aerospace industry-america's future draft2013

DRAFT Jan. 2013

Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 1

AEROSPACE INDUSTRY - AMERICA’S FUTURE?

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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


If you want someone to be able to copy or distribute portions of the book, place

exceptions here (AIAA, AIA, Boeing)

Table of Contents

AEROSPACE INDUSTRY - AMERICA’S FUTURE? 1

THE FLYING MACHINE THAT CHANGED THE WORLD 1

Table of Contents 2

List of Illustrations 6

Epigraph Page 9

Introduction 10

The Flying Machine that Changed the World 10

Chapter 1 12

The Beginning & Buildups 12 THE US AEROSPACE INDUSTRY – The Early Days 15 THE ACORN DAYS 16

From a speech given by Mr. Denham S. Scott to the AIA on March 19, 1968 16

from: http://www.navworld.com/navhistory/acorndays.htm Reprinted from NAAR (North American Aviation Retirees Bulletin) - Summer 2001 20

The Growing Days 1930-1990 20 An International Industry 24 A Post-Cold War World 26

Chapter 1B 28

HELICOPTERS 28

"The Helicopter is the most versatile way of getting in and out anywhere in the world” 28 HISTORY OF HELICOPTERS 28 The Chinese 28 Leonardo Da Vinci 28 Fifteenth through the Twentieth Centuries 29 Early Twentieth Century 29 World War I Advancements 29 Autogyros are invented 30 Sikorsky's Advancements 30 1950 Advancements 31 The Turbine Engine's Impact 31 1960s & 1970s: The Vietnam War and how the helicopter changed 31 1980s and the Helicopter 32

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Early 1990s and the Helicopter 32 Conclusion of Helicopter Evolution 33

Chapter 1C 34

ROCKET SHIPS 34

"The Rocket ship is the way to get into Space because it carries its complete propellant” 34 HISTORY OF ROCKET SHIPS 34 Rocketry Becomes a Science 37

Modern Rocketry Begins 38

Chapter 2 43

Changing Times 43 America's defense companies are turning dual-purpose 43

Jul 18th 2002 | from the print edition 43 Downsizing: Merger & Acquisitions 44

A survey of the defense industry: Getting it together? 44 Two-way traffic 47 The Total Quality Management Farce 49 When Government Gave US Away 51 Sidebar: A License to Steal Jobs 51 Pres. Clinton’s Transferring Technology to China 52

Sanctions and Technology Transfer Policy 52 Change Maybe Coming-but not soon Enough 53

Chapter 3 55

Where We Are Today… 55

We're falling behind. 55

By Norm Augustine (Ret. Chairman & CEO Lockheed Martin)55 America’s Lost Leadership 58 Lockheed Martin 59 General Dynamics-old 62 McDonnell Douglas-now Boeing 64 Boeing Aircraft 65 Northrop Grumman 65

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Chapter 4 67

The Economic Importance 67 Economic Importance 67 World Economy vs. USA 67 Industry Economic Histories 69 America’s Aerospace Economic Case 69 TRADABLE EMPLOYMENT 69

Economic Value – A Comparative Model 75 Aerospace & Defense: Least Understood Industrial Sector 76

By guest author Robert H. Trice 76 Lost: America's Industrial Base 77 Fading Space Industrial Base 80

Chapter 5 82

The Future Forecasts 82 The World’s Growing Competition 82 U.S. faces foreign competition — in space 82

By Peter N. Spotts, The Christian Science Monitor 11/7/2005 6:28 PM 82 Where All the Money Is: 85 Boeing’s Future Forecast 87

The US Commercial Aerospace Industry and Defense 2012-203187

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/cmo/ 87 Airbus Future Forecast 87 Asia’s Future Forecast 87 Forecast Considerations: 87

Chapter 6 88

Our Future Focus and Plans 88 Where’s our Flying Car? 89 The Super Sonic Cruiser 90 Hypersonic - The Orient Express 91 Space Tourism 92 Space Based Solar Power-Energy 92 Tomorrows new Bomber 95 Educating Tomorrow’s People 96 10 Incredible Airplane Designs of the Future 96

In the middle of this century, telecommunications will be so 104

Boeing’s 797 Concept 104

Conclusion 106

DRAFT Jan. 2013


References & Contributors: 109

Chapter 1: Beginnings & Buildups 110

Higham, Charles. Howard Hughes: the Secret Life. New York: Putnam's, 1993 113

On-Line References: 117

“Early Martin Planes.” http://www.martinstateairport.com/ 118

“F-22 Raptor.” http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/f22.html118

“McDonnell Douglas History.” http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/f22.html 119

“Northrop YB-49.” U.S. Air Force Museum. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/ 120

“The Nurflugel Page.” http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/nurflugel.html 120

“Project Bumblebee.” http://www.xsouth.freeserve.co.uk/project_bumblebee.htm 120

Industries Economic History: 122

Bibliography 122 The History of the Aerospace Industry 123

Posted Mon, 2010-02-01 18:21 by Anonymous 123 The First Half-Century 124 The Cold War 126

Notes to Add: 128

The King is Rising Again…Part-1 of 3 129

It all starts with a view into outer space… 129

DRAFT Jan. 2013


List of Illustrations

Figure 1. Spirit of Exploration .............................................................................................. 9

Figure 2. George Cayley & described a modern airplane .................................................. 13

Figure 3. Bernoulli’s Principle for Wing Airflow ............................................................... 14

Figure 4. Courtesy of "History of Helicopters ". ................................................................ 28

Figure 5. Built for US Army Air Force by Georgrij Bothezat (USSR). Courtesy of "History

of Helicopters". ................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 6. Modern Autogyro courtesy of "History of Helicopters". ................................... 30

Figure 7. One of Sikorsky's earlier models. Courtesy of "History of Helicopters". .......... 31

Figure 8. Hiller's flying platform courtesy of "History of Helicopters". ........................... 31

Figure 9. Mc Donnell's helicopter courtesy of History of Helicopters. ............................ 31

Figure 10. Bell 209 Cobra "Snake" courtesy of "History of Helicopters". ........................ 32

Figure 11. Bell/Beoing 609 courtesy of "History of Helicopters". .................................... 32

Figure 12. Revolution Helicopter Corp. Mini 500 courtesy of "History of Helicopters". 33

Figure 13. Hero Engine ....................................................................................................... 35

Figure 14. Chinese Fire Arrow ............................................................................................ 35

Figure 15. Chinese Fire Arrow Launch............................................................................... 36

Figure 16. Surface Running Torpedo ................................................................................. 36

Figure 17. Wan-Hu Flying Chair ........................................................................................ 37

Figure 18. Tsiolkovsky Rockets .......................................................................................... 38

Figure 19. Goddard’s 1926 Rocket ..................................................................................... 39

Figure 20. German V2 Rocket ............................................................................................ 41

Figure 21. Aerospace & Defense Sales................................................................................ 44

Figure 22. Defense Industry Consolidation 1993-2007 .................................................... 46

Figure 23. Aerospace & Defance Stock Trends .................................................................. 47

Figure 24. A View of Earth from the Shuttle ..................................................................... 50

Figure 25. Norm Augustine ................................................................................................ 55

Figure 26. F22 (Fwd) & F15 (Aft) ....................................................................................... 60

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Figure 27. F35 JSF in Vertical Flight and Forward Flight ................................................ 61

Figure 28. A12 Avenger Concept ........................................................................................ 62

Figure 29. A12 Avenger Concept ........................................................................................ 63

Figure 30. Atlas2AS ............................................................................................................ 64

Figure 31. F18 E/F Carrier Landing ................................................................................... 66

Figure 32. World GDP (past 50 years) ............................................................................... 68

Figure 33. USA GDP vs. the rest of the World (50 years) ................................................. 68

Figure 34. Tradable Industry Jobs, 1990–2008 (Majors)9 ............................................... 71

Figure 35. Cost Comparison ............................................................................................... 72

Figure 36. Tradable Industry Jobs 1990-2008 ................................................................. 73

Figure 37. Aerospace and other Transport Industries (Tradable) .................................... 74

Figure 38. ............................................................................................................................ 86

Figure 39. SVC’s Vertical Take-off & Landing Aerocraft .................................................. 89

Figure 40. Boeing Sonic Cruise vs. Better ......................................................................... 90

Figure 41. Boeing Sonic Cruiser ......................................................................................... 91

Figure 42. Hypersonic Aircraft .......................................................................................... 92

Figure 43. SBSP Concepts .................................................................................................. 93

Figure 44. Next Generation Bomber .................................................................................. 95

Figure 45. 10) Icon-II Supersonic flight ............................................................................ 96

Figure 46. 9) Green Supersonic Machine .......................................................................... 97

Figure 47. 8) Blended Wing ............................................................................................... 98

Figure 48. 7) X-45A UCAV ................................................................................................. 99

Figure 49. 6) Solar Eagle .................................................................................................... 99

Figure 50. 5) SUGAR ........................................................................................................ 100

Figure 51. 4) Lockheed Martin ......................................................................................... 100

Figure 52. 3) Bigger is Better............................................................................................. 101

Figure 53. Northrop Grumman ......................................................................................... 101

Figure 54. The Puffin ........................................................................................................ 102

Figure 55. Airbus Solar Aircraft ....................................................................................... 104

DRAFT Jan. 2013


DRAFT Jan. 2013


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)

DRAFT Jan. 2013


“The desire to fly is an idea handed down to us by our ancestors 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

It’s 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 decade’s is in some materials and

Northrop’s 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. It’s a shame to see the nation's largest Gross Domestic Product

(GDP) export base diminishing and losing its edge.

This book “Aerospace Industry America’s 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 Nation’s 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 ½ 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 America’s

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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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, that’s all we’ve 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 doesn’t 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 one’s destiny

is limitless.

Shawn Paul Boike

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 Phil’s speech.

The history of Aircraft (excluding balloons & rockets) starts with of course Leonardo

Divinci’s 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 Eole’s. 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 1860’s 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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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. Bernoulli’s 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. Lilienthal’s fame came after he had made the Boston news as

“Here was a flying machine, not constructed by a crank…but by an engineer of ability…A

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 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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_engineer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation

http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/control.html

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 well-

controlled aircraft two years later. They set up the Wright Company in 1909, which started by

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.

http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/roll.html

http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/pitch.html

http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/yaw.html

http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/warp.html

http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/elv.html

http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/rud.html

http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/glid00.html

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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-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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 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 22-year 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 Bennett’s 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 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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 year’s 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 barn-like 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 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 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

http://www.navworld.com/navhistory/acorndays.htm

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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

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 DC-3, 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 B-47. 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 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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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-Bölkow-Blohm and VFW in Germany; and CASA in

Spain. Then governments asked their national champions to join transnational

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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

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 venture-backed 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 evolution (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 Cilivization, 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.

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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 converti-plane 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.

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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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).

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 rotary-wing 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

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/Beoing 609 courtesy of "History of Helicopters".

Early 1990s and the Helicopter

During the early 1990s helicopters were produced by large corporations like the

Eurocopter Industry (Sparaco 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 including the police force and hospitals. Helicopters are

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 didn’t succeed as

well as expected because: Noise and transitioning wasn’t always simple.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 come 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 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

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. Goddard’s 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 unimpressive, but like the

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 advanced rocket of its time

would be built and flown under the directorship of Wernher von Braun.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 became detached from the

rest of the economy.”

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 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

http://www.economist.com/node/1223594

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

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-

DRAFT Jan. 2013


traffic control or telecommunications. It is no accident that the world's leading (non-

American) company in air-traffic 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.

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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 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

http://www.economist.com/node/1223594

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 know-how

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, 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 1970’s GM brought

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 Dad’s 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”.

In the late 1980’s 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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 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-

DRAFT Jan. 2013


16 program were entitled to a 15 percent 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. Clinton’s 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 Army’s 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

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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 Department’s Bureau of Export

Administration and the State Department issued regulations to formally implement the

transfer of commercial satellites from control under the State Department’s "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 company’s 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 China’s 18 long-range strategic missiles are aimed

at the U.S.

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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 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.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/16/weekly-address-gop-rewarding-corporations-create-jobs-overseas

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/16/weekly-address-gop-rewarding-corporations-create-jobs-overseas

http://www.gop.gov/media/weekly-republican-address/10/10/16/weekly-republican-address-101610

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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

I’ve 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

I’ve 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. They’re not seen as

geeks or misfits, as they too often are in the U.S., but rather as society’s leaders and

innovators. In China, 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Why does this matter? Because if American students have a negative impression – or no

impression at all – of science and engineering, then they’re hardly likely to choose them

as professions. Already, 70% of engineers with PhD’s who graduate from U.S.

universities are foreign-born. Increasingly, these talented individuals are not staying in

the U.S – instead, they’re 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 don’t have

enough qualified math and science teachers. Many of those teaching math and science

have never taken a university-level course in those subjects.

I’ve 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 game-changing 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. That’s 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 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? We’re

losing our edge. Innovation is something we’ve always been good at. Until now, we’ve

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.

http://www.ieee.org/index.html

DRAFT Jan. 2013


That’s how we rose to prominence. And that’s where we’re 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 world’s 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 we’re living

off the investments we made over the past 25 years. We’ve been eating our seed corn.

And we’re 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 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 Act’s 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

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_COMPETES_Act

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 nation’s 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.

America’s 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. Let’s look at a

Corporation 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 C’s 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.

http://arpa-e.energy.gov/

DRAFT Jan. 2013


5) A Leader must have COURAGE (“have balls-even female CEO’s”) 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 Northrop’s proposing

to the USAF then producing a unsolicited superior and affordable fighter jet the F20,

showing many credits of 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 America’s 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 aren’t

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 Program’s 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 AIM-9X infrared-guided air-to-air missile

and the AIM-120D medium-range air-to-air missile, and to 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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 F22’s said Sec. of Defense Gates. Loren Thompson from

the Lexington Institute 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.

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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 once-unthinkable: 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

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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 DOD’s 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 the world.

Airbus was explained to be a European formed group which made parts for us at

McDonnell Douglas and Boeing and didn’t 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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 1990’s Boeing had received partnership investment of $3

½ 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. Let’s not forget Boeing produced the largest composite wing ever

for the B2 Bomber.

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

you’re somewhere hostile against US and have time to see it fly over, it’s already too late

your dead.

Boasting for Northrop they had proposed the F20 fighter which could have ended the

F16’s 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 Navy’s 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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


St. Louis. After much investigation the Northrop group has a superior record, outside of

the political influences.

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,

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 Nation’s Aerospace & Technical Industry is the

difference between being a Modern World or a Third World society and average income.

Most importantly a Nation’s 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 1980’s and 1990’s 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 Government’s 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 & Japan’s dream, we only made our

currency be the World currency.

Now look at the Gross Domestic Product of the World with science and data:

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Figure 32. World GDP (past 50 years)

Most of the Gross Domestic Product is created and consumed in the USA. This doesn’t

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 USA’s world domination, as see here in figure 33.

Figure 33. USA GDP vs. the rest of the World (50 years)

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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

America’s civil aviation, space, and defense leadership. It is a privilege to contribute to

our nation’s 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.

America’s Aerospace Economic Case

Aerospace has played a vital and exciting role in the growth of the United States and the

nation’s 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 industry’s 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 America’s 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 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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.)

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Figure 34. Tradable Industry Jobs, 1990–2008 (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 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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


notable increases in major tradable industries were in finance and in architectural and

engineering services. The tradable portion of information—the 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 $ Value 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Jet Fuel 7 Gal

Gasoline (US) 6.8 Gal

Automobile 3200 Avg, $12,750 $21,500 $28,700 $32,500

Aircraft 525000 747 18M 25M 75M 100M 125M 150M 180M 225M 318M

Gold x 16 = lb 1 oz. $38.90 $139.29 $594.90 $327.00 $386.20 $387.00 $272.65 $513.00 $1,420.25

Tax

GDP (US) 140T

Avg US Earnings

Figure 35. Cost Comparison

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Figure 36. Tradable Industry Jobs 1990-2008

Source: Authors’ calculations using Bureau of Labor Statistics historical data series

*Industries that are not predominantly or entirely tradable include an asterisk.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 China’s 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Economic Value – A Comparative Model The 747 is a Good example of the value growth an Aircraft program can have on the

economy and it’s Nation.

Airplane Families

2010 $ in

Millions Average

Weight-dry lb.

$ Per lb.

Avg. $ Per lb.

737 Family

737-600 56.9 95,440 $596.19 $709.43

737-700 67.9 97,750 $694.63

737-800 80.8 103,800 $778.42

737-900ER

85.8 111,650 $768.47

747 Family

747-8 317.5 525,900 $603.73 $605.44

747-8 Freighter

319.3 525,900 $607.15

767 Family

767-200ER

144.1 260,000 $554.23

$550.29

767-300ER

164.3 295,000 $556.95

767-300 Freighter

167.7 309,000 $542.72

767-400ER

180.6 330,000 $547.27

777 Family

777-200ER

232.3 330,000 $703.94

$741.82

777-200LR

262.4 354,600 $739.99

777-300ER

284.1 380,600 $764.45

777 Freighter

269.1 354,600 $758.88

787 Family

787-8 185.2 276,700 $750.71 $742.78

787-9 218.1 296,800 $734.84

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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

America’s 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 today’s 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.

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&D’s 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.

Today’s 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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 that, with few exceptions (e.g., Boeing), most of their revenues—

and oversight—come 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? Don’t 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 don’t. The U.S. Senate’s 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 Force’s 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 F-22s, the U.S. Air Force’s 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 week’s publication by the Aerospace Industry Association (AIA) of a report on the

http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=J.%20David%20+Patterson

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

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

nation’s 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.

It’s 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 doesn’t look much better. From

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 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.

It’s 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.

I’m not sure that’s 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 long-term consequences for America’s 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 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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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," Lighfoot 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.

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,

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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. '

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 ½ Trillion

over 3 ½ 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 Union’s point of view.

The World’s 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

Europe’s 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.

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.

http://www.csmonitor.com/

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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. "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 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."

Check out how NASA

plans to use elements of

the Apollo and shuttle

programs for the next

moon mission.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gallery/2005/moonmission/flash.htm

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 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."

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 loose 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Figure 38.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Boeing’s Future Forecast

The 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.

The Airbus Market Forecast from 2012-2031

http://www.airbus.com/company/market/forecast/

Asia’s Future Forecast

Asia & China’s Future Forecast well they don’t 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 & China’s Future Forecast well they don’t publish

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/cmo/

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 USA’s 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, America’s Future depends mostly on all of us citizens to stand up for it’s

importance politically, then win economically. The secret of the value is known

worldwide for boosting society’s 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 20th century.

At an AIAA conference in Los Angeles early 1990’s 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Where’s 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 1970’s. 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 isn’t 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 don’t 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 39. SVC’s Vertical Take-off & Landing Aerocraft

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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Fortunately I’ve 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.

Figure 40. Boeing Sonic Cruise vs. Better

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

Figure 41. Boeing Sonic Cruiser

Hypersonic - The Orient Express

In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s 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 multi-sheet 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Figure 42. 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 Virgin’s

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 ….

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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 equals 114.5 Kw per hour.

Figure 43. 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

http://www.thefutureschannel.com/dockets/realworld/space_based_solar_power/

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 coal-fired 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 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Moreover it intends to be the world’s first private enterprise to successfully

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

Earth’s orbit to transmit a safe, uninterrupted supply of electricity anywhere on Earth at

affordable, fair market prices.

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 44. 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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

10. An Iconic Idea

Figure 45. 10) Icon-II Supersonic flight

Photo: NASA/The Boeing Company

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/users/michele-collet

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/future_airplanes_index.html

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

9. Green Supersonic Machine

Figure 46. 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.


DRAFT Jan. 2013


Figure 47. 8) Blended Wing


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.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/flight_2025.html

DRAFT Jan. 2013


7. X-45A UCAV

Figure 48. 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 49. 6) Solar Eagle

Photo: Boeing

http://www.boeingimages.com/boeingCSharpSite/browse/browse.aspx?Ntk=AssetTypeGlobalSearch&Ntt=PhotoX-45A%20UCAV%20with%20Technician&N=0&Ne=146+1445

http://offers.environmentalgraffiti.com/all/in-missouri-united-states

http://www.boeingimages.com/boeingCSharpSite/browse/browse.aspx?Ntk=AssetTypeGlobalSearch&Ntt=PhotoSolar%20Eagle%20in%20Flight&N=0&Ne=146+1445

DRAFT Jan. 2013


The Solar Eagle is Boeing's entry into the Vulture program by the defense program to

create an ultra-long endurance aircraft.

5. SUGAR

Figure 50. 5) SUGAR


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 51. 4) Lockheed Martin


DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 52. 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

Figure 53. Northrop Grumman



DRAFT Jan. 2013


Photo: NASA/Northrop Grumman

This is Northrop Grumman's artist concept, which was presented in the fall of 2010.

Figure 54. The Puffin

Photo: NASA


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/puffin.html

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 we’ve 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 photovoltaic cells wouldn’t 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!

The motto of tomorrow will be flexibility.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Figure 55. Airbus Solar Aircraft

In the future there will be so many different ways to fly. For your personal travel, not far

from home, you’d choose your own vehicle – perhaps the much-vaunted ‘flying car’. But

as soon as you want something more economical or faster for longer distances you’d

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 won’t 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 we’ll 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.

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.

Boeing’s 797 Concept

DRAFT Jan. 2013


DRAFT Jan. 2013


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 ½ due

to competition. In the future there will be so many different ways to fly. For your

personal travel, not far

DRAFT Jan. 2013


DRAFT Jan. 2013


References & Contributors:

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


. 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

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.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/cover.html

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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, René J. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920. London: Putnam, 1979.

Francillon, René 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.

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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


. 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.

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

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

McIntyre, Ian. Dogfight: The Transatlantic Battle Over Airbus. Westport, Conn.:

Praeger, 1992.

http://www.janes.com/

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


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.

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.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


. 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.

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

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/cover.htm

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/cover.htm

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/background.html

DRAFT Jan. 2013


“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.


“Claude Ryan.” San Diego Historical Society.

http://www.sandiegohistory.org/bio/ryan/ryan.htm.

“Conspiracy.” http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b49_3.html.

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/.

http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/russia/seversky.html

http://www.apollosaturn.com/refer-frame.htm


http://www.sandiegohistory.org/bio/ryan/ryan.htm

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b49_3.html

http://www.historynet.com/magazines/aviation_history

http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/

http://www.martinstateairport.com/


http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/f22.html

http://www.museumofflight.org/collections/craftdisplay.html?ID=50

http://web.whittier.edu/fairchild/home.html

http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/index.html



DRAFT Jan. 2013


Guttman, Robert, “Boeing's Trailblazing P-26 Peashooter.”


“History of General Dynamics” 2001. General Dynamics.


“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/

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://www-

personal.umich.edu/~buzznau/bmblbee.html

“North American History.” http://www.boeing.com/history/narrative/n021naa.html



http://aerofiles.com/bio_h.html

http://www.britannica.com/

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aboutus/history/

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ssc/


http://www.vought.com/his_index.html

http://history.nasa.gov/factsheet.htm



http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/f22.html

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~buzznau/bmblbee.html

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~buzznau/bmblbee.html

http://www.boeing.com/history/narrative/n021naa.html

DRAFT Jan. 2013


“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=Pr

essReleaseDisplay.php3&PressReleaseID=267.

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-440-1.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/Seversky-Republic.html.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b35.html

http://www.northropgrumman.com/heritage/index.html

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/index2.html



http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b49.html

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/nurflugel.html

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/launch/atlas_f.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/sm-65.htm

http://www.xsouth.freeserve.co.uk/project_bumblebee.htm

http://www.warplane.org/engines/R_l-440-1.htm

http://www.nzwarbirds.org.nz/ryana.html

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic.html

DRAFT Jan. 2013


“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

“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.”


“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.

http://www.aerofiles.com/bio_f.html

http://www.nationalaviation.org/

http://library.caltech.edu/sherman/fairchild.htm

http://silicon-valley-story.de/sv/shockley.html

http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/s42.html

http://www.pw.utc.com/Home

http://www.curtisswright.com/history.asp

http://www.sprucegoose.org/

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=126


http://www.af.mil/information/heritage/person.asp?dec=&pid=123122544

http://www.vectorsite.net/avcrus.html


DRAFT Jan. 2013


“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.


. “Curtiss: 1910-1920.” Curtiss-Wright Corporation.


. “Curtiss-Wright Corporation: A Brief History.” Curtiss-Wright Corporation.


Industries Economic History:

Bibliography

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.

http://www.aerofiles.com/ladypeace.html





DRAFT Jan. 2013


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

The History of the Aerospace Industry

Posted Mon, 2010-02-01 18:21 by Anonymous

Glenn E. Bugos, The Prologue Group

The aerospace industry ranks among the world's largest manufacturing industries in

terms of people employed and value of output. Yet even beyond its shear size, the

aerospace industry was one of the defining industries of the twentieth century. As a

socio-political phenomenon, aerospace has inflamed the imaginations of youth around

the world, inspired new schools of industrial design, decisively bolstered both the self-

image and power of the nation state, and shrunk the effective size of the globe. As an

economic phenomenon, aerospace has consumed the major amount of research and

development funds across many fields, subsidized innovation in a vast array of

component technologies, evoked new forms of production, spurred construction of

enormous manufacturing complexes, inspired technology-sensitive managerial

techniques, supported dependent regional economies, and justified the deeper incursion

of national governments into their economies. No other industry has so persistently and

intimately interacted with the bureaucratic apparatus of the nation state.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/bugos.aerospace.industry.history

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Aerospace technology permeates many other industries -- travel and tourism, logistics,

telecommunications, electronics and computing, advanced materials, civil construction,

capital goods manufacture, and defense supply. Here, the aerospace industry is defined

by those firms that design and build vehicles that fly through our atmosphere and outer

space.

The First Half-Century

Aircraft remained experimental apparatus for five years after the Wright brother's

famous first flight in December 1903. In 1908 the Wrights secured a contract to make a

single aircraft from the U.S. Army, and also licensed their patents to allow the Astra

Company to manufacture aircraft in France. Glenn Curtiss of New York began selling his

own aircraft in 1909, prompting many American aircraft hobbyists to turn

entrepreneurial.

Europeans took a clear early lead in aircraft manufacture. By the outbreak of the Great

War in August 1914, French firms had built more than 2,000 aircraft, German firms had

built about 1,000, and Britain slightly fewer. American firms had built less than a

hundred, most of these one of a kind. Even then aircraft embodied diverse materials at

close tolerances, and those who mismanaged the American wartime manufacturing

effort failed to realize the need for special facilities and trained workers. American

warplanes ultimately arrived too late to have much military impact or to impart much

momentum to an industry. When contracts were cancelled with the armistice the

industry collapsed, leading to the reconfiguration of every significant aircraft firm. By

contrast, seven firms built more than 22,500 of the 400-horsepower Liberty engines,

and their efforts laid the foundation for an efficient and well-concentrated aircraft

engine industry -- led by Wright Aeronautical Company and Curtiss Aeroplane and

Motor.

Still, the war induced some infrastructure that moved the industry beyond its

fragmented roots. National governments funded testing laboratories -- like the National

Advisory Committee for Aeronautics established in May 1915 in the United States -- that

also disseminated scientific information of explicit use to industry. Universities began to

offer engineering degrees specific to aircraft. American aircraft designers formed a

patent pool in July 1917 -- administered by the Aircraft Manufacturers Association --

whereby all aircraft firms cross-licensed key patents and paid into the pool without fear

of infringement suits. The post-war glut of light aircraft, like the Curtiss Jenny trainers

in America, allowed anyone who dreamed of flying to become a pilot.

Most of the companies that survived the war remained entrepreneurial in spirit, led by

designers more interested in advancing the state of the art than in mass production.

During the 1920s, aircraft assumed their modern shape. Monoplanes superceded

biplanes, stressed-skin cantilevered wings replaced externally braced wings, radial air-

cooled engines turned variable pitch propellers, and enclosed fuselages and cowlings

gave aircraft their sleek aerodynamic shape. By the mid-1930s, metal replaced wood as

DRAFT Jan. 2013


the material of choice in aircraft construction so new types of component suppliers fed

the aircraft manufacturers.

Likewise, the customers of aircraft grew more sophisticated in matching designs to their

needs. Militaries formed air arms specifically to exploit this new technology, which

became dedicated procurers of aircrafts. Air transport companies began flying

passengers in the 1920s, though all those airlines were kept afloat by government

airmail contracts. European nations developed airmail routes around their colonies --

served by flag-carriers like the British Overseas Airways Corporation, Lufthansa, and

Aeropostale. Pan Am's routes to Asia and Latin America, linked by flying boats built by

Sikorsky, Douglas and Lockheed, was the equivalent in the American empire.

The United States was the only country with a large indigenous airmail system, and it

drove the structure of the industry during the 1920s. The Kelly Air Mail Act of 1925 gave

airmail business to hundreds of small pilot-owned firms that hopped from airport and

airport. Gradually, these operations were consolidated into larger airlines. In 1928 -- in

a mix of stock market euphoria and aviation enthusiasm following Charles Lindbergh's

transatlantic flight -- Wall Street financiers formed holding companies that integrated

airlines with the manufacture of aircraft and engines. United Aircraft and Transport, for

example, combined United Airlines with Boeing, North American Aviation, and the

Aviation Corporation. These holding companies struggled for profitability following the

stock market crash of 1929, and were ultimately undone in 1934 through legislation that

split manufacturers and airlines -- a separation that continued thereafter.

The United States was also the only country large enough for air travel to challenge rail

travel, and in the 1930s airlines competed for passengers by forging alliances with

aircraft manufacturers. The Boeing 247 airliner, based on its B-9 bomber design,

marked the start of American dominance in transport aircraft. The Douglas DC-3,

introduced in 1935, gave airlines their first shot at solvency by carrying people rather

than mail. Many advances in aircraft design during the 1930s addressed the comfort,

efficiency and safety of air travel -- cabin pressurization, retractable landing gear, better

instrumentation and better navigational devices around airports. Britain and Germany

produced the best large bombers at the start of the 1930s, though by the start of the

World War II American designs were better. American firms, by contrast though, were

producing very few of them.

During the 1930s, the European states had begun ramping up production of military

aircraft, training pilots to fly them, and building airfields to host them. Once the war

began, though, factories were bombed and supply lines cut off. As it became less likely

they would overwhelm their enemies with vast fleets of aircraft, German and British

aircraft firms instead invested in research and engineering to create better aircraft.

Under the exigency of war, Europeans developed the strategic missile, the jet engine,

better radar, all-weather navigation aids, and more nimble fighters. The German

Messerschmitt 262 fighter aircraft -- which combined a strong turbine engine with the

innovation of swept wings -- approached the speed of sound. The Europeans also

DRAFT Jan. 2013


innovated in tactics and logistics to use fewer aircraft more effectively. The discipline of

operations research grew out of British needs to use patrol aircraft more efficiently.

Though American designers also proved innovative in the crucible of war, American

firms clearly triumphed in mass production.

In the six-year period 1940 through 1945, American firms built 300,718 military

aircraft, including 95,272 in 1944 alone. In the previous six-year period, American firms

built only 19,587 aircraft, most of those civil. In 1943, the aviation industry was

America's largest producer and employer -- with 1,345,600 people bent to the task of

making aircraft. A vast array of firms -- especially automobile makers -- fed this rapid

escalation of production. Engineers disaggregated aircraft into smaller parts to parcel

out to subcontractors, managed distributed manufacturing, and devised the concept of

the learning curve to forecast when cost reductions kicked in. By the end of the war,

Americans firmly believed in the doctrine of air power. They invested in their belief, and

for the next half-century Americans would set the agenda for the aircraft industry

around the world. Mass production, though, slipped from that agenda. On VJ Day the

American military cancelled all orders for aircraft, and assembly lines ground to a halt.

Total sales by American aircraft firms were $16 billion in 1944; by 1947 they were only

$1.2 billion. Production never again reached World War II levels, despite a minor blip

for the wars in Korea and Vietnam. Instead, research ruled the industry.

The Cold War

The Berlin airlift of 1947 marked the start of the Cold War between the United States

and the Soviet Union, a symbolic conflict in which perceptions of aerial might played a

key role. Once they divested themselves of their surplus plants, American aircraft firms

rushed to incorporate into their designs the technological advances of World War II. The

preeminent symbol of these efforts, and of the nature of the Cold War, was the massive

Boeing B-47 long-range strategic bomber, with six engines and swept wings. Boeing

built 2,000 B-47s, following its first flight in December 1947, and emerged as the

dominant builder of strategic bombers and large airliners -- like the B-52 and the 707.

Also symbolizing this conflict was the needle-thin rocket-powered Bell X-1 which, in

December 1947, became the first aircraft to break the sound barrier. The X-1 was the

first in the X-series of experimental aircraft - sleek, specially built research aircraft that

jousted with Soviet aircraft to set speed and altitude records. More importantly, the

aerospace industry made new types of vehicles to join the half-century old propeller-

driven airplane in the skies.

New technologies prompted a massive restructuring of the industry. Established

airframe firms shifted from manufacturing to research, while the military channeled

funds to technology-specific startup firms. For example, Sikorsky, Hiller and Bell

quickly dominated the market for new type of airframe known as a helicopter.

Electronics specialists like Raytheon, Sperry, and Hughes became prime contractors for

the new guided missiles, while airframe manufacturers subcontracted to them. Turbojet

DRAFT Jan. 2013


engines were the most disruptive new technology. Turbojets shared little in common

with piston engines so two firms specializing in steam turbines -- General Electric and

Westinghouse -- grabbed the bulk of jet engine orders until Pratt & Whitney caught up.

Aircraft firms also struggled to modify their airframes for the greater speeds and

altitudes possible with jet engines. Those firms that failed were superceded by those that

succeeded -- notably McDonnell Aircraft and Lockheed.

Intercontinental ballistic missile programs, started in 1954, fueled the micro-level

restructuring of the industry. ICBMs were touted as "winning weapons" to replace

massive numbers of aircraft, so missile firms invested in smaller but better factories --

with clean rooms and test chambers -- rather than in cavernous assembly buildings.

Because of the complexity of the designs, the reliability required of each part, and the

hurry in which the missiles had to be designed and built, new management models

emerged from the military and aerospace firms. The Aerospace Corporation, Space

Technology Laboratories of TRW Inc., and Lockheed Missiles & Space were three firms

that proclaimed proprietary expertise in this new aerospace management. The ICBM

efforts introduced, to all high-tech industries worldwide, the ideal and techniques of

program management and systems engineering. When Europeans fretted over The

American Challenge in the 1960s, they meant not so much American technology as

management methods like these that generated technical innovation so relentlessly.

Young men flocked to aerospace because it was cool and cutting-edge.

Also revolutionary were the spacecraft and the rockets that lifted them into orbit. The

neologism "aerospace" reflected the shape of the money that flowed into the industry

following the Soviet launch of Sputnik in October 1957. The U.S. Aircraft Industries

Association changed its name to the Aerospace Industries Association of America, so the

public might think it natural that the firms that built aircraft should also build vehicles

to travel through air-less space. Furthermore, the laboratories of the National Advisory

Committee for Aeronautics formed the kernel of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, then bent the efforts of academic aeronautics toward hypersonics and

space travel. In 1961, NASA got the mission to send an American to the Moon and return

him safely to Earth before the decade was out. NASA built enormous space ports in

Florida and Texas, enhanced its arsenal of research laboratories, bolstered its own

network of hardware contractors, opened up new areas of material science, and

pioneered new methods of reliability testing. Following the success of Apollo, in the

1970s NASA invested ahead of demand to create the space shuttle for regular access to

space, then struggled to find ways to industrialize space.

Program management and systems engineering were applied to military aircraft in the

1960s, as the Defense Department took a more active role in telling the industry what to

make and how to make it. Because of a uniformity in contracting rules, this was one of

the few epochs in which the aerospace industry approached monopsony -- dominated by

a single customer. This systems engineering mentality drove greater design costs up-

front. Aircraft grew more expensive, so the fewer produced were expected to have longer

DRAFT Jan. 2013


lives with more frequent remanufacturing. To get more diverse types of engineering

talent involved in design, the Defense Department insisted that airframe firms -- former

competitors -- team to win aircraft contracts. Key members in these teams were avionics

firms, as airframes became little more than platforms to take electronic equipment aloft.

Fewer contracts meant that Congress, voicing concern over the defense industrial base,

made more procurement decisions than experts in the military or NASA. Meanwhile,

profits among American aerospace firms remained high compared with almost any

other industry.

Amidst all the other shocks to the American economy in the 1970s, in 1975 the United

States would record its last trade surplus of the twentieth century. While other American

industries lost ground to European or Japanese competitors, American aircraft have

remained in consistent demand. Since the mid-1960s, aerospace products have

comprised between six and ten percent of all American merchandise exports. The U.S.

Export-Import Bank was nicknamed the "Boeing Bank" for its willingness to lend other

countries money to buy American airliners. Yet increasingly, the aerospace industry was

seen as a cause of American economic failure. So much federal research and

development funding filtering through the aerospace firms distorted innovation so that

American consumer products suffered. Conglomerates formed in the late 1960s around

aerospace firms -- like LTV and Litton -- suggested that their core competence was not

aerospace systems but the ability to read government contracting trends. Aerospace

firms that were not consolidated in the mid-1970s, after aircraft lost in Vietnam were

replaced, pursued diversification strong in the belief that the engineering skill that made

American aircraft so dominant could also make world-class busses and microwave

ovens. They failed. Waste, fraud and abuse dominated discussion of military aerospace.

Persistent cost overruns and delays suggested no one in the industry took efficiency

seriously.

Matters got worse in the 1980s. Republican administrations channeled enormous funds

into the aerospace firms dotting the American sunbelt, without a concomitant increase

in aircraft actually built. Efforts to build a space-based missile defense system

symbolized the accepted futility of this spend-up. Likewise, NASA poured money into

Space Shuttle operations without an increase in flights. NASA engineers sketched, then

resketched plans for an international space station to create a permanent base in space.

American aerospace firms seemed overly mature, and European firms took advantage.

Notes to Add:

Jim Worsham bragging of McDonnell Douglas ($56B)leading the World Aircraft

with all one, two, three & four holers (jets), Boeing @ $38B & Airbus $11-13B.

AIAA Boeing’s Phil Condit & Alan Mulally meeting speech & help.

Boeing’s Mort Wahlin saying they are too conservative to do new things, only if

Airbus does it and flies for 10 years then they would look at it.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Boeing’s Kansas VP, stating it is Boeing’s GOD given right to Market share.

Dr. Lee of Korean Aerospace Industry & Samsung Aircraft, sharing 50/50 with China

Aerospace Industry, then getting shafted as the Chinese bought 100 MD-90s

Vought biting off more than they can handle with 787.

F-22 Overruns and Lockheed $260 per family tax in 2008 ($36 B)

Jack Northrop not selling out to Don Douglas

Future needs: SbSPower 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

Add: Rocketships/spaceships along with friends or Collegues of mine on

ATLASIIAS Mfg. Plan including the officer who took Van Braum by Gun point and

his family to move to America post Texas then San Diego.

The King is Rising Again…Part-1 of 3

It all starts with a view into outer space…

Where (on screen) you see space tow vehicles moving space debris to manageable

heaps of trash of containment.

You see Hotels being built, and space launch vehicles bringing them from Earth to

Space…

You then see a Space Vehicle enter the celestial cemetery and hear a voice to unlock

vault 777.

This vault contain my brain and it goes through a story board of when Elvis was the

King of Earth from the 1950’s, 1960’s His comeback concert in 1968.

Then Ultimately he does his Aloha from Hawaii in 1972 live via satellite….

In this you see his name written in every language known to common man

You see his rise to stardom; from the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s & then even into the 80’s after

his death in 1977.

DRAFT Jan. 2013


Some amazing photos of Elvis with Richard Millhouse Nixon and the handing of a

US Marshall badge over to Elvis.

You hear of the Elvis concert where he see’s the fans stand up and lift a banner which

reads; “ELVIS is the King”

He Stops the Music, points up to the sign and says;

“There is only one king of this Earth and that’s the Lord Jesus Christ”.

The fans shamefully sit down with the banner and he continues his concert all the

way to the end when you hear him sing:

Wise men say only fools such in, but I can’t help falling in Love with You…

“Elvis has left the building….

Then up rises a Large white Blinding Light Cross made up of millions of images from

those good people who have gone before us.

On the edges is fire burning with images of the Evil people who have lived before us,

such as; MAO, Stalin, Hitler, Jack the Ripper, Caligula, Napoleon, and all others.

The camera pulls back and you see the new space shuttle and the cosmonauts saying

“Well there was another King of this Planet called Earth named Jesus Christ” Lets

investigate that…

A voice in the background says “Time to open up Vault 333”….

This is the second movie explaining all the truth’s and fiction of the Christ-Jesus,

it is just like a History Channel Documentary…

The third is:

From the Spaceship you look out onto the World after devastation and they said how

to we rebuild it?

Then we build all my good project to make good from my life: Solar Based Power,

EV’s everywhere, my flying vehicle A-STAR using superconductive electro- magnetic

propulsion, Solution Mobile, NVH automated testing center, Automated welding

aircraft & automated composite aircraft, the American Health Improvement

Machine (AHIM) and (BHIM) Body Health Improvement Machine.

aerospace industry-america's future draft2013

Documents

defense industry

us aerospace industry

international industry

aerospace defense

future focus

future forecasts82

shawn paul boike copyright

economic history