 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
| Copyright © 2012. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
Committee on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
Air Force Science and Technology Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
OCR for page R2
Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This is a report of work sponsored by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under grant number F49620-99-1-0338 between the Department of Defense and the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research or the U.S. Government.
The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation thereon.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-07606-4
Copies are available from:
National Academy Press
Box 285 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20055 800–624–6242 or 202–334–3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M.Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm.A.Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I.Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm.A.Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
OCR for page R4
Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF THE U.S. AEROSPACE INFRASTRUCTURE AND AEROSPACE ENGINEERING DISCIPLINES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE AIR FORCE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ROBERT R.EVERETT, Chair,
MITRE Corporation (retired), Concord, Massachusetts
GORDON R.ENGLAND, Vice Chair,
General Dynamics Corporation, Falls Church, Virginia (from September 1999 to May 2001)
KYLE T.ALFRIEND,
Texas A&M University, College Station
OLIVER C.BOILEAU, JR., Consultant,
Saratoga, Wyoming
MICHAEL P.C.CARNS,
U.S. Air Force (retired), Center for Political Economy, Pebble Beach, California
RAYMOND S.COLLADAY,
RC Space Enterprises, Inc., Golden, Colorado
JOHN W.DOUGLASS,
Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc., Washington, D.C.
ROBERT B.ORMSBY, JR.,
Lockheed Aeronautical Group Systems (retired), Roswell, Georgia
GEORGE A.PAULIKAS,
Aerospace Corporation (retired), Los Angeles, California
THOMAS M.PERDUE, Consultant,
Alexandria, Virginia
WINFRED M.PHILLIPS,
University of Florida, Gainesville
HERMAN M.REININGA,
Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
ELI RESHOTKO,
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
MICHAEL D.RICH,
RAND, Santa Monica, California
HAROLD W.SORENSON,
MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts
Liaisons from the Air Force Science and Technology Board
ROBERT A.FUHRMAN,
Lockheed Corporation (retired), Pebble Beach, California
JOHN MICHAEL LOH,
U.S. Air Force (retired), Consultant, Williamsburg, Virginia
Liaison from the Board on Army Science and Technology
ALLEN C.WARD,
Ward Synthesis, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
Staff
BRUCE A.BRAUN, Director
JAMES E.KILLIAN, Study Director (from December 2000)
JAMES D.RENDLEMAN, Study Director (from September 1999 to October 2000)
LINDA D.VOSS, Consultant
JAMES MYSKA, Research Associate
PAMELA A.LEWIS, Senior Project Assistant (from January 2001)
ANDRE MORROW, Senior Project Assistant (from September 1999 to January 2001)
OCR for page R5
Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
AIR FORCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD
ROBERT A.FUHRMAN, Chair,
Lockheed Corporation (retired), Pebble Beach, California
ANTHONY J.BURSHNICK,
U.S. Air Force (retired), Springfield, Virginia
LYNN CONWAY,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
WILLIAM H.CRABTREE, Consultant,
Cincinnati, Ohio
EARL H.DOWELL,
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
ALAN H.EPSTEIN,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
ALFRED B.GSCHWENDTNER,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
ROBERT G.LOEWY,
Georgia Institute of Technology School of Aerospace Engineering, Atlanta
JOHN MICHAEL LOH,
U.S. Air Force (retired), Williamsburg, Virginia
NOEL LONGUEMARE,
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology (retired), Ellicott City, Maryland
THOMAS S.MOORMAN, JR.,
U.S. Air Force (retired), McLean, Virginia
BRADFORD W.PARKINSON,
Stanford University, Stanford, California
RICHARD R.PAUL,
Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington
ELI RESHOTKO,
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
ALTON D.ROMIG,
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Staff
BRUCE A.BRAUN, Director
MICHAEL A.CLARKE, Associate Director
CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate
WILLIAM E.CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator
GWEN ROBEY, Senior Project Assistant
DEANNA SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant
OCR for page R6
Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R7
Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
Preface
The uncertainty of the threats faced by the military since the end of the Cold War is mirrored by uncertainties in the national defense aerospace infrastructure. The aerospace industry has undergone a significant restructuring in the last 20 years, a dramatic consolidation to adjust to the declining defense investment. In the 1980s, aerospace was a major U.S. economic sector dominated by defense spending. In the 1990s, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) accounted for only 28 percent of aerospace sales.
These changes raise questions about the future. The Air Force is concerned about having available and attracting the creative, skilled work force it will take to implement its military mission. The change in the environment supporting the defense aerospace infrastructure has also changed the relationship between the military and industry.
The committee was asked to identify problems facing different sectors of the defense infrastructure and how the Air Force could ensure its ability to attract the best and brightest to produce the leading-edge technology upon which its weapons systems rely.
To determine the scope of its study, the committee consulted with representatives of academia and visited representatives of the Air Force, Navy, DoD, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, and other government agencies. To learn more about issues related to the physical test and development infrastructure, a fact-finding team visited the Arnold Engineering Development Center and received briefings about the work force, budget, policy, and facilities. Industry representatives made presentations on work force issues, business opportunities and goals, facilities, and financial challenges. In the end, the committee focused its attention on the issues most important for the primary client of the defense aerospace infrastructure, the Air Force.
Recommendations are focused on how Air Force senior management can compete for skilled technical personnel, sustain high-quality scientific and technical resources, and reform industrial policy to adapt to the changes in the industry.
The committee greatly appreciates the support and assistance of National Research Council staff members James Killian, Pamela Lewis, and Carol Arenberg and consultant Linda Voss in the production of this report.
Robert R.Everett, Chair
Committee on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering
Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
OCR for page R8
Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R9
Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
Acknowledgments
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The committee wishes to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Henry P.Arnold, BF Goodrich Aerospace
William C.Bowes, USN (retired), Litton Integrated Systems
Natalie W.Crawford, RAND
Earl H.Dowell, Duke University
David Heebner, Heebner Associates
R.Richard Heppe, Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company
Peter B.Teets, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired)
Brian Wright, Rockwell Collins
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Alton Slay, appointed by the Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, and William Howard, appointed by the NRC’s Report Review Committee, who were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
OCR for page R10
Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R11
Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
1
INTRODUCTION
8
Background,
8
Statement of Task,
9
Study Approach,
9
The Defense Aerospace Infrastructure and National Security,
10
Organization of This Report,
11
2
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUDGETS
12
Instability of Program Budgets,
13
3
WORK FORCE ISSUES
16
Industrial Talent Base,
16
Depth of Experience,
16
Loss of Breadth of Experience,
18
Level of Program Opportunity,
19
Attractions of a Career in Defense Aerospace Engineering,
21
Academic Talent Base,
21
Government Talent Base,
23
Hiring Constraints,
23
Military Technical Personnel,
24
Outsourcing,
25
Allocation of Funds,
25
4
FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
26
Aerospace Industry Environment,
26
Influence of the U.S. Department of Defense on the Aerospace Industry Infrastructure,
27
5
POLICY, ADMINISTRATION, AND REGULATION
29
Acquisition Cycles,
29
Reducing Cycle Times,
29
Using Commercial Products and Processes,
30
Reforming DoD’s Acquisition Processes,
30
Product Cycle Phases,
31
Engine Component Sector,
32
Export License Controls,
32
OCR for page R12
Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
Test Facilities,
34
Simulation as a Replacement for Physical Testing,
34
Past Use of Test Facilities,
35
Support for Commonality,
35
Retention of Critical Skills,
35
Modernizing and Updating,
35
Relationship with Industry,
36
6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
37
The Basic Conclusion,
37
Specific Conclusions and Recommendations,
37
Scientific and Technical Resources,
37
The Air Force Technical Work Force,
38
Relationship with Industry,
39
Reforming Policy and Regulations,
40
REFERENCES
42
APPENDIXES
A MEETINGS AND ACTIVITIES
47
B BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
50
OCR for page R13
Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
Tables and Figures
TABLES
3–1
Decline in Fixed-Wing, Manned, Combat Aircraft Programs,
18
3–2
Boeing Life-cycle Support,
20
3–3
Funding by Federal Agencies to Universities for Aeronautical and Astronautical Research (in millions of constant FY01 dollars),
22
3–4
Aerospace Engineering Degrees Awarded from 1991 to 2000,
22
3–5
Projected Job Growth in Engineering Fields (in thousands),
23
4–1
U.S. Aerospace Industry Sales in the United States (in millions of constant FY01 dollars),
27
FIGURES
1–1
Balance of trade by industry, 1998,
9
2–1
Total DoD S&T budget history,
13
2–2
Air Force S&T budget history,
14
3–1
Number of engineers who left Boeing in 1999,
17
3–2
Rate at which engineers left Boeing in 1999,
17
4–1
Funding for R&D by source,
28
OCR for page R14
Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ABL
airborne laser
AEDC
Arnold Engineering Development Center
AFB
Air Force Base
AFIT
Air Force Institute of Technology
AFMC
Air Force Materiel Command
AFRL
Air Force Research Laboratory
CAS
cost-accounting standards
CEO
chief executive officer
CFD
computational fluid dynamics
COTS
commercial off-the-shelf
DARPA
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DASA
DaimlerChrysler Aerospace
DCS
deputy chief of staff
DoD
U.S. Department of Defense
DSB
Defense Science Board
EMD
engineering and manufacturing development
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
FAR
Federal Acquisition Regulations
FFRDC
Federally Funded Research and Development Center
FSA
Future Strike Aircraft
FY
fiscal year
GOCO
government-owned, contractor-operated
GPS
global positioning system
IHPTET
Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology
IR&D
independent research and development
ITAR
International Traffic in Arms Regulations
JPL
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
JSF
Joint Strike Fighter
LAI
Lean Aerospace Initiative
Mil-Spec
military specification
MOSA
modular open systems architecture
NAE
National Academy of Engineering
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NATO
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NMD
National Missile Defense
NRC
National Research Council
O&M
operations and maintenance
ODTC
Office of Defense Trade Controls
OPM
Office of Personnel Management
OSD
Office of the Secretary of Defense
QDR
Quadrennial Defense Review
R&D
research and development
RDT&E
research, development, test, and evaluation
RLV
reusable launch vehicle
ROI
return on investment
S&T
science and technology
SBL
Space-Based Laser
TINA
Truth in Negotiations Act
UAV
unmanned air vehicle
UCAV
unmanned combat air vehicle
USAF
U.S. Air Force
