Speed of design of airplanes.

[Charles Gray]

Here's a question-- why does it take so much longer to design and
protoytpe a plane today? Between the JSF and F-22 literally decades
have gone by.
Now, granted, the JSF is orders of magnitude more complex then say
an F-4...but on the other hand, CAD/CAM tools exist that give design
and engineering staffs tools that are also orders of magnitude ahead
of what was possessed in the 1960's.
So, to the engineers in teh group, are we seeing a problem that is
basedin the designing of the planes, or the process used to create
that design, in the administrative and bueraucratic ways things are
done?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Charles Gray" > wrote in message
...
> Here's a question-- why does it take so much longer to design and
> protoytpe a plane today? Between the JSF and F-22 literally decades
> have gone by.
> Now, granted, the JSF is orders of magnitude more complex then say
> an F-4...but on the other hand, CAD/CAM tools exist that give design
> and engineering staffs tools that are also orders of magnitude ahead
> of what was possessed in the 1960's.

Sure.

> So, to the engineers in teh group, are we seeing a problem that is
> basedin the designing of the planes, or the process used to create
> that design, in the administrative and bueraucratic ways things are
> done?

The F-35 seems to be progressing as expected, except for those costs
associated with not being able to tab systems from the F-22. Other than the
structural integrity problems with the F-22, most of the problem was in the
means of procurement; where the DoD attempted to select winner technologies.

With the F/A-18E we see a breakthrough in procurement, where COTS and
designing for reliability were the driving factors.

[SteveM8597]

>So, to the engineers in teh group, are we seeing a problem that is
>basedin the designing of the planes, or the process used to create
>that design, in the administrative and bueraucratic ways things are
>done?



In a few words, software, systems integration, changing user requirements,
parts obsolesence and Congressionally mandated funding profiles/milestones.
Drives a contractor into a risk averse position and long development cycle.

[Charles Gray]

On 29 Dec 2003 02:13:31 GMT, (SteveM8597) wrote:

>>So, to the engineers in teh group, are we seeing a problem that is
>>basedin the designing of the planes, or the process used to create
>>that design, in the administrative and bueraucratic ways things are
>>done?
>
>
>
>In a few words, software, systems integration, changing user requirements,
>parts obsolesence and Congressionally mandated funding profiles/milestones.
>Drives a contractor into a risk averse position and long development cycle.

So lets say we moved to a wartime footing, where the order was "Get
it done, and in our hands ASAP" with most other considerations
secondary-- would we see a dramatic improvemetn, or just a fwe months
shaved off here and there.
Note, I know that this won' t happen--this is more in the sense of
what *could* be done.

[Jack G]

As Steve said, "Systems Integration". The airframe is only a part of the
modern aircraft "system". Factor in the added layers of complexity from
working with the competing and often conflicting cultures and philosophies
of multiple customers and the political influence that assures that every
state/country gets some of the action and it is a wonder that anything gets
from the design stage to actual flight!

Jack

"Charles Gray" > wrote in message
...
> Here's a question-- why does it take so much longer to design and
> protoytpe a plane today? Between the JSF and F-22 literally decades
> have gone by.
> Now, granted, the JSF is orders of magnitude more complex then say
> an F-4...but on the other hand, CAD/CAM tools exist that give design
> and engineering staffs tools that are also orders of magnitude ahead
> of what was possessed in the 1960's.
> So, to the engineers in teh group, are we seeing a problem that is
> basedin the designing of the planes, or the process used to create
> that design, in the administrative and bueraucratic ways things are
> done?
>

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Charles Gray" > wrote in message
...
> On 29 Dec 2003 02:13:31 GMT, (SteveM8597) wrote:
>
> >>So, to the engineers in teh group, are we seeing a problem that is
> >>basedin the designing of the planes, or the process used to create
> >>that design, in the administrative and bueraucratic ways things are
> >>done?
> >
> >
> >
> >In a few words, software, systems integration, changing user
requirements,
> >parts obsolesence and Congressionally mandated funding
profiles/milestones.
> >Drives a contractor into a risk averse position and long development
cycle.
>
> So lets say we moved to a wartime footing, where the order was "Get
> it done, and in our hands ASAP" with most other considerations
> secondary-- would we see a dramatic improvemetn, or just a fwe months
> shaved off here and there.
> Note, I know that this won' t happen--this is more in the sense of
> what *could* be done.
>

I would think that in a situation like that, near-miracles could possibly be
pulled off. Remember that in Gulf War I, the GBU-28 was designed from
scratch, approved, constructed, tested, certified and deployed in just over
a month, because the need was real and immediate for a precision
heavy-penetrator weapon, and none in the inventory were suited for the
specific task. A program like that under normal conditions could take
several years or more.

Now an aircraft is obviously more complex than a bomb, but under similar
pressure, I would imagine that a timeline of under a year or so would be
possible.

[Cub Driver]

As opposed to when?

It was comparatively easy to design an aircraft in say 1937. All you
had to do was bend some metal, rivet on some aluminium, and send a
brave man up to fly it. If he didn't come back, you went on to another
design. If he did, you could improve it according to his notes. This
is not a valid approach with supersonic aircraft.

But your point is valid. The Word Trade Center was collapsed more than
two years ago, and they're still arguing about the design of its
replacement. Does anybody seriously expect to enter that building on
the 5th anniversay of 9/11? By contrast, the Empire State Building
went from first turn of the shovel to first public occupancy in about
one year.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Simon Robbins]

"SteveM8597" > wrote in message
...
> In a few words, software, systems integration, changing user requirements,
> parts obsolesence and Congressionally mandated funding
profiles/milestones.
> Drives a contractor into a risk averse position and long development
cycle.

I have a theory that the westernised industrial culture went to crap the
moment they started teaching Project Management at university, adding
countless levels of bean-counting and overhead to engineering projects.

Si

[Smartace11]

>So lets say we moved to a wartime footing, where the order was "Get
>it done, and in our hands ASAP" with most other considerations
>secondary-- would we see a dramatic improvemetn, or just a fwe months
>shaved off here and there.
> Note, I know that this won' t happen--this is more in the sense of
>what *could* be done.
>
>
>
>

All depends upon the complexity of the system and the requirements that are
laid down. Nowdays the thinking is that each new system must make a quantum
leap in technology and last forever so there is a tendancy to cram every bit of
known and unknown technology into the design. Sometimes designs have to wait
on breakthroughs and new inventions, i.e. the early days of the B-2.

If the design is evolutionary not revolutionary, the funding stream is steady,
the politicians don't try to run the program, and the hardware is off the
shelf maybe 4-5 years is reasonable in peacetime.

I am not sure how much time could be cut from the production phase but the
development phase, could be shortened considerably. Lining up the production
facility, building the jigs, tooling, and test sets is already pretty
efficient. Cutting the test cycles could save time, though would have to be
approached prudently.

[Smartace11]

>I have a theory that the westernised industrial culture went to crap the
>moment they started teaching Project Management at university, adding
>countless levels of bean-counting and overhead to engineering projects.

To a large degree, the engineers WERE the project managers in the 70s and if
you take the F100 engine as an example things really fell apart as the
durabilty and reliability specs were non-existant. Too much new technology and
mainoy just a performance (thrust) spec. A large part of the F-15/F-6 fleets
were grounded due to the stall stagnation issue. Then GE and Pratt were
competed against one another and miracles happened. Also programs became far
more multi-disciplined and program management morphed into an integration role.

The problem isn't ptogram management, it is dealing with all the people who
want a piece of the action all the way down to the Congressional reps who have
one tiny supplier to the prime in their districts, and the ones who MIGHT get a
new base or a base buildup. Defense programs mean jobs and votes so
Congressional oversight is intense, even in semi-black programs. That lead to
far more reviews and requirements management that slow down development and
production.

[Jeb Hoge]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> As opposed to when?
>
> It was comparatively easy to design an aircraft in say 1937. All you
> had to do was bend some metal, rivet on some aluminium, and send a
> brave man up to fly it. If he didn't come back, you went on to another
> design. If he did, you could improve it according to his notes. This
> is not a valid approach with supersonic aircraft.
>
> But your point is valid. The Word Trade Center was collapsed more than
> two years ago, and they're still arguing about the design of its
> replacement. Does anybody seriously expect to enter that building on
> the 5th anniversay of 9/11? By contrast, the Empire State Building
> went from first turn of the shovel to first public occupancy in about
> one year.

Hell...Army CENTCOM is arguing about how to increase protection on
trucks and Humvees in use in Iraq while troops in theater are trying
to buy any kind of steel plate they can get to hang on the vehicle
doors. Policy is getting in the way of protection, and the middle
managers aren't getting their ducks in rows with any measure of
expediency. I'd rather be a civvie contractor with employer-purchased
body armor and personal weapon & wheels than an Army joe right about
now.

[Tex Houston]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> But your point is valid. The Word Trade Center was collapsed more than
> two years ago, and they're still arguing about the design of its
> replacement. Does anybody seriously expect to enter that building on
> the 5th anniversay of 9/11? By contrast, the Empire State Building
> went from first turn of the shovel to first public occupancy in about
> one year.
> all the best -- Dan Ford


The thing to have done for the World Trade Center reconstruction would have
been to build it exactly as it was before. Just the sort of 'in your face'
gesture that would have made a point to terrorists that the USA may bend but
not break.

My opinion,

Tex

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> > But your point is valid. The Word Trade Center was collapsed more than
> > two years ago, and they're still arguing about the design of its
> > replacement. Does anybody seriously expect to enter that building on
> > the 5th anniversay of 9/11? By contrast, the Empire State Building
> > went from first turn of the shovel to first public occupancy in about
> > one year.
> > all the best -- Dan Ford
>
>
> The thing to have done for the World Trade Center reconstruction would
have
> been to build it exactly as it was before. Just the sort of 'in your
face'
> gesture that would have made a point to terrorists that the USA may bend
but
> not break.

The port authority wanted to tear down the WTC, "as it was before".

[Mary Shafer]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:30:28 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:

> On 29 Dec 2003 02:13:31 GMT, (SteveM8597) wrote:
>
> >>So, to the engineers in teh group, are we seeing a problem that is
> >>basedin the designing of the planes, or the process used to create
> >>that design, in the administrative and bueraucratic ways things are
> >>done?
> >
> >
> >
> >In a few words, software, systems integration, changing user requirements,
> >parts obsolesence and Congressionally mandated funding profiles/milestones.
> >Drives a contractor into a risk averse position and long development cycle.
>
> So lets say we moved to a wartime footing, where the order was "Get
> it done, and in our hands ASAP" with most other considerations
> secondary-- would we see a dramatic improvemetn, or just a fwe months
> shaved off here and there.
> Note, I know that this won' t happen--this is more in the sense of
> what *could* be done.

Probably not. There are a lot of long-lead-time items, like the
titanium hot sections and stuff. We might see prototypes quicker, but
not production aircraft.
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On 29 Dec 2003 13:40:14 GMT, (Smartace11) wrote:

> To a large degree, the engineers WERE the project managers in the 70s and if
> you take the F100 engine as an example things really fell apart as the
> durabilty and reliability specs were non-existant. Too much new technology and
> mainoy just a performance (thrust) spec. A large part of the F-15/F-6 fleets
> were grounded due to the stall stagnation issue.

Before that there was grievous trouble with compressor discs flying
apart into a bunch of pieces and trashing the rest of the engine. I
was in the control room for the first MEA of the F-15.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On 29 Dec 2003 13:40:14 GMT, (Smartace11) wrote:
>
> > To a large degree, the engineers WERE the project managers in the 70s
and if
> > you take the F100 engine as an example things really fell apart as the
> > durabilty and reliability specs were non-existant. Too much new
technology and
> > mainoy just a performance (thrust) spec. A large part of the F-15/F-6
fleets
> > were grounded due to the stall stagnation issue.
>
> Before that there was grievous trouble with compressor discs flying
> apart into a bunch of pieces and trashing the rest of the engine. I
> was in the control room for the first MEA of the F-15.

The F100 engine was also the death of much field maintenance for USAF
engines. The turbine blade inspection failure rate was so high that the
wheels (nearly?) always had to go to Depo for rebalance. Then there was the
pilot's fear of FBW and the remechanisation of the entire F-15 controls
system. All in all, the F-15 was a pretty dynamic target for the designers
to try and hit.

[[email protected]]

"Tex Houston" > wrote:

>
>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>> But your point is valid. The Word Trade Center was collapsed more than
>> two years ago, and they're still arguing about the design of its
>> replacement. Does anybody seriously expect to enter that building on
>> the 5th anniversay of 9/11? By contrast, the Empire State Building
>> went from first turn of the shovel to first public occupancy in about
>> one year.
>> all the best -- Dan Ford
>
>
>The thing to have done for the World Trade Center reconstruction would have
>been to build it exactly as it was before. Just the sort of 'in your face'
>gesture that would have made a point to terrorists that the USA may bend but
>not break.
>
>My opinion,
>
>Tex
>
I like it too...
--

-Gord.

[Felger Carbon]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> Now an aircraft is obviously more complex than a bomb, but under
similar
> pressure, I would imagine that a timeline of under a year or so
would be
> possible.

How many wars last a year these days? Aren't we beyond trench
warfare, and into a "come as you are" military environment?

[Penta]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:34:27 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > But your point is valid. The Word Trade Center was collapsed more than
>> > two years ago, and they're still arguing about the design of its
>> > replacement. Does anybody seriously expect to enter that building on
>> > the 5th anniversay of 9/11? By contrast, the Empire State Building
>> > went from first turn of the shovel to first public occupancy in about
>> > one year.
>> > all the best -- Dan Ford
>>
>>
>> The thing to have done for the World Trade Center reconstruction would
>have
>> been to build it exactly as it was before. Just the sort of 'in your
>face'
>> gesture that would have made a point to terrorists that the USA may bend
>but
>> not break.
>
>The port authority wanted to tear down the WTC, "as it was before".
>

Never mind that the WTC towers were, well...ugly.

Most people forget that; They were not well-liked by many in NYC
during their lives, and had all the architectural merit of Stalinist
apartment blocks.

[WaltBJ]

If you want a new airplane fast you find another Kelly Johnson and
give him the keys and the money and leave him alone.
(P80/F104/U2/A11/SR71) Nowadays there's too many cooks and too many
beancounters and too many can'tc--ts, as Hack would say. Where's
Kelly's DNA?
Walt BJ

[B2431]

>From: (WaltBJ)
>Date: 12/29/2003 10:54 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>If you want a new airplane fast you find another Kelly Johnson and
>give him the keys and the money and leave him alone.
>(P80/F104/U2/A11/SR71) Nowadays there's too many cooks and too many
>beancounters and too many can'tc--ts, as Hack would say. Where's
>Kelly's DNA?
>Walt BJ
>

I bet there are a few real Kelly Johnsons out there who can't get a fair start
the way he did. He got his start when there just wasn't as much red tape to
fight. I wonder how another one could get started when people actually think
Moller can make his project work and send money his way instead of backing the
real talent.

I would hate to think there's no current version of Kelly Johnson.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> I would hate to think there's no current version of Kelly Johnson.

Take the restraints off of the Rutan shop, and see what happens...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Paul F Austin]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (WaltBJ)
> >Date: 12/29/2003 10:54 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >If you want a new airplane fast you find another Kelly Johnson and
> >give him the keys and the money and leave him alone.
> >(P80/F104/U2/A11/SR71) Nowadays there's too many cooks and too many
> >beancounters and too many can'tc--ts, as Hack would say. Where's
> >Kelly's DNA?
> >Walt BJ
> >
>
> I bet there are a few real Kelly Johnsons out there who can't get a fair
start
> the way he did. He got his start when there just wasn't as much red tape
to
> fight. I wonder how another one could get started when people actually
think
> Moller can make his project work and send money his way instead of backing
the
> real talent.
>
> I would hate to think there's no current version of Kelly Johnson.

It doesn't take a "Kelly Johnson". Look at the list of great (and not so
great) combat aircraft that went from contract award to service in five
years or less in the fifties: _All_the Century series, F8U, B-52, A-3, A-4,
A-5... For that matter, I believe that the Polaris system went from
scratching heads to George Washington at sea in under five years.

What it takes is risk assumption rather than risk aversion. The keystone for
the endless development schedules are those GAO reports that claim that the
sky will fall if production is approved before the system is *perfect*.
During the fifties, it was assumed that the "A" model would enter production
quickly, get into the hands of users who would identify shortcoming that
would be fixed in the "B" model and the "C" model would be the volume
production item. Some aircraft suffered major design failures (F-100, B-52)
that required serious redesign and fleet rework but no one was given the
Chinese Refrigerator Factory Quality Incentive Program. In the long run, it
saves money.

[John Bailey]

On 30 Dec 2003 06:37:53 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: (WaltBJ)
>>Date: 12/29/2003 10:54 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>If you want a new airplane fast you find another Kelly Johnson and
>>give him the keys and the money and leave him alone.
>>(P80/F104/U2/A11/SR71) Nowadays there's too many cooks and too many
>>beancounters and too many can'tc--ts, as Hack would say. Where's
>>Kelly's DNA?
>>Walt BJ
>>
>
>I bet there are a few real Kelly Johnsons out there who can't get a fair start
>the way he did. He got his start when there just wasn't as much red tape to
>fight. I wonder how another one could get started when people actually think
>Moller can make his project work and send money his way instead of backing the
>real talent.
>
>I would hate to think there's no current version of Kelly Johnson.

I found Kelly Johnson's rules for running a skunk works at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3993/rules.html They are a
good reality check on the following thoughts.

As designs get higher and higher tech, the problem with finding Kelly
Johnson's are the holes in the candidate's technological know-how. A
frequent hole is technology for developing large scale software
systems.

Scheduling is a more advanced for software than other disciplines,
even though when done badly software is the most uncontrolled
component of a project. According to Barry Boehm(
http://sunset.usc.edu/Research_Group/barry.html)
schedule is proportional to effort raised to an exponent the value of
which is a function of:
* Precedentedness--how new is it?
* Development Flexibility--can we adapt to new methods?
* Architecture / Risk Resolution--if it don't work, can we fix it?
* Team Cohesion--aka teamwork and the will to win.
* Process Maturity--have we done this enough to know what to do?

The overall equation works out roughly to T = k*p^1.4 where T is the
time in years, k is constant with dimensions: years/(persons^1.4), and
p is the total population of workers needed to complete the project.

Net net, designs take a long time because they use many people.
They need a lot of people because:
1) requirements are complex, requiring a large number of disciplines
2) there are too few skilled people to go around.
3) you can't trust incompetent people.
4) it takes even more incompetent people to check on incompetent
people.

John Bailey
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html

[mah]

WaltBJ wrote:
>
> If you want a new airplane fast you find another Kelly Johnson and
> give him the keys and the money and leave him alone.
> (P80/F104/U2/A11/SR71) Nowadays there's too many cooks and too many
> beancounters and too many can'tc--ts, as Hack would say. Where's
> Kelly's DNA?
> Walt BJ

For further on this, read Ben Rich's (memory failing here) "Skunk
Works". It talks about all the levels of red tape added during the
F-117 project compared to the SR-71.

MAH

[Jeb Hoge]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message >...

> It doesn't take a "Kelly Johnson". Look at the list of great (and not so
> great) combat aircraft that went from contract award to service in five
> years or less in the fifties: _All_the Century series, F8U, B-52, A-3, A-4,
> A-5... For that matter, I believe that the Polaris system went from
> scratching heads to George Washington at sea in under five years.

Well, part of that was the prevailing Cold War arms race "holy crap we
gotta stay ahead of the Russians" mentality, too. Not wanting to be
caught with your technological pants down when the balloon went up
served as a hell of a motivator for driving development as fast as it
could go, and also assuming a lot more risk and letting lives be more
at stake as long as the aircraft were being fielded and were ready to
fly when the call came.

We just flat-out don't have a fear factor like that now. If anything,
the scariest thing that we're facing is airframes fatiguing to pieces
in flight.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 30 Dec 2003 06:27:10 -0800, (Jeb Hoge) wrote:

>"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message >...
>
>> It doesn't take a "Kelly Johnson". Look at the list of great (and not so
>> great) combat aircraft that went from contract award to service in five
>> years or less in the fifties: _All_the Century series, F8U, B-52, A-3, A-4,
>> A-5... For that matter, I believe that the Polaris system went from
>> scratching heads to George Washington at sea in under five years.
>
>Well, part of that was the prevailing Cold War arms race "holy crap we
>gotta stay ahead of the Russians" mentality, too. Not wanting to be
>caught with your technological pants down when the balloon went up
>served as a hell of a motivator for driving development as fast as it
>could go, and also assuming a lot more risk and letting lives be more
>at stake as long as the aircraft were being fielded and were ready to
>fly when the call came.
>
>We just flat-out don't have a fear factor like that now. If anything,
>the scariest thing that we're facing is airframes fatiguing to pieces
>in flight.

I always like to watch a thread develop for a day or two before
dumping my two centavos into the mix.

It's hard to compare development cycles from WW II to Century Series
to Teen Fighters to today. While the old projects involved aerodynamic
development, then engines and T/W concerns, then shockwave management,
then agility, now the real issue isn't airplane but "weapon system."

This is one of the key reasons why the Luddites of the Legislature
occasionally suggest that tweaking 25 year old F-15s will be just as
good as buying new Raptors. "Why there's no difference in top
speed....why do you need an F-22?"

Today the airplane is only a small component. You need sensor suites
(lots more than beep-beep radar) and data fusion and stealth and
instrumentation and automation and who knows what else before the
weapon works.

Quite often the blank sheet of paper that a design starts with will
get redrawn thousands of times as technology advances, software
develops, concepts emerge, etc. Raptor is going to water a lot of eyes
when it finally goes operational and the fact that it's taken fifteen
years will soon be overlooked.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Smartace11]

>
>Quite often the blank sheet of paper that a design starts with will
>get redrawn thousands of times as technology advances, software
>develops, concepts emerge, etc. Raptor is going to water a lot of eyes
>when it finally goes operational and the fact that it's taken fifteen
>years will soon be overlooked.

I worked on the ATF (soon to become F-22/F-23) engines in 1983!

Therein lies the catch. A lot of parts on the F-22 were obsolete 8 yrars ago,
like processors. The DoD used to be the largest source for electronics and the
biggest employer of software developers. Now it is just a drop in the bucket
and all the latest technology in both hardware and software goes to the
entertainment industry. We couldn't even get software peiople for the B-2
because Hollywpod was hiring them all at ten times teh salary DoD was paying.


More reasons why the development cycle is as long as it is..

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >From: (WaltBJ)
> >Date: 12/29/2003 10:54 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >If you want a new airplane fast you find another Kelly Johnson and
> >give him the keys and the money and leave him alone.
> >(P80/F104/U2/A11/SR71) Nowadays there's too many cooks and too many
> >beancounters and too many can'tc--ts, as Hack would say. Where's
> >Kelly's DNA?
> >Walt BJ
> >
>
> I bet there are a few real Kelly Johnsons out there who can't get a fair start
> the way he did. He got his start when there just wasn't as much red tape to
> fight. I wonder how another one could get started when people actually think
> Moller can make his project work and send money his way instead of backing the
> real talent.
>
> I would hate to think there's no current version of Kelly Johnson.

Burt Rutan?

[Joe Osman]

Smartace11 wrote:
>
> >
> >Quite often the blank sheet of paper that a design starts with will
> >get redrawn thousands of times as technology advances, software
> >develops, concepts emerge, etc. Raptor is going to water a lot of eyes
> >when it finally goes operational and the fact that it's taken fifteen
> >years will soon be overlooked.
>
> I worked on the ATF (soon to become F-22/F-23) engines in 1983!
>
> Therein lies the catch. A lot of parts on the F-22 were obsolete 8 yrars ago,
> like processors. The DoD used to be the largest source for electronics and the
> biggest employer of software developers. Now it is just a drop in the bucket
> and all the latest technology in both hardware and software goes to the
> entertainment industry. We couldn't even get software peiople for the B-2
> because Hollywpod was hiring them all at ten times teh salary DoD was paying.
>
>
> More reasons why the development cycle is as long as it is..

With all the programming jobs going to India and Russia, the
defense jobs may be the only ones left for US programmers.
Or have they figured out how to offshore them also?

Joe


-----= 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! =-----

[Smartace11]

>With all the programming jobs going to India and Russia, the
>defense jobs may be the only ones left for US programmers.
>Or have they figured out how to offshore them also?

I think we bring the Russian and Indian DoD programmers here!!!

[Tony]

"Charles Gray" > wrote in message
...
> On 29 Dec 2003 02:13:31 GMT, (SteveM8597) wrote:
>
> So lets say we moved to a wartime footing, where the order was "Get
> it done, and in our hands ASAP" with most other considerations
> secondary-- would we see a dramatic improvemetn, or just a fwe months
> shaved off here and there.
>
It would be produced in 10% of the time with 90% of the quality/reliability.
(And at 25% to 50% of the cost. All that oversight is expensive.)

[Smartace11]

>was "Get
>> it done, and in our hands ASAP" with most other considerations
>> secondary-- would we see a dramatic improvemetn, or just a fwe months
>> shaved off here and there.
>>
>It would be produced in 10% of the time with 90% of the quality/reliability.
>(And at 25% to 50% of the cost. All that oversight is expensive.)
>
>

What is the source of your data. The AF has been trying to calculate those
costs for years to convince Congress to back away a little.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> >Quite often the blank sheet of paper that a design starts with will
> >get redrawn thousands of times as technology advances, software
> >develops, concepts emerge, etc. Raptor is going to water a lot of eyes
> >when it finally goes operational and the fact that it's taken fifteen
> >years will soon be overlooked.
>
> I worked on the ATF (soon to become F-22/F-23) engines in 1983!
>
> Therein lies the catch. A lot of parts on the F-22 were obsolete 8 yrars
ago,
> like processors. The DoD used to be the largest source for electronics
and the
> biggest employer of software developers. Now it is just a drop in the
bucket
> and all the latest technology in both hardware and software goes to the
> entertainment industry. We couldn't even get software peiople for the B-2
> because Hollywpod was hiring them all at ten times teh salary DoD was
paying.

Worse still, much of the F-22 exists in pre-95 Ada.

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

Ada was always seemed a solution in search of a problem! The USAF tried to
cram Ada into sixty four K of rad hard memory in the Peacekeeper ICBM
guidance system. They finally recognized that Ada had far too much overhead
precluding meeting all the time line functional requirements of a
multi-warhead missile.

WDA

end


"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Smartace11" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >
> > >Quite often the blank sheet of paper that a design starts with will
> > >get redrawn thousands of times as technology advances, software
> > >develops, concepts emerge, etc. Raptor is going to water a lot of eyes
> > >when it finally goes operational and the fact that it's taken fifteen
> > >years will soon be overlooked.
> >
> > I worked on the ATF (soon to become F-22/F-23) engines in 1983!
> >
> > Therein lies the catch. A lot of parts on the F-22 were obsolete 8
yrars
> ago,
> > like processors. The DoD used to be the largest source for electronics
> and the
> > biggest employer of software developers. Now it is just a drop in the
> bucket
> > and all the latest technology in both hardware and software goes to the
> > entertainment industry. We couldn't even get software peiople for the
B-2
> > because Hollywpod was hiring them all at ten times teh salary DoD was
> paying.
>
> Worse still, much of the F-22 exists in pre-95 Ada.
>
>

[Paul F Austin]

"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote
> Ada was always seemed a solution in search of a problem! The USAF tried to
> cram Ada into sixty four K of rad hard memory in the Peacekeeper ICBM
> guidance system. They finally recognized that Ada had far too much
overhead
> precluding meeting all the time line functional requirements of a
> multi-warhead missile.

ICBM navigation and control actually requires very little compute. The NS-20
GNC for Minuteman III used a rotating drum memory and performed adds and
multiplies in about 20ms, just in time for the correct location on the drum
to come around and be written.

[Tony]

"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
> >was "Get
> >> it done, and in our hands ASAP" with most other considerations
> >> secondary-- would we see a dramatic improvemetn, or just a fwe months
> >> shaved off here and there.
> >>
> >It would be produced in 10% of the time with 90% of the
quality/reliability.
> >(And at 25% to 50% of the cost. All that oversight is expensive.)
> >
> >
>
> What is the source of your data. The AF has been trying to calculate
those
> costs for years to convince Congress to back away a little.
>
A comparison of what has been done at places like the Skunk Works
(SR-71) and comparable places, and what has been done by
companies on their own dime (F-20); vs standard military
contracts.

Nothing the Air Force comes up with will convince Congress
to back away. That would mean no more "fact finding" junkets,
no more high visibility televised committee hearings, no more
getting their asses kissed by the contractors, and no more
being able to steer contracts to their home districts.

Tony

[Tarver Engineering]

"W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message
.. .
> Ada was always seemed a solution in search of a problem! The USAF tried to
> cram Ada into sixty four K of rad hard memory in the Peacekeeper ICBM
> guidance system. They finally recognized that Ada had far too much
overhead
> precluding meeting all the time line functional requirements of a
> multi-warhead missile.

We here at ram have agreed that Ada gained maturity with the '95 release.

Thank goodness the F-35 is a later bird.

> WDA
>
> end
>
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Smartace11" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Quite often the blank sheet of paper that a design starts with will
> > > >get redrawn thousands of times as technology advances, software
> > > >develops, concepts emerge, etc. Raptor is going to water a lot of
eyes
> > > >when it finally goes operational and the fact that it's taken fifteen
> > > >years will soon be overlooked.
> > >
> > > I worked on the ATF (soon to become F-22/F-23) engines in 1983!
> > >
> > > Therein lies the catch. A lot of parts on the F-22 were obsolete 8
> yrars
> > ago,
> > > like processors. The DoD used to be the largest source for
electronics
> > and the
> > > biggest employer of software developers. Now it is just a drop in the
> > bucket
> > > and all the latest technology in both hardware and software goes to
the
> > > entertainment industry. We couldn't even get software peiople for the
> B-2
> > > because Hollywpod was hiring them all at ten times teh salary DoD was
> > paying.
> >
> > Worse still, much of the F-22 exists in pre-95 Ada.
> >
> >
>
>

[Penta]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:36:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>We here at ram have agreed that Ada gained maturity with the '95 release.
>
>Thank goodness the F-35 is a later bird.

Presuming, of course, that Ada could ever be said to have deserved to
live.

Remind me again, why doesn't DOD use a more conventional language like
C++, Java, etc etc etc?

John

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Penta > writes:
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:36:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
>>We here at ram have agreed that Ada gained maturity with the '95 release.
>>
>>Thank goodness the F-35 is a later bird.
>
> Presuming, of course, that Ada could ever be said to have deserved to
> live.

It does its job. If you're good, and you know the fundamentals, you
can do anything in anything.
(I'll have to dig uop the Sieve of Aristophenes I wrote in TECO some
time. That one one me a night's worth of beer.)

> Remind me again, why doesn't DOD use a more conventional language like
> C++, Java, etc etc etc?

C++: Perfectly adequate, as long as the proper tools are used to make
sure that teh team is actually following the standards, and not
screwing themselves up with improper bounds checking, exception
handling, and other such details. Integrating really large projects
from multiple teams is a Gold-Plated Bitch, especially if anyone is
stupid enough to use the totally upge****t Microsoft crud.

Java: Hopelessly unreliable, and impossible to write deterministic
real-time code in. Java's neat for little toy programs, and it makes
the Professor's job of correcting classwork easier, but it should
never be used in situations where People Could Die or Go to Jail when
it fails.

etc. etc. etc. - make sure you know what you're on about. There's
Good Money to be had being able to read, understand, and write Jovial,
for instance.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Penta > wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:36:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >We here at ram have agreed that Ada gained maturity with the '95 release.
> >
> >Thank goodness the F-35 is a later bird.
>
> Presuming, of course, that Ada could ever be said to have deserved to
> live.
>
> Remind me again, why doesn't DOD use a more conventional language like
> C++, Java, etc etc etc?

Here's some of the reasons the ADA folks like it:

<http://www.adaic.org/whyada/index.html>

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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