"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.