Originally Posted by
alf5071h
KeepItStraight, #39, even with generalisation, you perpetuate a myth.
Increasingly the 'lead' time in designing and producing a new aircraft is tens of years; requiring foresight of operations, traffic, density, economics, and system technologies.
Beware of generalisations; what we look for is often what we find. And when considering the situation today, question the history; is this what we asked for, foresaw, if not why not. Also consider inherent bias of what we believe to be the future - something which we should have now, or should be doing now.
I think that what
KeepItStraight says is correct within the context being used - as my Post above expands on but citing differences even in the Engineering fraternity!
Now, I believe that you bring up a further very valid issue in that, for any development, the technological complexity and rate of change (both of technology and the environment it needs to operate in - in all it's aspects as you clearly identify in your Para 2) makes it even more complex. To an extent, technology will lead capability. Who foresaw the explosion in consumer electronics? Until the chip was designed, the capabilities were impossible to achieve on the scale we have today. A key change I think is, more and more, civil R&D is starting to lead mil R&D.
I do like your last para as that hits the nail on the head - in many ways, the ability to manage/control change is limited by human capacity to process all the factors and rationalise them to an optimum conclusion. That's where AI is leading I guess, realising that, even controlling the advancement of technology is becoming beyond human capacity!
Interesting debate! I'll let others have their say as that's just my view!
