

Upgrade drags Stealth Bomber IT systems into the 90s - astrec
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/11/stealth_bomber_upgrades/

======
marvin
This kind of technological inertia is not caused by actual risk and
reliability issues as much as fear of public failure, scandal and lawsuits.
You can see it in the entire aerospace industry. This is the reason the Cessna
172 is still one of the most widely used general-aviation aircraft used today,
powered by 1960s-era Lycoming or Continental engines. There is a huge
opportunity here, but every major manufacturer is afraid to make the leap. And
given the current legal climate in the US, they can hardly be blamed - for
instance, see <http://www.aviation-law-news.com/html/fatal-lawsuit.html> or
[http://miami.injuryboard.com/mass-transit-
accidents/aviation...](http://miami.injuryboard.com/mass-transit-
accidents/aviation-lawsuit-settles-for-11-million-to-
date.aspx?googleid=218674). These cases would never get this big if it was
simply a matter of a car accident, but imagine how much greater the wolves
would howl if the airplane involved used an "unproven airframe design" or "a
novel type of engine".

In many ways the quasi-governmental airframe companies such as Boeing and
Lockheed/Northrop are actually better, because they allow themselves to be
closer to the theoretical bleeding edge. Clumsily though they may do it.

An accident is much easier to defend if everything seems to be in order. Just
like with the leadership of technology companies.

