, too--whether the chicken or the egg
> came first is the question. A quick web search indicated that it likely was
> an unsolicited proposal, but no details seem to be readily available. Are
> you claiming that noone at DoD could possibly have encouraged Raytheon to
> submit such a proposal?

I work in a different division, so was not privy to all the front end
information
on Tactom. It's possible that someone in DoD asked for an unsolicited
proposal, but what would be the point, when they could just solicit one?
Anytime a program is successful there many claiming credit.
"Victory has a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan"
-Galeazzo Ciano

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Ragnar" > wrote:

> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > wrote:
> >

> > > > > > And you have cites for this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > Yet you fail to provide them when asked. That speaks volumes.
> >
> > I work for the company. You? Do your own research.
> > (yes, I recognize that is Ragnar's ignorant comment, but it's easier to
> > answer in one post)
>
> Yes, still no answer. Strange that the one guy with inside info refuses to
> provide it. Makes me wonder what he really knows.

Way more than you could possibly know.
I like my job; therefore don't want to get fired.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, hobo
> wrote:

> In article >,
> "Ragnar" > wrote:
>
> > Yes, still no answer.
>
> You never actually asked for citations, you only asked him if they
> existed and he answered you. I understand what your implicit question
> was, but if you are going to be anal about what others post you should
> hold yourself to the same standard.
>
>
>
>
> >Strange that the one guy with inside info refuses to
> > provide it.
>
> People with insider info are the least likely to provide it due to legal
> restrictions. You seem to have a reversed understanding of how these
> things work.
>
> >Makes me wonder what he really knows.
>
> Any citations?

Finally, someone with their head on straight.

You're absolutely right. I'm involved in many things that I can't talk
about, especially on the web. Thus I'm often reduced to making
general comments instead of providing specific data.

cheers

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Kevin Brooks]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
>
> > > DoD was struggling with the price/performance and was not going to buy
> > more.
> > > Plus the existing design was woefully out-of-date from an electronics
> > > standpoint. By making the unsolicited proposal, Raytheon was
illustrating
> > > to the Navy just how good and cheap a modern design could be.
> > > But you could only hit those cost targets if you used acquisition
reform
> > > techniques. I heard from someone involved that the Navy was not
> > > ready to do an acq reform missile program and had to be dragged into
it.
> > > From the initial eye-opening exercise, the new program took shape.
> > > You can read between the lines all the politics involved, and see who
is
> > > now claiming credit for the idea. Thus my disdain. Why is it so hard
for
> > > some people to give credit where it is due?
> > > rhetorical question.
> >
> > Harry, I have no problem giving such credit, and I can see that your
> > explanation is a very realistic one. But it is also likely that
*somebody*
> > at DoD was championing this approach, too--whether the chicken or the
egg
> > came first is the question. A quick web search indicated that it likely
was
> > an unsolicited proposal, but no details seem to be readily available.
Are
> > you claiming that noone at DoD could possibly have encouraged Raytheon
to
> > submit such a proposal?
>
> I work in a different division, so was not privy to all the front end
> information
> on Tactom. It's possible that someone in DoD asked for an unsolicited
> proposal, but what would be the point, when they could just solicit one?

What is the point? Well, for example, DoD chairwarmer realizes that they are
not going to be buying the number of CM's really needed due to both cost and
utility concerns. But said chairwarmer has no authorized funding to support
a RFP. Samesaid chairwarmer calls up his acquaintance at Raytheon and says,
"Hey, Bob, you remember we were talking about the problem we are having with
cost and utility of CM's? Well, I don't have any bucks authoorized right now
for any new R&D or procurement efforts in that line, but if you guys could
find a way to significantly cut the unit-cost of these critters, while at
the same time expanding their versatility and responsiveness, we might be
able to convince Congress it would be a wise program to support..."

Not saying that is the way it happened, but there is indeed the possibility
that something along those lines could have happened. Example from a much
lower level-- when we wanted a new computerized C3I system for use in
responding to domestic emergency situations, we found that our state level
HQ already had a contractor working on one. But said contractor was pretty
slow, and growing increasingly greedy. Some of us at the major subordinate
command level decided we'd rather have a good system available *now* as
opposed to (maybe) a better system available at some future time. Mentioned
this to one of our guys who was a fulltime programmer/systems developer
type; he turned around and provided us with a *more* capable system the
following month, and made a proposal to the state that they could field it
at very reasonable terms--presto, the old contractor found himself cut-off
from the teat, and our guy fielded his package statewide.

> Anytime a program is successful there many claiming credit.
> "Victory has a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan"
> -Galeazzo Ciano

Often true; but not necessarily an indictment in this case.

Brooks

>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

[Ragnar]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, hobo
> > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Ragnar" > wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, still no answer.
> >
> > You never actually asked for citations, you only asked him if they
> > existed and he answered you. I understand what your implicit question
> > was, but if you are going to be anal about what others post you should
> > hold yourself to the same standard.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Strange that the one guy with inside info refuses to
> > > provide it.
> >
> > People with insider info are the least likely to provide it due to legal
> > restrictions. You seem to have a reversed understanding of how these
> > things work.
> >
> > >Makes me wonder what he really knows.
> >
> > Any citations?
>
> Finally, someone with their head on straight.
>
> You're absolutely right. I'm involved in many things that I can't talk
> about, especially on the web. Thus I'm often reduced to making
> general comments instead of providing specific data.

In other words, all talk no action.

[Ragnar]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Ragnar" >
wrote:
>
> > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
>
> > > > > > > And you have cites for this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet you fail to provide them when asked. That speaks volumes.
> > >
> > > I work for the company. You? Do your own research.
> > > (yes, I recognize that is Ragnar's ignorant comment, but it's easier
to
> > > answer in one post)
> >
> > Yes, still no answer. Strange that the one guy with inside info refuses
to
> > provide it. Makes me wonder what he really knows.
>
> Way more than you could possibly know.
> I like my job; therefore don't want to get fired.

Yes, yes, one of the more popular responses when one doesn't have answers.
At least your dog didn't eat your homework.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Ragnar" > wrote:

> > You're absolutely right. I'm involved in many things that I can't talk
> > about, especially on the web. Thus I'm often reduced to making
> > general comments instead of providing specific data.
>
> In other words, all talk no action.

Tell us your qualifications "Ragnar".

I have 26 years in aerospace, designing state-of-the-art equipment
that's been used successfully in every war we've fought in that time.

What do you do for a living?
Or are you, as I suspect, just hot air, or a troll, or an agent?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:28:49 -0700, (Harry Andreas) wrote:

>In article >, hobo
> wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Ragnar" > wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, still no answer.
>>
>> You never actually asked for citations, you only asked him if they
>> existed and he answered you. I understand what your implicit question
>> was, but if you are going to be anal about what others post you should
>> hold yourself to the same standard.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Strange that the one guy with inside info refuses to
>> > provide it.
>>
>> People with insider info are the least likely to provide it due to legal
>> restrictions. You seem to have a reversed understanding of how these
>> things work.
>>
>> >Makes me wonder what he really knows.
>>
>> Any citations?
>
>Finally, someone with their head on straight.
>
>You're absolutely right. I'm involved in many things that I can't talk
>about, especially on the web. Thus I'm often reduced to making
>general comments instead of providing specific data.
>
>cheers

It seems that some denizens of this group do not understand the concept
of "classified". These are the same folks who ask "What is the max range
of ADCAP?" or "what is the weapons release code for the XXXX".

Al Minyard

[Ragnar]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Ragnar" >
wrote:
>
> > > You're absolutely right. I'm involved in many things that I can't
talk
> > > about, especially on the web. Thus I'm often reduced to making
> > > general comments instead of providing specific data.
> >
> > In other words, all talk no action.
>
> Tell us your qualifications "Ragnar".
>
> I have 26 years in aerospace, designing state-of-the-art equipment
> that's been used successfully in every war we've fought in that time.
>
> What do you do for a living?
> Or are you, as I suspect, just hot air, or a troll, or an agent?

I don't need aerospace quulifications to ask questions of the guy who
"claims" to have cites but doesn't provide any.

[Alisha's Addict]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:02:22 +0900, "Ragnar" >
wrote:

>
>"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, "Ragnar" >
>wrote:
>>
>> > > You're absolutely right. I'm involved in many things that I can't
>talk
>> > > about, especially on the web. Thus I'm often reduced to making
>> > > general comments instead of providing specific data.
>> >
>> > In other words, all talk no action.
>>
>> Tell us your qualifications "Ragnar".
>>
>> I have 26 years in aerospace, designing state-of-the-art equipment
>> that's been used successfully in every war we've fought in that time.
>>
>> What do you do for a living?
>> Or are you, as I suspect, just hot air, or a troll, or an agent?
>
>I don't need aerospace quulifications to ask questions of the guy who
>"claims" to have cites but doesn't provide any.

I'm curious as to what your background is as well. I might just look
you up in the phone book, although that's difficult as you're not
giving us a name to work on.

PS If you want to know who I work for, then if you have a need to know
it, look it up in the phone book.

Pete Lilleyman

(please get rid of ".getrid" to reply direct)
(don't get rid of the dontspam though ;-)