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.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 This page in the original is blank.

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 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 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 This page in the original is blank.

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 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 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 This page in the original is blank.

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 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 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     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 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 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 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 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