NASA'S Role in Aeronautics: A Workshop (1981)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

HOW NASA CAN ASSIST THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN AERONAUTICS Gershom R. Makepeace Director, Engineering Technology Office of the Under Secretary for Defense Research and Engineering Department of Defense During the next few minutes I will try to give you a brief overview of how NASA can and does assist the Department of Defense (DOD) in aeronautics and particularly in aeronautics technology. I am sure that I do not need to describe to this group why aeronautics technology is of critical importance to the DOD. You may be interested, however, in a quantitative measure—dollars—of just how important it is. Table l shows data from our FY l98l budget. More than $2 billion are allocated to Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) on aircraft and related equipment. Nearly $300 million will go to system-oriented aeronautics technology, including aircraft engine technology as well as airframe technology. The operational uses for the DOD aircraft now in service, and for the technology of interest to this group, are listed in Table 2. Some of the new technology required to provide these capabilities is closely related to that needed by commercial aircraft—fuel economy, for instance—even though the reasons for needing it may not be entirely the same. We need increased range for logistic aircraft, with reduced fuel cost a secondary benefit. Commercial aircraft need lower operating costs, with greater range a secondary benefit. But the technology in this case is the same. In quite a few other areas, of course, DOD needs are not parallel to any commercial demand. In many of those cases, too, NASA provides direct support to us. As indicated in Table 3, DOD does not do all of its own aeronau- tical technology work, or even the principal fraction of it. We have always relied upon a strong, complementary technology base in NASA, industry, and academia. DOD cannot and should not support a complete technology base activity covering all aspects of the application of air power to the DOD mission. l3l

Table 4 itemizes the principal aspects of our relationship with NASA. Both agencies have statutory authority to conduct aeronautical research under the Space Act of l958. NASA has extensive experimental facilities and concentrates on the scientific disciplines that form the aeronautics technology base for all development whether civil or military. DOD, on the other hand, is more systems oriented; however, the Department conducts sufficient basic research to maintain competency, does exploratory development pertinent to its operational needs, and carries out technology demonstration as needed to reduce system risk. NASA technical personnel currently assist DOD in all phases of aircraft development, including preliminary design in which NASA helps with performance prediction assessment. For example, manufacturers may be required to submit wind tunnel models to NASA for independent evaluation, solving problems occurring in the flight test phase of development. NASA expertise is of immeasurable value when significant operational problems occur with military aircraft in service. For example, we rely on NASA's help in deriving aerodynamic modifications needed when external carriage of ordnance is required on operational aircraft that was not anticipated in the original aircraft design (Figure l) or when changes in flight regime are required by changed operational needs—such as low-altitude penetrator flight patterns for the B-52. DOD and its contractors make extensive use of NASA experimental facilities. NASA has over 30 major aeronautical research facilities, some of which are unique in the Western world. Noteworthy examples are the 40- x 80-foot wind tunnel at the Ames Research Center in California and the transonic aerodynamics tunnel at the Research Center in Langley, Virginia. The DOD accounted for over l5,000 hours of NASA wind tunnel time during FY l979. The cost of military aircraft development would increase significantly if NASA facilities were not available, and some critical work could not be done at all. A very important joint DOD-NASA activity, now well along in implementation, is the cooperative development of major new aeronautical research facilities. Examples of these are the National Transonic Facility located at NASA's Langley Center, the Aeropropulsion Test Facility located at the USAF Arnold Engineering Development Center at Tullahoma, Tennessee, and the 80- x l20-foot tunnel at the NASA Ames Center in California. NASA has unique flight simulation capabilities that have been and are of great help to the DOD. The Differential Maneuvering Simulator at Langley is used for evaluation and development of new fighter/interceptor concepts. Similarly, the Flight Simulator for Advanced Aircraft at Ames in invaluable in the development of short takeoff and landing (STOL) and large aircraft. The new Vertical Motion Simulator at Ames will be immensely important in development of V/STOL aircraft and advanced helicopter concepts. NASA/DOD joint programs in aeronautical technologies are in full and productive flower. Currently, there are more than 46 formal and informal joint program agreements to develop and demonstrate aeronautical technologies of mutual interest. Recent examples of such l32

programs include the KC-l35 winglets development, which reduces aircraft draft by 5 percent and increases range by reducing range consumption proportionately; shipboard STOL demonstration conducted by the Navy, utilizing the NASA-developed STOL demonstrator, the Quiet Short Haul Research Aircraft; and joint NASA/Army development of XV-l5 Tilt Rotor Research Aircraft. NASA is the sole developer of technology for utility and transport type aircraft. DOD relies on NASA for this technology in the development of cargo transport and, to some extent, bomber aircraft. It should be noted that recent actions by the Office of Management and Budget curtailing NASA activity in the development of primary composite aircraft structures for large aircraft will have an adverse impact on the development of the next aircraft—the CX. There are insufficient resources in the military aircraft DOD program to take up the slack in this important effort. Table 5 lists several ways in which it is important that NASA assist DOD in the future. In particular, we would urge the following: l. NASA should maintain high interest in advanced aeronautics technology and continue to be the leading edge of technology oriented toward military aircraft development. The capability to explore and develop advanced technology when no formal "requirement" exists is vital to maintaining superior military aircraft. Examples of the kind of work we have in mind are the HIMAT Research Vehicle to demonstrate highly maneuverable fighter aircraft configurations and the F-16XL, the joint NASA/General Dynamics effort to develop a wing with 50 percent increase in supersonic lift/drag ratio, increasing it from 4 to 6 at mach l.6, while maintaining good transonic maneuver performance. 2. NASA should carry technology development through the validation phase. This is necessary to ensure adequate technology readiness for new developments and to provide feedback to the technologist; technology cannot be developed open-loop. 3. NASA should expand flight simulation activities and capabilities, particularly those related to defense needs. o Increased sophistication of aircraft and weaponry is causing paper analysis techniques to be of reduced value. The need for good simulation testing has increased to the point of indispensability. o NASA currently leads the United States and Western world in simulation capability and should maintain that lead. NASA simulation facilities and erpertise should be considered a national asset and supported accordingly. 4. The present DOD-NASA relationships in aeronautics should be continued as a basic ingredient for a successful military capability. In summary, as noted in Table 6, it is concluded that NASA l33

aeronautics technology developments are vital to DOD. This is the case in development and use of ROT&E facilities as well as in technical expertise in all aspects of aeronautics. There are several reasons for this: o Advanced technology work must begin before requirements are clearly identified. To wait keeps us behind the "power curve" in terms of time and money and may ultimately affect the security of our country. o Flight validation of new technology gives us the information we need before we risk taking it. Furthermore, it provides the feedback needed by the technologist to refine and improve his technology. o Joint programs provide the stimulus needed to "force" technology to move forward. Specifically, they enable NASA technical personnel to become aware of DOD needs and at the same time provide necessary technical expertise to DOD. o Civil aircraft technology is and will remain very important to DOD, especially in the logistics aircraft field. We are totally dependent upon NASA for this technology. o Finally, we would encourage support for NASA to expand its flight simulator capability. It is already excellent and indispensable to our needs, and as aeronautical technology continues to develop it will become even more critical to us. I34

AERONAUTICAL TECHNOLOGY CRITICAL TO DOD IN FY1981: • $2232. MILLIONS WILL BE SPENT ON RDT&E FOR AIRCRAFT AND RELATED EQUIPMENT THIS IS 13.5% OF THE RDT&E BUDGET FOR DOD $283. MILLIONS WILL BE SPENT ON AERONAUTICS TECHNOLOGY THIS IS 12.6% OF THE RDT&E BUDGET FOR AIRCRAFT IT IS 1.7% OF THE TOTAL RDT&E BUDGET TABLE l MILITARY AIRCRAFT USED IN WIDE RANGE OF MISSIONS • GAIN AIR SUPERIORITY IN THE BATTLE AREA • INTERDICT MOVEMENTS OF ENEMY TROOPS AND MATERIEL • AUGMENT AND DIRECT GROUND AND SEA BASED FIREPOWER • FORWARD AREA SUPPLY • QUICK REACTION, LONG RANGE TROOP REINFORCEMENT AND SUPPLY • MAINTAIN SEA LANES OF COMMUNICATION AND SUPPLY • STRATEGIC DETERRENCE TABLE 2 l35

DOD RELIES UPON A COMPLEMENTARY TECHNOLOGY BASE ACTIVITIES INVOLVED ARE: • DOD LABORATORIES AND CONTRACTORS • NASA LABORATORIES AND CONTRACTORS • PRIVATE INDUSTRY THROUGH IR&D • UNIVERSITY RESEARCH NASA HAS A VERY LARGE ROLE IN MEETING DOD NEEDS TABLE 3 PRESENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DOD AND NASA A. BOTH AGENCIES CONDUCT AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH B. NASA PERSONNEL ASSIST DOD IN ALL PHASES OF AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT C. DOD MAKES EXTENSIVE USE OF NASA EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES D. COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF MAJOR NEW AERO RESEARCH FACILITIES E. DOD RELIES UPON UNIQUE NASA FLIGHT SIMULATION CAPABILITIES F. MANY NASA/DOD JOINT PROGRAMS IN AERONAUTICAL TECHNOLOGIES G. DOD USES NASA CIVIL AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGY FOR UTILITY AND TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT TABLE 4 l36

FIGURE l F-l6 with Ordnance WAYS FOR NASA TO CONTINUE AND INCREASE ASSISTANCE TO DOD A. SUSTAIN HIGH INTEREST AT THE LEADING EDGE OF MILITARY AERONAUTICS B. CARRY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE VALIDATION PHASE C. EXPAND FLIGHT SIMULATION ACTIVITIES AND CAPABILITIES D. CONTINUE PRESENT NASA - DOD RELATIONSHIPS TABLE 5 l37

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A. NASA AERONAUTICS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT IS VITAL TO DOD B. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE TO MILITARY AIRCRAFT, MUST BE UNDERTAKEN BEFORE OBVIOUS REQUIREMENTS APPEAR C. FLIGHT VALIDATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY IS NECESSARY D. JOINT PROGRAMS OF MUTUAL INTEREST MUST BE PURSUED E. CIVIL AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGY IS IMPORTANT TO DOD F. EXPANSION OF NASA FLIGHT SIMULATOR CAPABILITY WOULD HELPDOD TABLE 6 l38