Speed of design of airplanes.

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?

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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?

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.

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

"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.)

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.