Aerospace Industry-America's Future?

(prior to publishing in Journal of Defense Management)
THE FLYING MACHINE THAT CHANGED THE WORLD
2011 Shawn Paul Boike, Long Beach, California All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without written permission from the author.
Aerospace Industry Americas Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2014
All the companies listed below may copy or distribute portions of the book: AIAA, AIA, OMICs, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, NASA, USAF Free Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/210553049/Aerospace-Industry-America-s-Future
Table of Contents
1 THE FLYING MACHINE THAT CHANGED THE W ORLD 1 All the companies listed below may copy or distribute portions of the book: AIAA, AIA, OMICs, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, NASA, USAF Free Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/210553049/Aerospace-Industry-America-s-Future 2 Table of Contents List of Illustrations Introduction The Flying Machine that Changed the World Chapter 1 11 The Beginning & Buildups THE US AEROSPACE INDUSTRY The Early Days THE ACORN DAYS 11 14 16 16 2 6 9 9
From a speech given by Mr. Denham S. Scott to the AIA on March 19, 1968
from: http://www.navworld.com/navhistory/acorndays.htm Reprinted from NAAR (North American Aviation Retirees Bulletin) - Summer 2001 21 The Growing Days 1930-1990 21 An International Industry 26 A Post-Cold War World 28 Chapter 1B HELICOPTERS 30 30 30
"The Helicopter is the most versatile way of getting in and out anywhere in the world HISTORY OF HELICOPTERS 30 The Chinese 30 Leonardo Da Vinci 31 Fifteenth through the Twentieth Centuries 31 Early Twentieth Century 31 World War I Advancements 32 Autogyros are invented 32 Sikorsky's Advancements 33 1950 Advancements 33 The Turbine Engine's Impact 34 1960s & 1970s: The Vietnam War and how the helicopter changed 34 1980s and the Helicopter 35
Early 1990s and the Helicopter Conclusion of Helicopter Evolution Chapter 1C
35 36 37
ROCKET SHIPS
37
"The Rocket ship is the way to get into Space because it carries its complete propellant 37 HISTORY OF ROCKET SHIPS 37 Rocketry Becomes a Science 41 Modern Rocketry Begins Chapter 2 47 42
Changing Times America's defense companies are turning dual-purpose Jul 18th 2002 | from the print edition Downsizing: Merger & Acquisitions A survey of the defense industry: Getting it together? Two-way traffic The Total Quality Management Farce When Government Gave US Away Sidebar: A License to Steal Jobs Pres. Clintons Transferring Technology to China Sanctions and Technology Transfer Policy Change Maybe Coming-but not soon Enough Chapter 3 61 Where We Are Today We're falling behind.
47 47 47 48 48 52 54 55 56 57 57 59
61 61
By Norm Augustine (Ret. Chairman & CEO Lockheed Martin) 61 Americas Lost Leadership 65 Lockheed Martin 66 General Dynamics-old 69 McDonnell Douglas-now Boeing 72 Boeing Aircraft 73 Northrop Grumman 74
Chapter 4 76
The Economic Importance Economic Importance World Economy vs. USA Industry Economic Histories Americas Aerospace Economic Case TRADABLE EMPLOYMENT Economic Value A Comparative Model Aerospace & Defense: Least Understood Industrial Sector By guest author Robert H. Trice Lost: America's Industrial Base Fading Space Industrial Base Americas Lead World Space Program Chapter 5 100 The Future Forecasts The Worlds Growing Competition U.S. faces foreign competition in space Where All the Money Is: Boeings Future Forecast The shape of the market
76 76 76 78 78 79 84 85 85 87 90 91
100 100 100 104 106 106 106
The Boeing US Commercial Aerospace Industry and Defense 2012-2031 http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/cmo/ Airbus Future Forecast Asias Future Forecast Forecast Considerations: Chapter 6 108 Our Future Focus and Plans Wheres our Flying Car? The Super Sonic Cruiser Hypersonic - The Orient Express Space Tourism Space Based Solar Power-Energy Tomorrows new Bomber Tomorrows Spy Plane Educating Tomorrows People 10 Incredible Airplane Designs of the Future In the middle of this century, telecommunications will be so Boeings 797 Concept Conclusion 108 110 111 113 114 115 119 120 123 123 132 133 134 106 106 107 107
References & Contributors: Chapter 1: Beginnings & Buildups
137 137 141
Higham, Charles. Howard Hughes: the Secret Life. New York: Putnam's, 1993 On-Line References: Early Martin Planes. http://www.martinstateairport.com/ 144 145
F-22 Raptor. http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/f22.html 145 McDonnell Douglas History. http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/f22.html Northrop YB-49. U.S. Air Force Museum. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/ The Nurflugel Page. http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/nurflugel.html 146 146 146
Project Bumblebee. http://www.xsouth.freeserve.co.uk/project_bumblebee.htm 147
Industries Economic History: Bibliography Biogtraphy SHAWN PAUL BOIKE
148 148 149 149 157
Notes to Add:
List of Illustrations
Figure 1. Spirit of Exploration ........................................................................................................ 8 Figure 2. George Cayley & described a modern airplane ............................................................. 12 Figure 3. Bernoullis Principle for Wing Airflow ........................................................................ 13 Figure 4. Courtesy of "History of Helicopters ". .......................................................................... 31 Figure 5. Built for US Army Air Force by Georgrij Bothezat (USSR). Courtesy of "History of Helicopters". ................................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 6. Modern Autogyro courtesy of "History of Helicopters". .............................................. 33 Figure 7. One of Sikorsky's earlier models. Courtesy of "History of Helicopters". ..................... 33 Figure 8. Hiller's flying platform courtesy of "History of Helicopters". ...................................... 34 Figure 9. Mc Donnell's helicopter courtesy of History of Helicopters. ........................................ 34 Figure 10. Bell 209 Cobra "Snake" courtesy of "History of Helicopters". ................................... 35 Figure 11. Bell/Boeing 609 courtesy of "History of Helicopters". ............................................... 35 Figure 12. Revolution Helicopter Corp. Mini 500 courtesy of "History of Helicopters". ............ 36 Figure 13. Hero Engine ................................................................................................................. 38 Figure 14. Chinese Fire Arrow ..................................................................................................... 39 Figure 15. Chinese Fire Arrow Launch ........................................................................................ 39 Figure 16. Surface Running Torpedo............................................................................................ 40 Figure 17. Wan-Hu Flying Chair .................................................................................................. 41 Figure 18. Tsiolkovsky Rockets ................................................................................................... 42 Figure 19. Goddards 1926 Rocket ............................................................................................... 43 Figure 20. German V2 Rocket ...................................................................................................... 45 Figure 21. Aerospace & Defense Sales......................................................................................... 48 Figure 22. Defense Industry Consolidation 1993-2007 ................................................................ 50 Figure 23. Aerospace & Defance Stock Trends............................................................................ 51 Figure 24. A View of Earth from the Shuttle................................................................................ 55 Figure 25. Norm Augustine .......................................................................................................... 61 Figure 26. F22 (Fwd) & F15 (Aft) ................................................................................................ 67 Figure 27. F35 JSF in Vertical Flight and Forward Flight ........................................................... 69 Figure 28. A12 Avenger Concept ................................................................................................. 70 Figure 29. A12 Avenger Concept ................................................................................................. 71
Figure 30. Atlas2AS...................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 31. F18 E/F Carrier Landing ............................................................................................. 75 Figure 32. World GDP (past 50 years) ......................................................................................... 77 Figure 33. USA GDP vs. the rest of the World (50 years) ........................................................... 77 Figure 34. Tradable Industry Jobs, 19902008 (Majors)9 ........................................................... 80 Figure 35. Cost Comparison ......................................................................................................... 81 Figure 36. Tradable Industry Jobs 1990-2008 .............................................................................. 82 Figure 37. Aerospace and other Transport Industries (Tradable) ................................................. 83 Figure 38. ISS ............................................................................................................................... 92 Figure 39. Hubble Space Telescope.............................................................................................. 96 Figure 40. Mars Rover .................................................................................................................. 97 Figure 41. Over Cost F35 Comparison ...................................................................................... 105 Figure 42. SVCs Vertical Take-off & Landing Aerocraft ......................................................... 110 Figure 43. Boeing Sonic Cruise vs. Better .................................................................................. 112 Figure 44. Boeing Sonic Cruiser ................................................................................................. 113 Figure 45. Hypersonic Aircraft ................................................................................................... 114 Figure 46. SBSP Concepts .......................................................................................................... 116 Figure 47. Next Generation Bomber ........................................................................................... 119 Figure 48. SR-71 Replacement ................................................................................................... 120 Figure 49. Hypersonic Research and Development .................................................................... 121 Figure 50. SR-72 (November 1, 2013) ....................................................................................... 122 Figure 51. 10) Icon-II Supersonic flight ..................................................................................... 124 Figure 52. 9) Green Supersonic Machine ................................................................................... 125 Figure 53. 8) Blended Wing........................................................................................................ 126 Figure 54. 7) X-45A UCAV ....................................................................................................... 127 Figure 55. 6) Solar Eagle ............................................................................................................ 127 Figure 56. 5) SUGAR ................................................................................................................. 128 Figure 57. 4) Lockheed Martin ................................................................................................... 128 Figure 58. 3) Bigger is Better ..................................................................................................... 129 Figure 59. Northrop Grumman ................................................................................................... 130 Figure 60. The Puffin .................................................................................................................. 130
Figure 61. Airbus Solar Aircraft ................................................................................................. 132 Figure 62. Boeings 797 Concept ............................................................................................... 133 Epigraph Page Global leadership is not a birthright. Despite what many Americans believe , our nation does not possess an innate knack for greatness. Greatness must be worked for and won by each new generation. Right now that is not happening. But we still have time. If we place the emphasis we should on education, research and innovation we can lead the world in the decades to come. But the only way to ensure we remain great tomorrow is to increase our investment in science and engineering today. Norm Augustine (retired chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin)
Figure 1. Spirit of Exploration
The spirit of exploration is truly part of what it is to be human. Human history has been a continual struggle from darkness toward light, a search for knowledge and deeper understanding, a search for truth. Ever since our distant ancestors ventured forth into the world, there has been an insatiable curiosity to see what lies beyond the next hill, what lies beyond the horizon. That is the fire of the human spirit that we all carry. Steve Robinson (STS-114 Mission Specialist)
The desire to fly is an idea handed down to us by our ance stors who looked enviously on the birds soaring freely through space on the infinite highway of the air Wilbur Wright
Introduction
The Flying Machine that Changed the World Its been over a 110 years since powered controlled flight was proven by the Wright Brothers from Dayton Ohio, in Kitty Hawk in North Carolina. We had conquered space flight and put a man on the moon and delivered him home safely over half a century ago. We have commercial aircraft able to travel halfway around the world without refueling. The most significant industry change of the last two decades is in some materials and Northrops flying wing as the Stealth B2 bomber design. America maybe close to losing its leadership and become second place in the World for producing Aircraft in the near future. This loss in standing in the Aerospace Industry is, unfortunately too similar to the Automotive Industry. Its a shame to see the nation's largest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) export base diminishing and losing its edge. This book Aerospace Industry Americas Loss? is an in depth look at the Aerospace Industry, a compilation of facts, figures, events, and some personal accounts in the biggest economic base & technologically influential industry in the world. The economic advantage this industry brings Nations and their work force a better Standard of Living and higher wages. Those who lead in this key industry will lead in GDP. This tradable industry which can be exportable is currently valued at $7 Trillion in 20 years or $4 Trillion in commercial aircraft only. The nations that have grown the most have pursued this from engineering and building automobiles then aerospace and selling them outside of their nation, this creates a higher standard of living. You will see the evolution and buildup of the Aerospace Industry to the fall/demise of Americas Aerospace Industry the largest U.S. GDP creation and the economic impact on this exportable product of trade. We conclude with valuable Future Focus with realistic programs and plans that will generate huge growth and prosperity into the next decades
or century to lead the World both in aviation & space markets along with finding a future energy solution. We have recently seen the retirement of the U.S. Space Shuttles after its final mission to the International Space Station. Now, the U.S. is regressing in technology 50+ years and use rockets with a capsule. Russian expendable Launch Vehicles (ELV) at a higher price than our Space Shuttle, just to get the U.S. back to the International Space Station. So we should ask: Where is the Space Shuttles replacement? Or, what about the C-17 replacement? And the (super) Sonic Cruiser? What happened to the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) Hypersonic aircraft (mach25) also known as the Orient Express LA to Tokyo in 2 hours? Why is it we are still flying slowly commercially? Where is our flying car? What about that jet pack which looks kind-of unsafe, especially to those grown-ups that ride a bicycle with a helmet? We technically have overcome the sonic boom with a sonic burp by intelligent design. So, why does our own NASA have plans only go Mach 5 (like SR-71 5o years ago) as a prototype out to 2020 because, thats all weve allowed ourselves to progress in the last 20 plus years? Boeing had great plans to build the Sonic Cruiser until they changed course and put all their eggs in the basket to produce the 787 (even slipping delivery date-seven times) almost twenty five years after they helped build the composite wings of the B2 Bomber. Much of this may have to do with Economics from the foreign suppliers investing to become a partner in manufacturing prior to its market existence. With an optimistic belief the next generation can learn from past mistakes and understand the future doesnt have to be like the past and demanding to make the Future better - similar to our Race to Space and the moon. In this pursuit ones destiny is limitless. Shawn Paul Boike
10
Chapter 1
The Beginning & Buildups It is my belief that flight is possible and, while I am taking up investigation for pleasure rather than profit, I think there is a slight possibility of achieving fame and fortune from it. Wilbur Wright Sept. 3, 1900
What do you think about the beginning of the Aircraft & Aerospace Industry, most people think about the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina? This is where Orville Wright made the first flight for 12 seconds and 120 feet at Kill Devil Hills near Kitty Hawk, NC at 10:35 a.m. on December 17, 1903. In fact over 1000 BC the Chinese had sent men aloft tethered to kites to provide surveillance at war time. I was at an American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics (AIAA) meeting in early 1992 Seattle Washington to Listen to Phil Condit VP of the 777 my new Bosses Boss and accidently or fortunately sat at a table with him his wife & Alan Mulally. His speech was terrific it was all about the evolution of flight and even before Wright Brothers. His speech was very similar to what was written in a book on the Centennial celebration of the Wright Brothers which I heard the Author speak at the Dearborn Library in Michigan almost a decade after Phils speech. The history of Aircraft (excluding balloons & rockets) starts with of course Leonardo Divincis sketches and flight studies and plans for a glider, this inspired Heserfin Ahmed Salevy to build a glider to glide down from a 183 foot tower in Istanbul in 1638. English baronet named Sir George Cayley whose contribution was the 1799 definition of an airplane as a machine with fixed wings, a fuselage and a tail which has separate systems to provide lift, propulsion and control. Cayley had successfully built and flew his successful model glider in 1804.
11
Figure 2. George Cayley & described a modern airplane
He later made two other gliders with a pilot which made brief glides for his efforts he was often referred to as the Father of Aerial Navigation. A French electrical engineer named Clement Ader which attempted to fly a light weight steam powered - bat like craft called the Eoles. His added value in flight evolution was the need for propulsion. Ader made a piloted uncontrolled hop of 165 feet and altitude of only eight inches with the airplane. The Eole was devoid of all the other elements necessary for a practical flying machine and contributed little to the eventual achievement of human mechanical flight. Another contributor to human controlled flight prior to the Wrights was an American living in England Sir Hiram Maxim famous for the invention of the machine gun. Following in a similar path to Ader and noted in 1892 Without doubt the motor is the chief thing to be considered. Scientists have long said, give us a motor and we will very soon give you a successful flying machine. Maxim built a four ton biplane fitted to a test track & guardrails where in July 31, 1894 his rough aircraft travelled 600 feet at 42 miles per hour and rose over the guard rails and crashed. His contribution much like Ader was that a powerful light weight engine for propulsion could lift an aircraft. The most noted contributor prior to the Wright brothers was a German engineer named Otto Lilienthal with his experimentation with gliders. He began aeronautical research from the 1860s
12
to 1896 and produced the most complete, accurate body of Aerodynamics that showed beyond doubt that a curved wing profile produced optimum lift. Thus incorporating Bernoulli's principle works on the idea that as a wing passes through the air, its shape make the air travel more over the top of the wing than beneath it-thus creating lift. This creates a higher pressure are beneath the wing than above it. The pressure difference cause the wing to push upwards and lift is created. Bernoulli's principle works on the idea that as a wing passes through the air the shape make the air travel more over the top of the wing than beneath it. This creates a higher pressure are beneath the wing than above it. The pressure difference cause the wing to push upwards and lift is created.
Figure 3. Bernoullis Principle for Wing Airflow
Otto Lilienthal had produced 16 different glider designs from 1891-1896 with calculated wing area and controlled them by shifting his body weight right to left (starboard to port) thus altering his center of gravity. Also moving his body and fore and aft to maintain equilibrium. Lilienthals fame came after he had made the Boston news as Here was a flying machine, not constructed by a crankbut by an engineer of abilityA machine not made to look at, but to fly with. His experiments came to an end in August 9th 1896 where while soaring, a gust of wind put the glider nose up and into wasteland crashed down 50 feet breaking his spine where he died the next day in a Berlin hospital. The Wright Brothers first performed a literature search to find out the state of aeronautical knowledge at their time. They wrote to the Smithsonian and obtained technical
13
papers regarding aerodynamics. They read about the works of Cayley, and Langley, and the hang-gliding flights of Otto Lilienthal. They corresponded with Octave Chanute (a French-born American railway engineer and aviation pioneer) concerning some of their ideas. They studied the problems which had been encountered by previous flyers and they talked about possible solutions to the problems. They looked for answers to the problems of flight by observing large gliding birds. They decided that control of the flying aircraft would be the most crucial and hardest problem to solve and they had some ideas for solving that problem. The Wright Brothers were kite enthusiasts and they used the kite flights in the same way that modern engineers use wind tunnels and flight testing to try out their ideas concerning flight control. Kitty Hawk, North Carolina was chosen for their early flight experiments because its consistent high winds off the ocean are perfect for kite flying. The brothers correctly reasoned that a free flying object had to be controlled about all three primary axes; roll, pitch, and yaw. Their aircraft were built with movable surfaces on the wing, elevator, and rudder. Control of the surface shape was in the hands of the pilot. They extensively tested these ideas by glider flights of the aircraft. (NASA http://wright.nasa.gov/overview.htm) The Wright Brothers took all they could learn from those before them and added their inventiveness to create the fully controllable manned machine powered flight. This included inventing and designing the propeller system for propulsion, a wind tunnel and many plans and techniques we take for granted today. That time in history was a battle for first powered manned controlled flight was in competition with Samuel Pierpont Langley and Glenn Curtiss. We all know the winners were those Dayton men in 1903 where the US Air Force base and museum now stands.
THE US AEROSPACE INDUSTRY The Early Days Curtiss Aeroplane Company turned out such good planes that the Wright designs could not compete Before there was an aviation industry, there were inventors who built their own airplanes. Wilbur and Orville Wright, of Dayton, Ohio, made the first successful flights in 1903 and had a wellcontrolled aircraft two years later. They set up the Wright Company in 1909, which started by
14
building airplanes but soon lost out in a bitter rivalry with another plane builder, Glenn Curtiss of Hammondsport, New York. The Wrights claimed that Curtiss was stealing their inventions and sued in federal court. But Curtiss had shrewd lawyers who kept the suits from causing damage, and went on building airplanes. His own firm of Curtiss Aeroplane Company turned out such good planes that the Wright designs could not compete. The company eventually changed its name to Wright Aeronautical Company and turned to building aircraft engines. The Wright and Curtiss companies both were in business before the outbreak of World War I, in 1914. A California plane builder, Glenn L. Martin, established a firm called, logically, the Glenn L. Martin Company. These outfits all did plenty of business during that war. But after it ended, in 1918, they faced the question of what to do next. Most of the numerous planes built in the United States during the war were of British design. Following that conflict, there was little demand for new aircraft, for there was plenty of war surplus planes and engines. Still, there were opportunities. Curtiss had built the wartime JN-4 trainer, the famous Jenny. It still was beloved by pilots during the 1920s. A flight school might charge $500 for lessons, and then throw in a Jenny as a graduation present. Martin built some of the earliest bombers--one sank a captured German battleship in a 1921 exercise. This made it clear that bombers had a future. Other plane builders also went into business: Donald Douglas, William Boeing, and Alan Loughead, who pronounced his name "Lockheed." To avoid mispronunciations such as Loghead or Loafhead, his company used that spelling as well. All three found good prospects. Donald Douglas got started by working with a wealthy enthusiast who wanted a plane that could cross the country nonstop. By building it, Douglas gained experience that allowed him to develop a long-range Army plane, the World Cruiser. Two World Cruisers flew around the world in 1924 in a succession of short hops. Airmail held promise for it earned federal subsidies for mail carriers that made it easy to turn a profit. A few brave travelers also began buying airplane tickets. Boeing gained an important success in 1926 with a single-engine plane that was well suited for carrying mail and passengers over the Rocky Mountains. Lockheed won its own advantage during that same year. The company's engineers included the talented Jack Northrop, who later founded his own plane-
15
building firm. He crafted the Vega, which set speed and altitude records and became popular as an airliner.
THE ACORN DAYS From a speech given by Mr. Denham S. Scott to the AIA on March 19, 1968 This technological explosion had some very humble and human beginnings. The Acorns took root in some strange places: a church, a cannery, a barbershop, but from them mighty Oaks have indeed come to fruition. How many of you know that in 1910 the mighty Martin Marietta Company got its start in an abandoned church in Santa Ana, CA? That's where the late Glenn L. Martin with his mother Minta Martin and a mechanic named Roy Beal, built a fragile contraption with which Glenn taught himself to fly.
It has often been told how the Douglas Company started operations in 1920 by renting the rear of a barbershop on Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles. The barbershop is still there. The Lockheed Company built its first Vega in 1927 in what are now the Victory Cleaners and Dryers at 1040 Sycamore Avenue in Hollywood. Claude Ryan, who at 24 held a reserve commission as a flyer, had his hair cut in San Diego one day in 1922. The barber told him how the town aviator was in jail for smuggling Chinese across the border. Claude investigated and stayed on in San Diego to rent the old airfield from the city at fifty dollars a month and replace the guy in the pokey. He agreed to fly North instead of South.
In 1928, the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company, Transcontinental Air Transport (now TWA) and the Douglas Company chipped in enough money to start North American Aviation, a holding company. The present company bearing the Northrop name came into being in a small hotel in Hawthorne. The hotel was conveniently vacant and available because the police had raided it and found that steady residents were a passel of money-minded gals who entertained transitory male guests.
After Glenn Martin built his airplane in the church, he moved to a vacant apricot cannery in Santa Ana and built two more. In 1912 he moved to 9th and Los Angeles Streets in downtown
16
Los Angeles. Glenn Martin was then running a three-ring-circus. Foremost, he was a showman who traveled the circuit of county fairs and air meets as an exhibitionist aviator; secondly, he was an airplane manufacturer. He met his payroll and bought his lumber, linen and bailing wire from the proceeds of his precision exhibition flying. His mother, Minta and two men ran the factory when Glenn was risking his neck and gadding about the country. One of these was 22year old Donald Douglas who was the whole of his engineering department and the other was a Santa Monica boy named Larry Bell who ran the shop.
The third circus ring was a flying school. It had a land plane operation in Griffith Park and later at Bennetts Farm in Inglewood, and a hydroplane operation at a place that's now part of the Watts District. A stunt flyer named Floyd Smith ran it. One of his first pupils was Eric Springer, who later became an instructor and then Martin's test pilot, still later the test pilot for the early Douglas Company, and then a Division Manager.
Between Eric and Floyd, they taught a rich young man named Bill Boeing to fly. Having mastered the art; Boeing bought a Martin biplane, hired Ross Stem, Glenn's personal mechanic, and shipped the airplane to Seattle. Later, when it crashed into the lake and Boeing set about to repair it, he ordered some spare parts from Martin in Los Angeles.
Martin, remembering the proselytizing incident with Ross Stem, decided to take his sweet time and let Boeing stew. Bill Boeing said, To Hell with him, and told Ross Stern to get busy and build one of their own. Boeing had a friend named Westerfelt and they decided to form a company and build two airplanes. These two BW airplanes bore a remarkable resemblance to the Martin airplane which, in turn, had been copied from Glenn Curtiss. There seems to be a moral about customer relations and product support mixed up in this episode.
During WWI, a bunch of sharpies from Wall Street in New York got control of the Wright Company in Dayton and the Martin Company in Los Angeles. They merged the two companies into the Wright-Martin Company. They sent a young man named Chance Vought to be their Chief Engineer. Donald Douglas lost no time in quitting and went to work for the U.S. Signal Corp.
The Wright-Martin Company started building obsolete Standard biplanes and Hispano-Suiza
17
engines, with the latter under a license agreement with the French Government. Martin told them what they could do with them, and took off for Cleveland, taking Larry Bell and Eric Springer with him. Having the backing of a baseball mogul to build a new factory, he was soon joined by Donald Douglas who went to work and came up with the design of the Martin Bomber. It came out too late to see service in WWI, but showed its superiority when General Billy Mitchell made everyone mad at him by sinking the captured German battle fleet. The deathblow to the allegedly Dreadnaught Osfriesland was delivered by the Douglas designed Martin Bomber.
At Cleveland, a young fellow called Dutch Kindelberger joined the Martin Company as an engineer. Also a veteran Army pilot from WWI named Carl Squier became Sales Manager. His name was to become one of the most venerable names in Lockheed history. Back in 1920, Donald Douglas had saved $60,000 and struck out on his own. He returned to Los Angeles, found a backer, David Davis, rented the rear of a barbershop and some space in the loft of a carpenter's shop where they built a passenger airplane called The Cloudster.
Claude Ryan bought this a couple years later, and made daily flights between San Diego and Los Angeles with it. This gives Ryan the distinction of being the owner and operator of the first Douglas Commercial Transport, and certainly a claim to be among the original airline passenger operators.
In 1922, Donald Douglas was awarded a contract to build three torpedo planes for the U.S. Navy; Douglas lived in Santa Monica, but worked in Los Angeles. Way out in the wilderness at what is now 25th Street and Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica, there was an abandoned barnlike movie studio. One day Douglas stopped his roadster and prowled around to investigate. The studio became the first real home of the Douglas Aircraft Company.
With the $120,000 Navy contract, Donald Douglas needed and could afford one or two engineers. He hired my brother Gordon Scott newly over from serving an apprenticeship to the Martinside and the Fairey Aviation Companies in England. Gordon was well schooled in the little known science of Aviation by 1923.
My first association with some of the early pioneers occurred when I visited my brother Gordon at the barn at 25th Street. I found him outside on a ladder washing windows. They were dirty and
18
he was the youngest engineer. There were no janitorial services at the Douglas Company in those days.
Gordon introduced me to Art Mankey, his boss and Chief Draftsman, and four of his fellow engineers. There was a towhead guy called Jack Northrop, a chap named Jerry Vultee, and a fellow named Dick Von Hake who was a reserve Army flyer. Jack Northrop came from Santa Barbara where he had worked during WWI for the Lockheed Aircraft Manufacturing Company. The fourth member of the Engineering Group was Ed Heinemann*. They were all working on the design of the Douglas World Cruisers. Shortly afterwards, Jack Northrop left the Douglas Company in 1926. Working at home, he designed a wonderfully advanced streamlined airplane. He tied back with Allan Loughead who found a rich man, F.E. Keeler, willing to finance a new Lockheed Aircraft Company. They rented a small shop in Hollywood and built the Northrop designed Lockheed Vega. It was sensational with its clean lines and high performance.
In May 1927, Lindberg flew to Paris and triggered a bedlam where everyone was trying to fly everywhere. Before the first Vega was built, William Randolph Hearst, publisher of the Hearst newspaper chain, bought it and entered it in the Dole Race from the Mainland to Honolulu, which was scheduled for 12 August 1927.
In June 1927, my brother Gordon left the Douglas Company to become Jack Northrop's assistant at Lockheed. He also managed to get himself hired as the navigator on the Golden Eagle, the name chosen by Mr. Hearst for the Vega which hopefully would be the first airplane to span the Pacific. The race was a disaster! Ten lives were lost. The Golden Eagle and its crew, including my brother, vanished off the face of the earth.
With its only airplane lost under mysterious circumstances, a black cloud hung heavily over the little shop in Hollywood. However, Captain George H. Wilkins, later to become Sir Hubert Wilkins, took the Number Two airplane and made a successful polar flight from Nome, Alaska to Spitsbergen, Norway. After that a string of successful flights were to put the name of Lockheed very much in the forefront of aviation.
At Lockheed, Jack Northrop replaced the lost Gordon Scott with Jerry Vultee.
19
In 1928, Jack quit the Lockheed Company to start a new company in Glendale called Avion. Jerry Vultee then moved up to become Chief Engineer at Lock heed. He hired Dick van Hake from the Douglas Company to be his assistant. A young man named Cliff Garrett joined the Lockheed Company as the driver of their pick-up truck.
I went to work at Lockheed shortly after the Golden Eagle was lost. I became the 26th Lockheed employee. The Vegas were made almost entirely of wood and I became a half-assed carpenter, generally known as a wood butcher.
In 1929, Jerry Vultee quit the Lockheed Company to start the Airplane Development Company, which became the Vultee Aircraft Company, a division of E.L. Cord, the automobile manufacturer. He later merged with Reuben Fleets Consolidated Aircraft Company to become Convair. When Vultee left Lockheed, Dick van Hake became the Chief Engineer.
In the meantime, Glenn Martin closed his Cleveland plant and moved to Baltimore. His production man, Larry Bell, moved to Buffalo to found the Bell Aircraft Company. Carl Squier left Martin to tie in with the Detroit Aircraft Company which had acquired the Lockheed Aircraft Company and seven others. They hoped to become the General Motors of the aircraft business! They appointed Carl Squier as General Manager of the Lockheed plant, which moved to Burbank in 1928. (A lot of P-38s were made at that Burbank plant - added by L. Cruse Nov. 2007)
At this time, General Motors had acquired North American Aviation, which consisted of several aircraft companies in the East. Ernie Breech, formerly with Bendix but now with General Motors, hired Dutch Kindelberger away from Douglas to head up the aircraft manufacturing units. Dutch took Lee Atwood and Stan Smithson with him. The companies involved were Fokker Aircraft, Pitcairn Aviation (later Eastern Airlines), Sperry Gyroscope and Berliner-Joyce. Kindelberger merged Fokker and Berliner-Joyce into a single company and moved the entire operation to Inglewood, California. (Kindelberger and others at the North American Los Angeles plant designed the P-51 Mustang that helped win WWII - added by L. Cruse Nov. 2007)
Thus, a handful of young men played roles which profoundly affected all of our lives and the
20
lives of millions of other Americans. They changed Southern California from a wasteland with a few orange groves, apricot and avocado orchards and the celluloid industry of Hollywood to a highly sophisticated industrial complex with millions of prosperous inhabitants. This technological explosion had some very humble and human beginnings. The Acorns took root in some strange places: a church, a cannery, a barbershop, but from them mighty Oaks have indeed come to fruition. (Essentially all of those Aircraft Plants are now GONE from Southern California - added by L. Cruse Nov. 2007) from: http://www.navworld.com/navhistory/acorndays.htm Reprinted from NAAR (North American Aviation Retirees Bulletin) - Summer 2001
The Growing Days 1930-1990 Airliners, indeed, became mainstays of the industry during the 1930s. The Army and Navy bought few airplanes during that decade, but people were beginning to fly. Boeing brought out the 247, a fine twin-engine job that carried ten passengers where the Vega had room for only six. But it wasn't fine enough; it lost out in competition with the Douglas DC-2, which carried fourteen. An enlarged version, the DC-3, had twenty-one seats. Entering service in 1936, it had the range to fly nonstop from New York to Chicago. Within a few years, it swept most of its rivals from the skies. There were some military orders, even if they were not large. Martin built a good twin-engine bomber, the B-10. Boeing, licking its wounds after losing with its 247, found new business by crafting a much better bomber: the B-17. It had four engines, which gave it greater speed and allowed it to carry more gasoline for longer range. It first flew during 1935 in tests for the Army. The first of the B-17s crashed, and the company might have crashed with it. But Army officials liked it, and ordered a few. This gave Boeing a leg up on building bombers for use in World War II. That war brought an enormous surge of business to the aircraft industry. Several companies built the important warplanes of the era: Boeing: B-17, B-29 bombers Convair: B-24 bomber
21
Lockheed: P-38 fighter Curtiss: P-40 fighter, C-46 transport Douglas: C-47, C-54 transports North American: P-51 fighter Republic: P-47 fighter Fleets of B-17s and B-24s, escorted by P-47, and P-51 fighters, destroyed many of Nazi Germany's factories and railroads. B-29s carried firebombs that burned Japan's cities to the ground. The C-46 carried supplies to China, helping that nation fight Japan and tying down a million Japanese soldiers who were fighting the Chinese. The C-47, a military version of the DC3, carried troops as well as cargo. Over ten thousand of them entered service. General Dwight Eisenhower, the top U.S. commander, counted it as one of the items that did the most to win the war. The end of the war brought a swift collapse of the aviation industry. According to Boeing historian Harold Mansfield, company officials learned of a sudden cancellation of army orders and rushed to shut down the plant before the next shift of workers came in at four p.m. At North American, employment dropped from 100,000 to 6,500 in only two months. As had been true after World War I, following World War II the nation again was awash in used aircraft that were available cheaply. A C-47 could be had for $25,000, payable at $4,000 per year, and could easily convert into a DC-3. For airlines, the DC-3 remained popular. Most air routes were short and carried relatively few passengers on each flight, and the DC-3 served such connections quite effectively. However, after the war there also were coast-to-coast routes along with connections that crossed the Atlantic. For these, only new four-engine aircraft would do. Two became popular: the Lockheed Constellation and the Douglas DC-6 (along with a later and faster version, the DC-7). Their builders competed for advantage by offering improvements. The rivalry between Lockheed and Douglas defined progress in commercial aviation until the coming of the jets. The first jets were military. Lockheed, Republic, and North American built the first jet fighters: the P-80, F-84, and F-86. The F-86 was the best of them, shooting down Russian-built fighters and ruling the skies during the Korean War of 1950-1953.
22
Missiles and jet bombers also drew attention. North American made a strong and early commitment to develop a missile of intercontinental range, the Navaho. This project needed rocket engines, guidance systems, and advanced designs that called for close understanding of supersonic flight. At the outset, in 1945, the pertinent fields of engineering simply did not exist. No matter, North American brought in good scientists and developed the necessary know-how on its own. Boeing showed similar leadership with jet bombers. The company used scientific data from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, supplementing it with data from its own wind tunnel, a research facility that helped to determine the best shapes for aircraft flying close to the speed of sound. This allowed the company to develop the earliest important jet bomber, the B47. It first flew in 1947, with the Air Force purchasing over two thousand of them as it remained in production from 1948 to 1956. The B-47 introduced the shape of things to come, for it had swept wings, jet engines mounted in pods below the wings, a swept tail, and a slender fuselage. During the 1950s, these design features also appeared in the first successful jet airliners: the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8. Boeing and Douglas competed vigorously to sell these planes. The way to win an order was by offering a custom version of a basic design, a modification that would serve an airline's specific needs. These could include a shorter fuselage, a larger wing for long range, or more powerful engines. Such modifications were costly, and Boeing proved to have the deeper pockets, for it was selling planes to the Air Force in large numbers. Boeing paid for and built new airliner versions that Douglas could not afford, thus winning an important advantage. The 707 entered service in 1958, the DC-8 in 1959. Both aircraft had four engines and could fly nonstop across the Atlantic as well as from coast to coast. In addition, there also was great interest in a jetliner of shorter range, which could serve more routes. Boeing brought out its 727and went on to sell more than 1,800 of them. But Douglas stayed in the game as well, with its twinjet DC-9 that served routes that were shorter still. Many of these connections were only a few hundred miles in length, but they were highly popular because they spared the need to drive a car over that distance. The Navy and Air Force had their own requirements. Convair built the B-36, which had six and later ten engines. Boeing countered with the B-52, which mounted eight jet engines. It became the main bomber of the Air Force's Strategic Air Command. In addition, the decade of the 1950s
23
brought a host of fighter aircraft. Almost every company in the industry built some, including Douglas, Grumman, Lockheed, McDonnell, North American, Northrop, Republic, and Vought. Missiles and space flight brought new opportunities. In 1954, the Air Force launched a major push toward rockets of intercontinental range, able to carry a hydrogen bomb to Moscow. These included the Atlas from Convair and the Titan, built by Martin. Douglas helped as well with the Thor, based in England, which had less range but was available sooner. These missiles evolved into launch vehicles for the space program. Within that program, the civilian National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) came to the forefront. During the 1960s it sponsored the Apollo program, which landed astronauts on the moon. Again there were a number of participants, including Douglas, Grumman, McDonnell, and Boeing. North American did the most, drawing on its experience with the Navaho. This company built rocket engines, a major rocket stage, as well as the spacecraft that carried Apollo's astronauts. It went on to build the Space Shuttle, including its main engines. During the drawdown at the conclusion of the Vietnam war, in the early 1970s, Boeing, Lockheed, and Douglas (which had merged with McDonnell) all fell into serious economic trouble. For Boeing, the source of difficulty was the enormous new 747 airliner. The company went deeply into debt to fund its development and initial production. But it couldn't deliver the early models, because their engines were not ready. Then the nation went into a recession, and orders dried up. Boeing came close to going bankrupt, but survived by selling improved versions of earlier jets, including the 707 and 727. The 747 was too large for most routes, which opened up an opportunity for an airliner of slightly smaller size. Lockheed came in with its L-1011, while McDonnell Douglas offered its DC-10. This was a mistake; there was room for one such airliner, but not both. However, neither company would back down, and both lost a great deal of money because they could not sell enough planes. Lockheed stopped building airliners altogether and became purely a military plane builder. McDonnell Douglas stayed in the commercial world. But it now was financially weak, and lacked the funds to develop anything more than variations of its DC-9 and DC-10. This raised the prospect that Boeing would reign over the airlines, holding a near monopoly. Airline executives chaffed at this possibility, for they enjoyed the competition and the lower
24
prices by multiple plane-building companies bid against each other. But during the late 1970s, European plane builders came to their rescue. France and Great Britain had a strong aviation industry; they had built the Concorde, the world's only supersonic airliner. Now these countries combined with West Germany to create Airbus Industrie. During the 1980s, it competed vigorously with Boeing, winning a large number of orders. While airliner sales remained very strong, military demand fell off sharply with the end of the Cold War, in 1991. During earlier periods of demobilization, the Pentagon had helped keep its planebuilders in business with a number of small orders spread out over the range of major manufacturers. However, fighters and bombers now were quite costly, and the Pentagon could afford only a limited number of such programs. Officials of the Defense Department responded by facilitating a series of mergers, to consolidate the industry within a small number of companies that would have enough business to remain strong. Boeing, holding great power due to its success in selling airliners, bought out McDonnell Douglas and Rockwell International. Lockheed merged with Convair and with Martin Marietta, forming the firm of Lockheed Martin. A similar merger created the firm of Northrop Grumman. Today, these three U.S. companies dominate the American market for commercial airliners, military aircraft, and launch vehicles for space flight. During the 1980s, it competed vigorously with Boeing, winning a large number of orders. While airliner sales remained very strong, military demand fell off sharply with the end of the Cold War, in 1991. During earlier periods of demobilization, the Pentagon had helped keep its planebuilders in business with a number of small orders spread out over the range of major manufacturers. However, fighters and bombers now were quite costly, and the Pentagon could afford only a limited number of such programs. Officials of the Defense Department responded by facilitating a series of mergers, to consolidate the industry within a small number of companies that would have enough business to remain strong. Boeing, holding great power due to its success in selling airliners, bought out McDonnell Douglas and Rockwell International. Lockheed merged with Convair and with Martin Marietta, forming the firm of Lockheed Martin. A similar merger created the firm of Northrop Grumman. Today, these three U.S. companies dominate the American market for commercial airliners, military aircraft, and launch vehicles for space flight.
25
An International Industry International politics has always played a role in aviation. Aircraft in flight easily transcended national borders, so governments jointly developed navigation systems and airspace protocols. Spacecraft overflew national borders within seconds so nations set up international bodies to allocate portions of near-earth space. INTELSAT, an international consortium modeled on COMSAT (the American consortium that governed operations of commercial satellites) standardized the operation of geosynchronous satellites to start the commercialization of space. Those who dreamed of space colonization also dreamed it might be free of earthly politics. Internationalization more clearly reshaped aerospace by helping firms from other countries find the economies of scale they needed to forge a place in an industry so clearly dominated by American firms. Only the Soviet Union challenged the American aerospace industry. In some areas, like heavy lifting rockets and space medicine, the Soviets outpaced the Americans. But the Soviets and Americans fought solely in the realm of perceptions of military might, not on any military or economic battleground. The Soviets also sold military aircraft and civil transports but, with few exceptions, an airline bought either Soviet or American aircraft because of alliance politics rather than efficiencies in the marketplace. Even in civil aircraft, the Soviet Union invested far more than their returns. In 1991, when the Soviet Union fractured into smaller states and the subsidies disappeared, the once mighty Soviet aerospace firms were reduced to paupers. European firms then stood as more serious competitors, largely because they had developed a global understanding of the industry. Following World War II, the European aircraft industry was in shards. Germany, Italy, and Japan were prohibited from making any aircraft of significance. French and British firms remained strong and innovative, though these firms sold mostly to their nation's militaries and airlines. Neither could buy as many aircraft as their American counterparts, and European firms could not sufficiently amortize their engineering costs. During the 1960s, European governments allowed aircraft and missile firms to fail or consolidate into clear "national champions:" British Aircraft Corporation, Hawker Siddely Aviation, and Rolls-Royce in Britain; Aerospatiale, Dassault, SNECMA and Matra in France; Messerschmit-Blkow-Blohm and VFW in Germany; and CASA in Spain. Then governments asked their national champions to join transnational
26
consortia intent on building specific types of aircraft -- like the PANAVIA Tornado fighter, the launch vehicles and satellites of the European Space Agency or, most successfully, the Airbus airliners. The matrix of many national firms participating variously in many transnational projects meant that the European industry operated neither as monopoly nor monopsony. Meanwhile international travel grew rapidly, and airlines became some of the world's largest employers. By the late 1950s, the major airlines had transitioned to Boeing or Douglas-built jet airliners -- which carried twice as many passengers at twice the speed in greater comfort. Between 1960 and 1974 passenger volume on international flights grew six fold. The Boeing 747, a jumbo jet with 360 seats, took international air travel to a new level of excitement when introduced in January 1970. Each nation had at least one airline, and each airline had slightly different requirements for the aircraft they used. Boeing and McDonnell Douglas pioneered new methods of mass customization to build aircraft to these specifications. The Airbus A300 first flew in September 1972, and European governments continued to subsidize the Airbus Industrie consortium as it struggled for customers. In the 1980s, air travel again enjoyed a growth spurt that Boeing and Douglas could not immediately satisfy, and Airbus found its market. By the 1990s, the Airbus consortium had built a contractor network with tentacles around the world, had developed a family of successful airliners, and split the market with American producers. Aerospace extends beyond the most industrialized nations. Walt Rostow in his widely read book on economic development used aviation imagery to suggest a trajectory of industrial growth. The imagery was not lost on newly industrializing countries like Brazil, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore or Indonesia. They too entered the industry, opportunistically, by setting up depots to maintain the aircraft they bought abroad. Then, they took subcontracts from American and European firms to learn how to manage their own projects to high standards. Nations at war -- in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia -- proved ready customers for these simple and inexpensive aircraft. Missiles, likewise, if derived from proven designs, were generally easy and cheap to produce. By 1971, fourteen nations could build short-range and air-defense missiles. By the 1990s more than thirty nations had some capacity to manufacture complete aircraft. Some made only small, general-purpose aircraft -- which represent a tiny fraction of the total dollar value of the industry but proved immensely important to a military and communication needs of developing states. The leaders of almost every nation have seen aircraft as a leading sector -- one that creates spin offs and sets the pace of technological advance in an entire economy.
27
A Post-Cold War World When the Cold War ended, the aerospace industry changed dramatically. After the record run up in the federal deficit during the 1980s, by 1992 the United States Congress demanded a peace dividend and slashed funding for defense procurement. By 1994, the demand for civil airliners also underwent a cyclical downturn. Aerospace-dependent regions -- notably Los Angeles and Seattle -- suffered recession then rebuilt their economies around different industries. Aerospace employed 1.3 million Americans in 1989 or 8.8 percent of everyone working in manufacturing; by 1995 aerospace employed only 796,000 people or 4.3 percent of everyone working in a manufacturing industry. As it had for decades, in 1985 aerospace employed about one-fifth of all American scientists and engineers engaged in research and development; by 1999 it employed only seven percent. Rather than diversify or shed capacity haphazardly, aerospace firms focused. They divested or merged feverishly in 1995 and 1996, hoping to find the best consolidation partners before the federal government feared that competition would suffer. GE sold its aerospace division to Martin Marietta, which then sold itself to Lockheed. Boeing bought the aerospace units of Rockwell International, and then acquired McDonnell Douglas. Northrop bought Grumman. Lockheed Martin and Boeing both ended up with about ten percent of all government aerospace contracts, though joint ventures and teaming remained significant. The concentration in the American industry made it look like European industry, except that in the margins new venturebacked firms sprang up to develop new hybrid aircraft. Funding for space vehicles held fairly steady as new firms found new uses for satellites in communications, defense, and remote sensing of the earth. NASA reconfigured its relations with industry around the mantra of "faster, better, and cheaper," especially in the creation of reusable launch vehicles. Throughout the Cold War, total sales by aerospace firms has divided one-half aircraft, with that amount split fairly evenly between military and civil, one quarter space vehicles, one-tenth missiles, and the rest ground support equipment. When spending for aerospace recovered in the late 1990s, there was the first significant shift toward sales of civil aircraft. After a century of development, there are strong signs that the aircraft and space industries are finally breaking free of their military vassalage. There are also strong signs that the industry is becoming global -trans-Atlantic mergers, increasing standardization of parts and operations, aerospace imports and exports rising in lockstep. More likely, as it has been for a century, aerospace will remain intimately tied to the nation state.
28
29
Chapter 1B
HELICOPTERS "The Helicopter is the most versatile way of getting in and out anywhere in the world HISTORY OF HELICOPTERS By: Katie Kimmet and Amanda Nash The vertical flight of the helicopter is an advantage to the world because, it allows flight and landings without runways almost anywhere in the world Introduction to Helicopters The development of the helicopter, perhaps one of man's most complex flying machines, is an example of the effects of technological revolution (Sadler 1). The helicopter began as a basic principle of rotary-wing aviation and evolved into something much greater as human ingenuity and technology in America and elsewhere contributed to its development. The precision of parts due to the Industrial Revolution enabled the helicopter to evolve into the modern machines we see flying today. The need of accurate machinery and fixtures was evident when the earliest helicopter models lacked the efficiency and flying capability of modern helicopters. Early Concepts of the Helicopter The Chinese The first concept of rotary-wing aviation came from the Chinese in the Fourth Century A.D. (Fay 125-126). A book called "Pao Phu Tau" tells of the "Master" describing flying cars (fei chhe) with wood from the inner part of the jujube tree with ox-leather straps fastened to returning blades as to set the machine in motion (huan chien i yih chhi chi) (Fay 125-126). "Joseph Needham, the author of Science and Civilization, also suggests that although this was no more than a design for a toy, it is indeed the first recorded pattern of what we might understand as a helicopter" (Sadler 1). The concept of rotary-wing aviation had unquestionably been found, but the technology needed to create a helicopter had not been produced.
30
Figure 4.
Courtesy of "History of Helicopters ". Leonardo Da Vinci Da Vinci's vaunted spiral design created in 1490, called the Helical Air Screw, has often been cited as the first serious attempt to produce a working helicopter (Sadler 1). Da Vinci himself quoted on the device: "...I have discovered that a screw-shaped device such as this, if it is well made from starched linen, will rise in the air if turned quickly..." (History of Helicopters 1). However, this was only an experimental design and was never put into practical use. "Da Vinci was in this instance no more than an experimental engineer, putting onto paper age-old principles" (Sadler 1). Without adequate technology the ability to create such machines was virtually impossible during this time. Fifteenth through the Twentieth Centuries A wide amount of minor inventions contributed to the advancement of the helicopter. Between the Fifteenth and Twentieth Centuries, adequate machinery needed to produce helicopters, like turbine engines and rotors, was not yet made possible by assembly lines, but as the Industrial Revolution prompted factories and technology accelerated, the helicopter evolved. One of the first breakthroughs in helicopter advancement was by George Cayley who produced a convertplane in 1843 (Sadler 1). A man named Bourne flew the helicopter-like aircraft a year later. This model was apparently powered by spring-like contraptions inside (Fay 127). All helicopter models at this time lacked suitable power to achieve flight and were both bulky and heavy. Early Twentieth Century The early Twentieth Century produced many historic moments in rotary-wing aviation. Brothers Louis and Jacques Breget rose some two inches off the ground in their helicopter model on August 24, 1907 (Sadler 2). A Frenchman named Paul Cornu also achieved free flight in his model in 1907 (Fay 132). The flight lasted only twenty seconds and acquired an altitude of thirty centimeters but was still a landmark development in helicopter evolution. The start of the Industrial Revolution had created a way for technology to advance.
31
World War I Advancements Military Interest in the helicopter during World War I contributed to its advancement also. The first recorded example of this involved the Germans Von Karman and Petrosczy and the Hungarian Asboth. These men produced a lifting device intended to replace kite balloons for observation. "It consisted of two superimposed lifting propellers" (Fay 133). This autogyro model, called the PKZ-2, failed because of various difficulties. It was not until the late period of World War I that major helicopter advances were made. The quality and quantity of production materials increased, and great improvements were made in the field of engine technology in many parts of the world including Europe and the United States. An aircraft model for military advancement was needed for more versatile and precise war tactics. With better technology and more need, the next step in helicopter advancement would soon come.
Figure 5. Built for US Army Air Force by Georgrij Bothezat (USSR). Courtesy of "History
of Helicopters". Autogyros are invented The autogyro evolved from earlier models during this time. A Spaniard named Juana de la Cierva experimented with autogyros for the allies in Great Britain until his death in 1936 (Sadler 2). Two Cierva C.40 autogyros were used for Air Observation Post during World War I. They did have some setbacks, however. Autogyros could neither hover nor descend vertically like the modern helicopter. Relying on forward motion, the autogyros's primitive engine lacked the power to run as efficiently as the helicopters. The helicopter's superiority was made readily apparent by the planned replacement of the RAF's No. 529 Squadron's autogyros with the Sikorsky aircraft in 1944 (Sadler 2).
32
Figure 6. Modern Autogyro courtesy of "History of Helicopters".
Sikorsky's Advancements The success in the field of rotary-wing aviation was due almost entirely to a man living in America named Igor Sikorsky. Sikorsky was a Russian who had fled from the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 to France (Sadler 2). After years of private development, he encouraged the United States Government to agree to a considerable budget of two million dollars for rotarywing research in 1938 (Sadler 2). The government ended up choosing a joint Sikorsky-Vought effort to be funded, and the project evolved into the VS-300 model helicopter. It formed the most tangible link between the early design concept of rotary-wing aviation and the practical aircraft that is capable of military operation (Sadler 2). The machine was indeed quite different from earlier models. It was an incredible advancement in helicopters, but others soon followed.
Figure 7.
One of Sikorsky's earlier models. Courtesy of "History of Helicopters". 1950 Advancements During the 1950s many new advancements in helicopters were made. Sikorsky crafted the world's first certified commercial transport helicopter, the S-55 Chickasaw (H-19). Another man named Hiller created the flying platform called the Hiller XROE-1 Rotorcycle.
33
Figure 8.
Hiller's flying platform courtesy of "History of Helicopters". The Turbine Engine's Impact The creation of the turbine engine advanced the helicopter's capabilities even further. With assembly lines brought about by the Industrial Revolution, these engines could be produced with high efficiency and increased precision. The world's first turbine gas-powered engine was the Kaman K-225 (History of Helicopters 3). Mc Donnell made the first successful helicopter with horizontal winged flight from a vertical rotor powered by the turbine engine (History of Helicopers 3). He continued to create newer models in the proceeding decades.
Figure 9.
Mc Donnell's helicopter courtesy of History of Helicopters. 1960s & 1970s: The Vietnam War and how the helicopter changed The 1960s and the 1970s marked a widespread advancement in helicopters because of the Vietnam War. Beginning in 1964 this war lasted for almost a decade (Garraty 1078). The military's need for advanced helicopters can be seen in historical pictures of the machines flying through the jungles of Vietnam to retrieve wounded troops. Helicopters were also used as weapons during this time. Many new helicopters appeared with missile capabilities. The Bell 209 Cobra "Snake" is one such helicopter. Large missiles protruded from the sides of the machine on metal bases above. Another example is the Gyrodyne QH-50 (History of Helicopters 4). This helicopter used infrared cameras to observe at night for better protection (History of Helicopters 4). This helicopter is still being utilized today.
34
Figure 10. Bell 209 Cobra "Snake" courtesy of "History of Helicopters".
1980s and the Helicopter During the 1980s helicopter advancement was evidently seen as the machinery was refined. Mc Donnell continued to produce helicopters like the Tiltrotor Unmanned Air Vehicle and the Bell/Boeing 609, the world's first commercial tiltrotor (History of Helicopters 1). Smaller helicopters were produced to fulfill the public's needs. The Ultrasport Helicopters and the Air Command International Commander 14/A are appreciable examples. Many helicopters used jet thrust rather than blades to give the directional stability, which made them extremely quiet (History of Helicopters 5).
Figure 11. Bell/Boeing 609 courtesy of "History of Helicopters".
Early 1990s and the Helicopter During the early 1990s helicopters were produced by large corporations like the Euro copter Industry (Spartacus 57) and the Civil Helicopter Industry (Proctor 88). The Revolution Helicopter Corporation created a single-seat helicopter that can be built by a person at home in forty to sixty hours (History of Helicopters 4). The machines were used in all areas of the public
35
including the police force and hospitals. Helicopters are still used in this way in the late 1990s. They are evolving to become more efficient and capable of reaching their goals.
Figure 12. Revolution Helicopter Corp. Mini 500 courtesy of "History of Helicopters".
Conclusion of Helicopter Evolution The vertical flight of the helicopter is an advantage to the world. Because of advanced machinery such as turbine engines and pistons contributed by technology, the helicopter can be seen flying today. Since history the idea of rotary-wing flight has been accounted by curious individuals recognizing its potential. These ideas have evolved from a dream to a reality because of technology and will continue to evolve through time with the advancement of it.
Add the Helicopter existence: o Igor Sikorsky vs. years to develop controlled Vertical Lift. o Vertical Lift blade, Counter Rotating as start o Then Counter separated Main Rotor split to the side which worked and evolved into the Chinook Heavy Lifting Aircraft. o Factor of three: Vertical Lift blade Engine(s) Tail Rotor (McDonnell Douglas Notar
o V-22 our Nation bet the 50 year future on this technology, it didnt succeed as well as expected because: Noise and transitioning wasnt always simple.
36
Chapter 1C
ROCKET SHIPS "The Rocket ship is the way to get into Space because it carries its complete propellant HISTORY OF ROCKET SHIPS This technological explosion had some very humble and human beginnings. The Acorns took root in some strange places: a church, a cannery, a barbershop, but from them mighty Oaks have indeed come to fruition. Whoever wrote it? Today's rockets are remarkable collections of human ingenuity. NASA's Space Shuttle, for example, is one of the most complex flying machines ever invented. It stands upright on a launch pad, lifts off as a rocket, orbits Earth as a spacecraft, and returns to Earth as a gliding airplane. The Space Shuttle is a true spaceship. In a few years it will be joined by other spaceships. The European Space Agency is building the Hermes and Japan is building the HOPE. Still later may become aerospace planes that will take off from runways as airplanes, fly into space, and return as airplanes. The rockets and spaceships of today and the spaceships of the future have their roots in the science and technology of the past. They are natural outgrowths of literally thousands of years of experimentation and research on rockets and rocket propulsion. One of the first devices to successfully employ the principles essential to rocket flight was a wooden bird. In the writings of Aulus Gellius, a Roman, there is a story of a Greek named Archytas who lived in the city of Tarentum, now a part of southern Italy. Somewhere around the year 400 B.C., Archytas mystified and amused the citizens of Tarentum by flying a pigeon made of wood. It appears that the bird was suspended on wires and propelled along by escaping steam. The pigeon used the action-reaction principle that was not to be stated as a scientific law until the 17th century. About three hundred years after the pigeon, another Greek, Hero of Alexandria, invented a similar rocket-like device called an aeolipile. It, too, used steam as a propulsive gas. Hero
37
mounted a sphere on top of a water kettle. A fire below the kettle turned the water into steam, and the gas traveled through pipes to the sphere. Two L-shaped tubes on opposite sides of the sphere allowed the gas to escape, and in doing so gave a thrust to the sphere that caused it to rotate.
Figure 13. Hero Engine
Just when the first true rockets appeared is unclear. Stories of early rocket like devices appear sporadically through the historical records of various cultures. Perhaps the first true rockets were accidents. In the first century A.D., the Chinese were reported to have had a simple form of gunpowder made from saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal dust. It was used mostly for fireworks in religious and other festive celebrations. Bamboo tubes were filled with the mixture and tossed into fires to create explosions during religious festivals. lt is entirely possible that some of those tubes failed to explode and instead skittered out of the fires, propelled by the gases and sparks produced by the burning gunpowder.
38
Figure 14. Chinese Fire Arrow
It is certain that the Chinese began to experiment with the gunpowder-filled tubes. At some point, bamboo tubes were attached to arrows and launched with bows. Soon it was discovered that these gunpowder tubes could launch themselves just by the power produced from the escaping gas. The true rocket was born. The first date we know true rockets were used was the year 1232. At this time, the Chinese and the Mongols were at war with each other. During the battle of Kai-Keng, the Chinese repelled the Mongol invaders by a barrage of "arrows of flying fire." These fire-arrows were a simple form of a solid-propellant rocket. A tube, capped at one end, was filled with gunpowder. The other end was left open and the tube was attached to a long stick. When the powder was ignited, the rapid burning of the powder produced fire, smoke, and gas that escaped out the open end and produced a thrust. The stick acted as a simple guidance system that kept the rocket headed in one general direction as it flew through the air. It is not clear how effective these arrows of flying fire were as weapons of destruction, but their psychological effects on the Mongols must have been formidable.
Figure 15. Chinese Fire Arrow Launch
Following the battle of Kai-Keng, the Mongols produced rockets of their own and may have been responsible for the spread of rockets to Europe. All through the 13th to the 15th centuries there were reports of many rocket experiments. In England, a monk named Roger Bacon worked on improved forms of gunpowder that greatly increased the range of rockets. In France, Jean
39
Froissart found that more accurate flights could be achieved by launching rockets through tubes. Froissart's idea was the forerunner of the modern bazooka. Joanes de Fontana of Italy designed a surface-running rocket-powered torpedo for setting enemy ships on fire.
Figure 16. Surface Running Torpedo
By the 16th century rockets fell into a time of disuse as weapons of war, though they were still used for fireworks displays, and a German fireworks maker, Johann Schmidlap, invented the "step rocket," a multi-staged vehicle for lifting fireworks to higher altitudes. A large sky rocket (first stage) carried a smaller sky rocket (second stage). When the large rocket burned out, the smaller one continued to a higher altitude before showering the sky with glowing cinders. Schmidlap's idea is basic to all rockets today that go into outer space. Nearly all uses of rockets up to this time were for warfare or fireworks, but there is an interesting old Chinese legend that reported the use of rockets as a means of transportation. With the help of many assistants, a lesser-known Chinese official named Wan-Hu assembled a rocket- powered flying chair. Attached to the chair were two large kites, and fixed to the kites were forty- seven fire-arrow rockets. On the day of the flight, Wan-Hu sat himself on the chair and gave the command to light the rockets. Forty-seven rocket assistants, each armed with torches, rushed forward to light the fuses. In a moment, there was a tremendous roar accompanied by billowing clouds of smoke. When the smoke cleared, Wan-Hu and his flying chair were gone. No one knows for sure what happened to Wan-Hu, but it is probable that if the event really did take place, Wan-Hu and his chair were blown to pieces. Fire-arrows were as apt to explode as to fly.
40
Figure 17. Wan-Hu Flying Chair
Rocketry Becomes a Science During the latter part of the 17th century, the scientific foundations for modern rocketry were laid by the great English scientist Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Newton organized his understanding of physical motion into three scientific laws. The laws explain how rockets work and why they are able to work in the vacuum of outer space. Newton's laws soon began to have a practical impact on the design of rockets. About 1720, a Dutch professor, Willem Gravesande, built model cars propelled by jets of steam. Rocket experimenters in Germany and Russia began working with rockets with a mass of more than 45 kilograms. Some of these rockets were so powerful that their escaping exhaust flames bored deep holes in the ground even before lift-off. During the end of the 18th century and early into the 19th, rockets experienced a brief revival as a weapon of war. The success of Indian rocket barrages against the British in 1792 and again in 1799 caught the interest of an artillery expert, Colonel William Congreve. Congreve set out to design rockets for use by the British military. The Congreve rockets were highly successful in battle. Used by British ships to pound Fort McHenry in the War of 1812, they inspired Francis Scott Key to write "the rockets' red glare," words in his poem that later became The Star- Spangled Banner. Even with Congreve's work, the accuracy of rockets still had not improved much from the early days. The devastating nature of war rockets was not their accuracy or power, but their numbers. During a typical siege, thousands of them might be fired at the enemy. All over the world, rocket researchers experimented with ways to improve accuracy. An Englishman, William Hale, developed a technique called spin stabilization. In this method, the escaping exhaust gases struck
41
small vanes at the bottom of the rocket, causing it to spin much as a bullet does in flight. Variations of the principle are still used today. Rockets continued to be used with success in battles all over the European continent. However, in a war with Prussia, the Austrian rocket brigades met their match against newly designed artillery pieces. Breech-loading cannon with rifled barrels and exploding warheads were far more effective weapons of war than the best rockets. Once again, rockets were relegated to peacetime uses. Modern Rocketry Begins In 1898, a Russian schoolteacher, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1857-1935), proposed the idea of space exploration by rocket. In a report he published in 1903, Tsiolkovsky suggested the use of liquid propellants for rockets in order to achieve greater range. Tsiolkovsky stated that the speed and range of a rocket were limited only by the exhaust velocity of escaping gases. For his ideas,
careful research, and great vision, Tsiolkovsky has been called the father of modern astronautics.
Figure 18. Tsiolkovsky Rockets
Early in the 20th century, an American, Robert H. Goddard (1882-1945), conducted practical experiments in rocketry. He had become interested in a way of achieving higher altitudes than were possible for lighter-than-air balloons. He published a pamphlet in 1919 entitled A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes. It was a mathematical analysis of what is today called the meteorological sounding rocket.
42
In his pamphlet, Goddard reached several conclusions important to rocketry. From his tests, he stated that a rocket operates with greater efficiency in a vacuum than in air. At the time, most people mistakenly believed that air was needed for a rocket to push against and a New York Times newspaper editorial of the day mocked Goddard's lack of the "basic physics ladled out daily in our high schools." Goddard also stated that multistage or step rockets were the answer to achieving high altitudes and that the velocity needed to escape Earth's gravity could be achieved in this way. Goddard's earliest experiments were with solid-propellant rockets. In 1915, he began to try various types of solid fuels and to measure the exhaust velocities of the burning gases.
Figure 19. Goddards 1926 Rocket
While working on solid-propellant rockets, Goddard became convinced that a rocket could be propelled better by liquid fuel. No one had ever built a successful liquid-propellant rocket before. It was a much more difficult task than building solid- propellant rockets. Fuel and oxygen tanks, turbines, and combustion chambers would be needed. In spite of the difficulties, Goddard achieved the first successful flight with a liquid- propellant rocket on March 16, 1926. Fueled by liquid oxygen and gasoline, the rocket flew for only two and a half seconds, climbed 12.5 meters, and landed 56 meters away in a cabbage patch. By today's standards, the flight was
43
unimpressive, but like the first powered airplane flight by the Wright brothers in 1903, Goddard's gasoline rocket was the forerunner of a whole new era in rocket flight. Goddard's experiments in liquid-propellant rockets continued for many years. His rockets became bigger and flew higher. He developed a gyroscope system for flight control and a payload compartment for scientific instruments. Parachute recovery systems were employed to return rockets and instruments safely. Goddard, for his achievements, has been called the father of modern rocketry. A third great space pioneer, Hermann Oberth (1894-1989) of Germany, published a book in 1923 about rocket travel into outer space. His writings were important. Because of them, many small rocket societies sprang up around the world. In Germany, the formation of one such society, the Verein fur Raumschiffahrt (Society for Space Travel), led to the development of the V-2 rocket, which was used against London during World War II. In 1937, German engineers and scientists, including Oberth, assembled in Peenemunde on the shores of the Baltic Sea. There the most
44
advanced rocket of its time would be built and flown under the directorship of Wernher von Braun.
Figure 20. German V2 Rocket
The V-2 rocket (in Germany called the A-4) was small by comparison to today's rockets. It achieved its great thrust by burning a mixture of liquid oxygen and alcohol at a rate of about one ton every seven seconds. Once launched, the V-2 was a formidable weapon that could devastate whole city blocks. Fortunately for London and the Allied forces, the V-2 came too late in the war to change its outcome. Nevertheless, by war's end, German rocket scientists and engineers had already laid plans for advanced missiles capable of spanning the Atlantic Ocean and landing in the United States. These missiles would have had winged upper stages but very small payload capacities. With the fall of Germany, many unused V-2 rockets and components were captured by the Allies. Many German rocket scientists came to the United States. Others went to the Soviet Union. The German scientists, including Wernher von Braun, were amazed at the progress Goddard had made. Both the United States and the Soviet Union realized the potential of rocketry as a military weapon and began a variety of experimental programs. At first, the United States began a program with high-altitude atmospheric sounding rockets, one of Goddard's early ideas. Later, a variety of medium- and long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles were developed. These became the starting point of the U.S. space program. Missiles such as the Redstone, Atlas, and Titan would eventually launch astronauts into space. On October 4, 1957, the world was stunned by the news of an Earth-orbiting artificial satellite launched by the Soviet Union. Called Sputnik I, the satellite was the first successful entry in a race for space between the two superpower nations. Less than a month later, the Soviets followed with the launch of a satellite carrying a dog named Laika on board. Laika survived in space for seven days before being put to sleep before the oxygen supply ran out. A few months after the first Sputnik, the United States followed the Soviet Union with a satellite of its own. Explorer I was launched by the U.S. Army on January 31, 1958. In October of that year, the United States formally organized its space program by creating the National
45
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA became a civilian agency with the goal of peaceful exploration of space for the benefit of all humankind. Soon, many people and machines were being launched into space. Astronauts orbited Earth and landed on the Moon. Robot spacecraft traveled to the planets. Space was suddenly opened up to exploration and commercial exploitation. Satellites enabled scientists to investigate our world, forecast the weather, and to communicate instantaneously around the globe. As the demand for more and larger payloads increased, a wide array of powerful and versatile rockets had to be built. Since the earliest days of discovery and experimentation, rockets have evolved from simple gunpowder devices into giant vehicles capable of traveling into outer space. Rockets have opened the universe to direct exploration by humankind.
46
Chapter 2
Changing Times "The defense industry became detached from the rest of the economy" America's defense companies are turning dual-purpose Jul 18th 2002 | from the print edition THE 1990s were an eventful time for America's defense industry. With the cold war at an end, the number of big American contractors came down from 15 to five (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics) within a decade. That was a dramatic consolidation, but as budgets shrank, it was not unexpected. The other, more surprising development was that the defense industry turned into a kind of ghetto, despite considerable efforts to make doing business with the Pentagon easier and less bureaucratic. Barriers to entry were removed in the hope of turning defense into something more like a normal business, but instead of an influx of new blood, a mass exodus followed. IBM, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, General Electric (except engines) and Texas Instruments all sold or closed their defense companies. As Merrill Lynch's Byron Callan put it, The defense industry
47
became detached from the rest of the economy.
Figure 21. Aerospace & Defense Sales
The reasons are not hard to find: the federal government is a demanding customer; defense profit margins are often tighter than in the private sector; and strict rules on procurement have in the past caused some defense companies to lose money on fixed-price development contracts. Many companies decided the defense game was not worth the candle. Downsizing: Merger & Acquisitions A survey of the defense industry: Getting it together? With just a handful of big American companies and a trio of European ones, each of which dominates its home market and competes in places such as the Middle East and Asia, proper globalization (in the sense of a number of transnational companies competing worldwide) seems out of the question. But that does not mean that globalization will have no part in the defense industry at all. Because electronics and computing software play an increasing role in defense systems, the core defense companies have to ensure they have access to a wider pool of technology. What remains to be seen over the next decade is whether the ghetto model will survive, or whether defense will eventually move closer to commercial business. The more it does, the more global it could get at the level of the second- or third-tier suppliers, who make components or equipment for the prime contractors. Lawrence Freedman of King's College, London, who has written on the implications of RMA, sees the ghetto walls coming down as the civil sector develops more technical dynamism. The trend towards increased use of IT and systems integration in warfare should accelerate this trend: The old defense sector was based on dedicated programs with only a limited civilian spin-off. This now exists side by side with a more dynamic industry, which can pass through two generations of technology while the official defense-procurement machinery is still working its way laboriously through its bureaucratic mechanisms. Although the electronics and computing
48
sectors originally took off on the back of military investment, they have now developed their civilian markets to such an extent that even the military is a minor player. Underlying this is a worry that the defense industry, having consolidated so much with a loss of competition on both sides of the Atlantic, might begin to lag in innovation, and might not be up to supporting the transformation of the armed forces it serves. Even though America's military might and technology is streets ahead of anyone else's, the country cannot afford to be complacent. A recent study by RAND's National Defense Research Institute looked at military revolutions throughout history and found that, by and large, new ways of waging war were usually developed by a country or a group that was not dominant at the time. Indeed, it could be argued that the most revolutionary military development to happen in recent times was the hijacking last September of four kerosene-laden jetliners to use as guided missiles in New York and Washington, DC. Modern electronic technology in the form of e-mails and the Internet played a big part in the planning of this venture. By contrast, the traditional defense industry grinds away slowly, with mighty systems immutably determined by defense-department contracts. To take one example, the Joint Strike Fighter could well go into service with electronics systems that, although state-of-the-art in 2006, will be getting long in the tooth in 2012, unless something is done to update them. Jerry Daniels at Boeing, which lost the JSF contract, points to the dangers that engineering teams will scatter and expertise will be lost when Lockheed Martin eventually becomes the only company making fighters. Twenty years ago we had 50-odd defense contractors; today we have a handful. Then there were many rapid opportunities to bid, there was always a new program coming along. By contrast, he explains, the trend now is towards fighters that combine many functions and can be ordered in bulk. His (perhaps not entirely disinterested) suggestion is that it might be better to go for upgrades every five years and put the work out to competitive bids. To some extent, this is already being done. Boeing has recently won a contract to rethink and upgrade the avionics on the C130 transport plane manufactured by its arch-rival, Lockheed Martin. Then go onto Lockheed Martin to 2011, they turned out to be finances to be how much per Aircraft? F-22 or F-35. My Brother In-Law finds humor in games of the things their new Aircraft can Do. When asked at a certain range and sweep what is the most effective aircraft? Most USAF Officials SAY f -22, answers was F-16.
49
Figure 22. Defense Industry Consolidation 1993-2007
One reason why the defense department encouraged the mergers of the early and mid-1990s (see figure 5) was that it was worried about the financial health of the industry as budgets shrank. But by 1997, when a weak Northrop Grumman thought its best hope was to become part of the much larger Lockheed Martin, the government had had enough and blocked the merger on competition grounds. According to Pierre Chao of CSFB, an investment bank, the defense department then got into a panic about the collapse of defense shares as consolidation ended. One concern in the Pentagon was that the defense contractors might have increasing trouble attracting capital and talent for which other high-tech firms are also competing. Mr Callan points out that a high-tech company such as Intel has a market capitalisation of over $100 billion, whereas the top three defense groups together add up to only half that. The concern is that top engineers will turn their back on defense companies and work for high-tech firms where they can make more money through stock options.
50
The irony is that Silicon Valley itself evolved from defense contracts, and that civilian jet aircraft, from the Boeing 707 to the jumbo jet, owed a great deal to military programs. The same was true of computers. The defense industry pioneered the management of complex systems that have now become routine in civilian applications, such as air-traffic control or
telecommunications. It is no accident that the world's leading (non-American) company in airtraffic control is Thales, a Paris-based defense-electronics company that specializes in dual-use technologies which can be applied to the commercial market.
Figure 23. Aerospace & Defance Stock Trends
According to Mr Krepinevich at the Centre for Strategy and Budgetary Assessment, the American government will have to improve its policy towards the defense industrial base if America is not to lose its technical lead. He thinks too much of what goes under the name of R&D is really devoted to the engineering and manufacturing development of incoming products. That may provide a nice cash cushion for companies, but it means they do little innovative research of the sort needed to develop entirely new products. He would like the Defense Department to take a hard look at future requirements to see which areas of technology could best meet them. Money for this could be found by chopping expenditure on mature technologies where extra R&D produces marginal gains.
51
Two-way traffic Commercial input into the defense industry is not a one-way process. Leading defense companies such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman have been changing their profile too, turning themselves into something more than makers of fighters, missiles and rockets. It is no longer simply technologies that spread from military to civil applications, as they did in the 1950s, when only the defense sector had big money to spend on R&D. Instead, the defense companies themselves are moving into the commercial field, using the expertise they have developed in the military sector. An obvious example is Lockheed Martin, a conglomerate that three years ago was losing money and staggering under a debt burden of $12 billion. Integrating the various businesses from Lockheed's takeovers of companies such as Martin Marietta was proving difficult. Nothing was going right. The company's space rockets kept blowing up on the launch pad, the update of its C130J transport plane was hitting problem after problem, it lost a key satellite surveillance contract to Boeing, and losses kept piling up. Now it is climbing back into profit and has slashed more than $4 billion from its debt by selling parts of its business to BAE Systems, the British contractor which is becoming more American by the day (of which more in this article). Lockheed's shares look good largely because it beat Boeing for the JSF (F35) contract, which will ensure an inflow of billions of dollars even if the order is trimmed from 3,000 to 2,000. Its main partners in this deal are Northrop Grumman and BAE. But there is more to Lockheed than big defense deals. About 30% of its sales are now in the civil sector (although admittedly civil work for the government far outweighs its private work). Lockheed buys in components and software from the electronics industry, but it is itself a huge IT company, employing some 20,000 systems and software engineers on top of its 50,000 mainstream scientists and engineers. The same system of systems need for digital battlefields has commercial applications in organizations such as America's postal service, the FBI, Medicare and the Social Security system. Boeing offers an even more striking instance of cross-fertilization between the commercial and military sectors. It became big in defense when it bought McDonnell Douglas in 1996. McDonnell had put itself up for sale after it was excluded from the JSF competition in an earlier round, leaving Boeing and Lockheed in the final shoot-out. But Boeing had also acquired North
52
American Rockwell with its space business, and later gained satellite expertise by buying parts of Hughes's electronics business. Once Boeing's boss, Phil Condit, and his then number two, Harry Stonecipher (who had been McDonnell's last boss), had bedded down the mergers, they realized they were sitting on a collection of assets that could be used to sprout all sorts of businesses aside from jetliners, rockets and satellites. Using military technology, Boeing is developing so many new businesses in the commercial market that the share of its civil jet sales will soon fall from 60% of the group's turnover to around half. For instance, the same technology that guides missiles can be repackaged to provide satellite-based air-traffic management systems. And a military radar antenna is the key piece of kit in a system to bring broadband communications to passengers in commercial jets. The mergers have also made it easier for Boeing to ride out the loss of the JSF contract. Its space and communications division, based in Seal Beach, California, is the lead contractor working on America's national missile-defense system, as well as the provider of the future combat system that is part of the integrated battlespace system for the army. Like Lockheed, Boeing sees itself as an integrator of systems of systems. But these established giants face competition at the electronics-systems end of defense contracts. Meanwhile, Northrop Grumman is still remaking itself. Its boss, Mr Kresa, says that Northrop saw the rundown in bomber production coming in the early 1990s and started to shift its emphasis to technology and systems. By acquiring Grumman, it got into the big JointStars aerial surveillance plane contract. With its purchase of Logicon, it got into information warfare. Brushing off the collapse of its planned merger with Lockheed Martin, Mr Kresa continued to build up the group. With Westinghouse, it bought electronics and radar; with Ryan, Global Hawk. Since then it has bought Litton Industries and Newport News to become the world's largest naval shipbuilder. It has successfully bid for TRW, an aerospace and car-parts group, against several competitors, including BAE. If the deal is approved, Northrop will sell off the cars-parts division and hold on to the missile and space business, which brings satellite knowhow with it. Other defense companies are still trying to clean up their acts. Raytheon, a missiles and radar group, is plugging on with reducing its huge debts by selling off some businesses, though its cashflow is still negative and its civil business-jet subsidiary is suffering. General Dynamics,
53
which is big in ships, was blocked by the defense department in its bid for Newport News, which allowed Northrop Grumman to sweep up that firm. Northrop has also dealt General Dynamics a blow by winning a $2.9 billion contract to design the navy's new DDX destroyer, which is expected to be the basic platform for a range of ships that might produce contracts worth up to $60 billion. The one newcomer that has dared venture into the defense ghetto is known as L-3 Communications, a company founded only five years ago by Frank Lanza, the former president of Loral, a defense outfit that merged into Lockheed Martin in 1996. Having supervised the integration, Mr Lanza persuaded Lockheed to sell him ten electronics companies. L-3 puts together guidance and intelligence devices. It enjoys revenues of $2.3 billion and is forecast to grow at 30% a year. It has also moved smartly into the newly burgeoning field of homeland security, with baggage screening devices and systems. Such civil business accounts for a quarter of its sales. Despite some travails, Wall Street's glowing verdict on their shares gives a good indication of American defense companies' financial prospects. European companies, by contrast, face flat budgets and, except for the Anglo-American BAE, can hope to get little more than crumbs from the world's biggest defense market. The Total Quality Management Farce Total Quality Management (TQM) was started by Edward Deming, sold to the Japanese as Statistical Process Controls (SPC) and manufacturing techniques to help rebuild their industrial base after the ruin of World WarII. In 1970s GM brought Edward Deming in to be part of the First full CAD/CAM program in the World on the Pontiac Fiero program. GM people disliked him thought of him as a traitor and boring mathematician not a manufacturing specialist. I was fortunate to be part of this program (sometime in Pontiac) for its fully Automated Engine Assembly & Test production Line by Bendix Automation though my Dads BoiCo Engineering Corporation. GM eas right Deming was boring to listen to but his Statistical Process Controls (SPC) and involving full team empowerment did make a good difference. The lessons learned here were data with SPC can pin point areas of error so you can drive up its quality and predictability in process controls and to a six sigma repeatability. Outlining much of these principles is a great book by MIT fellows James Womack, Daniel Jones & Daniel Roo s The Machine That Changed The World.
54
In the late 1980s Aerospace tried to accomplish this at McDonnell Douglas with Total Quality Management System (TQMS) later nicknamed Time to Quit and Move to Seattle. This is where all managers and employees are to be judged by their peers. The executives would have to prove their worth to keep their empire going from 32 Vice President to only 13 VP
positions.
Figure 24. A View of Earth from the Shuttle
When Government Gave US Away George W. Bush signing the technology offsets Law, and Bill Clinton opening up Space secrets to China. Exporting military know-how Industrially advance countries prefer technology transfers to indirect offsets. Arms sales are now routinely accompanied by arrangements for foreign buyers to produce weapon systems or their
55
components. If a buyer cannot rope with technology transfer, a service and maintenance depot for the weapon system might be established. Currently, U.S. law actually encourages the transfer of production technology to NATO and "major non-NATO allies." This law treats the transfer of technology no differently than the sale of armaments, merely requiring that Congress be notified of contracts worth $14 million or more. Congress is then given 30 days within which to contest the arrangement (15 days for NATO members). The result is a different kind of proliferation-proliferation of military-industrial complexes around the world. In the 1950s, only five developing countries made small arms, ammunition, or major military equipment (aircraft, armored vehicles, missiles, or naval craft). By the early 1980s this number had skyrocketed to 54, with 36 countries producing major military equipment. The developing countries of Brazil, India, Israel, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey all have a significant arms industry today. But co-production isn't a free ride. There's the cost of building the necessary infrastructure, as well as licensing, royalty, and technical assistance fees. Licensed production or co-production costs the buyer more than weapons bought off the shelf-but the ability to manufacture high-tech weapons is alluring. To recoup their investment costs and to reduce the unit cost, the buyer frequently seeks to market the weapon, undercutting the U.S. firm from which it was originally purchased-as well as undermining the interests of the selling government. Perhaps the most important security implication of co-production deals is the irrevocable transfer of industrial technology and manufacturing know-how needed not only for conventional weapons production, but also for the possible development of long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction. U.S. sales of production technology to the Shah formed the basis of Iran's current military industry, and licensed production from the Soviet Union, China, Brazil, and others provided the foundation of Iraq's weapons industry. Sidebar: A License to Steal Jobs When Congress was considering the Korean Fighter Program in August 1991, the GAO was unable to calculate whether the sale would mean more or fewer U.S. jobs. U.S. production would be limited, and South Korea would manufacture most of the the airframe for 72 of 120 aircraft. Of the remaining 48 planes, European partners in the F-16 program were entitled to a 15 percent
56
work-share from a previous offset. Only 12 planes were to be wholly U.S.-made; the other 36 would be exported in kits to be assembled in Korea. On June 25, 1992, thousands of F-16 production line workers gathered at the gates of General Dynamics' Fort Worth, Texas factory (now Lockheed Martin) for a "Fairness Rally" to protest the deal. George Kourpias, international president of the Machinists and Aerospace Workers union, told them, "GD originally wanted to bring 500 Korean workers here.... Our union put a stop to that scheme. At least for now. But the state of mind of the company hs not changed. They still see no merit in working with us to convert to become a part of the post-Cold War era. "Right here in Fort Worth, 3,000 of our brothers and sisters have been laid off in the past two years.... This week, another 500.... And the company wanted those of you left to teach Koreans how to do your jobs." The Samsung Aerospace workers were later trained in Turkey, where General Dynamics has another F-16 co-production facility. Members of Congress had pushed for South Korea to purchase planes manufactured in the United States. Cong. Richard Gephardt, a Missouri Democrat, said, "General Dynamics, not unlike McDonnell Douglas in my district, has had to ... lay off a large number of U.S. workers in the past year. These workers are capable of manufacturing a majority of the parts to be used in the F-16 and the KFP, and they should be re-employed for this purpose." Pres. Clintons Transferring Technology to China President Clinton had put a higher priority on U.S. exports than on national security, and in the process strengthened the Chinese Armys ability to target weapons on the U.S. and fostered missile proliferation around the world. Here is what press accounts tell us: Sanctions and Technology Transfer Policy
In the wake of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986, U.S. companies began using Chinese rocket launch services to place satellites into orbit.
However, following the Tiananmen Square massacre and the discovery of Chinese missile technology transfers to Pakistan, Congress and President Bush levied a myriad of sanctions against Communist China in 1990 and 1991.
These sanctions prohibited further technology transfers to that country, including satellite exports. Since 1989, the sanctions imposed for the Tiananmen crackdown have been
57
waived 13 times in the name of national interest -- 3 times by President Bush and 10 times by President Clinton.
In March 1996, President Clinton announced that he was going to transfer control of satellite exports from the State Department to the Commerce Department -- over the opposition of then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher.
By transferring licensing authority from the "security conscious" State Department to the "use-at-any-time" Commerce Department, the export of U.S. satellites for launch in China would be exempt from missile proliferation sanctions -- even if the U.S. government concluded that China had sold missile components to Pakistan or Iran, something China has been accused of several times.
In October and November of 1996, the Commerce Departments Bureau of Export Administration and the State Department issued regulations to formally implement the transfer of commercial satellites from control under the State Departments "Munitions List" to the Commerce Control List.
In February 1998, President Clinton issued another waiver allowing Loral to export a satellite to China. This new waiver will arguably make it impossible to prosecute any past wrongdoing by Loral because the waiver effectively sanctions that companys behavior. In fact, the Justice Department argued just that point when it learned that the White House planned to issue the new waiver.
According to a recent article in the Washington Post, newly released documents from the White House suggest that the February 1998 waiver was not routine. The decision to approve the satellite transfer was "treated as an urgent matter not because of its importance to national security, but because the company was facing heavy fines for delay," possibly losing a $20 million contract if the waiver was not granted by January 20, 1998.
In April the CIA concluded that 13 of Chinas 18 long-range strategic missiles are aimed at the U.S.
58
President Bill Clinton personally approved the transfer to China of advanced space technology that can be used for nuclear combat. The documents show that in 1996 Clinton approved the export of radiation hardened chip sets to China.
"Waivers may be granted upon a national interest determination," states a Commerce Department document titled "U.S. Sanctions on China."
"The President has approved a series of satellite related waivers in recent months, most recently in November, 1996 for export of radiation hardened chip sets for a Chinese meteorological satellite," noted the Commerce Department documents.
These special computer chips are designed to function while being bombarded by intense radiation. Radiation hardened chips are considered critical for atomic warfare and are required by advanced nuclear tipped missiles.
Change Maybe Coming-but not soon Enough In October 2010 President Obama blamed Republicans Saturday for blocking bills that would take away tax breaks for U.S. corporations that move jobs to subsidiaries in other countries. Republicans in Congress, he said, "have consistently fought to keep these corporate loopholes open."
In the last four years, the president charged, "Republicans in the House voted 11 times to continue rewarding corporations that create jobs and profits overseas -- a policy that costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year" in revenue lost to the U.S. Treasury.
Obama wants action on a stalled Senate Bill that would end tax credits and tax deferrals for companies with overseas operations. Instead, he wants to give tax breaks for American firms to write off the cost of new equipment in 2011, and also make a tax credit for research and experimentation permanent. "These are common sense ideas," he said in his weekly Internet address.
But there is resistance to Obama's push against favorable treatment for overseas operations, and it isn't coming solely from Republicans and business interests. Some Democrats also fear that ending the tax help could put the United States at a competitive disadvantage. The president acknowledged that "a lot of companies that do business internationally make an important
59
contribution to our economy." But he said "there's no reason why our tax code should actively reward them for creating jobs overseas."
Republicans, in their weekly remarks, said the House of Representatives should return from recess immediately to act on the Bush-era tax cuts due to expire in January. "The prosperity of the American people is more important than the political fortunes of any politician or any political party," said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) Democratic leaders say they will deal with the tax issue after the Nov. 2 election. As we had seen the Democrats took a shellacking in the Congress but held the Senate and of course still in the White House.
60
Chapter 3
Where We Are Today Global leadership is not a birthright. Despite what many Americans believe - Greatness must be worked for and won by each new generation Announce in 2008 that the US or Boeing is number two in the Aerospace market, second to Airbus of the European Union. This was two decade in the making ever since Airbus was created in 1981 by suppliers which produced aircraft sub assemblies for McDonnell Douglas and Boeing along with some Military Aircraft by the other supplier to Defense like, Northrop, Grumman, and General Dynamics TX. now Lockheed Martin. We're falling behind. By Norm Augustine (Ret. Chairman & CEO Lockheed Martin)
Figure 25. Norm Augustine
Ive visited more than 100 countries in the past several years, meeting people from all walks of life, from impoverished children in India to heads of state. Almost every adult Ive talked with in these countries shares a belief that the path to success is paved with science and engineering. In fact, scientists and engineers are celebrities in most countries. Theyre not seen as geeks or misfits, as they too often are in the U.S., but rather as societys leaders and innovators. In China,
61
eight of the top nine political posts are held by engineers. In the U.S., almost no engineers or scientists are engaged in high-level politics, and there is a virtual absence of engineers in our public policy debates. Why does this matter? Because if American students have a negative impression or no impression at all of science and engineering, then theyre hardly likely to choose them as professions. Already, 70% of engineers with PhDs who graduate from U.S. uni versities are foreign-born. Increasingly, these talented individuals are not staying in the U.S instead, theyre returning home, where they find greater opportunities. Part of the problem is the lack of priority U.S. parents place on core education. But there are also problems inherent in our public education system. We simply dont have enough qualified math and science teachers. Many of those teaching math and science have never taken a universitylevel course in those subjects. Ive always wanted to be a teacher; in fact, I took early retirement from my job in the aerospace industry to pursue a career in education. But I was deemed unqualified to teach 8th-grade math in any school in my state. Ironically, I was welcomed to the faculty at Princeton University, where the student newspaper ranked my course as one of 10 that every undergraduate should take. In a global, knowledge-driven economy there is a direct correlation between engineering education and innovation. Our success or failure as a nation will be measured by how well we do with the innovation agenda, and by how well we can advance medical research, create gamechanging devices and improve the world. I continue to be active in organizations like the IEEE to help raise the profile of the engineering community and ensure that our voice is heard in key public policy decisions. Thats also why I am passionate about the way engineering should be taught as a profession not as a collection of technical knowledge, but as a diverse educational experience that produces broad thinkers who appreciate the critical links between technology and society. Here we are in a flattening world, where innovation is the key to success, and we are failing to give our young people the tools they need to compete. Many countries are doing a much better job. Ireland, despite a devastated economy, just announced it will increase spending on basic
62
research. Russia is building an innovation city outside of Moscow. Saudi Arabia has a new university for science and engineering with a staggering $10 billion endowment. (It took MIT 142 years to reach that level.) China is creating new technology universities literally by the dozens. These nations and many others have rightly concluded that the way to win in the world economy is by doing a better job of educating and innovating. And America? Were losing our edge. Innovation is something weve always been good at. Until now, weve been the undisputed leaders when it comes to finding new ideas through basic research, translating those ideas into products through world-class engineering, and getting to market first through aggressive entrepreneurship. Thats how we rose to prominence. And thats where were falling behind now. The statistics tell the story.
U.S. consumers spend significantly more on potato chips than the U.S. government devotes to energy R&D.
In 2009, for the first time, over half of U.S. patents were awarded to non-U.S. companies.
China has replaced the U.S. as the worlds number one high-technology exporter. Between 1996 and 1999, 157 new drugs were approved in the U.S. Ten years later, that number had dropped to 74.
The World Economic Forum ranks the U.S. #48 in quality of math and science education.
Innovation is the key to survival in an increasingly global economy. Today were living off the investments we made over the past 25 years. Weve been eating our seed corn. And were seeing an accelerating erosion of our ability to compete. Charles Darwin observed that it is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but rather the one most adaptable to change. Right now the U.S. is not responding to change as we need to. But there is a way forward. Five years ago, I was part of a commission that studied U.S. competitiveness. We issued a report
63
called Rising Above the Gathering Storm, which made some important recommendations and specific actions to implement them. The recommendations were:

Improve K-12 science and math education. Invest in long-term basic research. Attract and retain the best and brightest students, scientists and engineers in the U.S. and around the world.
Create and sustain incentives for innovation and research investment.
Our report was received positively and enjoyed tremendous political support. I felt confident that we were finally getting back on the right track. In 2007, Congress passed the America COMPETES Act, which authorized official support for many of the steps urged in the Gathering Storm report. When the stimulus package was passed early in 2009, most of the COMPETES Acts measures received funding. There was an increase in total federal funding for K-12 education, the creation of scholarships for future math and science teachers, and financial support to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), a new agency dedicated to high-risk, high-reward energy research. Since the completion of our study five years ago, however, 6 million more kids have dropped out of high school in this country. What kind of future will they have? Likely not a promising one. It is quite possible that our nations adults will, for the first time in U.S. history, leave their children and grandchildren a lower standard of living than they themselves enjoyed. Global leadership is not a birthright. Despite what many Americans believe, our nation does not possess an innate knack for greatness. Greatness must be worked for and won by each new generation. Right now that is not happening. But we still have time. If we place the emphasis we should on education, research and innovation we can lead the world in the decades to come. But the only way to ensure we remain great tomorrow is to increase our investment in science and engineering today. Norm Augustine is an IEEE Life Fellow and retired chairman and ex CEO of Lockheed Martin.
64
Americas Lost Leadership In recent times where Companies cannot make Schedule, Cost Targets and Technical Problems continuously arise, we need understand what went wrong. Almost all of the Defense companies make a habit of being behind Schedule and Over Budget because it is guaranteed percentage profit over costs. The DOD tried to improve this starting with McNamara that did not take well in the military complex industry. Defense is extremely important and has costing the taxpayers a tremendous amount in taxes going to keep them alive. Lost Leadership precludes you had leadership at one time then lost it. Companies are a sum of the leading individuals and head of that Corporation, our Supreme Court allows a Corporation to vote and politically contribute like an individual. Lets look at a Corpor ation by a once head of Chrysler who turned around a company and made it a Leader-unfortunately turned it over to one not suitable to the office. Lee Iacocca explains the Nine Cs of leadership being: 1) A Leader shows CURIOSITY and listens to people outside the Yes zone. 2) A Leader has to be CREATIVE and go out on a limb to try something different or new. 3) A Leader has to COMMUNICATE to face reality and tell the truth, not spout off at the mouth. 4) A Leader must be a person of CHARACTER, knowing the difference between right and wrong. 5) A Leader must have COURAGE (have balls-even female CEOs) and take a position on principle even if it is unpopular. 6) A Leader must have CONVICTION, a fire in your belly, passion to get something done. 7) A Leader should have CHARISMA, an influential element that makes people want to follow or be part of. 8) A Leader must be COMPETENT obviously an important ingredient for ability to get things done right. 9) A Leader must have COMMON SENSE and be part of the Real World. There are many Companies that showed tremendous Leadership back in the beginning of this book and start of the Industry. One that comes to mind is Northrops proposing to the USAF then producing a unsolicited superior and affordable fighter jet the F20, showing many credits of
65
Leadership. This book is to educate by pointing out the greatness, lessons learned and faults in Aerospace, Defense Industry seeing a potential growing loss in Americas Future. Leadership Lost refers to Companies and Country losing its leadership edge by failure in technical requirement s met, schedule and cost goals being met. Otherwise you must ask What the heck Went Wrong? we arent talking doom and gloom just seeing our spiraling financial crisis and ineptitude to achieve known milestones on the backs of the taxpayers. It is well known that almost all defense companies bid on project below achievable budget, just to win because the award goes to the lowest cost producer. After award they add Engineering Change Notices or added Requirements (usually never meeting original) based on the Operations Requirement Document (ORD) by the DOD and Mission Requirements for Commercial. Lockheed Martin Since we just left off with a great statement from a Legend in Industry Norm Augustine we begin to see where that company in excellence in Leadership is. Just a personal note: The great Lockheed I like where the SR-71 and F117 came from was in California not the GD Texas buyout. According to a great documentation book Prophets Of War by, William D Hartung about Lockheed Martin and Making of the Military Complex. They have made a habit of being over budget and behind schedule along with some bribery cases called out. We American Taxpayers pay over $260 per household (2008 dollars) just to keep them alive, agreed we need a strong functional Military to protect us. The fact of recent Programs the F22 USAF Fighter jet to replace the aging and unbeatable F15 was to Cost: $25 Billion for 750 Aircraft. Americans ended up paying: $62 Billion for 339 Aircraft and delivered late of course.
66
Figure 26. F22 (Fwd) & F15 (Aft)
Boasting Points: The Aircraft flying along with the FA-22 in the last of these photos is the F-15, which will be replaced by The FA-22 which is several times better. In Actual In-flight (simulated) Combat Operations against the F-15, two FA-22s were able to operate Without detection while they went Head to head against (8) F-15s. The FA-22s scored Missile Hits (Kills) Against all the F-15 Aircraft and the FA-22s were never detected by Either the F-15s or Ground Based Radar. Maj. Gen. Rick Lewis said: 'The Raptor Operated against All Adversaries with Virtual Impunity; Ground Based Systems Couldn't Engage and NO Adversary Aircraft Survived'!
In May 2011 the upgrade for the F22 is again behind schedule and over budget: The latest hardware and software upgrade for the U.S. Air Force's F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jet is over budget and behind schedule, top Defense Department officials told Congress on May 19. "The Increment 3.2 that they working on for the F-22 for our war-fighting customer is taking too long to implement," Air Force procurement chief David Van Buren told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We are working with the company [Lockheed Martin] to try to speed that up and make it more affordable". The upgrade will allow the F-22 to carry the AIM9X infrared-guided air-to-air missile and the AIM-120D medium-range air-to-air missile, and to
67
attack eight ground targets with eight 250-pound Small Diameter Bombs. Software development appears to be the primary cause of the delay. Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, said the F-22's software is written largely in Ada, a programming language that was once a DoD standard but whose use has waned in the past 15 years. "It tends to impede quick upgrades to the system to which it is the base software," Thompson said. Moreover, he said, "The affordability of any upgrade becomes debatable when you purchase a relatively small number of upgrades." Lockheed has built 187 Raptors, of which two have been lost. The company said it is working with the Air Force to accelerate fielding of the upgrade, which is split into two components, A and B, while trying to cut costs. Despite Lockheed's confidence, the Defense Department's leaders are worried about the program. "The F-22 modernization program is a concern to us," said Pentagon procurement chief Ashton Carter, who testified alongside Van Buren at the May 19 2011 hearing. By DAVE MAJUMDAR Published: 19 May 2011 18:47
The F35 Joint Strike Fighter which was mocked up really great in the movie Live Free or Die Harder is still 4 years behind schedule. It was supposed to be an Affordable alternative to building more F22s said Sec. of Defense Gates. Loren Thompson from the Lexington Instit ute and who partially consults to Lockheed Martin made a claim about the cost for the F35 would be no more than a current F16 fighter. The projected cost is a record setting $300 Billion and counting, making it the costliest weapon in US Defense History. Reading about the history of this company you would think the public would be told the truth or have a clue of or learn a lesson of where so much government waste is-I will not single them out of course there are many other lessons to be learned.
68
Figure 27. F35 JSF in Vertical Flight and Forward Flight
Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month that without significant changes the plan to purchase more than 2,400 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets from Lockheed Martin will cost about twice as much as initially estimated. "Over the lifetime of this program, the decade or so, the per-aircraft cost of the 2,443 aircraft we want has doubled in real terms," said Carter, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. "Said differently, that's what it's going to cost if we keep doing what we're doing. "That's unacceptable. It's unaffordable at that rate." Using words such as "jaw-dropping" to describe the cost estimates to produce and operate the fighter, several members of the Senate Armed Services Committee even challenged U.S. Defense Department officials on the onceunthinkable: looking at alternatives to the F-35, arguably the most technologically ambitious aircraft ever built. Senators have called on the Department of Defense to come up with alternatives, Reuters reported. The last cost estimate showed the plane well on its way to costing more than one trillion dollars (PF, May '11). "People should not conclude that we will be willing to continue that kind of support without regard to increased costs resulting from a lack of focus on affordability," said Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich," Defense News reported May 2011 General Dynamics-old
69
General Dynamics still has Land Systems and Electric Boat Divisions but before the giant stock incentivized selloff of Aircraft & Space System was one of the largest Aerospace powerhouses from the past. They owned the now Lockheed Martin Fort Worth Texas and the GD Space Systems in San Diego which built the Atlas Missiles & Rockets. Things started to change for them after they had mischarged the DOD on the A12 Fighter which was a NAVAIR stealth flying wing. Then Secretary Of Defense Dick Cheney had cancelled the program over problems. The DOD sued to regain around $1.3 Billion from them and had been in the Court of Appeals for
decades.
Figure 28. A12 Avenger Concept
SBJ Staff Report June 6, 2011 For 20 years, the Federal government has been seeking $1.35 billion from General Dynamics and Boeing, money paid to the two companies for the development of the A-12 aircraft for the Navy, plus $2.5 billion in interest that has now accumulated over that period.
70
Figure 29. A12 Avenger Concept
It appears that both General Dynamics and Boeing have bought more time in repaying the money when the Supreme Court ruled on May 23 that they would not rule on an appeal of the two companies, and sent the case back to the Federal courts to decide. General Dynamics Space Systems in San Diego build the minute man missile and the USAF Atlas2, Atlas2AS, had a Company Manufacturing Senior Manager let (or go to jail) for corruption embezzlement with Murdoch Incorporated which had a contract doing tooling. I worked on the Atlas2as with some 3 retirees in writing the new Manufacturing Plan. These 3 old guys which were a joy to work with, one nicknamed Red even told me he was in the US Army and held Varner Von Braun and his family by gun point to bring him to America. He boasted of his ability to walkthrough the factory at a fast pace knowing where everything was. On my own time I had created and proposed a new modern Automated Tank Assembly Cell (ATAC) manufacturing system which would have been 140 time more efficient & cheaper than existing methods. I had sent it up the ladder but fell on deaf ears because Management already was in cahoots with Murdoch. I had also created and proposed recoverable Avionics pods which could be build separately and installed in-situ or on site saving huge production & testing time and money. Sent these up the ladder (my upper management and was soon after let go; now I know why. Afterwards I had also sent this to the USAF Space Command Director and Robert Roe the Head of the Office of Science & Technology in charge of the Space Command.
71
Martin Marietta purchased General Dynamics Space Systems division on 2 May 1994 for $208.5 million, consolidating 1 million square feet of office and manufacturing space for Atlas
production from San Diego with Titan facilities in Denver. Approximately 400 jobs were eliminated in San Diego and Denver. Total savings over 10 years were initially estimated at over $300 million (subsequently raised to as much as $500 million); due in part to filling excess factory space and sharing fixed costs for utilities and other property expenses. This purchase by Martin Marietta of the Atlas launch vehicle gave Martin the dominant role in the space launch business.
Figure 30. Atlas2AS
McDonnell Douglas-now Boeing I had enjoyed working for McDonnell Douglas in the design engineering groups was promoted and learned Project Management as part of the DODs Industrial Modernization Incentive Program (IMIP) part of the C17. McDonnell Douglas was the largest Aerospace Company once above $56 Billion per year in the mid 1988 period when James Worsham (originally from GE) was the President in Long Beach. In one of his speeches he was bragging of our Company being number one having a One, Two Three & Four holes meaning the jets engines look like a hole from front view. At the Time Boeing was number 2 at $38 Billion per year and Airbus was a parasite at less than $11 Billion. Feeling no threat of competition at the time we were on top of
72
the world. Airbus was explained to be a European formed group which made parts for us at McDonnell Douglas and Boeing and didnt have the rich history in Aviation we did. I remember meeting Jim once at his home in Palos Verdes, CA. because I was dating his babysitter from which also was from Michigan. He had just arrived home after a large sales trip and was discussing his terrific sale of Aircraft to a Middle Eastern Airlines discussing the sales while sitting in a Jacuzzi with the greatest view. His home was beautiful with a pool running into the home and a Jacuzzi that flowed down into the pool. While he was running it until the Total Quality Management System TQMS program which hit the Company in 1989 it was a Great Company. Once TQMS also nicknamed Time to Quit and Move to Seattle had pretty much changed the company in ways meant to be Good which turned sour or Bad. When management changed and noticing the board of Directors many were of Council Foreign Regulations CFR thus demanding more of a Global image and no more American Flag waiving only political correctness. The MD-90 was the first to have a facility built in Shanghai to produce the fuselage. The A12 was worked on from the military fighter jet group from the St. Louis once known as McAir and to those in the company were still referred to each other as such. Boeing Aircraft I have a personal affection for Boeing because I worked in the design engineering groups starting with the 777. Back in 1990s Boeing had received partnership investment of $3 Billion from the 3 Japanese partners to workshare the 777. Fuji Heavy Industry (FHI), Kawasaki (KHI) and Mitsubishi (MHI) have all partner on producing the Boeing 777. Boeing helped lay the longest, largest network line across the pacific as part of this. The program was on schedule, on budget and met or exceeded its requirements, mlead by Phil Condit and Alan Mulally. It almost fell behind because the Japanese suppliers could not meet schedule and decision making milestones, requiring Boeing to send over 200 good engineers over to Japan to bring the program back on track. Recently with the new 787 you see the innovation of using composites on the first commercial aircraft. Lets not forget Boeing produced the largest composite wing ever for the B2 Bomber.
73
Northrop Grumman I have a personal affection for Northrop because it got me started in the design engineering in the Aerospace Industry back in 1985 from the B2, the F20, F18 and 747-Air Force One fuselage. The B2 was over Budget and behind schedule but achieved record achievements and today is still the most penetrating Bomber in the World. If youre somewhere hostile against US and have time to see it fly over, its already too late your dead. Boasting for Northrop they had proposed the F20 fighter which could have ended the F16s life and performed exception. The USAF could not break a commitment to the then General Dynamics Company of Fort Worth but the F16 had to incorporate the modernized cockpit we had on the F20 into their fighter. The Navys replacement for the cancelled A12 was the F18 E/F where McDonnell Douglas builds the fuselage and then McDonnell Douglas St. Louis finished it stuffing it and winging it. This Program lead by Mike Sears had a schedule of 42 Months. This was a totally new assembly line and many advances made fighter, to the materials and process along with being stealthy was On Time On Budget and met requirements. Kudos to my Team mates at Northrop Grumman El Segundo and McDonnell Douglas St. Louis. After much investigation the Northrop group has a superior record, outside of the political influences.
74
Figure 31. F18 E/F Carrier Landing
The F18 E/F has a great future still because of its strength, power and affordable cost as opposed to the JSF which costs continue to be outside of targeted cost. The Boeing and Northrop Grumman team has evolved it into a new F18G Growler. The new F18G has improved electronic warfare capabilities,
75
Chapter 4
The Economic Importance Every dollar invested in the aerospace industry has a triple effect. It helps keep good jobs in the United States create the products that bring enormous revenues from other countries
Economic Importance The Economic Importance of a Nations Aerospace & Technical Industry is the difference between being a Modern World or a Third World society and average income. Most importantly a Nations Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is its power and influence in the world, unless it is non Tradable and totally consumed internally (like Health Care, Housing, Services, etc). The reason Japan, Germany and others had grown to a large economic Players in the 1980s and 1990s is because they export more than they consume. Another big reason was in the Transportation manufacturing Aerospace and Technical industries, requiring skilled workers and not shoes, clothing or simple merchandise. World Economy vs. USA Would a Country save their own existence, knowing 50 years ahead in time compared to the beginning? Will our US Governments running over indebtedness hinder our own future? Ever since the end of World War II when the US Dollar was declared to be the only World tradable & tangible currency and yes some had to do with having the bomb and could take & rule over the World. Hitler & Japans dream, we only made our currency be the World currency. Now look at the Gross Domestic Product of the World with science and data:
76
Figure 32. World GDP (past 50 years)
Most of the Gross Domestic Product is created and consumed in the USA. This doesnt mean it will stay that way because as other countries mature, evolve and become a higher technological creator, then their standards of living catch up in conjunction. Over the last 50 years it has been the USAs world domination, as see here in figure 33.
Figure 33. USA GDP vs. the rest of the World (50 years)
77
Industry Economic Histories Commercial aviation is a vital engine for the American economy. The U.S. civil aviation industry (which includes aircraft, engines and parts manufacturers, airlines, airports, and general aviation) directly or indirectly generates over 12 million jobs and $1.5 trillion in economic activity. Federal Aviation Administration, The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy, 2007.
Every dollar invested in the aerospace industry has a triple effect. It helps keep good jobs in the United States; creates the products that bring enormous revenues from other countries; and yields the security and economic benefits that flow uniquely from Americas civil aviation, space, and defense leadership. It is a privilege to contribute to our nations success, and we must continue doing what we have shown we do best keep America strong and working. 2009 Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. Americas Aerospace Economic Case Aerospace has played a vital and exciting role in the growth of the United States and the nations future is bright with the vast potential these two components, air and space, offer. General data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) indicates that aerospace engineers and related professions declined between 2002 and 2012. However, the events of September 11, 2001 have magnified the aerospace industrys importance to the national and economic security of our nation, and economic trends show the workforce picture is beginning to turn around. Other sectors of the economy depend on aerospace businesses and related disciplines for technical skills and technologies that are critical elements of our security infrastructure and improve Americas position in the global marketplace. The diverse sectors of aerospace include commercial, civil and military aviation, space, and defense. They encompass a wide array of talent and competencies. The industrial base includes researchers, engineers, technicians, mechanics, skilled machinists, and precision production jobs. According to the Aerospace Industry Association, the aerospace industry, including its supplier network and the economic impact of products, totaled nearly $Trillion in sales and accounts for one in seven U.S. jobs. Even with aerospace employment at its lowest level since the great depression, the industry
78
accounts for four percent of the U.S. manufacturing workforce. This key industry is facing a critical human capital crisis. (Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, Executive Summary) TRADABLE EMPLOYMENT The tradable part of the economy is the most important part of industry because it is a Gross Domestic Product which can be sold to other nations thus getting paid by others to produce and sell. This is what makes Japan with very few resources make their Nation financially strong along with China, Germany, India and South Korea. US Tradable goods and jobs present a different picture. Figure 32 shows the larger or major tradable sectors across three groups of manufacturing (see Figure 31). Figure 31. Description of Manufacturing Industry Splits Manufacturing I: Food, beverage, and tobacco production; textile, apparel, footwear, and leather goods Manufacturing II: Wood and paper products; petroleum and coal; basic chemical products; synthetic materials; nonmetallic mineral products; glass; and cement products Manufacturing III: Primary and fabricated metal products; heavy machinery; transportation equipment; computers and electronics; household appliances; semiconductors; and furniture production Source: Summary of the North American Industry Classification System descriptors for manufacturing. In Manufacturing III, we isolated electronics, autos, and other transportation (aero, rail, and ships) to get a closer look at these industries. In Manufacturing II, we isolated pharmaceuticals. Sticking with the methodology just described, those industries that are not predominantly tradable have an asterisk to indicate that most of the industry is on the nontradable side. (International Trade Administration, Flight Plan 2010: Analysis of the U.S. Aerospace Industry, www.trade.gov/mas/ manufacturing/OAAI/aero_reports.asp.)
79
Figure 34. Tradable Industry Jobs, 19902008 (Majors)9
Source: Authors calculations using Bureau of Labor Statistics historical data series *Industries that are not predominantly or entirely tradable include an asterisk. The pattern is mixed but clear. The manufacturing sectors declined substantially in employment in all three groups. Manufacturing III accounts for the largest drop in jobs between 1990 and 2008 (2.2 million). Major industry job loss was in the electronics industry (650,500), aerospace (337,400, see figure 32), and the auto industry (172,400). Manufacturing I accounts for the second-largest drop over the period (1.3 million). In this sector, major industry job loss came from cut-and-sew apparel manufacturing (597,300), and fabric mill (203,000). Manufacturing II accounts for the third-largest drop (880,400), driven by the paper (-438,000) and chemical
80
industries (-165,600). Agriculture also posted losses of 535,000 jobs. Parts of agriculture are highly capital intensive but others (like fruit and vegetables) remain labor intensive. The most notable increases in major tradable industries were in finance and in architectural and engineering services. The tradable portion of informationthe telecommunications, data hosting, broadcasting, motion picture, recording, and publishing subindustries rose overall, but experienced a sharp rise and fall during the Internet bubble.
Looking at the Cost of Goods vs. Time: Cost Comparison over the years $ Weight Jet Fuel Gasoline (US) Automobile Aircraft Gold Tax GDP (US) Avg US Earnings
Figure 35. Cost Comparison
Value 7 Gal
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
6.8 3200 525000 x 16 = lb
Gal Avg, 747 18M 25M 75M $12,750 100M 125M $21,500 150M 180M
1 oz. $38.90 $139.29 $594.90 $327.00 $386.20 $387.00 $272.65 $
81
Figure 36. Tradable Industry Jobs 1990-2008
Source: Authors calculations using Bureau of Labor Statistics historical data series
82
*Industries that are not predominantly or entirely tradable include an asterisk. Non auto transportation equipment production was a major contributor to job losses in the tradable sector since 1990 (roughly 353,000 jobs). The vast majority of the loss occurred in aerospace (roughly 340,000 between 1990 and 2008). In total, the nonauto transport equipment industries saw a decrease in value added of 19 percent as one of only two industries to see a decrease between 1990 and 2008; the other is mining (59 percent). Still, the drop in employment was enough to offset the drop in value added, resulting in a positive increase of 20 percent in value added per job over the same period. To a large extent, the decline in aerospace value added reflected falling military procurement after the end of the Cold War. However, since 2003, the industry has been rebounding behind multifront military activities, and both employment and value added are on the rise. Value added
has grown more than 27 percent since 2003 alone .

Figure 37. Aerospace and other Transport Industries (Tradable)
Source: Authors calculations using Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics historical data series Notably, the United States had a trade surplus in the aerospace industry in 2009, $47.2 billion, up 6.3 percent from 2008.29 According to the International Trade Administration, the surplus in aerospace was the largest amongst all U.S. manufacturing industries. It is the result of the top end of the value chain being in the United States, accurately reflecting the global configuration of the supply chain. This is the direct analog of Chinas
83
apparent surplus in electronics, which results from the assembly piece of the value-added chain being performed substantially in China. Whether the positive trends seen in recent years continue will depend in part on foreign policy decisions. Economic Value A Comparative Model The 747 is a Good example of the value growth an Aircraft program can have on the economy and its Nation. 2010 $ in Airplane Millions WeightFamilies Average 737 Family 737-600 737-700 737-800 737900ER 747 Family 747-8 747-8 Freighter 767 Family 767200ER 767300ER 767-300 Freighter 767400ER 777 Family 777232.3 330,000 $703.94 $741.82 180.6 330,000 $547.27 167.7 309,000 $542.72 164.3 295,000 $556.95 144.1 260,000 $554.23 $550.29 317.5 319.3 525,900 $603.73 $605.44 525,900 $607.15 56.9 67.9 80.8 85.8 95,440 97,750 $596.19 $709.43 $694.63 dry lb. $ Per lb. Avg. $ Per lb.
103,800 $778.42 111,650 $768.47
84
200ER 777200LR 777300ER 777 Freighter 787 Family 787-8 787-9 185.2 218.1 276,700 $750.71 $742.78 296,800 $734.84 269.1 354,600 $758.88 284.1 380,600 $764.45 262.4 354,600 $739.99
Aerospace & Defense: Least Understood Industrial Sector By guest author Robert H. Trice Aerospace and defense (A&D) is among the least understood and appreciated of Americas industrial sectors. Largely because of the politically charged, acronym-laden, arcane and sometimes classified world of government contracting within which it operates, its characteristics are much debated but seldom analyzed. We begin with its modest size. There are about 140 million civilians in todays U.S. workplace. The Aerospace Industries Association estimates today there are about 819,000 private-sector A&D workers, down from 1.2 million in 1990, the end of the Cold War. For context, there are roughly 2.8 million civilian federal government workers, 1.6 million uniformed military and 1.1 million lawyers in America. A&D workers are well compensated. Production workers have an average hourly wage higher than any other industry ($33), and they are twice as likely to be represented by a union (16 percent) than the rest of the private sector. With average annual earnings for all employees at $79,000 in 2009, A&D workers are second only to those working for high-tech companies ($84,000). The average U.S. salary in 2009 was $38,000.
85
This small sector is also, year after year and by far, the leading positive contributor to the U.S. balance of trade. Including commercial aircraft exports, A&Ds net exports in 2008 were about $58 billion. The second leading sector was semiconductors at roughly $22 billion. A&D is a major engine for research and development. While the average U.S. company spends less than 3 percent of net sales on R&D, aerospace and defense companies average over 13 percent. While the bulk of these funds come from the Department of Defense and other federal agencies, many of the technologies spawned by these investments find wide commercial applications. Examples are legion, from the Internet, hydraulic brakes, cordless power tools, smoke detectors and airbags to GPS, satellite communications and climate monitoring. Ultimately the industry and the DOD acquisition community exist to develop, produce and field the most militarily effective systems possible for those who protect this nation and its freedoms, interests and allies. And when the U.S. government and the A&D sector get it right which is most but certainly not all of the time they have repeatedly delivered capabilities unmatched by any potential adversary. Todays A&D industry emerged from the post-Cold War consolidations of the 1990s. A relatively small number of global prime contractors hold responsibility for delivering major systems to the government. Just below, at the first tier, are large, well-known sub-primes and systems partners. What gets less attention are the 30,000+ lower-tier suppliers that produce and deliver subsystems and materials on up the chain. On average, between 60 and 75 percent of every dollar that goes to a prime is subcontracted out for work performed by others, including more than 20,000 small, minority-owned and disadvantaged businesses. Some argue that A&D companies make too much money. Using a standard measure of gross earnings (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA) for various sectors from 2007-2009, A&D lagged most of its competitors, with an average gross return of around 13 percent. The 2009 average net income or profit of major U.S. primes was about 7 percent, in line with the average profit margin for the S&P 500. Like all other elements of the private sector, A&D companies compete for financial capital and human talent, provide returns for their shareholders and pay taxes. What differentiates them is
86
that, with few exceptions (e.g., Boeing), most of their revenuesand oversightcome from the federal government, which uses the goods and solutions they produce to provide security and services for the nation, its allies and friends. Despite its middling economic returns, the industry is able to attract sufficient private capital because of its longer business cycles, strong cash flows and relatively lower downside risks for investors. A&D companies are consistently able to hire and retain top-tier engineering and scientific talent, not only because of relatively generous economic benefits, but also the perceived importance of their work in support of U.S. defense and foreign policy priorities. Lost: America's Industrial Base By, J. David Patterson Like the F-22? Dont like the F-22? Think we need more F-22s? Think 187 F-22s is about the right number? Believe we need the capability the F-22 brings to the fight, or think we dont. The U.S. Senates vote Tuesday of 58 -- 40 to stop F-22 production at 187 aircraft is the next to the last nail in coffin of the Air Forces premier fighter program. A House-Senate conference still has to agree on the final result, but it seems like a long shot that the program will be continued.
Regardless, of where you come down in the debate, what matters is that by not buying more F22s, the U.S. Air Forces fifth generation fighter has won a very secure spot on the side of milk cartons as the poster child for a lost industrial base. Last weeks publication by the Aerospace Industry Association (AIA) of a report on the U.S. aerospace industrial base should have given the Department of Defense and Congress pause. Not because the aerospace industrial base has been reduced to a state that is not recoverable, but because the decisions being made in the Department have not considered the impact on the aerospace and defense industry that the Department depends on. Particularly, troubling is that the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) has not considered in the past and is currently continuing to ignore the consequences of what it is recommending on the U. S. aerospace and defense industrial base. The fact that the QDR was not done before Secretary Gates announced the F-22 termination leaves a great analytical gap beneath that decision where a solid foundation should be.
87
The issue is not just about jobs. Though much of the debate in favor of the F-22 centered on jobs, the real industrial base issue is about the kind of jobs that are on the chopping block as defense strategy development moves forward without regard to the availability of the skilled and experienced workforce necessary to build the weapons that make the defense strategy actionable.
When the industrial base is defined -- more accurately -- it is 1) formed and experienced developmental engineering design teams, 2) highly skilled and experienced aerospace touch labor and 3) the financial capability to compete in future weapons programs, it is clearly worse than anemic.
Since about 1986, there has been a steady decline in the number of aerospace research and development scientists and engineers the U.S. has had available to ensure the nations ability to build the necessary weapons,. From a high of about 145,000 in 1986, the number of aerospace research and development scientists and engineers in the U.S. had diminished to around 38,000 in 2007 according to the 56th Edition of Aerospace Facts and Figures. Its not that the United States is losing research and development engineers in all industries. In fact, during the same period the number of research and development scientists and engineers in all industries has increased from around 670,000 to over one million. But, in the aerospace sector the number of aerospace research and development scientists and engineers as a percentage of the total in all industries has plummeted from a high of about 22 percent in 1986 to just over 3 percent in 2007.
The real challenge in retaining engineering talent is with the part of the definition offered here as formed and experienced. In their report the Aerospace Industries Association noted that once lost, Reconstituting lost production, design and engineering capabilities could take many years. The picture for highly skilled aerospace touch labor doesnt look much better. From 1993 to 2007 the number of aerospace production workers declined by nearly 8 percent from 390 thousand to 360 thousand. Often there is a mistaken notion that because in the buildup of wartime manufacturing during World War II Rosy the Riveter, with little training abandoned
88
the ironing board to take up the soldering iron. Consequently, the idea that rebuilding lost aerospace production skills today is very wrong-headed. The training and experience necessary for an apprentice electrician or machinist to become fully qualified in the aerospace industry takes between three to five years. Modern fighter aircraft use composites and exotic metals that take significant training and experience to manipulate.
Politicians are fond of saying that putting a new defense program in their district or state will create so many thousands of new highly paid, highly skilled jobs. The facts are that new defense programs won because some other company lost. Since the numbers of production workers and engineers are declining, winning a contract means that jobs are migrated and not created. Because the jobs are high paying as well, a certain amount of wealth migrates with the jobs. But, for the country and the industrial base as a whole, new defense programs are essentially a zero sum game.
It is a very expensive proposition to compete for major aerospace and defense weapons and equipment programs. General Dynamics, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and BAE SYSTEMS with its recent U.S. aerospace and defense company acquisitions, are the six remaining aerospace companies. Down from over 50 aerospace companies capable of competing for large programs before the spate of mergers. Ok, you say. Its survival of the fittest and the Darwin Factor has prevailed. The consolidation of companies helped to reduce overhead and the remaining companies are more efficient. Im not sure thats right, but maybe so. The point here is that because the Big Six wield such financial power to invest in large defense programs, smaller companies that might have a competitive product or service face a financial barrier to entry that is daunting. Again, the AIA report put the issue differently, but the point is the same, Once a company decides to exit the modern defense industrial base, the expense of re-entry is so high that the exit will likely be permanent.
The F-22 fighter debate has highlighted a more immediate problem that could have severe longterm consequences for Americas ability to attend effectively and responsibly to future threats. National security strategy crafting like the Quadrennial Defense Review is in no way precise. Even the most prescient of policy experts can only see up to the current military operations horizon, not beyond it. Choosing a narrowly focused national strategy with the necessary
89
weapon systems to execute that strategy without regard for the impact on the industrial base leaves our nation at risk. Mr. Patterson is the Executive Director, National Defense Business Institute in the College of Business
Fading Space Industrial Base America is the only developed Country which does not have a manned space program after the retirement of the Space Shuttles. NASA's future is up for grabs in a Washington power struggle, but that's not what most worries Marshall Space Flight Center Director Robert Lightfoot. "What keeps me awake is maintaining the capabilities and minimizing the loss of skills" at the center he inherited from generations of space pioneers, Lightfoot said here Tuesday. '"Everybody talks about retiring hardware," Lightfoot told the annual Center Director's Breakfast update. "But we're also potentially retiring a lot of knowledge - a whole lot of knowledge. And that has long-term implications for Marshall, this community and this country." "I worry about that," Lightfoot said. "I am concerned that the skills needed to take this nation beyond Earth orbit won't be there when we need them." Any list of reasons why would begin with that fight in Washington, although Lightfoot says that's far beyond his control. President Obama wants to cancel the Constellation rocket program, which was to be NASA's next big mission and which employs 2,200 NASA and contractor employees here. Many in Congress want to continue it. The administration has proposed privatizing spaceflight instead, while assigning Marshall to plan for a new deep-space rocket and manage robot explorers aimed at other planets. Those initiatives "do provide some new opportunities" and "represent good work for Marshall," Lightfoot said. But will the experts here now - some of whose jobs are ending with the space shuttle program and rising new talent wait to see what comes next? "We knew we were going to have a transition," Lightfoot said, referring to the shuttle's long-scheduled last flight this year. "We've been working to minimize the loss of knowledge and skills. We've been planning for several years on shuttle transition," Lightfoot said. "Of course, the challenge is deepened with the proposed budget." Other agencies are eyeing NASA's talent pool, too, Lightfoot said, including the Army, Marshall's Redstone Arsenal landlord.
90
NASA and the Army have "a great partnership," Lightfoot said, adding that "our thoughts and prayers are with them" after last week's fatal explosion. BRAC recruiters trying to feed the Army's growing presence here are coming after NASA engineers, technicians and other professionals, Lightfoot said. And the Army isn't the only challenge. Lightfoot illustrated with the history of the suspension bridge, invented in America and perfected in the world-famous Brooklyn and Golden Gate spans. When it was time to build the Tacoma Narrows bridge in 2000, Lightfoot said, the American steel industry had collapsed and bridge expertise had moved to Asia, where detailed engineering on the Tacoma bridge was outsourced. The deck was built in South Korea and the 19,000 miles of wire inside the main cables were manufactured in South Korea, China and England. "It's a fact of life," Lightfoot said. "Expertise goes where the demand is." Marshall's challenge, Lightfoot said, is to "nurture and encourage" a new generation of rocket scientists, so "the skills are ready when the call comes" for America's next bridge into space. "It does keep me awake sometimes," Lightfoot said. Lightfoot and Marshall honored three contractors and an educational institution Tuesday. They were: * Jacobs Engineering, Science and Technical Services (ESTS) Group, large business service category. * ATK Launch Systems, large business product category. * Qualis Corp., small business service category. * The Huntsville Center for Technology - the technical training and education center for the Huntsville City School System and longtime NASA partner in the Great Moonbuggy Race and other events. ' Americas Lead World Space Program The Space Station which was originally called Freedom has evolved to be a Great World of People working together for our own man kinds future. My buddy Chaz Willitz Director at NASA Washington DC Headquarters was a main player in charge of this program. He even kept the models build in his condo he had in Arlington VA. What a interesting person. He was 72 in 1989 and went to Cal Tech, was an Army Air Core Pilot in WW2 then lived in Huntington Beach most of his life. He had spent many years working at which was then North American Aircraft even on my favorite XB-70, which became Rockwell and the McDonnell Douglas now Boeing. His son was a guitarist in a famous band (STP). When I visited his condo there he had a space station models filling up 1 room and a drafting board, books and files and no bed. I
91
asked where he slept he said it was a chair he designed from the work the observed in space which held him in some fetal type position, it was very comfortable he said he can get a full eight hours of sleep in less than 5 hours because the body secretes no acids of position uncomfortablefeeling. Wow lets mass produce this, he had no interest because he liked mental stimulation projects more
Todays International Space Station

Many of us wish we could go up there to learn & play
Figure 38. ISS
Click here for all recent ISS Articles: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/iss/ http://www.space.com/16748-international-space-station.html The International Space Station (ISS) is the most complex international scientific and engineering project in history and the largest structure humans have ever put into space. This high-flying satellite is a laboratory for new technologies and an observation platform for astronomical, environmental and geological research. As a permanently occupied outpost in outer space, it serves as a stepping stone for further space exploration. The station flies at an average altitude of 248 miles (400 kilometers) above Earth. It circles the globe every 90 minutes at a speed of about 17,500 miles per hour (28,000 kph). In one day, the station travels about the distance it would take to go from Earth to the moon and back.
92
Five different space agencies representing 15 countries built the $100 billion International Space Station and continue to operate it today. NASA, Russia's Federal Space Agency, the European Space Agency, the Canadian Space Agency and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency are the primary space agency partners on the project. Structure The International Space Station was taken into space piece-by-piece and gradually built in orbit. It consists of modules and connecting nodes that contain living quarters and laboratories, as well as exterior trusses that provide structural support, and solar panels that provide power. The first module, Russia's Zarya module, launched in 1998. The station has been continuously occupied since Nov. 2, 2000. The space station is planned to be operated through at least 2020. [Infographic: The International Space Station: Inside and Out] During the space station's major construction phase, some Russian modules and docking ports were launched directly to the orbiting lab, while other NASA and international components (including Russian hardware) were delivered on U.S. space shuttles. [Rare Photos: Space Shuttle at Space Station] The space station, including its large solar arrays, spans the area of a U.S. football field, including the end zones, and weighs 861,804 pounds (391,000 kilograms), not including visiting vehicles. The complex now has more livable room than a conventional five-bedroom house, and has two bathrooms, a gymnasium and a 360-degree bay window. Astronauts have also compared the space station's living space to the cabin of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet. The space station is so large that it can be seen from Earth without the use of a telescope by night sky observers who know when and where to look. The space station can rival the brilliant planet Venus in brightness and appears as a bright moving light across the night sky. Crew size A six-person expedition crew typically stays four to six months aboard the ISS. The first space station crews were three-person teams, though after the tragic Columbia shuttle disaster the crew size temporarily dropped to two-person teams. The space station reached its full six-person crew size in 2009 as new modules, laboratories and facilities were brought online. If the crew needs to evacuate the station, they can return to Earth aboard two Russian Soyuz vehicles docked to the ISS. Additional crewmembers are transported to the ISS by Soyuz. Prior
93
to the retirement of NASA's space shuttle fleet in 2011, new space station crewmembers were also ferried to and from the station during shuttle missions. Crews aboard the ISS are assisted by mission control centers in Houston and Moscow and a payload control center in Huntsville, Ala. Other international mission control centers support the space station from Japan, Canada and Europe. The ISS can be controlled from mission control centers in Houston or Moscow. [Photos: Space Station's Expedition 32 Mission] Facts about International Space Station

The ISS solar array surface area could cover the U.S. Senate Chamber three times over. ISS eventually will be larger than a five-bedroom house. ISS will have an internal pressurized volume of 33,023 cubic feet, or equal that of a Boeing 747.
The solar array wingspan (240 feet / 73 meters) is longer than that of a Boeing 777 200/300 model, which is 212 feet (64.6 m).
Fifty-two computers will control the systems on the ISS. More than 115 space flights will have been conducted on five different types of launch vehicles over the course of the stations construction.
More than 100 telephone-booth sized rack facilities can be in the ISS for operating the spacecraft systems and research experiments
The ISS is almost four times as large as the Russian space station Mir, and about five times as large as the U.S. Skylab.
The ISS will weigh almost one million pounds (925,627 pounds / 419,857 kilograms). Thats the equivalent of more than 320 automobiles.
The ISS measures 357 feet (108 meters) end-to-end. Thats nearly the length of a football field including the end zones.
3.3 million lines of software code on the ground supports 1.8 million lines of flight software code.
8 miles (12.8 kilometers) of wire connects the electrical power system.
94
In the International Space Stations U.S. segment alone, 1.5 million lines of flight software code will run on 44 computers communicating via 100 data networks transferring 400,000 signals (e.g. pressure or temperature measurements, valve positions, etc.).
The ISS will manage 20 times as many signals as the Space Shuttle. Main U.S. control computers have 1.5 gigabytes of total main hard drive storage in U.S. segment compared to modern PCs, which have about 500-gigabyte hard drives.
The entire 55-foot robot arm assembly is capable of lifting 220,000 pounds, which is the weight of a Space Shuttle orbiter.
The 75 to 90 kilowatts of power for the ISS is supplied by an acre of solar panels.
Tim Sharp, SPACE.com Reference Editor Buildup Overview: http://www.space.com/10115-building-international-space-station.html The ISS communications overhaul performed under the ODAR and HRCS programs will allow for a vastly increased flow of payload data between the space station and Earth, which is greatly needed at the present time, as the sheer amount of payloads now operating aboard the ISS at any given moment were straining the previous communications system to its limits. The increase in communications capability shows that the ISS is capable of evolving to meet the ever growing needs of the scientific community, and is direct evidence that despite being designed some 20 plus years ago, the ISS is fit to perform its duty as a 21st century orbiting science laboratory, continuing to serve and benefit mankind in its mission of discovery for a long time to come.
95
Figure 39. Hubble Space Telescope
Seeing our beginning and many worlds to come Official Link to Hubble: http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/hubble/ The Hubble Space Telescope was deployed from the Space shuttle Discovery during STS31 on April 25, 1990. Since then, there have been 5servicing missions that continued to upgrade the telescope's scientific instruments and operational systems. Hubble reached a major milestone, its 20th anniversary in orbit, on April 24, 2010. Hubble imagery has both delighted and amazed people around the world and has rewritten astronomy textbooks with its discoveries.
96
This Hubble photo is of a small portion of one of the largest-seen star-birth regions in the galaxy, the Carina Nebula. Towers of cool hydrogen laced with dust rise from the wall of the nebula. The pillar is also being pushed apart from within, as infant stars buried inside it fire off jets of gas that can be seen streaming from towering peaks. Credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Livio and the Hubble 20th Anniversary Team (STScI). For the latest news on Hubble, visit http://www.nasa.gov/hubble.
Figure 40. Mars Rover
The Mars rover recent achievements Awesome video of what the US is doing on Mars. All the beginning of science prior to our
97
human arrivals. http://youtu.be/gwinFP8_qIM During a moratorium on commanding this month while Mars passed nearly behind the sun - a phase called solar conjunction -- NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity entered a type of standby mode. Mission controllers learned of the changed status on April 27 when they first heard from Opportunity after the period of minimized communication during the solar conjunction. They prepared fresh commands today (April 29) for sending to the rover to resume operations. Initial indications suggest the rover sensed something amiss while doing a routine camera check of the clarity of the atmosphere on April 22. "Our current suspicion is that Opportunity rebooted its flight software, possibly while the cameras on the mast were imaging the sun," said Mars Exploration Rover Project Manager John Callas of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "We found the rover in a standby state called automode, in which it maintains power balance and communication schedules, but waits for instructions from the ground. We crafted our solar conjunction plan to be resilient to this kind of rover reset, if it were to occur." Opportunity has been working on Mars for more than nine years. NASA's other Mars rover, Curiosity, which landed last year, is also nearing the end of its solar conjunction moratorium on commanding. Curiosity has reported coming through the conjunction in full health. Controllers plan to send Curiosity's first set of post-conjunction commands on May 1. JPL, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages both rover projects for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. For more information about Opportunity, visit http://www.nasa.gov/rovers andhttp://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov . You can follow the project on Twitter and on Facebook at: http://twitter.com/MarsRovers andhttp://www.facebook.com/mars.rovers .
98
99
Chapter 5
The Future Forecasts Global leadership is not a birthright. Despite what many Americans believe - Greatness must be worked for and won by each new generation In the next 20 years the Aerospace & Defense market is valued at around 7 Trillion over 3 Trillion is in the Commercial Aircraft Market. We have a pretty good pulse in the Market Analysis for Forecasts; in some detail Boeing has produced a very good 20 Forecast Annually. The recent Leader Airbus then follows up with their own adjusting or tweaking some details and inputting the European Unions point of view. The Worlds Growing Competition Many countries are becoming growing competition to US Aerospace Industry and currently when I write this book, US is second in the world to Airbus & EADS the European Community now the Number 1 Aerospace Company in the World. They do not occupy just a single Country like the USA but a financial and working consortium of Europes producing countries which is Headquartered in Tolouse France. China has been trying hard to build up their own industry and India will help them along with building up their own. The difference with India is they have so much unbalanced wealth; corruption and their Government and business will not invest in the infrastructures to make them capable U.S. faces foreign competition in space By Peter N. Spotts, The Christian Science Monitor 11/7/2005 6:28 PM The plan for human space exploration has a familiar ring: Launch probes to scope out the moon, build rockets powerful enough to get people and supplies there, then send the first lunar expedition all before 2020.
100
These goals form the centerpiece of the U.S. manned spaceflight program. They now form the centerpiece of China's, too. As lawmakers in Washington fret over how to pay for key elements of President Bush's blueprint for space exploration, which aims to send astronauts back to the moon in 2018, China is making a bid to place the first bootprints on the moon this century perhaps in 2017. On one level, China's goals plus those of other space-faring countries are raising concerns among some analysts that the US space program may be on the verge of losing its preeminence in space exploration. The foreign competition also echoes a broader worry: the possibility that the global center of gravity in science and technology may start to shift toward Asia if the U.S. fails to adequately support its research enterprise. NASA became the focus of those concerns as its administrator, Michael Griffin, told Congress last week that the agency needed to make difficult cuts in basic research and technology development. Some lawmakers worried about the agency's ability to attract the best and brightest and help draw more young people to science and technology. Many experts worry about what might happen if those young people do something else. While the U.S. remains the world's R&D giant, "the Chinese are definitely moving faster than we are" in key areas, says James Lewis, director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. He cites information technology, aerospace, and biotechnology as examples. "The rates of change in these areas favor China," he continues. Check out how NASA plans to use elements of the Apollo and shuttle programs for the next moon mission. "Whether it's enough to catch up remains to be seen." With a gross domestic output of $7.3 trillion, second only to the United States in economic terms, China is projected to move into second place in the global R&D sweepstakes this year, overtaking Japan, according to projections from Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio, and R&D magazine. On
101
a continental scale, Asia is projected to overtake the Americas this year in total R&D spending and pull well ahead next year. To a large degree, these changes are normal adjustments as economies devastated by World War II recovered and the communist economies gave way to more market-based approaches, analysts say. Such a move has its benefits, says Kei Koizumi, director of the R&D budget and policy program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington. "It opens the door for expanded collaborations that didn't exist a decade ago." Yet the question of who leads remains critical, many say. "Certainly, a lot of the concern stems from self-interest," Mr. Lewis says. "But it also has to do with who sets the rules of international behavior. People from other countries train in the U.S. and take that exposure to innovation and democratic values back with them. I don't know who we'd feel comfortable handing that off to." Last month in a major report from The National Academies, panel members expressed concern over what they saw as the erosion of America's R&D effort at a time when other countries are ramping up their R&D efforts. The panel recommended a set of remedies from improving elementary and secondary science education to offering tax incentives for U.S. innovation and raising federal spending for R&D. Estimated cost: $9 billion to $20 billion a year. Yet the competition for federal dollars is fierce, given the war in Iraq, the ballooning federal deficit, and the rising cost of federal entitlement programs. "We can see the path we would like to take," Mr. Koizumi says. "But getting there is not easy." The challenges NASA faces, he continues, are a case in point. Many of the agency's troubles are self-inflicted, he acknowledges. Still, he adds, the agency can be viewed as a microcosm for the forces buffeting the U.S. R&D enterprise as a whole. Budget strictures are forcing the agency to make hard choices. "NASA cannot afford everything on its plate today," Dr. Griffin told lawmakers last week. At issue: How the agency will make up what NASA estimates is a $3 billion to $5 billion shortfall in the space-shuttle program, even as
102
it tries to accelerate development of the shuttle's replacement the crew exploration vehicle (CEV) and the rockets to launch it. Before the agency presented its plan for returning humans to the moon earlier this fall, NASA "cast its net very widely on research and technology development," he said. "Now we should be oriented toward projects we're actually doing. This requires canceling things that don't need to be done or don't need to be done right now." The moves, which include layoffs at the agency, could mean fewer young people would sign on to the space program. Yet the adjustments are necessary, Griffin argued, if the U.S. is to avoid a period when it has no homegrown means of putting astronauts in space. Failing to accelerate the program beyond the pace President Bush initially envisioned "would take the U.S. out of manned spaceflight for four years, when other nations are rising in ascendancy," Griffin said. "We're seeing the dawning renaissance of NASA," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R) of New York and chairman of the committee. "But a renaissance costs money. And I don't see any Medicis waiting in the wings to underwrite NASA." Noting NASA's proclivity to over-promise on its projects and timetables, he said, "I don't want to see us go down that road again."
103
Where All the Money Is: The US Defense is the largest in the world well over everyone else put together.
This shows how the US Strength is the most Ultimate on Earth, but we will lo ose some with new downsizing. NASA & the NSF should have more contribution than what has been shelled out to them and with the upcoming changes predicted in the future, we should not lose our Superpower.
104
Figure 41. Over Cost F35 Comparison
105
Boeings Future Forecast Boeing expects an increasing trend to continue over the next 20 years, with world passenger traffic growing 5 percent annually. Air cargo traffic has been moderating after a high period in 2010. Air cargo contracted by 2.4 percent in 2011. Expansion of emerging-market economies will, however, foster a growing need for fast, efficient transport of goods. We estimate that air cargo will grow 5.2 percent annually through 2031.
The shape of the market

We forecast a long-term demand for 34,000 new airplanes, valued at $4.5 trillion. These new airplanes will replace older, less efficient airplanes, benefiting airlines and passengers and stimulating growth in emerging markets and innovation in airline business models. Approximately 23,240 airplanes (68 percent of new deliveries) will be single-aisle airplanes, reflecting growth in emerging markets, such as China, and the continued expansion of low-cost carriers throughout the world. The twin-aisle segment will also increase, from a 19 percent share of today's fleet to a 23 percent share in 2031. The 7,950 new twin-aisle airplanes will allow airlines to continue expansion into more international markets. The Boeing US Commercial Aerospace Industry and Defense 2012-2031 http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/cmo/ Airbus Future Forecast Many countries are becoming growing competition to US Aerospace Industry and European Consortium has better manufacturing more automated techniques with the exception in composite on the 787 and Airbus is copying with their A350. Airbus Global Market Forecast for 2012-2031 offers a forward-looking view of the air transport sectors evolution taking into account such drivers and factors as population growth, urbanization, emerging markets, innovation and environmental impact. During this period, Airbus foresees the need for some 27,300 passenger airliners with seating capacities of 100 seats and above, along with nearly 900 new factory-built freighter aircraft. The Global Market Forecast also anticipates a more than doubling of the worlds overall passenger aircraft inventory, from 15,500 today to more than 32,500 by 2031. The Airbus Market Forecast from 2012-2031
106
http://www.airbus.com/company/market/forecast/ Asias Future Forecast Asia & Chinas Future Forecast well they dont publish one yet but in 1994 while I was in South Korea consulting ultimately to Samsung Aerospace through Martin Marietta which became Lockheed Martin at that time. Forecast Considerations: Additional considerations to eh Asia & Chinas Future Forecast well they dont publish
107
Chapter 6
Our Future Focus and Plans The Worlds future was at the hands of America when Japan stood on the deck of the Missouri and signed their surrender to US at the end of World War 2. At that moment in time the world was the USAs apple to take because we had the Atomic bomb and nobody else did. The US had already beaten Germany and Russia was nothing of a threat nor a mighty power in comparison. From that point forward America has directly rebuilt, industrialized and modernized those countries which have been devastated by war much to the effect to compete against US. This One Nation under God, indivisible with Liberty and Justice for All with endowed Rights by our Creator did not push World Domination because it is not American to do so. Now, Americas Future depends mostly on all of us citizens to stand up for its importance politically, then win economically. The secret of the value is known worldwide for boosting societys standards of living and economic prosperity. China has been trying hard to build up their own industry and India will help them along with building up their own. The difference with India is they have so much unbalanced wealth; corruption and their Government and business will not invest in the infrastructures to make them capable The future focus will belong to those who can dream, design and build the ultimate way to transport people and goods the fastest, cheapest and safest ways possible. On land ultra high speed rail from coast to coast, seems to be a no brainer although Amtrak (traveling at 70MPH) cannot stay alive without government aid. Personal aerocraft or the flying car should be our goal because 3 dimensional travel allowing one to avoid streets with traffic, pollution, potholes (infrastructure) and personal limits speed and your desire to live near work or school. This is the next phase for us, just like the automobile brought us out of the train & buggy age in the 20 th century.
108
At an AIAA conference in Los Angeles early 1990s a NASA Director had spoke of us getting into our own flying vehicle, telling it or punching in our destination and it would take you there safety with Global Positioning System (not known at the time) and the National Advanced Air Traffic Control System by the year 2012.
109
Wheres our Flying Car? We have all seen articles in Popular Science or movies that have flying cars, well where are they? Maybe the insurance Companies which almost killed the private Aircraft Companies like, Moonie, Bonanza, Piper, Cessna and others back in the 1970s. At an AIAA Conference in Los Angeles in 1990 was NASA official talking about the year 2012 a day when you get into your flying craft/car, tell it where you want to go or punch in the destination and we would get you there. This was to performed using a new Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system and an Advanced automated Air Traffic Management (ATM) System for Air Traffic Control and safety. Thanks to handing the GPS over to the USAF for a successful delivery and what we take for granted today. Not so lucky with the Air Traffic Management system, which some events have made headline news. In 2011 Air Traffic Controllers were sleeping on the job and a dangerously close condition with the first Lady Michelle Obama. The most important part of flying cars isnt only the car themselves but, the safety of a crowded skyway and when a craft fails it cannot pull over to a cloud and wait for AAA to come and help. If a aircraft fails in the sky it must land on something somewhere and you dont want it to be your house or head. This means safety in design and reliability must be incorporated. I happen to have a thrust vectoring design for this originally proposed to the US Army back in 1990, now it has many technical improvements put into it. The propulsion would use super conductive electro-magnetic for thrust and lift.
Figure 42. SVCs Vertical Take-off & Landing Aerocraft
110
There have been many attempts at the flying car since 1917 Curtiss Aircraft made an Autoplane which was a modified production automobile with wings mounted to the roof but never really seen true flight just a few hops and skips. In 1929 a German Engineer J.H. Maykemper made a convertible flying car with folding wings. His car would transfer power from the forward wheels to a front mounted propeller and was capable at takeoff within 100 yards. Fortunately Ive already worked on or engineered or managed the entire development of Electric Vehicles, so research and capability runs deep into been there, done that.
The Super Sonic Cruiser Anyone who has flown overseas, understands the lengthy painful experience even in first or business class and coach, you must be of a small stature to even handle it. Why is it we still fly Sub Sonic because it is easier to make micro adaptations than go for the gusto of the new way to do things. France tried it with the Concord to find it barely broke even. Back in Feb. 26, 2002 Boeing showcased the Sonic Cruiser in Singapore and was proceeding in the preliminary design and investigation for a Super Sonic blended wing body Aircraft called the Sonic Cruiser.
111
Figure 43. Boeing Sonic Cruise vs. Better
The airplane has a dramatic new configuration and is designed to fly as fast as Mach 0.98, shortening travel times with fuel consumption per passenger comparable to today's best performing widebody twinjets. The program remains targeted for 2008 entry into service.
112
Figure 44. Boeing Sonic Cruiser
Hypersonic - The Orient Express In the late 1980s and early 1990s McDonnell Douglas, Rocketdyne, Pratt and Whitney were investigating and building some techniques for going Hypersonic or flying from Los Angeles to Tokyo in 2 Hours. The National Aerospace Space Plane: We made a fuselage section in 1988 for the NASP at McDonnell Douglas CA. back in 1988-89 creating very high tech material processes. We laser and plasma sintered powdered called Rapid Solidification Rate (RSR) process and matrixed metals (titanium-aluminide, with reinforced silicon-carbide fibers) then rolled sheets and superplastic formed (SPF) and diffusion bonded (DB) to create shape and Hot Isostatic Processed (Hipped) for molecular stabilization and heat treating. The superplastic formed multisheet assembly created a center core for semi cryogenic hydrogen slurry to flow thru both carrying the fuel and cooling the hypersonic aircraft to 20 time the speed of sound at mach20 and over 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit.
113
Figure 45. Hypersonic Aircraft
The X-51 WaveRider team is focused on developing a free-flying vehicle that will fly longer hypersonically than all of it predecessors combined. Hypersonic speeds are those in excess of Mach 5 (five times the speed of sound). The X-51 program is a consortium between Boeing and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne. The customers are the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, with support from NASA. The Boeing X-51 team purposely developed the vehicle to package a specific engine type into a soon-to-be-demonstrated platform. When this jet-fueled, air breathing hypersonic vehicle flies in late 2009 and early 2010, it will demonstrate a reliable system capable of operating continuously on jet fuel and accelerating through multiple Mach numbers Space Tourism Today you can buy tickets to travel into space around $200,000 per seat on the Virgins Galactic. This is very Low Earth Orbit to fly around in free space for less than an hour, never having to go outside of Space where re-entry is dangerous and not found in SirVigin .
114
Space Based Solar Power-Energy Why Space Energy: Us Humans have found the way to convert solar radiation to electrical energy, at this moment still DC creation. In space you have un interrupted energy and less the diffusion of clouds. The ultimate clean energy known to man is the Space Based Solar Power Stations thought of back in the 1968 by NASA. When I was working at General Dynamics Space Systems in San Diego in 1990, I remember the proposal department was always working on and submitting this Space Based Solar Power system to our Government they even included it in our Annual Christmas book with all the other space technologies being proposed. (unfortunately NASA-at times Great now being a puppet of politics (i.e, Praising Muslims working on US Projects, what about the Jews, Buddhists, Hindu, Christians? Could this add to the demise of America the Great Land of Freedom, when a choice looks or prejudice flavor is to be allowed in America? http://www.thefutureschannel.com/dockets/realworld/space_based_solar_power/ In Christmas 2009 I had a Jobs Forum and Christmas party from friends from Vought Aircraft of LTV (now Triumph), Northrop Aircraft of El Segundo and my personal friends from Boeing. In this Jobs Forum lead by Valerie Jarrett I mentioned this as a great way to achieve energy independence. The Energy I know we can do is over 1 Terawatt per year per space system that
115
equals 114.5 Kw per hour.
Figure 46. SBSP Concepts
The concepts shown are not the high powered techniques proposed to the DoD but are valuable to understand easy accomplishable goals. We (humans) have sent microwaves down to Earth at levels to do this and Europe has sent it via Laser Beam, Japan mainly Mitsubishi has dedicated Billions for this to be Japans source by or before 2040. Unfortunately our White House was looking through Oil Tainted/Tinted glasses. This would be a reason self resourcefulness which would eliminate most suppliers to household energy systems. For Mankind: If you provide the Material, Energy and Production Capability to any Nation they can create industry to have Developmental Self Support and Civilization Improvement. I would like to quote a Letter sent to the President Obama from an Organization dedicated to this: As developing countries continue to grow and embank on major electrification efforts, energy shortages will become one of the most serious challenges facing governments this century. China and India alone will need to raise energy generating capacity by a staggering 4 to 5 times over the next 20 years in order to meet demand an equivalent of bringing on-line two large coalfired power stations per week, every week. The risk of energy shortages could mean more than high prices. In the 20th century, many wars were motivated in part by the need to secure future energy supplies - and, according to the U.S. Pentagon, the risk of such conflict remains high in the 21st century. (See the paper "War Without Oil.") Safe, reliable, renewable, base-load power that is affordable and widely available has long been the holy grail of researchers and scientists in the energy industry. Aside from averting conflict associated with resource wars, abundant clean energy has the potential to truly improve life around the world in many ways. Rural electrification can offer one of the fastest ways out of poverty for developing areas. It can ensure that food and medicines are preserved and made available where they are needed the most. It can provide power for water purification and desalination and light so that children can study and develop their potential. This is why Space Energy is committed to harnessing existing and new methods for clean energy generation and transmission, such as from ground-based solar power and space-based solar
116
power. Space Energy seeks to improve the lives of millions of people, provide viable alternatives to polluting energy sources and help abate some of the challenges caused by increasing demand for energy and declining natural resources. It intends to become the leading commercial enterprise in the field of renewable energy by harnessing the benefits of traditional and new methods for clean, safe, reliable, power generation and transmission. This includes developing owning and operating ground based solar parks in the United States and internationally through the mobilization of existing and proprietary technologies. Moreover it intends to be the worlds first private enterprise to succ essfully commercialize Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) a proven technology, now made commercially viable by changed market conditions and further advancements. SBSP uses arrays of solar panels to harvest the abundant supply of clean solar energy in Earths orbit to transmit a safe, uninterrupted supply of electricity anywhere on Earth at affordable, fair market prices. The approach taken from the commercial white-world (unclassified) is to teach and create actions the following is from a very knowledgeable Charles F. Radley who must have went to school in my original home state of Michigan: Meeting the Energy Challenge with Space Solar Power A workshop examining a new energy path forward
Michigan Technological University, in collaboration with professionals from NASA, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the Space Solar Power Institute, is planning a Space Solar Power (SSP) workshop to clarify the challenges facing SSP implementation. Michigan Techs Electrical and Mechanical Engineering departments have been actively conducting SSP research. Michigan Tech is prepared to offer a workshop in August 2013 for academics, industry professionals, and members of professional associations related to renewable energy to focus on SSPs challenges and opportunities. Motivation: Thirty seven states and many countries have initiated Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and other initiatives to adopt improved energy alternatives, such as ground-based solar, bio-fuel, and wind. SSP satellites, however, appear to be the most attractive of these; large-scale, baseload, low CO2 emissions, near zero fuel and water use, among other key advantages.
117
SSP would be large-scale solar energy collection in space and its wireless transmission to Earth for use by the customers of existing major power grids. SSP development would take advantage of many advanced technologies and promote further advances; including wireless power transmission, microwave circuits, space transportation, new communication paradigms, light and smart space-based structures, telerobotic construction and operations, photovoltaics and electric propulsion. The International Academy of Astronautics SSP study advocated for the coordination among various countries and between industry and government agencies. Japans lar ge SSP project and consortium is being emulated in China, Russia and elsewhere. This workshop intends to provide a forum for all relevant stakeholders, including energy developers and power industry representatives. Workshop Highlights: The workshop is planned for two days. Presentations and keynotes will be selected from researchers, program managers, industry representatives, and academics, interspersed with topical working group discussions. The workshop aims to compare different SSP technologies, promoting discussion of these technologies, and to develop prize competition concepts resulting in significant advances in SSP systems and technologies. Participants will discuss how the efforts of existing national and international bodies might be complemented or enhanced. These working group discussions will be summarized and action items disseminated at the end of workshop. Workshop Goals: 1. Provide a forum to identify the current status of SSP, and challenges/solutions to SSP implementation. 2. Investigate forming national/international committees for standardization and research coordination; 3. Bridge the gap between the SSP community and growing RPS demands on the electric power industry; 4. Identify opportunities to create and implement SSP dialog and education for electric power companies; as well as cognizant state and federal regulatory agencies; and, 5. Develop SSP prize competition concepts for consideration by NASA, X-Prize, DARPA, etc. Venue: Michigan Technological University, or Michigan Tech, is located in Houghton, on Michigans scenic upper-peninsula. Surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior, ruggedly beautiful Keweenaw Peninsula is rated one of the top-ten outdoor adventure spots in the country by National Geographic Adventure Magazine. Learn more at www.mtu.edu/.
118
Tomorrows new Bomber Northrop Grumman knows how and competes with Boeing and Lockheed Martin which are working closely at all levels to capture the best of industry to develop and provide an effective and affordable solution for the warfighter. (Maybe if our Senate and White House People where mostly from Lockheed & Boeing States they would get the program much like the last
Decade.)
Figure 47. Next Generation Bomber
This collaborative effort for a long-range strike program will include work in advanced sensors and future electronic warfare solutions including advancements in network enabled battle management, command and control, and virtual warfare simulation and experimentation. The work performed by the Boeing/Lockheed Martin team is designed to help the Air Force establish capability-based roadmaps for technology maturation and date certain timelines for the 2018 Bomber program. Would this even be needed once we have all the Space based lasers up and running, remember in 1989 we blew up a Nuclear Missile sight in New Mexico from outer space proving Reagans Star Wars program, it cost the energy of a nuclear explosion in space to do this but
119
we did it. If you have spin off technologies to add to our commercial sector could be gained like our new transports always had bigger better engines, the trade off would need evaluation. Tomorrows Spy Plane
Figure 48. SR-71 Replacement
In 1976, U.S. Air Force SR-71 Blackbird crews flew from New York to London in less than two hours, reaching speeds exceeding Mach 3 and setting world records that have held up for nearly four decades. But those world records may not stay unbroken for long. Thats because today, at the birthplace of the Blackbird Lockheed Martins Skunk Works engineers are developing a hypersonic aircraft that will go twice the speed of the SR-71. Its called the SR-72. Son of the Blackbird The SR-71 was developed using 20th century technology. It was envisioned with slide rules and paper. It wasnt managed by millions of lines of software code. And it wasnt powered by computer chips. All that changes with the SR-72.
120
Envisioned as an unmanned aircraft, the SR-72 would fly at speeds up to Mach 6, or six times the speed of sound. At this speed, the aircraft would be so fast, an adversary would have no time to react or hide. Hypersonic aircraft, coupled with hypersonic missiles, could penetrate denied airspace and strike at nearly any location across a continent in less than an hour, said Brad Leland, Lockheed Martin program manager, Hypersonics. Speed is the next aviation advancement to counter emerging threats in the next several decades. The technology would be a gamechanger in theater, similar to how stealth is changing the battlespace today. A hypersonic plane does not have to be an expensive, distant possibility. In fact, an SR-72 could be operational by 2030. For the past several years, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works has been working withAerojet Rocketdyne to develop a method to integrate an off-the-shelf turbine with a supersonic combustion ramjet air breathing jet engine to power the aircraft from standstill to Mach 6. The result is the SR-72 that Aviation Week has dubbed son of Blackbird, and integrated engine and airframe that is optimized at the system level for high performance and affordability.
Figure 49. Hypersonic Research and Development
121
SR-72 is not the first hypersonic Skunk Works aircraft. In partnership with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, engineers developed the rocket-launched Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (HTV-2). The HTV-2 research and development project was designed to collect data on three technical challenges of hypersonic flight: aerodynamics; aerothermal effects; and guidance, navigation and control. The SR-72s design incorporates lessons learned from the HTV-2, which flew to a top speed of Mach 20, or 13,000 mph, with a surface temperature of 3500F. A hypersonic aircraft will be a game changer.
Figure 50. SR-72 (November 1, 2013)
122
Educating Tomorrow s People The next generation of students going into Engineering and Aerospace to take up the reigns of tomorrow has been dwindling in the last couple decades. We have more Lawyers graduating Universities than we do the creators of tomorrow.
10 Incredible Airplane Designs of the Future by Michele Collet NASA awarded three contracts this fall for designs of aircraft that will be flying in 2025 to Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. Each one has to be less noisy, more fuel efficient and have cleaner exhaust than planes flying now. Other specifications by NASA are that they should "fly up to 85 percent of the speed of sound; cover a range of approximately 7,000 miles; and carry between 50,000 and 100,000 pounds of payload, either passengers or cargo." Here are the three concept designs as well as some from April and earlier. Not all of them will make it beyond the design stage and some may have already been scrapped, while others could be very close to being seen on our runways in the future.
123
10. An Iconic Idea
Figure 51. 10) Icon-II Supersonic flight
Photo: NASA/The Boeing Company The Icon-II is a design for supersonic flight over land that comes from Boeing. Apart from fulfilling the specifications, it also reduces fuel consumption and airport noise.
124
9. Green Supersonic Machine
Figure 52. 9) Green Supersonic Machine
Photo: NASA/Lockheed Martin Corporation This concept design by Lockheed Martin is one that the company presented to NASA in April of last year and is designed for overland supersonic flight. It showed that by using the inverted V engine under the wing configuration, one can really lower the level of supersonic booms.
125
Figure 53. 8) Blended Wing
Photo: NASA/The Boeing Company These blended wing concept aircraft are from Boeing and one of the three that was shown to NASA when the contract awards were granted in the fall. 7. X-45A UCAV
126
Figure 54. 7) X-45A UCAV
Photo: Boeing The UCAV air vehicle was unveiled at a special exhibition in Missouri, along with two other elements of the UCAV system, a mission control and air vehicle storage system. 6. Solar Eagle
Figure 55. 6) Solar Eagle
Photo: Boeing The Solar Eagle is Boeing's entry into the Vulture program by the defense program to create an ultra-long endurance aircraft.
127
5. SUGAR
Figure 56. 5) SUGAR
Photo: NASA/The Boeing Company SUGAR is a Boeing concept aircraft presented in April 2010 that stands for Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research. It combines gas and battery technology.
4. Lockheed Martin, Fall

Figure 57. 4) Lockheed Martin
128
Photo: NASA/Lockheed Martin Lockheed Martin's concept plane this fall doesn't look so different on the outside except for the wing structure being all one, but it is revolutionary inside, as are all the others. 3. Bigger is Better
Figure 58. 3) Bigger is Better
Photo: NASA/MIT/Aurora Flight Sciences This aircraft was presented in April by MIT. Known as the Hybrid Wing Body H series, it is designed to fly at Mach 0.83, carrying 354 passengers over 7,600 nautical miles.
2. Northrop Grumman, Fall
129
Figure 59. Northrop Grumman
Photo: NASA/Northrop Grumman This is Northrop Grumman's artist concept, which was presented in the fall of 2010.
Figure 60. The Puffin
Photo: NASA This amazing design is the Puffin Personal Aircraft. It is designed to go about 150 miles an hour for about 50 miles. Needless to say, it has been one of NASA's most viral images.
But there is a limit to solar energy. And the question that leaves engineers scratching their heads now, is how to make that leap from the light aircraft weve seen make a major technological breakthrough today, to fuelling the passenger airliners of tomorrow? If an entire aircraft were to be covered with 100 percent efficient solar panels, it would still not be enough to sufficiently propel a large aircraft. Even greatly increasing the output of pho tovoltaic cells wouldnt make an airliner fly. In the more immediate future solar power could provide electricity on board the aircraft once it has reached altitude. But who knows what the future will bring!
130
The motto of tomorrow will be flexibility.
131
Figure 61. Airbus Solar Aircraft
In the future there will be so many different ways to fly. For your personal travel, not far from home, youd choose your own vehicle perhaps the much-vaunted flying car. But as soon as you want something more economical or faste r for longer distances youd need something else that allows for mass transportation. So your car of the future could be a capsule you keep in your garage, then drive or fly to dock onto an enormous mother ship that takes you to your final destination . But what about ground-space? How do we avoid sprawling airports and extending runways? Vertical take-off would be one way of gaining space in cities. We could have flying aircraft carriers for our long distance flights, which circle the globe and on which small aircraft can dock. In the middle of this century, telecommunications will be so perfect that we will have to travel far less for our work. On the other hand, it will be easy to work as we travel! Communication technology will be as accessible on a plane as it is in an office. But it still wont replace the benefits of face -to-face meetings, the sensation of holding a new grandchild or the excitement of visiting a new country for the first time. Telecommunications will never replace the sights and sounds of real travel. We will want to arrive at our destination in ever shorter time frames, whatever the distance: so will anyone bring back The Supersonic Plane? Or perhaps well see the Hypersonic Plane, which would travel above the atmosphere and reach Australia, for example, in just two to three hours. Unless we decide to take our time and enjoy a trip with every comfort: swimming pools, spas, tennis courts etc. The next generation of air tourism will be cruise ships of the sky with packages to suit the individual. And on these flying palaces, that will make their money from casino takings, restaurants and other attractions, the ticket may even be for free! Travel in the future will be about choice. You will be able to choose if you want fast travel, luxury travel or basic leisure travel. To make this choice you could be assisted by a personal cyber assistant that is always around you, knows what you want and what you feel and will make the travel booking according to your personal preference.
132
The final frontier will be space. We are already seeing the first serious steps towards space tourism today, but an orbital space station could become the ultimate holiday destination. Experience the joys of weightlessness and the unrivalled view of our very own Earth, the planet that we have been able to preserve in all its splendid diversity. Boeings 797 Concept
Figure 62. Boeings 797 Concept
133
Conclusion Re-quote the introduction 100 years evolution Little innovation in 30 years, except material & powerplant GDP Importance Society Std of Livings Need for Far sighted improvements and growth for New Markets & niches (flying cars, space tourism)
In the past 100 years we have come along way, from the birth of powered flight to supersonic flight without an afterburner. Over the last 30 years the commercial side of flight has made very little advancement from the barrel with swept wings developed 60 years ago. The materials may have improved for strength to weight improvements and most improvement have been in the Jet propulsion made the greatest improvements in efficiencies, many thanks to the ultra high bypass system. Many of these achievements could not exist without the fostering of technology evolution by Defense Systems. We currently are in program development and GDP market share of less than due to competition. In the future there will be so many different ways to fly. For your personal travel, not far
134
135
136
References & Contributors: Chapter 1: Beginnings & Buildups History: "Airbus Industrie: An Economic and Trade Perspective." Congressional Research Service, U. S. Library of Congress. U. S. Government Printing Office, March 1992. Allen, Richard Sanders. Revolution in the Sky. New York: Orion Books, 1988. Ambrose, Stephen E. The Wild Blue: The Men and Boys Who Flew the B-24s Over Germany. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001. Anderson, Fred. Northrop: An Aeronautical History. Los Angeles: Northrop, 1976. Angelucci, Enzo. The American Fighter. New York: Orion, 1987. and Matricardi, Paolo. World Aircraft, 1918-1935. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1976. . World Aircraft: Origins World War I. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1975. Biddle, Wayne. Barons of the Sky. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991.
137
Bilstein, Roger E. Flight In America: From the Wrights to the Astronauts Revised Edition. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. . Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles. Washington, DC: NASA SP-4206, 1980. . The American Aerospace Industry: From Workshop to Global Enterprise . New York: Twayne Publishers, 1996. Bledsoe, Marvin V. Thunderbolt: Memoirs of a World War II Fighter Pilot . New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1982 Bowers, Peter M. Boeing Aircraft Since 1916. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 1989. . The DC-3. 50 Years of Legendary Flight. Blue Ridge Summit, Penn. Tab Books, 1986. Bowman, Martin W., compiler. Douglas - Images of America. Stroud, Gloucestershire, England: Tempus Publishing Limited, 1999. . Lockheed. Images of America. Stroud, Gloucestershire, England: Tempus Publishing, Ltd., 1998. . Boeing: Images of America. Stroud, Gloucestershire, England: Tempus Publishing, Ltd., 1998. Boyne, Walter J. Beyond the Horizons The Lockheed Story. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998. . Boeing B-52: a Documentary History London; New York: Jane's, 1982. . The Smithsonian Book of Flight. New York: Wing Books, 1987. Braybrook, Roy. Supersonic Fighter Development. Sparkford, Somerset, England: Hayes Publishing Group, 1987. Bright, Charles D. The Jet Makers The Aerospace Industry From 1945 to 1972. Lawrence, Kan.: The Regents Press of Kansas, 1978. Brooks, Courtney G., James M. Grimwood, and Loyd S. Swenson, Jr. Chariots for Apollo: History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. Washington: NASA, 1979. Available at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/cover.html
138
Brown, Peter Harry and Broeske, Pat H. The Untold Story: Howard Hughes. New York: Dutton Books, 1996. Casey, Louis S. Curtiss, The Hammondsport Era 1907-1915. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc. 1981. Chant, Chris. The World's Great Bombers. London: Amber Books, 2000 and Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Taylor, Michael J.H. The World's Greatest Aircraft. Edison, N.J.: Chartwell Books, Inc. 1999. Coleman, Ted. Jack Northrop and the Flying Wing. New York: Paragon House, 1988. Crouch, Tom. The Bishop's Boys A Life of Wilbur and Orville Wright. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1989. Cunningham, William Glenn. The Aircraft Industry: A Study in Industrial Location. Los Angeles: Lorin L. Morrison, 1951. Davies, Ed., Thompson, Scott A., and Veronica, Nicholas A. Douglas DC-3 : 60 Years and Counting. Elk Grove, Calif.: Aero Vintage Books, 1995 Davies, R. E. G. Airlines of the United States Since 1914. London: Putnam, 1972. Donald, David, gen. ed. The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft . New York; Barnes & Noble Books, 1997. Drosnin, Michael. Citizen Hughes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985. Eltscher, Louis R. and Young, Edward M. Curtiss-Wright Greatness and Decline. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1998. Fairchild Hiller Corporation. Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Fifty Years of Fairchild Aviation. The Corporation, 1970. Francillon, Ren J. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920. London: Putnam, 1979. Francillon, Ren J. Grumman Aircraft Since 1929. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 1989. Franklin, Roger. The Defender: The Story of General Dynamics. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986.
139
General Electric. Seven Decades of Progress: A Heritage of Aircraft Turbine Technology . Fallbrook, Cal.: Aero Publishers, Inc. 1979. Gerber, Albert Benjamin. Bashful Billionaire. L. Stuart, 1967. Gibbs-Smith, Charles H. Aviation An Historical Survey From Its Origins to the End of World War II. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1970. Glines, Carroll V. and Moseley, Wendell F. The DC-3 The Story of a Fabulous Airplane. Philadelphia and New York: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1966. Gunston, Bill, editor-in-chief. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Propeller Airliners. London: Phoebus Publishing, 1980. . Grumman: Sixty Years of Excellence. New York: Orion Books, 1988. . The Development of Piston Aero Engines. Somerset, England: Haynes Publishing, 1993. . The Illustrated Directory of Fighting Aircraft of World War II . New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1988. . The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Commercial Aircraft . New York: Phoebus Publishing Co., 1980. Hack, Richard. Hughes: The Private Diaries, Memos and Letters. New Millennium. 2001. Hallion, Richard P. Designers and Test Pilots. Alexandria, Va.: Time-Life Books, 1983. . Test Pilots The Frontiersmen of Flight. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1981, 1988. Hardy, M. J. Sea, Sky and Stars: An Illustrated History of Grumman Aircraft . New York: Sterling Publishing, 1987. Heppenheimer, T. A. "How Boeing Bet the Company and Won." Audacity (Winter 1993) 52-62. . A Brief History of Flight. New York: John Wiley, 2000. . Countdown: A History of Space Flight. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997. . Turbulent Skies The History of Commercial Aviation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1995.
140
Heron, S.C. History of the Aircraft Piston Engine: A Brief Outline . Detroit, Mich.: Ethyl Corporation, 1961. Higham, Charles. Howard Hughes: the Secret Life. New York: Putnam's, 1993 Holden, Henry M. The Legacy of the DC-3. 1st ed. Niceville, Fla.: Wind Canyon Pub., 1996 Ingells, Douglas J. 747: The Story of the Boeing Superjet. Fallbrook Cal.: Aero Publishers, 1970. Ingells, Douglas J. L-1011 Tristar and the Lockheed Story. Fallbrook, Cal.: Aero Publishers, 1973. Irving, Clive. Wide-Body The Triumph of the 747. New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc., 1993. Jane's All the World's Aircraft, 1919. London: Sampson Low, Marston and Co., 1919. Jane's All the World's Aircraft. Alexandria, Virginia: Jane's Information Group. Annual editions; most recent, 2001-2002. See also http://www.janes.com Johnson, Clarence L., with Maggie Smith. Kelly. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1985. Kelly, Thomas J. Moon Lander: How We Developed the Apollo Lunar Module. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001. Kuter, Laurence S. The Great Gamble: the Boeing 747. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1973. Lynn, Matthew. Birds of Prey: Boeing vs. Airbus, a Battle for the Skies. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1997. Maheu, Robert and Hack, Richard. Next to Hughes: Behind the Power and Tragic Downfall of Howard Hughes by His Closest Advisor. New York: HarperCollins, 1992. Maloney, Edward T. Sever the Sky: Evolution of Seversky Aircraft. Corona del Mar, Cal: Planes of Fame, 1979. Mansfield, Harold. Vision. New York: Madison Publishing Associates, 1986. McGuire, Steven. Airbus Industrie: Conflict and Cooperation in U.S.E.C. Trade Relations. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997.
141
McIntyre, Ian. Dogfight: The Transatlantic Battle Over Airbus. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1992. Mellberg, William F. Famous Airliners, 2nd edition. Vergennes, Vt.: Plymouth Press, Ltd., 1999. Millbrooke, Anne. Aviation History. Englewood, Col.: Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. 1999, 2000. Mondey, David, general editor. The International Encyclopedia of Aviation. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1977. Morrison, Wilbur H. Donald W. Douglas: A Heart With Wings. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1991. Nevin, David. Architects of Air Power. Alexandria, Va.: Time Life Books, 1981. Newhouse, John. The Sporty Game: The High-Risk Competitive Business of Making and Selling Commercial Airliners. New York: Knopf, 1983. Northrop Grumman History. Northrop Grumman Corporation (provided by Manager, Corporate Public Information) O'Leary, Michael. DC-3 and C-47 Gooney Birds. Osceola, Wis.: Motorbooks International, 1992 Pape, Gary R. and Campbell, John M. Northrop's Flying Wings: A History of Jack Northrop's Visionary Aircraft, Atglen, Penn.: Schiffer, 1995. , et. al. The Flying Wings of Jack Northrop. Atglen, Penn.: Schiffer, 1994. Pattillo, Donald M. Pushing the Envelope: The American Aircraft Industry . Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press, 1998. Pearcy, Arthur. Douglas Propliners: DC-1 DC-7. Shrewsbury, England: Airlife Publishing Ltd., 1995. . Fifty Glorious Years: a Pictorial Tribute to the Douglas DC3, 1935-1985. Vista, Cal.: Aeolus, 1985. Phelan, James. Howard Hughes, the Hidden Years. New York: Random House, 1976. The Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Story. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft division of United Aircraft Corporation, 1950. Rich, Ben R. and Janos, Leo. Skunk Words: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1994.
142
Robinson, Anthony, ed. The Encyclopedia of American Aircraft. New York: Galahad Books, 1979. Rodgers, Eugene. Flying High: The Story of Boeing and the Rise of the Jetliner Industry . New York: The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1996. Roseberry, C.R. Glenn Curtiss: Pioneer of Flight. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1972. Sabbagh, Karl. Twenty-First Century Jet: The Making and Marketing of the Boeing 777 . New York: Scribner, 1996. Schoen, Arthur L. Vought: Six Decades of Aviation History. Plano, Texas: Aviation Quarterly Publishers, 1978. Serling, Robert J. Legend and Legacy; The Story of Boeing and Its People. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992. Sikorsky, Igor. The Story of the Winged-S. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1938. Simonson, G.R. The History of the American Aircraft Industry An Anthology. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1968. Smith, Henry Ladd. Airways: The History of Commercial Aviation in the United States. New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1965. Solberg, Carl. Conquest of the Skies. Boston: Little, Brown, 1979. Spick, Mike. Designed for the Kill: The Jet Fighter Development and Experience. Shrewsbury, England: Airlife Publishing Ltd., 1995. Stoff, Joshua. Picture History of Early Aviation, 1903-1913. New York: Dover Publications, 1996. . The Thunder Factory: An Illustrated History of the Republic Aviation Corporation. London: Arms and Armour Press, 1990. Swenson, Jr., Loyd S., Grimwood, James M., and Alexander, Charles C. This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury. Washington, D.C.: NASA SP-4201, 1966, reprinted 1999. Found at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/cover.htm Tegler, Jan. B-47 Stratojet : Boeing's Brilliant Bomber. New York: McGraw Hill, 2000.
143
Thornton, David Weldon. Airbus Industrie: The Politics of an International Industrial Collaboration. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995. Thruelsen, Richard. The Grumman Story. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976. Treadwell, Terry. Ironworks: Grumman's Fighting Aeroplanes. Shrewsbury, UK: Airlife Publishing, 1990. Van der Linden, F. Robert. The Boeing 247: The First Modern Airliner. Seattle, Wash.: and London: The University of Washington Press, 1991. Vought Company History Fact Sheet. Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., August 2001. Wagner, William. Ryan, the Aviator Being the Adventures & Ventures of Pioneer Airman & Businessman T. Claude Ryan. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971. Wings for the Navy: A History of Chance Vought Aircraft. Stratford, Conn.: United Aircraft Corporation, 1943. Woods, George Bryant. The American Manufacturing Industry: Present and Future Prospects . New York: White, Weld & Co., 1946. Wooldridge, E.T. Winged Wonders The Story of the Flying Wings. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1983. Yenne, Bill, Legends of Flight. Lincolnwood, Ill.: Publications International, Ltd., 1999. On-Line References: 747-400 Family. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/background.html Alexander de Seversky. http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/russia/seversky.html Apollo-Spacecraft News Reference. http://www.apollosaturn.com/refer-frame.htm Boeing A Brief History. The Boeing Company. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/background.html Claude Ryan. San Diego Historical Society. http://www.sandiegohistory.org/bio/ryan/ryan.htm. Conspiracy. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b49_3.html.
144
Cugini, John D. Republic Aircraft's F-105 Thunderchief. http://www.historynet.com/magazines/aviation_history. Curtiss JN-4 Jenny.' Museum of Naval Aviation. http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/. Curtiss JN-4D Jenny.' U.S. Air Force Museum. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/ Early Martin Planes. http://www.martinstateairport.com/ Engines. U.S. Air Force Museum. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/ F-22 Raptor. http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/f22.html F-24. Air & Spacecraft Collection. Museum of Flight. http://www.museumofflight.org/collections/craftdisplay.html?ID=50. The Fairchild Story. The Fairchild Aerial Photography Collection at Whittier College. http://web.whittier.edu/fairchild/home.html. GE Aircraft Engines: Nine Decades That Changed the World. http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/index.html. General Dynamics Aviation and Aerospace Milestones. 2001. General Dynamics. http://www.generaldynamics.com/ The Glenn L. Martin Aviation Museum. http://www.martinstateairport.com/. Guttman, Robert, Boeing's Trailblazing P-26 Peashooter. http://www.historynet.com/magazines/aviation_history History of General Dynamics 2001. General Dynamics. http://www.generaldynamics.com/ Howard Hughes. Aerofiles Capsule Biographies. http://aerofiles.com/bio_h.html. Hughes, Howard (Robard). Encyclopedia Britannica. Available in print, on CD, and on-line at http://www.Britannica.com. by subscription. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company History. http://www.lmaeronautics.com/history/index.html Lockheed Martin Team Wins Joint Strike Fighter Competition, Pledges Full Commitment to This Cornerstone of Future Defense Capability. Lockheed Martin Press Release. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aboutus/history/
145
Lockheed Space Systems Company. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ssc/. Lockheed Vega. National Air and Space Museum. http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19360030000 The Man, His Machines, and the Company He Built. Vought Heritage Museum. http://www.vought.com/his_index.html Mariner-10. http://history.nasa.gov/factsheet.htm. Martin Aircraft. Glenn L. Martin Aviation Museum. http://www.martinstateairport.com/. McDonnell Douglas F-4C Phantom II.' U.S. Air Force Museum. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/. McDonnell Douglas History. http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/f22.html Nau, Evan D. The Bumblebee Project. 1998. http://wwwpersonal.umich.edu/~buzznau/bmblbee.html North American History. http://www.boeing.com/history/narrative/n021naa.html Northrop B-35. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b35.html. Northrop Grumman History. Northrop Grumman Corporation. http://www.northropgrumman.com/heritage/index.html. Northrop-Grumman News Release. Northrop Grumman Completes Tender Offer for Newport News Shipbuilding; Acquisition Creates Nation's Third Largest Defense Contractor, World's Largest Naval Shipbuilder. November 30, 2001. http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/index2.html Northrop YB-35. U.S. Air Force Museum. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/. Northrop YB-49. U.S. Air Force Museum. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/ Northrop YB-49/YRB-49A. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b49.html The Nurflugel Page. http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/nurflugel.html Orbital to Sell Fairchild Defense Unit to Smiths Industries for $100 Million. http://www.orbital.com/Template.php3?Section=News&NavMenuID=32&template=PressReleas eDisplay.php3&PressReleaseID=267.
146
Pike, John. Atlas Facilities. October 25, 1996. Federation of American Scientists. http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/launch/atlas_f.htm. . SM-65 Atlas United States Nuclear Forces. March 10, 1999. Federation of American Scientists. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/sm-65.htm. Project Bumblebee. http://www.xsouth.freeserve.co.uk/project_bumblebee.htm Ranger L-440-1. The National Warplane Museum. http://www.warplane.org/engines/R_l-4401.htm. Ryan STM-S2. New Zealand Warbirds Association. http://www.nzwarbirds.org.nz/ryana.html Seversky Aircraft & Republic Aviation: P-47 Thunderbolt: Aviation Darwinism. The Cradle of Aviation Series, The Cradle of Aviation Museum. http://home.att.net/~historyzone/SeverskyRepublic.html. Seversky P-35. http://www.wpafb.af.mil.museum/research/pet.htm. Sherman Fairchild. Aerofiles Capsule Biographies. http://www.aerofiles.com/bio_f.html. Sherman Mills Fairchild. National Aviation Hall of Fame Enshrinees. http://www.nationalaviation.org. Sherman M. Fairchild (1896-1971). Sherman Fairchild Library of Engineering and Applied Science. http://library.caltech.edu/sherman/fairchild.htm. Shockley Semiconductor. http://silicon-valley-story.de/sv/shockley.html. Sikorsky, Igor. The S42. The Development and Characteristics of a Long-Range Flying Boat. A speech given to the Royal Aeronautical Society, London, on November 15, 1934 by Igor I. Sikorsky. http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/s42.html Soaring Through Time. Pratt & Whitney. http://www.pw.utc.com/Home. The Spirit of Innovation. Curtiss-Wright Corporation. http://www.curtisswright.com/history.asp. Spruce Goose. http://www.sprucegoose.org. Swinhart, Earl. Vought F4U Corsair. http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html
147
T-38 Talon. U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet. http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=126. Tekulsky, Joseph D. Peoples and Planes: B.F. Mahoney. http://www.historynet.com/magazines/aviation_history Thomas K. Finletter. 2001. United States Air Force. http://www.af.mil/information/heritage/person.asp?dec=&pid=123122544 The Vought F-8 Crusader. http://www.vectorsite.net/avcrus.html. Vought F4U-1D Corsair. National Air and Space Museum. http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19610124000. Vultee Lady Peace' 2001. Aerofiles. http://www.aerofiles.com/ladypeace.html. World Flight Chronicle. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/. World Flight Chronicle is a fictitious newspaper-style web document designed to add interest to the events surrounding the first round-the-world flight in 1924. Any similarity to an actual newspaper or newsletter is purely coincidental. Events reported in the World Flight Chronicle are true and drawn from primary and secondary sources and cited where appropriate. Historical fictionalization of stories is done purely to enhance readability. Wraga, William. Curtiss and the Flying Boat. Curtiss-Wright Corporation. http://www.curtisswright.com/history.asp. . Curtiss: 1910-1920. Curtiss-Wright Corporation. http://www.curtisswright.com/history.asp. . Curtiss-Wright Corporation: A Brief History. Curtiss-Wright Corporation. http://www.curtisswright.com/history.asp.
Industries Economic History: Bibliography
148
Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc., Washington D.C. Aerospace Facts & Figures. This is an annual statistical series, dating back to 1945, about developments in the aerospace industry. Bilstein, Roger E. The American Aerospace Industry: From Workshop to Global Enterprise. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1996. Brumberg, Joan Lisa. NASA and the Space Industry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. Bugos, Glenn E. Engineering the F-4 Phantom II: Parts Into Systems. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1996. Hayward, Keith. The World Aerospace Industry: Collaboration and Competition. London: Duckworth, 1994. Pattilo, Donald M. Pushing the Envelope: The American Aircraft Industry . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998. Pisano, Dominick and Cathleen Lewis, editors. Air and Space History: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Garland, 1988. Rae, John B. Climb to Greatness: The American Aircraft Industry, 1920-1960. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1968. Stekler, Herman O. The Structure and Performance of the Aerospace Industry . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965. Vander Meulen, Jacob. The Politics of Aircraft: Building an American Military Industry . Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1991. Citation: Bugos, Glenn. "History of the Aerospace Industry". EH.Net Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaples. August 28, 2001. URL http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/bugos.aerospace.industry.history
Biogtraphy:
SHAWN PAUL BOIKE
Long Beach, CA. 90803 562-343-5660 / 562-338-9911 shawnboike@aol.com, spboike@gmail.com, www.linkedin/in/shawnpaulboike
149
Shawn Boike has lead teams for; McDonnel1 Douglas, the USAF IMIP Program, HCL Aerospace, PPG Aerospace, Honeywell, Boeing, AAR, Northrop Grumman and consulted to Lockheed Martin. He has over 28 years experience in Aerospace & Product Development, (16 Aircraft) on the B2 Bomber, USAF One, F20, F18, C17, MD11, T45, MD90, MRUAV, 777. 787, 747-8, Apache helicopter, 3 Rocket ships; ALS, Atlas II, Atlas IIAS, Manager on EV's; GM-EV1, Samsungs EV4, Mina's REVA and many other high tech programs. Founder of: American Industrial Consultants & Solution Vehicles Co. and gained a
o Projects Manager-Leader/: Development, Eng. Design & Build AerospaceAircraft/Land Vehicles (Military & Civil) Proven w/26+ years Experience in Product Development Specialist Design and Manufacturing for: 16 Aircraft, 2 Rocket Ships, 1 amphibious plus 9+ Land Vehicles & many Automobile Platforms. In concurrent engineering environment, in producing: Lean, Va lue Added proposals, concepts, R & D, specification, documentation, certifications, designs & plans that are structurally sound & w/optimal material selection & development (composites, ceramics, superconductive & metals). Working knowledge on various Programs CAD systems (UG, Catia, ProE & Solidworks - see below) along with FAA Airworthiness, regs., certification & approval, doing FEA, FMEA, CFD, DOEs & 6 Sigma. DOD experience, Survivability, Armor, C4ISR & Structures Expert (EVMS, DOORS, docs. software, Windchill, ACE, DPA, Fly-thru, Epic, IVT, Systems Trades, Project; IMS & IMPs, ISO 9,000s, 14,000s, ITARS, EME, EMI, RF, Sensors and DARS & FARS). Many Years of experience in managing teams ($XXXM/yr) since 1988, USAF PM Cert in IMIP. CAREER EXPERIENCE: Honeywell Turbo Technologies Torrance CA. 90504 (July 2011 to Dec 2011) SpecialistProducts Eng. (Consultant, Worked in teams on the development and continuous Improvement of Turbochargers at ultra high speed and high Temps and harsh environments (170KRPM, +820C). SOLUTION VEHICLE CO. Long Beach CA. 90803 (Jan 2010 to July 2011) Programs Mgr.: Invented, proposed (US Army, DARPA, USAF) & Built Team for a new
150
advanced UAVs. These future flying VTOLs are composite vehicles, High Strength Metals frame & landing gear with high tech modern turbojet propulsion & EM Propulsion (Solidworks). HCL America 11000 Regency Parkway, Raleigh, NC. (Oct 2010 to Jan 2011) Vice President/Delivery Manager: Managed a Team of 60 People; Boeing, Bell Helicopter Program cut short due/ended to poor Planning, Sales & Forecasts by India owned subsidiary. Triumph AIRCRAFT IND. (was Vought, Northrop Aircraft) 3801 Jack Northrop Ave, Hawthorne, CA 90250 (Mar. 2008 to Jan 2010) Lead Project Engineer (Contract) Worked in Integration Product Teams (IPTs) for developing and production of 747-8F & 8I structural Panels & Door system assemblies and sub-assemblies (over 220 new part and tools for them) for a new large commercial A/C also responsible for floor to wing box mating design teams along with test and FAA certification & approval. AAR CORP. (Mar. 2007 to Mar 2008) Aircraft Specialist (Consultant) Worked in Teams for developing and designed floor system assemblies and sub-assemblies for a new military Airbus A400M also responsible for floor structural cargo & air delivery system, Airworthiness Certification & military specs & certification (Catia V5, FEA, and LEAN BPS & MRB). GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. Woodbridge, VA. 22191 (April 2007 to Nov. 2007) *SR Hydrodynamic Design Engineer (Contract) Worked in IPT; On the Marine Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Structures & Mechanical Systems Engineering, Performed Designed product and tools including creating manufacturing plans on, Structures & Hydrodynamic ProE & Wildfire (electrical, mechanical and hydraulic) systems. BOEING COMM. AIRCRAFT CORP. (Oct. 2006 to Mar 2007) P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, WA. 98124 Lead Project Engineer Structures (Contract) Worked & Lead engineers in Vehicle Integration Teams (VITs) for developing and designed structural floor system assemblies and subassemblies for a new large commercial A/C also responsible for floor to wing box mating design team along with test and FAA certification & approval. Certified Lean 6 Sigma Green Belt Design & Assembly (Catia V4, FEA, LEAN BPS & MRB). Aero Union & BoiCo Engineering Inc. (Feb 2006 to Aug 2006) Vice President of Engineering: worked and Lead; Engineering Program Management with fathers Corporation (15Million/yr & 150 Engineers) and
151
responsible for hiring, building, aligning teams & designs, supplier base, tasks and objective for GM future programs (Aero Union was a Solidworks ME job). GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. (Nov. 2003 & Feb 2006) Leader - Project Engineer (Armor & Structures) Sterling Hgts., MI: worked in IPTs and Lead; Aerospace-Military Systems Engineering work directives tasks & requirements + validation, Modeling & Simulation, Performed Formal & informal Trade Studies, Design Decision Memos (DDMs) for the Future Combat System (FCS) various Land 20 ton Vehicles which will improve survivability 5 times more than the current force. Involved on common and all 9 variant vehicles for, Survivability C4ISR TEMPEST, Armor & Structures, Adv. Composites, Ceramics (kits) & EME+EMI IPTs. TRIOMATIC SYSTEMS Inc. (Nov. 2001 to Nov. 2003) Program Manager: Sterling, MI. Worked with various Teams to Create project Outlines, form supplier bases and helped lead projects, studies and proposals for OEMs & proposals to US Govt FAA and Boeing (classified, more details in person). Johnson Controls Inc (JCI, R & D Tech Ctr). (Jul, 2001 to Oct. 2001) Program Manager: (Consultant) Holland, Mi. 49423: Worked with R & D Product Team + Mgt. helped lead studies to compile, concepts and development plans of adv. vehicle systems. To aid in the agility of product to changeover, along with lowered costs to the OEM, (Projects scheduled for 2008 Launch was down-sized due to economy). FORD Motor Company (Aug. 2000 to Mar. 2001) Product Engineer Lead :( Contract) Plant Vehicle Team (PVT) DAP, Dearborn, Mi. 48121 Worked in team Mustang and w/suppliers in the Plans, Tests + Evaluation, improvement and support for: engineering design and process along with PDGS, C3P, DVP&R on the Mustang's glass, body class A surface work, inr/otr. Door (skin & surfaces) also mechanisms. Supported and involved in many 6 sigma projects including: vibration NVH & windnoise with improved Lean 6 Sigma Green Belt assembly (including SPC, FMEA, DFM, and DFMEA). GENERAL MOTORS TECH. CENTER (Aug. 1999 to Aug 2000) 12 Mile & Mound, Warren, Mi. 48090 Project Manager: (Consultant) Vehicle Systems Worked in teams on (Unigraphics) the standards for future BIW commonization, process driven product design while still allowing styling freedom with class A & B surfacing. Specializing in struc tures & closures
152
for all; external & internal Body Frame Integral (BFI) & Body on Frame (BOF) Vehicles (cars & trucks). In 1996 Contract Specialist to: EDS-Unigraphics for GM Portfolio +, worked over 3 months in EDS-UG Cypress Cal. For the Parametric Process Definition called WAVE. Created the plans defining Rules & guidelines used in Parametric's Definition Created the Parametric Definition required in designing vehicles (Aircraft). TRIOMATIC SYSTEMS Inc. (Direct) (Feb. 1997 to Aug.1999) 43600 Utica Rd., Sterling Heights, Mi. 48314 Program(s) Manager (Eng. Design, Feb. & Suppliers) Created, designed, Managed, Engineering teams. Also testing & marketed Patented Flexible Manufacturing & Tooling System for Aircraft Assembly & Auto Body Systems, (for Boeing, Lear, GM, & Ford). AMERIGON CORP. (Direct) (Jan. 1995 to Feb. 1997) 404 E. Huntington Dr., Monrovia, Ca. 91016 Program Manager: (EV Asian Vehicle) Managed teams in the full development of aluminum /composite (RTM, RIM) 100% Electric Vehicle from a clay to 50 car production for a large Asian Corp. Built teams & supplier network to accomplish complete homogenized vehicle. NORTHROP/GRUMMUN AIRCRAFT CORP. (Aug. 1993 to May 1994) 1 Northrop Ave, Hawthorne, Ca. 90250 Lead - Engineer (Consultant on F-18 E/F) Worked in IPTs in creating designs, plans, processes, Tests + Evaluation and documentation for NAVAIR & FAA Certification advanced center fuselage & landing gear assemblies for the F-18 E/F. Worked with lots of composites, RAM, EMI & EME + Ti. SATURN CORP. (GM) (Feb. 1993 to Aug. 1993) 434 W. 12th St., Madison Hgts, Mi. 48007 Lead Engineer Worked in design & development teams to create the modern Saturn sedan SL & wagon. Specialized in BIW & structures, design & manufacturing using tools and techniques to optimized DFM DFMA w/SPC. BOEING AIRCRAFT CORP was McDonnell Douglas (Nov. 1991 to Feb. 1993) NEW AIRPLANE GROUP (777) P.O.Box 3707, Seattle, WA. 98124 Engineer Lead (Contract 777) Worked in Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) for developing and designed wing ass embly and subassemblies for the777 also responsible for leading LE & TE design team along with lab testing on 787 Ti. Tail. *On own time & w/Boeing's Tech. Core Team's; proposed, created, lead process and plans to develop Laser Welding aircraft's primary structures. Teledyne RYAN Aeronautics San Diego, Ca.
153
92101 / Producibility Eng. (Contract on MRUAV-Secret Clearance-NAVAIR) Worked with Product & Manufacturing Engineering in the Producibility plans for the Medium Range Unmanned Air Vehicle, a DOD Joint Office & Nuclear Hardening on the Apache Helicopter with gold scrim clothe... Assisted in creating the Willoughby templates and the Make or Buy Plans this was a classified UAV program (I had represented the Manufacturing organization). *Program Delayed due to Desert Storm-War. GENERAL DYNAMICS SPACE SYSTEMS P.O.Box 85900, San Diego, Ca. 92138 Product/Project Leader/Engineer (Contract on ALS, & Atlas IIAS) Worked in team in designing also creating the plans for creating Atlas IIAS, lead process plans and work orders for Engineering teams which was to be required producing Atlas II & IIAS. BOEING/MCDONNELL DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO. (DIRECT MGT)(APRIL 1987 TO. 1989) 3855 Lakewood Blvd. Long Beach, Ca. 90846 Projects Manager/Leader Salaried Mgt. Created designs for the C-17, MD-11 center fuselage with door cargo floor and ramp areas. Then promoted to IMIP Project Leadership which Proposed and lead projects for the USAF & MDC Corporate office in implementing many different modern technologies from IRAD & CRAD programs to reduce production costs w/added quality improvements. (7-240 Million). Brought in New processes Ultra High Speed Machine, HIP & SPF Systems NORTHROP AIRCRAFT CORP. (Direct) (Sept. 1985 to April 1987) 1 Northrop Ave, Hawthorn, Ca. 90250 SR. DESIGN ENGINEER (FIRST AIRCRAFT JOB) Designed Assembly tools & kits on CADAM (2D) and NCAD (3D) for the B-2 center fuselage and bomb racks & doors, F-20 F-18 C/D & the 747 Air Force One fuselage and mating door assembly with ramps and cargo doors required. BoiCo Engineering Corp. ( 1978 to Sept. 1985) 43600 Utica Rd., Sterling Hgts. Mi. 48078 Mechanical Design Engineer (Robotic Systems) Designed automated assy, machine tools & Ultra High Speed Machines for Auto Ind. Worked on Pontiac Fiero & GM. EDUCATION: San Diego State University Michigan State University * MBABusiness Mgt. *BSME * Minor: Business Law *Minor: CAD Adlai Stevenson High School Adv. Tech. Train. (UTCE) M: Power Mechanics Welding Tech: Certified TECHNICAL TRAINING & SKILLS (certified): Projects & Program Management CAD/CAM Systems USAF - Wright & Patterson OFC. 1987-
154
88 *Unigraphics V16 (3D) 4,000 hrs *Proposal Management-Certified *CATIA V4 & V5 (3D) 9,000 hrs *Proposal Writing-Certified *Solidworks: (3D) Current (SHIPLEY AND ASSOCIATES) *NCAD (3D) 1,500 HRS *Pro-E & Wildfire: (3D) Current Project Management: DOD & Civil exp. *PDGS, ICEM (ARMY, USAF, NAVAIR) *CADAM. 3,000 hrs Team Formation & Training Skills INCOSE, ASME, FOSE, Adv. Aerospace Composites Committee SAE Member & Speaker #6101117029 ASM: Member #157928 ISO certified: 9000s, 14000, 18000, TQ Mgt. (JIT, CE, SPC) SAMPE: Speaker 3 times & participant Air Force Assoc.: Member AIAA: Member #300701729 Pvt. Airplane Pilot Project Management Sware, 18+ years exp. (MS Project, Timeline, and IMS/IMP) Data Management Systems (PDM), IMAN & Chryslers (CDM) & VPM. Inventor: 3 US Parents & 2 Patent Pending + 2 Proprietary Processes Accomplishments: Contract Specialist to: EDSUnigraphics for GM Portfolio +, Worked over 3 months in EDS-UG Cypress Cal. For the new Product for Parametric Process Definition called WAVE in conjunction w/IMAN. Created the plans defining Rules & guidelines used in Parametric's Definition, Created the Parametric Definition required in designing vehicles. Electric Vehicle Specialist to SAMPE, NAVY-CTC, EPA, CARB & Edison Electric Company, Wrote a detailed manufacturing study of producing EV's three different ways, confirming cost trade-off & breakaway cost differences at many different Scale of Economy. This included full parts lists and tooling costs (proven costs). Key Speaker: for The Society for the Advancement of Material & Process Engineering (SAE & SAMPE,) (4) time key speaker for their International Congress, Annual, Orange County Chapter and for Composite Tech Center (Navy Composite Center). Presented information and technical details on the Utilizing of Advanced Composites in Automobile and Aerospace Industry including detailed discussion for uses of types of composites (strength to weight plus economies of scale) for up & coming future vehicles. Consultant to: Samsung Aerospace worked approx. 3months in so. Korea as an aircraft new product development specialist for creating the master plan for a 100 passenger commercial jet Consultant to: General Motors Tech Center for the concepts and master planning for "Vision 2000" which is the ultimate flexible manufacturing assembly system to
155
produce "all future GM" cars on one common assembly line with intelligent automated tooling and improved modular space frame design. Listed (18 years) Marquise: International Version Who's Who in Engineering Officially nominated to: California State advisor to US Senate Advisor then, Maj. Leader Trent Lot Assisted NASA Headquarters; (Chaz Willitz; Director of Eng/Tech. @ Wash. DC) with new Large Scale
156
Notes to Add:
Jack Northrop not selling out to Don Douglas Future needs: Space Solar Power & Weather Control and means to get there Future: personal 3D travel (ICON, jet ski of the sky) Infrastructure needs: contain Tribal knowledge, education; Morphing and logic based design (rules, guidelines) like I did for EDS New learning techniques, Video & interactive knowledge training systems. Global Climate Change Control System-mentioned to save us on this planet
157

Aerospace Industry-America&#39;s Future?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aerospace Industry-America&#39;s Future?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(prior to publishing in Journal of Defense Management)

THE FLYING MACHINE THAT CHANGED THE WORLD