popcorn wrote:Shouldn't UTC fund development of ACES 5 in-house? This has been a growing trend in the defense industry as government purse strings have tightened. Who dares, wins!

The USAF retains the 'rights' to the ACES ejection seat.
I do not know exactly what that means in terms of legal boundaries.
The USAF does have the right to extend service, maintenance and replacement part contracts to whomever they choose.
I will SPECULATE that it also seems to imply that the current manufacturer has no right to sell the product to anyone other than the USAF without their express consent. That would probably be true for the seats current form and any modification or upgrade as well.
The neck injury cited by MB in the article above likely generated new requirements from the USAF regarding the design.
So is it a New Design or an Modification?
ACES manufacturer Parent Company United Technology says it's clearly a Modification:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/brand-connect/wp/enterprise/four-ways-upgraded-ejection-seat-modifications-can-keep-our-pilots-safe/It could also be claimed that the Modification (if that is what it is) is required due to no fault in the current ACES seat design, but a change to the environment by the USAF by equipping it's pilots with heavier helmet add-ons:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/05/21/congressional-panel-warns-aging-ejection-seats-could-kill-pilots/NOTE: The article above was written by UT mouthpiece - Loren Thompson
It is probably hair splitting to determine if it is New Design or a Modification, but since MB likely has a significant legal retainer staff that wasn't as busy as they could be..... Why not send them to work throwing sand into the gearbox of that project?
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.