Re: Amazing ..
I've spent some time thinking about this.
Background: I spent 30 years or so in my youth in the aerospace business, programming, testing, supporting, etc, etc,etc. I saw some things that were well done and many more that weren't. That was a long time ago. But I don't think things have changed all that much. So, some highly opinionated conclusions.
1. These dudes look to be amateurs. Odds are that, given the opportunity, they will make most or all of the amateur mistakes. Given that ATC has proven in the past to be a huge challenge for people who might in some cases have had some clue what they were doing, I suspect that the chances of success here are somewhere between Slim and None.
2. I don't see that up full up front funding is necessary. In point of fact, continuing to throw money into floundering/doomed projects seems to me to be far more common than failing to adequately fund worthy efforts. But what do I know?
3. If they do insist on full up front funding, the payout should be contingent on meeting milestones. Tranch 1 is paid when an acceptable requirements document has been agreed to. Tranch 2 when a usable design spec exists, etc, etc, etc.
4. IMHO, the first step, and it would be cheap, would be to have one of the Federal Contract Resaerch Centers (FCRC) RAND, MITRE, et. al. review the ATC situation. What is/are the problem(s)? Why have previous attempts to upgrade failed? What, if anything, can be learned/salvaged from previous attempts? What really needs to be done? My GUESS is that such a study would take 18 months or two years, cost maybe 10-20 million dollars, and MIGHT actually work.
5. While I share the skepticism of many Reg readers about AI, and I think 80% of the bs we are being fed on the subject is nonsense, vaporware and outright lies, AI does indeed sort of work and can probably help out in some areas. Specifically, it can probably help make information available to designers. It can almost certainly help generate the extensive data bases that will likely be needed to adopt the system to individual airports. It can probably produce or help produce the probably voluminous user documentation that will be needed. And it can probably help train the controllers in use of the new system.
6. Since Air Traffic Control is an important safety issue, there needs to be a fully independent review/test organization focused on making sure the system fails safe when it fails. Independent means that it's done be a competent separate contractor who doesn't build any part of the system and has no reason to pull punches about problems it observes.