Aero industry draft2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Aero industry draft2013






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Aero industry draft2013 Aero industry draft2013 Document Transcript

  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 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 anyform or by any means without written permission from the author.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 1
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 If you want someone to be able to copy or distribute portions of the book, placeexceptions here (AIAA, AIA, Boeing) Table of ContentsAEROSPACE INDUSTRY - A MERICA’S F UTURE? 1THE FLYING MACHINE THAT CHANGED THE W ORLD 1Table of Contents 2List of Illustrations 6Epigraph Page 9Introduction 10The Flying Machine that Changed the World 10Chapter 1 12The Beginning & Buildups 12 THE US AEROSPACE INDUSTRY – The Early Days 15 THE ACORN DAYS 16From a speech given by Mr. Denham S. Scott to the AIA on March 19, 1968 16from: Reprinted from NAAR (NorthAmerican Aviation Retirees Bulletin) - Summer 2001 20 The Growing Days 1930-1990 20 An International Industry 24 A Post-Cold War World 26Chapter 1B 28HELICOPTERS 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 Sikorskys Advancements 30 1950 Advancements 31 The Turbine Engines Impact 31 1960s & 1970s: The Vietnam War and how the helicopter changed 31 1980s and the Helicopter 32Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 2
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Early 1990s and the Helicopter 32 Conclusion of Helicopter Evolution 33Chapter 1C 34ROCKET 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 37Modern Rocketry Begins 38Chapter 2 43Changing Times 43 Americas defense companies are turning dual-purpose 43Jul 18th 2002 | from the print edition 43 Downsizing: Merger & Acquisitions 44A 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 52Sanctions and Technology Transfer Policy 52 Change Maybe Coming-but not soon Enough 53Chapter 3 55Where We Are Today… 55Were falling behind. 55By 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 65Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 3
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Chapter 4 67The 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 76By guest author Robert H. Trice 76 Lost: Americas Industrial Base 77 Fading Space Industrial Base 80Chapter 5 82The Future Forecasts 82 The World’s Growing Competition 82 U.S. faces foreign competition — in space 82By Peter N. Spotts, The Christian Science Monitor 11/7/2005 6:28 PM 82 Where All the Money Is: 85 Boeing’s Future Forecast 87The US Commercial Aerospace Industry and Defense 2012-203187 87 Airbus Future Forecast 87 Asia’s Future Forecast 87 Forecast Considerations: 87Chapter 6 88Our 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 96In the middle of this century, telecommunications will be so 104Boeing’s 797 Concept 104Conclusion 106Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 4
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013References & Contributors: 109Chapter 1: Beginnings & Buildups 110Higham, Charles. Howard Hughes: the Secret Life. New York: Putnams, 1993 113On-Line References: 117“Early Martin Planes.” 118“F-22 Raptor.”“McDonnell Douglas History.” 119“Northrop YB-49.” U.S. Air Force Museum. 120“The Nurflugel Page.” 120“Project Bumblebee.” 120Industries Economic History: 122Bibliography 122 The History of the Aerospace Industry 123Posted Mon, 2010-02-01 18:21 by Anonymous 123 The First Half-Century 124 The Cold War 126Notes to Add: 128 The King is Rising Again…Part-1 of 3 129 It all starts with a view into outer space… 129Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 5
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013List of IllustrationsFigure 1. Spirit of Exploration .............................................................................................. 9Figure 2. George Cayley & described a modern airplane .................................................. 13Figure 3. Bernoulli’s Principle for Wing Airflow ............................................................... 14Figure 4. Courtesy of "History of Helicopters ". ................................................................ 28Figure 5. Built for US Army Air Force by Georgrij Bothezat (USSR). Courtesy of "Historyof Helicopters". ................................................................................................................... 30Figure 6. Modern Autogyro courtesy of "History of Helicopters". ................................... 30Figure 7. One of Sikorskys earlier models. Courtesy of "History of Helicopters". .......... 31Figure 8. Hillers flying platform courtesy of "History of Helicopters". ........................... 31Figure 9. Mc Donnells helicopter courtesy of History of Helicopters. ............................ 31Figure 10. Bell 209 Cobra "Snake" courtesy of "History of Helicopters". ........................ 32Figure 11. Bell/Beoing 609 courtesy of "History of Helicopters". .................................... 32Figure 12. Revolution Helicopter Corp. Mini 500 courtesy of "History of Helicopters". 33Figure 13. Hero Engine ....................................................................................................... 35Figure 14. Chinese Fire Arrow ............................................................................................ 35Figure 15. Chinese Fire Arrow Launch............................................................................... 36Figure 16. Surface Running Torpedo ................................................................................. 36Figure 17. Wan-Hu Flying Chair ........................................................................................ 37Figure 18. Tsiolkovsky Rockets .......................................................................................... 38Figure 19. Goddard’s 1926 Rocket ..................................................................................... 39Figure 20. German V2 Rocket ............................................................................................ 41Figure 21. Aerospace & Defense Sales................................................................................ 44Figure 22. Defense Industry Consolidation 1993-2007 .................................................... 46Figure 23. Aerospace & Defance Stock Trends .................................................................. 47Figure 24. A View of Earth from the Shuttle ..................................................................... 50Figure 25. Norm Augustine ................................................................................................ 55Figure 26. F22 (Fwd) & F15 (Aft) ....................................................................................... 60Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 6
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Figure 27. F35 JSF in Vertical Flight and Forward Flight ................................................ 61Figure 28. A12 Avenger Concept ........................................................................................ 62Figure 29. A12 Avenger Concept ........................................................................................ 63Figure 30. Atlas2AS ............................................................................................................ 64Figure 31. F18 E/F Carrier Landing ................................................................................... 66Figure 32. World GDP (past 50 years) ............................................................................... 68Figure 33. USA GDP vs. the rest of the World (50 years) ................................................. 68Figure 34. Tradable Industry Jobs, 1990–2008 (Majors)9 ............................................... 71Figure 35. Cost Comparison ............................................................................................... 72Figure 36. Tradable Industry Jobs 1990-2008 ................................................................. 73Figure 37. Aerospace and other Transport Industries (Tradable) .................................... 74Figure 38. ............................................................................................................................ 86Figure 39. SVC’s Vertical Take-off & Landing Aerocraft .................................................. 89Figure 40. Boeing Sonic Cruise vs. Better ......................................................................... 90Figure 41. Boeing Sonic Cruiser ......................................................................................... 91Figure 42. Hypersonic Aircraft .......................................................................................... 92Figure 43. SBSP Concepts .................................................................................................. 93Figure 44. Next Generation Bomber .................................................................................. 95Figure 45. 10) Icon-II Supersonic flight ............................................................................ 96Figure 46. 9) Green Supersonic Machine .......................................................................... 97Figure 47. 8) Blended Wing ............................................................................................... 98Figure 48. 7) X-45A UCAV ................................................................................................. 99Figure 49. 6) Solar Eagle .................................................................................................... 99Figure 50. 5) SUGAR ........................................................................................................ 100Figure 51. 4) Lockheed Martin ......................................................................................... 100Figure 52. 3) Bigger is Better............................................................................................. 101Figure 53. Northrop Grumman ......................................................................................... 101Figure 54. The Puffin ........................................................................................................ 102Figure 55. Airbus Solar Aircraft ....................................................................................... 104Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 7
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 8
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Epigraph Page“Global leadership is not a birthright. Despite what many Americans believe, our nation doesnot possess an innate knack for greatness. Greatness must be worked for and won by each newgeneration. Right now that is not happening. But we still have time. If we place the emphasis weshould on education, research and innovation we can lead the world in the decades to come. Butthe only way to ensure we remain great tomorrow is to increase our investment in science andengineering 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 acontinual struggle from darkness toward light, a search for knowledge and deeperunderstanding, 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 thehorizon. That is the fire of the human spirit that we all carry”. Steve Robinson (STS-114 Mission Specialist)Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 9
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 “The desire to fly is an idea handed down to us by our ancestors who looked enviously onthe birds soaring freely through space on the infinite highway of the air” Wilbur WrightIntroductionThe Flying Machine that Changed the World It’s been over a 110 years since powered controlled flight was proven by the WrightBrothers from Dayton Ohio, in Kitty Hawk in North Carolina. We had conquered spaceflight 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 andNorthrop’s flying wing as the Stealth B2 bomber design. America maybe close to losingits leadership and become second place in the World for producing Aircraft in the nearfuture.This loss in standing in the Aerospace Industry is, unfortunately too similar to theAutomotive Industry. It’s a shame to see the nations 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 theAerospace Industry, a compilation of facts, figures, events, and some personal accountsin the biggest economic base & technologically influential industry in the world. Theeconomic advantage this industry brings Nation’s and their work force a better Standardof Living and higher wages. Those who lead in this key industry will lead in GDP. Thistradable industry which can be exportable is currently valued at $7 ½ Trillion in 20years or $4 Trillion in commercial aircraft only. The nations that have grown the mosthave pursued this from engineering and building automobiles then aerospace andselling them outside of their nation, this creates a higher standard of living. You will seethe evolution and buildup of the Aerospace Industry to the fall/demise of America’sAerospace Industry the largest U.S. GDP creation and the economic impact on thisexportable product of trade. We conclude with valuable Future Focus with realisticprograms and plans that will generate huge growth and prosperity into the next decadesor century to lead the World both in aviation & space markets along with finding afuture energy solution.We have recently seen the retirement of the U.S. Space Shuttles after its final mission tothe International Space Station. Now, the U.S. is regressing in technology 50+ yearsand use rockets with a capsule. Russian expendable Launch Vehicles (ELV) at a higherprice 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-17replacement? And the (super) Sonic Cruiser? What happened to the National AerospaceAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 10
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Plane (NASP) Hypersonic aircraft (mach25) also known as the Orient Express LA toTokyo in 2 hours? Why is it we are still flying slowly commercially? Where is our flying car? Whatabout that jet pack which looks kind-of unsafe, especially to those grown-ups that ride abicycle with a helmet? We technically have overcome the sonic boom with a sonic burpby 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 toprogress in the last 20 plus years? Boeing had great plans to build the Sonic Cruiseruntil they changed course and put all their eggs in the basket to produce the 787 (evenslipping delivery date-seven times) almost twenty five years after they helped build thecomposite wings of the B2 Bomber. Much of this may have to do with Economics fromthe foreign suppliers investing to become a partner in manufacturing prior to its marketexistence. With an optimistic belief the next generation can learn from past mistakesand understand the future doesn’t have to be like the past and demanding to make theFuture better - similar to our Race to Space and the moon. In this pursuit one’s destinyis limitless. Shawn Paul BoikeAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 11
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Chapter 1The 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, 1900What do you think about the beginning of the Aircraft & Aerospace Industry, mostpeople think about the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina? This is whereOrville Wright made the first flight for 12 seconds and 120 feet at Kill Devil Hills nearKitty Hawk, NC at 10:35 a.m. on December 17, 1903. In fact over 1000 BC the Chinesehad sent men aloft tethered to kites to provide surveillance at war time.I was at an American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics (AIAA) meeting in early1992 Seattle Washington to Listen to Phil Condit VP of the 777 my new Bosses Boss andaccidently or fortunately sat at a table with him his wife & Alan Mulally. His speech wasterrific it was all about the evolution of flight and even before Wright Brothers. Hisspeech was very similar to what was written in a book on the Centennial celebration ofthe Wright Brothers which I heard the Author speak at the Dearborn Library inMichigan almost a decade after Phil’s speech. The history of Aircraft (excluding balloons & rockets) starts with of course LeonardoDivinci’s sketches and flight studies and plans for a glider, this inspired Heserfin AhmedSalevy to build a glider to glide down from a 183 foot tower in Istanbul in 1638. Englishbaronet named Sir George Cayley whose contribution was the 1799 definition of anairplane as a machine with fixed wings, a fuselage and a tail which has separate systemsto provide lift, propulsion and control. Cayley had successfully built and flew hissuccessful model glider in 1804.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 12
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Figure 2. George Cayley & described a modern airplaneHe later made two other gliders with a pilot which made brief glides for his efforts hewas often referred to as the “Father of Aerial Navigation”.A French electrical engineer named Clement Ader which attempted to fly a light weightsteam powered - bat like craft called the Eole’s. His added value in flight evolution wasthe need for propulsion. Ader made a piloted “uncontrolled hop of 165 feet and altitudeof only eight inches with the airplane”. “The Eole was devoid of all the other elementsnecessary for a practical flying machine and contributed little to the eventualachievement of human mechanical flight”.Another contributor to human controlled flight prior to the Wrights was an Americanliving 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 thechief thing to be considered”. “Scientists have long said, give us a motor and we willvery soon give you a successful flying machine”. Maxim built a four ton biplane fitted toa test track & guardrails where in July 31, 1894 his rough aircraft travelled 600 feet at 42miles per hour and rose over the guard rails and crashed. His contribution much likeAder 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 namedOtto Lilienthal with his experimentation with gliders. He began aeronautical researchfrom the 1860’s to 1896 and produced the most complete, accurate body ofAerodynamics that showed beyond doubt that a curved wing profile produced optimumlift. Thus incorporating Bernoullis principle works on the idea that as a wing passesthrough the air, its shape make the air travel more over the top of the wing than beneathAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 13
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013it-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.Bernoullis principle works on the idea that as a wing passes through the air the shapemake the air travel more over the top of the wing than beneath it. This creates a higherpressure are beneath the wing than above it. The pressure difference cause the wing topush upwards and lift is created. Figure 3. Bernoulli’s Principle for Wing AirflowOtto Lilienthal had produced 16 different glider designs from 1891-1896 with calculatedwing area and controlled them by shifting his body weight right to left (starboard toport) thus altering his center of gravity. Also moving his body and fore and aft tomaintain 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…Amachine not made to look at, but to fly with. His experiments came to an end in August9th 1896 where while soaring, a gust of wind put the glider nose up and into wastelandcrashed 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 ofaeronautical knowledge at their time. They wrote to the Smithsonian and obtainedtechnical papers regarding aerodynamics. They read about the works of Cayley, andLangley, and the hang-gliding flights of Otto Lilienthal.They corresponded with Octave Chanute (a French-born Americanrailway engineer and aviation pioneer) concerning some of theirideas. They studied the problems which had been encountered byprevious flyers and they talked about possible solutions to theproblems. They looked for answers to the problems of flight by observing large glidingbirds. They decided that control of the flying aircraft would be the most crucial andhardest 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 waythat modern engineers use wind tunnels and flight testing to try out their ideasconcerning flight control. Kitty Hawk, North Carolina was chosen for their early flightAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 14
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013experiments 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 allthree primary axes; roll, pitch, and yaw. Their aircraft were built with movable surfaceson the wing, elevator, and rudder. Control of the surface shape was in the hands of thepilot. They extensively tested these ideas by glider flights of the aircraft. (NASA Wright Brothers took all they could learn from those before them and added theirinventiveness to create the fully controllable manned machine powered flight. Thisincluded inventing and designing the propeller system for propulsion, a wind tunnel andmany plans and techniques we take for granted today. That time in history was a battlefor first powered manned controlled flight was in competition with Samuel PierpontLangley and Glenn Curtiss. We all know the winners were those Dayton men in 1903where 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 bybuilding 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 onbuilding airplanes. His own firm of Curtiss Aeroplane Company turned out such goodplanes that the Wright designs could not compete. The company eventually changed itsname to Wright Aeronautical Company and turned to building aircraft engines.The Wright and Curtiss companies both were in business before the outbreak of WorldWar 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 duringthat 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 Britishdesign. Following that conflict, there was little demand for new aircraft, for there wasplenty of war surplus planes and engines. Still, there were opportunities. Curtiss hadbuilt the wartime JN-4 trainer, the famous Jenny. It still was beloved by pilots duringthe 1920s. A flight school might charge $500 for lessons, and then throw in a Jenny as agraduation present. Martin built some of the earliest bombers--one sank a capturedGerman battleship in a 1921 exercise. This made it clear that bombers had a future.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 15
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Other plane builders also went into business: Donald Douglas, William Boeing, and AlanLoughead, who pronounced his name "Lockheed." To avoid mispronunciations such asLoghead or Loafhead, his company used that spelling as well. All three found goodprospects. Donald Douglas got started by working with a wealthy enthusiast who wanteda plane that could cross the country nonstop. By building it, Douglas gained experiencethat allowed him to develop a long-range Army plane, the World Cruiser. Two WorldCruisers 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 toturn a profit. A few brave travelers also began buying airplane tickets. Boeing gained animportant success in 1926 with a single-engine plane that was well suited for carryingmail and passengers over the Rocky Mountains. Lockheed won its own advantageduring that same year. The companys engineers included the talented Jack Northrop,who later founded his own plane-building firm. He crafted the Vega, which set speedand altitude records and became popular as an airliner.THE ACORN DAYSFrom 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 tookroot in some strange places: a church, a cannery, a barbershop, but from them mighty Oakshave indeed come to fruition”.How many of you know that in 1910 the mighty Martin Marietta Company got its start inan abandoned church in Santa Ana, CA? Thats where the late Glenn L. Martin with hismother Minta Martin and a mechanic named Roy Beal, built a fragile contraption withwhich Glenn taught himself to fly.It has often been told how the Douglas Company started operations in 1920 by rentingthe 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 Cleanersand Dryers at 1040 Sycamore Avenue in Hollywood. Claude Ryan, who at 24 held areserve commission as a flyer, had his hair cut in San Diego one day in 1922. The barbertold 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 atfifty dollars a month and replace the guy in the pokey. He agreed to fly North instead ofSouth.In 1928, the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company, Transcontinental Air Transport(now TWA) and the Douglas Company chipped in enough money to start NorthAmerican Aviation, a holding company. The present company bearing the Northropname came into being in a small hotel in Hawthorne. The hotel was conveniently vacantand available because the police had raided it and found that steady residents were aAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 16
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013passel of money-minded gals who entertained transitory male guests.After Glenn Martin built his airplane in the church, he moved to a vacant apricotcannery in Santa Ana and built two more. In 1912 he moved to 9th and Los AngelesStreets 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 anexhibitionist aviator; secondly, he was an airplane manufacturer. He met his payroll andbought his lumber, linen and bailing wire from the proceeds of his precision exhibitionflying. His mother, Minta and two men ran the factory when Glenn was risking his neckand gadding about the country. One of these was 22-year old Donald Douglas who wasthe whole of his engineering department and the other was a Santa Monica boy namedLarry Bell who ran the shop.The third circus ring was a flying school. It had a land plane operation in Griffith Parkand later at Bennett’s Farm in Inglewood, and a hydroplane operation at a place thatsnow part of the Watts District. A stunt flyer named Floyd Smith ran it. One of his firstpupils was Eric Springer, who later became an instructor and then Martins 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. Havingmastered the art; Boeing bought a Martin biplane, hired Ross Stem, Glenns personalmechanic, and shipped the airplane to Seattle. Later, when it crashed into the lake andBoeing 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 hissweet time and let Boeing stew. Bill Boeing said, To Hell with him, and told Ross Sternto get busy and build one of their own. Boeing had a friend named Westerfelt and theydecided to form a company and build two airplanes. These two BW airplanes bore aremarkable resemblance to the Martin airplane which, in turn, had been copied fromGlenn Curtiss. There seems to be a moral about customer relations and product supportmixed up in this episode.During WWI, a bunch of sharpies from Wall Street in New York got control of theWright Company in Dayton and the Martin Company in Los Angeles. They merged thetwo companies into the Wright-Martin Company. They sent a young man named ChanceVought to be their Chief Engineer. Donald Douglas lost no time in quitting and went towork 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 LarryBell and Eric Springer with him. Having the backing of a baseball mogul to build a newAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 17
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013factory, he was soon joined by Donald Douglas who went to work and came up with thedesign of the Martin Bomber. It came out too late to see service in WWI, but showed itssuperiority when General Billy Mitchell made everyone mad at him by sinking thecaptured German battle fleet. The deathblow to the allegedly Dreadnaught Osfrieslandwas delivered by the Douglas designed Martin Bomber.At Cleveland, a young fellow called Dutch Kindelberger joined the Martin Company asan engineer. Also a veteran Army pilot from WWI named Carl Squier became SalesManager. His name was to become one of the most venerable names in Lockheedhistory. 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 abarbershop and some space in the loft of a carpenters shop where they built a passengerairplane called The Cloudster.Claude Ryan bought this a couple year’s later, and made daily flights between San Diegoand Los Angeles with it. This gives Ryan the distinction of being the owner and operatorof the first Douglas Commercial Transport, and certainly a claim to be among theoriginal airline passenger operators.In 1922, Donald Douglas was awarded a contract to build three torpedo planes for theU.S. Navy; Douglas lived in Santa Monica, but worked in Los Angeles. Way out in thewilderness at what is now 25th Street and Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica, therewas an abandoned barn-like movie studio. One day Douglas stopped his roadster andprowled around to investigate. The studio became the first real home of the DouglasAircraft Company.With the $120,000 Navy contract, Donald Douglas needed and could afford one or twoengineers. He hired my brother Gordon Scott newly over from serving an apprenticeshipto the Martinside and the Fairey Aviation Companies in England. Gordon was wellschooled in the little known science of Aviation by 1923.My first association with some of the early pioneers occurred when I visited my brotherGordon 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 atthe Douglas Company in those days.Gordon introduced me to Art Mankey, his boss and Chief Draftsman, and four of hisfellow engineers. There was a towhead guy called Jack Northrop, a chap named JerryVultee, and a fellow named Dick Von Hake who was a reserve Army flyer. Jack Northropcame from Santa Barbara where he had worked during WWI for the Lockheed AircraftManufacturing Company. The fourth member of the Engineering Group was EdHeinemann*. They were all working on the design of the Douglas World Cruisers.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 18
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Shortly afterwards, Jack Northrop left the Douglas Company in 1926. Working at home,he designed a wonderfully advanced streamlined airplane. He tied back with AllanLoughead who found a rich man, F.E. Keeler, willing to finance a new Lockheed AircraftCompany. They rented a small shop in Hollywood and built the Northrop designedLockheed 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 tryingto fly everywhere. Before the first Vega was built, William Randolph Hearst, publisher ofthe Hearst newspaper chain, bought it and entered it in the Dole Race from theMainland to Honolulu, which was scheduled for 12 August 1927.In June 1927, my brother Gordon left the Douglas Company to become Jack Northropsassistant at Lockheed. He also managed to get himself hired as the navigator on theGolden Eagle, the name chosen by Mr. Hearst for the Vega which hopefully would be thefirst airplane to span the Pacific. The race was a disaster! Ten lives were lost. The GoldenEagle 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 heavilyover the little shop in Hollywood. However, Captain George H. Wilkins, later to becomeSir Hubert Wilkins, took the Number Two airplane and made a successful polar flightfrom Nome, Alaska to Spitsbergen, Norway. After that a string of successful flights wereto 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 calledAvion. Jerry Vultee then moved up to become Chief Engineer at Lock heed. He hiredDick van Hake from the Douglas Company to be his assistant. A young man named CliffGarrett 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 26thLockheed 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 DevelopmentCompany, which became the Vultee Aircraft Company, a division of E.L. Cord, theautomobile manufacturer. He later merged with Reuben Fleets Consolidated AircraftCompany to become Convair. When Vultee left Lockheed, Dick van Hake became theChief Engineer.In the meantime, Glenn Martin closed his Cleveland plant and moved to Baltimore. Hisproduction man, Larry Bell, moved to Buffalo to found the Bell Aircraft Company. CarlAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 19
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Squier left Martin to tie in with the Detroit Aircraft Company which had acquired theLockheed Aircraft Company and seven others. They hoped to become the GeneralMotors of the aircraft business! They appointed Carl Squier as General Manager of theLockheed plant, which moved to Burbank in 1928. (A lot of P-38s were made at thatBurbank plant - added by L. Cruse Nov. 2007)At this time, General Motors had acquired North American Aviation, which consisted ofseveral aircraft companies in the East. Ernie Breech, formerly with Bendix but now withGeneral Motors, hired Dutch Kindelberger away from Douglas to head up the aircraftmanufacturing units. Dutch took Lee Atwood and Stan Smithson with him. Thecompanies involved were Fokker Aircraft, Pitcairn Aviation (later Eastern Airlines),Sperry Gyroscope and Berliner-Joyce. Kindelberger merged Fokker and Berliner-Joyceinto a single company and moved the entire operation to Inglewood, California.(Kindelberger and others at the North American Los Angeles plant designed the P-51Mustang 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 andthe lives of millions of other Americans. They changed Southern California from awasteland with a few orange groves, apricot and avocado orchards and the celluloidindustry of Hollywood to a highly sophisticated industrial complex with millions ofprosperous inhabitants. This technological explosion had some very humble and humanbeginnings. The Acorns took root in some strange places: a church, a cannery, abarbershop, but from them mighty Oaks have indeed come to fruition.(Essentially all of those Aircraft Plants are now GONE from Southern California - addedby L. Cruse Nov. 2007)from: from NAAR (North American Aviation Retirees Bulletin) - Summer 2001The Growing Days 1930-1990Airliners, indeed, became mainstays of the industry during the 1930s. The Army andNavy bought few airplanes during that decade, but people were beginning to fly. Boeingbrought out the 247, a fine twin-engine job that carried ten passengers where the Vegahad room for only six. But it wasnt fine enough; it lost out in competition with theDouglas DC-2, which carried fourteen. An enlarged version, the DC-3, had twenty-oneseats. Entering service in 1936, it had the range to fly nonstop from New York toChicago. 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 newbusiness by crafting a much better bomber: the B-17. It had four engines, which gave itgreater speed and allowed it to carry more gasoline for longer range. It first flew duringAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 20
  • DRAFT Jan. 20131935 in tests for the Army. The first of the B-17s crashed, and the company might havecrashed with it. But Army officials liked it, and ordered a few. This gave Boeing a leg upon building bombers for use in World War II.That war brought an enormous surge of business to the aircraft industry. Severalcompanies built the important warplanes of the era:Boeing: B-17, B-29 bombersConvair: B-24 bomberLockheed: P-38 fighterCurtiss: P-40 fighter, C-46 transportDouglas: C-47, C-54 transportsNorth American: P-51 fighterRepublic: P-47 fighterFleets of B-17s and B-24s, escorted by P-47, and P-51 fighters, destroyed many of NaziGermanys factories and railroads. B-29s carried firebombs that burned Japans cities tothe ground. The C-46 carried supplies to China, helping that nation fight Japan andtying down a million Japanese soldiers who were fighting the Chinese. The C-47, amilitary version of the DC-3, carried troops as well as cargo. Over ten thousand of thementered service. General Dwight Eisenhower, the top U.S. commander, counted it as oneof 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 Boeinghistorian Harold Mansfield, company officials learned of a sudden cancellation of armyorders and rushed to shut down the plant before the next shift of workers came in atfour p.m. At North American, employment dropped from 100,000 to 6,500 in only twomonths. As had been true after World War I, following World War II the nation againwas 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 carriedrelatively few passengers on each flight, and the DC-3 served such connections quiteeffectively. However, after the war there also were coast-to-coast routes along withconnections 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 alater and faster version, the DC-7). Their builders competed for advantage by offeringimprovements. The rivalry between Lockheed and Douglas defined progress incommercial aviation until the coming of the jets.The first jets were military. Lockheed, Republic, and North American built the first jetfighters: the P-80, F-84, and F-86. The F-86 was the best of them, shooting downRussian-built fighters and ruling the skies during the Korean War of 1950-1953.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 21
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Missiles and jet bombers also drew attention. North American made a strong and earlycommitment to develop a missile of intercontinental range, the Navaho. This projectneeded rocket engines, guidance systems, and advanced designs that called for closeunderstanding of supersonic flight. At the outset, in 1945, the pertinent fields ofengineering simply did not exist. No matter, North American brought in good scientistsand developed the necessary know-how on its own.Boeing showed similar leadership with jet bombers. The company used scientific datafrom the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, supplementing it with data fromits own wind tunnel, a research facility that helped to determine the best shapes foraircraft flying close to the speed of sound. This allowed the company to develop theearliest important jet bomber, the B-47. It first flew in 1947, with the Air Forcepurchasing 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 enginesmounted 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 707and Douglas DC-8.Boeing and Douglas competed vigorously to sell these planes. The way to win an orderwas by offering a custom version of a basic design, a modification that would serve anairlines specific needs. These could include a shorter fuselage, a larger wing for longrange, or more powerful engines. Such modifications were costly, and Boeing proved tohave 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, thuswinning an important advantage.The 707 entered service in 1958, the DC-8 in 1959. Both aircraft had four engines andcould fly nonstop across the Atlantic as well as from coast to coast. In addition, therealso 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 Douglasstayed in the game as well, with its twinjet DC-9 that served routes that were shorterstill. Many of these connections were only a few hundred miles in length, but they werehighly 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 hadsix and later ten engines. Boeing countered with the B-52, which mounted eight jetengines. It became the main bomber of the Air Forces Strategic Air Command. Inaddition, the decade of the 1950s brought a host of fighter aircraft. Almost everycompany 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 amajor push toward rockets of intercontinental range, able to carry a hydrogen bomb toMoscow. These included the Atlas from Convair and the Titan, built by Martin. DouglasAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 22
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013helped as well with the Thor, based in England, which had less range but was availablesooner. 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, whichlanded astronauts on the moon. Again there were a number of participants, includingDouglas, Grumman, McDonnell, and Boeing. North American did the most, drawing onits experience with the Navaho. This company built rocket engines, a major rocket stage,as well as the spacecraft that carried Apollos astronauts. It went on to build the SpaceShuttle, 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 seriouseconomic trouble.For Boeing, the source of difficulty was the enormous new 747 airliner. The companywent deeply into debt to fund its development and initial production. But it couldntdeliver the early models, because their engines were not ready. Then the nation wentinto a recession, and orders dried up. Boeing came close to going bankrupt, but survivedby 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 ofslightly smaller size. Lockheed came in with its L-1011, while McDonnell Douglas offeredits 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 moneybecause they could not sell enough planes. Lockheed stopped building airlinersaltogether and became purely a military plane builder. McDonnell Douglas stayed in thecommercial world. But it now was financially weak, and lacked the funds to developanything more than variations of its DC-9 and DC-10.This raised the prospect that Boeing would reign over the airlines, holding a nearmonopoly. Airline executives chaffed at this possibility, for they enjoyed the competitionand the lower prices by multiple plane-building companies bid against each other. Butduring the late 1970s, European plane builders came to their rescue. France and GreatBritain had a strong aviation industry; they had built the Concorde, the worlds onlysupersonic airliner. Now these countries combined with West Germany to create AirbusIndustrie. During the 1980s, it competed vigorously with Boeing, winning a largenumber of orders.While airliner sales remained very strong, military demand fell off sharply with the endof the Cold War, in 1991. During earlier periods of demobilization, the Pentagon hadhelped keep its planebuilders in business with a number of small orders spread out overthe range of major manufacturers. However, fighters and bombers now were quitecostly, and the Pentagon could afford only a limited number of such programs.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 23
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Officials of the Defense Department responded by facilitating a series of mergers, toconsolidate the industry within a small number of companies that would have enoughbusiness to remain strong. Boeing, holding great power due to its success in sellingairliners, bought out McDonnell Douglas and Rockwell International. Lockheed mergedwith Convair and with Martin Marietta, forming the firm of Lockheed Martin. A similarmerger created the firm of Northrop Grumman. Today, these three U.S. companiesdominate the American market for commercial airliners, military aircraft, and launchvehicles for space flight.During the 1980s, it competed vigorously with Boeing, winning a large number oforders.While airliner sales remained very strong, military demand fell off sharply with the endof the Cold War, in 1991. During earlier periods of demobilization, the Pentagon hadhelped keep its planebuilders in business with a number of small orders spread out overthe range of major manufacturers. However, fighters and bombers now were quitecostly, and the Pentagon could afford only a limited number of such programs.Officials of the Defense Department responded by facilitating a series of mergers, toconsolidate the industry within a small number of companies that would have enoughbusiness to remain strong. Boeing, holding great power due to its success in sellingairliners, bought out McDonnell Douglas and Rockwell International. Lockheed mergedwith Convair and with Martin Marietta, forming the firm of Lockheed Martin. A similarmerger created the firm of Northrop Grumman. Today, these three U.S. companiesdominate the American market for commercial airliners, military aircraft, and launchvehicles for space flight.An International IndustryInternational politics has always played a role in aviation. Aircraft in flight easilytranscended national borders, so governments jointly developed navigation systems andairspace protocols. Spacecraft overflew national borders within seconds so nations setup international bodies to allocate portions of near-earth space. INTELSAT, aninternational consortium modeled on COMSAT (the American consortium thatgoverned operations of commercial satellites) standardized the operation ofgeosynchronous satellites to start the commercialization of space. Those who dreamedof space colonization also dreamed it might be free of earthly politics.Internationalization more clearly reshaped aerospace by helping firms from othercountries find the economies of scale they needed to forge a place in an industry soclearly dominated by American firms.Only the Soviet Union challenged the American aerospace industry. In some areas, likeheavy lifting rockets and space medicine, the Soviets outpaced the Americans. But theSoviets and Americans fought solely in the realm of perceptions of military might, notAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 24
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013on any military or economic battleground. The Soviets also sold military aircraft andcivil transports but, with few exceptions, an airline bought either Soviet or Americanaircraft because of alliance politics rather than efficiencies in the marketplace. Even incivil aircraft, the Soviet Union invested far more than their returns. In 1991, when theSoviet Union fractured into smaller states and the subsidies disappeared, the oncemighty Soviet aerospace firms were reduced to paupers. European firms then stood asmore serious competitors, largely because they had developed a global understanding ofthe 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 Britishfirms remained strong and innovative, though these firms sold mostly to their nationsmilitaries and airlines. Neither could buy as many aircraft as their Americancounterparts, and European firms could not sufficiently amortize their engineeringcosts. During the 1960s, European governments allowed aircraft and missile firms to failor consolidate into clear "national champions:" British Aircraft Corporation, HawkerSiddely Aviation, and Rolls-Royce in Britain; Aerospatiale, Dassault, SNECMA andMatra in France; Messerschmit-Bölkow-Blohm and VFW in Germany; and CASA inSpain. Then governments asked their national champions to join transnationalconsortia intent on building specific types of aircraft -- like the PANAVIA Tornadofighter, the launch vehicles and satellites of the European Space Agency or, mostsuccessfully, the Airbus airliners. The matrix of many national firms participatingvariously in many transnational projects meant that the European industry operatedneither as monopoly nor monopsony.Meanwhile international travel grew rapidly, and airlines became some of the worldslargest employers. By the late 1950s, the major airlines had transitioned to Boeing orDouglas-built jet airliners -- which carried twice as many passengers at twice the speedin greater comfort. Between 1960 and 1974 passenger volume on international flightsgrew six fold. The Boeing 747, a jumbo jet with 360 seats, took international air travel toa new level of excitement when introduced in January 1970. Each nation had at leastone airline, and each airline had slightly different requirements for the aircraft theyused. Boeing and McDonnell Douglas pioneered new methods of mass customization tobuild aircraft to these specifications. The Airbus A300 first flew in September 1972, andEuropean governments continued to subsidize the Airbus Industrie consortium as itstruggled for customers. In the 1980s, air travel again enjoyed a growth spurt thatBoeing and Douglas could not immediately satisfy, and Airbus found its market. By the1990s, the Airbus consortium had built a contractor network with tentacles around theworld, had developed a family of successful airliners, and split the market withAmerican producers.Aerospace extends beyond the most industrialized nations. Walt Rostow in his widelyread book on economic development used aviation imagery to suggest a trajectory ofindustrial growth. The imagery was not lost on newly industrializing countries likeAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 25
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Brazil, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore or Indonesia. They too entered theindustry, opportunistically, by setting up depots to maintain the aircraft they boughtabroad. Then, they took subcontracts from American and European firms to learn howto 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 toproduce. By 1971, fourteen nations could build short-range and air-defense missiles. Bythe 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 thetotal dollar value of the industry but proved immensely important to a military andcommunication needs of developing states. The leaders of almost every nation have seenaircraft as a leading sector -- one that creates spin offs and sets the pace of technologicaladvance in an entire economy.A Post-Cold War WorldWhen the Cold War ended, the aerospace industry changed dramatically. After therecord run up in the federal deficit during the 1980s, by 1992 the United States Congressdemanded a peace dividend and slashed funding for defense procurement. By 1994, thedemand for civil airliners also underwent a cyclical downturn. Aerospace-dependentregions -- notably Los Angeles and Seattle -- suffered recession then rebuilt theireconomies around different industries. Aerospace employed 1.3 million Americans in1989 or 8.8 percent of everyone working in manufacturing; by 1995 aerospace employedonly 796,000 people or 4.3 percent of everyone working in a manufacturing industry. Asit had for decades, in 1985 aerospace employed about one-fifth of all American scientistsand engineers engaged in research and development; by 1999 it employed only sevenpercent.Rather than diversify or shed capacity haphazardly, aerospace firms focused. Theydivested or merged feverishly in 1995 and 1996, hoping to find the best consolidationpartners before the federal government feared that competition would suffer. GE sold itsaerospace division to Martin Marietta, which then sold itself to Lockheed. Boeingbought the aerospace units of Rockwell International, and then acquired McDonnellDouglas. Northrop bought Grumman. Lockheed Martin and Boeing both ended up withabout ten percent of all government aerospace contracts, though joint ventures andteaming remained significant. The concentration in the American industry made it looklike European industry, except that in the margins new venture-backed firms sprang upto develop new hybrid aircraft. Funding for space vehicles held fairly steady as newfirms found new uses for satellites in communications, defense, and remote sensing ofthe earth. NASA reconfigured its relations with industry around the mantra of "faster,better, and cheaper," especially in the creation of reusable launch vehicles.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 26
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Throughout 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 spacevehicles, one-tenth missiles, and the rest ground support equipment. When spending foraerospace recovered in the late 1990s, there was the first significant shift toward sales ofcivil aircraft. After a century of development, there are strong signs that the aircraft andspace industries are finally breaking free of their military vassalage. There are alsostrong signs that the industry is becoming global -- trans-Atlantic mergers, increasingstandardization of parts and operations, aerospace imports and exports rising inlockstep. More likely, as it has been for a century, aerospace will remain intimately tiedto the nation state.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 27
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Chapter 1BHELICOPTERS"The Helicopter is the most versatile way of getting in and out anywhere in the world”HISTORY OF HELICOPTERSBy: Katie Kimmet and Amanda Nash“The vertical flight of the helicopter is an advantage to the world” “because, it allowsflight and landings without runways almost anywhere in the world”Introduction to HelicoptersThe development of the helicopter, perhaps one of mans most complex flying machines,is an example of the effects of technological evolution (Sadler 1). The helicopter began asa basic principle of rotary-wing aviation and evolved into something much greater ashuman ingenuity and technology in America and elsewhere contributed to itsdevelopment. The precision of parts due to the Industrial Revolution enabled thehelicopter to evolve into the modern machines we see flying today. The need of accuratemachinery and fixtures was evident when the earliest helicopter models lacked theefficiency and flying capability of modern helicopters.Early Concepts of the HelicopterThe ChineseThe first concept of rotary-wing aviation came from the Chinese in the Fourth CenturyA.D. (Fay 125-126). A book called "Pao Phu Tau" tells of the "Master" describing flyingcars (fei chhe) with wood from the inner part of the jujube tree with ox-leather strapsfastened 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 suggeststhat although this was no more than a design for a toy, it is indeed the first recordedpattern 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 ahelicopter had not been produced. Figure 4. Courtesy of "History of Helicopters ".Leonardo Da VinciDa Vincis vaunted spiral design created in 1490, called the Helical Air Screw, has oftenbeen cited as the first serious attempt to produce a working helicopter (Sadler 1). DaAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 28
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Vinci himself quoted on the device: "...I have discovered that a screw-shaped device suchas 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 neverput into practical use. "Da Vinci was in this instance no more than an experimentalengineer, putting onto paper age-old principles" (Sadler 1). Without adequatetechnology the ability to create such machines was virtually impossible during this time.Fifteenth through the Twentieth CenturiesA wide amount of minor inventions contributed to the advancement of the helicopter.Between the Fifteenth and Twentieth Centuries, adequate machinery needed to producehelicopters, like turbine engines and rotors, was not yet made possible by assemblylines, but as the Industrial Revolution prompted factories and technology accelerated,the helicopter evolved. One of the first breakthroughs in helicopter advancement was byGeorge Cayley who produced a converti-plane in 1843 (Sadler 1). A man named Bourneflew the helicopter-like aircraft a year later. This model was apparently powered byspring-like contraptions inside (Fay 127). All helicopter models at this time lackedsuitable power to achieve flight and were both bulky and heavy.Early Twentieth CenturyThe early Twentieth Century produced many historic moments in rotary-wing aviation.Brothers Louis and Jacques Breget rose some two inches off the ground in theirhelicopter model on August 24, 1907 (Sadler 2). A Frenchman named Paul Cornu alsoachieved free flight in his model in 1907 (Fay 132). The flight lasted only twenty secondsand acquired an altitude of thirty centimeters but was still a landmark development inhelicopter evolution. The start of the Industrial Revolution had created a way fortechnology to advance.World War I AdvancementsMilitary Interest in the helicopter during World War I contributed to its advancementalso. The first recorded example of this involved the Germans Von Karman andPetrosczy and the Hungarian Asboth. These men produced a lifting device intended toreplace kite balloons for observation. "It consisted of two superimposed liftingpropellers" (Fay 133). This autogyro model, called the PKZ-2, failed because of variousdifficulties. It was not until the late period of World War I that major helicopteradvances were made. The quality and quantity of production materials increased, andgreat improvements were made in the field of engine technology in many parts of theworld including Europe and the United States. An aircraft model for militaryadvancement was needed for more versatile and precise war tactics. With bettertechnology and more need, the next step in helicopter advancement would soon come.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 29
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Figure 5. Built for US Army Air Force by Georgrij Bothezat (USSR). Courtesy of "History of Helicopters".Autogyros are inventedThe autogyro evolved from earlier models during this time. A Spaniard named Juana dela Cierva experimented with autogyros for the allies in Great Britain until his death in1936 (Sadler 2). Two Cierva C.40 autogyros were used for Air Observation Post duringWorld War I. They did have some setbacks, however. Autogyros could neither hover nordescend vertically like the modern helicopter. Relying on forward motion, theautogyross primitive engine lacked the power to run as efficiently as the helicopters.The helicopters superiority was made readily apparent by the planned replacement ofthe RAFs No. 529 Squadrons autogyros with the Sikorsky aircraft in 1944 (Sadler 2). Figure 6. Modern Autogyro courtesy of "History of Helicopters".Sikorskys AdvancementsThe success in the field of rotary-wing aviation was due almost entirely to a man livingin America named Igor Sikorsky. Sikorsky was a Russian who had fled from theBolshevik 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 twomillion dollars for rotary-wing research in 1938 (Sadler 2). The government ended upchoosing a joint Sikorsky-Vought effort to be funded, and the project evolved into theVS-300 model helicopter. It formed the most tangible link between the early designconcept of rotary-wing aviation and the practical aircraft that is capable of militaryoperation (Sadler 2). The machine was indeed quite different from earlier models. It wasan incredible advancement in helicopters, but others soon followed.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 30
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Figure 7. One of Sikorskys earlier models. Courtesy of "History of Helicopters".1950 AdvancementsDuring the 1950s many new advancements in helicopters were made. Sikorsky craftedthe worlds first certified commercial transport helicopter, the S-55 Chickasaw (H-19).Another man named Hiller created the flying platform called the Hiller XROE-1Rotorcycle. Figure 8. Hillers flying platform courtesy of "History of Helicopters".The Turbine Engines ImpactThe creation of the turbine engine advanced the helicopters capabilities even further.With assembly lines brought about by the Industrial Revolution, these engines could beproduced with high efficiency and increased precision. The worlds first turbine gas-powered engine was the Kaman K-225 (History of Helicopters 3). Mc Donnell made thefirst successful helicopter with horizontal winged flight from a vertical rotor powered bythe turbine engine (History of Helicopers 3). He continued to create newer models inthe proceeding decades. Figure 9. Mc Donnells helicopter courtesy of History of Helicopters.1960s & 1970s: The Vietnam War and how the helicopter changedThe 1960s and the 1970s marked a widespread advancement in helicopters because ofthe Vietnam War. Beginning in 1964 this war lasted for almost a decade (Garraty 1078).The militarys need for advanced helicopters can be seen in historical pictures of themachines flying through the jungles of Vietnam to retrieve wounded troops. Helicopterswere also used as weapons during this time. Many new helicopters appeared withmissile capabilities. The Bell 209 Cobra "Snake" is one such helicopter. Large missilesAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 31
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013protruded from the sides of the machine on metal bases above. Another example is theGyrodyne QH-50 (History of Helicopters 4). This helicopter used infrared cameras toobserve at night for better protection (History of Helicopters 4). This helicopter is stillbeing utilized today. Figure 10. Bell 209 Cobra "Snake" courtesy of "History of Helicopters".1980s and the HelicopterDuring the 1980s helicopter advancement was evidently seen as the machinery wasrefined. Mc Donnell continued to produce helicopters like the Tiltrotor Unmanned AirVehicle and the Bell/Boeing 609, the worlds first commercial tiltrotor (History ofHelicopters 1). Smaller helicopters were produced to fulfill the publics needs. TheUltrasport Helicopters and the Air Command International Commander 14/A areappreciable examples. Many helicopters used jet thrust rather than blades to give thedirectional stability, which made them extremely quiet (History of Helicopters 5). Figure 11. Bell/Beoing 609 courtesy of "History of Helicopters".Early 1990s and the HelicopterDuring the early 1990s helicopters were produced by large corporations like theEurocopter Industry (Sparaco 57) and the Civil Helicopter Industry (Proctor 88). TheRevolution Helicopter Corporation created a single-seat helicopter that can be built by aperson at home in forty to sixty hours (History of Helicopters 4). The machines wereused in all areas of the public including the police force and hospitals. Helicopters areAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 32
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013still used in this way in the late 1990s. They are evolving to become more efficient andcapable of reaching their goals. Figure 12. Revolution Helicopter Corp. Mini 500 courtesy of "History of Helicopters".Conclusion of Helicopter EvolutionThe vertical flight of the helicopter is an advantage to the world. Because of advancedmachinery such as turbine engines and pistons contributed by technology, thehelicopter can be seen flying today. Since history the idea of rotary-wing flight has beenaccounted by curious individuals recognizing its potential. These ideas have evolvedfrom a dream to a reality because of technology and will continue to evolve through timewith 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.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 33
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Chapter 1CROCKET 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. TheAcorns took root in some strange places: a church, a cannery, a barbershop, but fromthem mighty Oaks have indeed come to fruition”. Whoever wrote itTodays rockets are remarkable collections of human ingenuity. NASAs Space Shuttle,for example, is one of the most complex flying machines ever invented. It stands uprighton a launch pad, lifts off as a rocket, orbits Earth as a spacecraft, and returns to Earth asa gliding airplane. The Space Shuttle is a true spaceship. In a few years it will be joinedby other spaceships. The European Space Agency is building the Hermes and Japan isbuilding the HOPE. Still later may come aerospace planes that will take off fromrunways as airplanes, fly into space, and return as airplanes.The rockets and spaceships of today and the spaceships of the future have their roots inthe science and technology of the past. They are natural outgrowths of literallythousands of years of experimentation and research on rockets and rocket propulsion.One of the first devices to successfully employ the principles essential to rocket flightwas a wooden bird. In the writings of Aulus Gellius, a Roman, there is a story of a Greeknamed 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 ofTarentum by flying a pigeon made of wood. It appears that the bird was suspended onwires and propelled along by escaping steam. The pigeon used the action-reactionprinciple 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 apropulsive gas. Hero mounted a sphere on top of a water kettle. A fire below the kettleturned 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 sogave a thrust to the sphere that caused it to rotate.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 34
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Figure 13. Hero EngineJust when the first true rockets appeared is unclear. Stories of early rocket like devicesappear sporadically through the historical records of various cultures. Perhaps the firsttrue rockets were accidents. In the first century A.D., the Chinese were reported to havehad a simple form of gunpowder made from saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal dust. It wasused mostly for fireworks in religious and other festive celebrations. Bamboo tubes werefilled with the mixture and tossed into fires to create explosions during religiousfestivals. lt is entirely possible that some of those tubes failed to explode and insteadskittered out of the fires, propelled by the gases and sparks produced by the burninggunpowder. Figure 14. Chinese Fire ArrowIt is certain that the Chinese began to experiment with the gunpowder-filled tubes. Atsome point, bamboo tubes were attached to arrows and launched with bows. Soon it wasdiscovered that these gunpowder tubes could launch themselves just by the powerproduced from the escaping gas. The true rocket was born.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 35
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013The first date we know true rockets were used was the year 1232. At this time, theChinese 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." Thesefire-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 along 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 asa simple guidance system that kept the rocket headed in one general direction as it flewthrough the air. It is not clear how effective these arrows of flying fire were as weaponsof destruction, but their psychological effects on the Mongols must have beenformidable. Figure 15. Chinese Fire Arrow LaunchFollowing the battle of Kai-Keng, the Mongols produced rockets of their own and mayhave been responsible for the spread of rockets to Europe. All through the 13th to the15th centuries there were reports of many rocket experiments. In England, a monknamed Roger Bacon worked on improved forms of gunpowder that greatly increased therange of rockets. In France, Jean Froissart found that more accurate flights could beachieved by launching rockets through tubes. Froissarts idea was the forerunner of themodern bazooka. Joanes de Fontana of Italy designed a surface-running rocket-poweredtorpedo for setting enemy ships on fire. Figure 16. Surface Running TorpedoBy the 16th century rockets fell into a time of disuse as weapons of war, though theywere still used for fireworks displays, and a German fireworks maker, JohannSchmidlap, invented the "step rocket," a multi-staged vehicle for lifting fireworks tohigher altitudes. A large sky rocket (first stage) carried a smaller sky rocket (secondstage). When the large rocket burned out, the smaller one continued to a higher altitudeAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 36
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013before showering the sky with glowing cinders. Schmidlaps idea is basic to all rocketstoday that go into outer space.Nearly all uses of rockets up to this time were for warfare or fireworks, but there is aninteresting old Chinese legend that reported the use of rockets as a means oftransportation. With the help of many assistants, a lesser-known Chinese official namedWan-Hu assembled a rocket- powered flying chair. Attached to the chair were two largekites, 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 lightthe rockets. Forty-seven rocket assistants, each armed with torches, rushed forward tolight the fuses. In a moment, there was a tremendous roar accompanied by billowingclouds of smoke. When the smoke cleared, Wan-Hu and his flying chair were gone. Noone knows for sure what happened to Wan-Hu, but it is probable that if the event reallydid take place, Wan-Hu and his chair were blown to pieces. Fire-arrows were as apt toexplode as to fly. Figure 17. Wan-Hu Flying ChairRocketry Becomes a ScienceDuring the latter part of the 17th century, the scientific foundations for modern rocketrywere laid by the great English scientist Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Newton organizedhis understanding of physical motion into three scientific laws. The laws explain howrockets work and why they are able to work in the vacuum of outer space.Newtons laws soon began to have a practical impact on the design of rockets. About1720, a Dutch professor, Willem Gravesande, built model cars propelled by jets ofsteam. Rocket experimenters in Germany and Russia began working with rockets with amass of more than 45 kilograms. Some of these rockets were so powerful that theirescaping 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 briefrevival as a weapon of war. The success of Indian rocket barrages against the British in1792 and again in 1799 caught the interest of an artillery expert, Colonel WilliamCongreve. Congreve set out to design rockets for use by the British military.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 37
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013The Congreve rockets were highly successful in battle. Used by British ships to poundFort McHenry in the War of 1812, they inspired Francis Scott Key to write "the rocketsred glare," words in his poem that later became The Star- Spangled Banner.Even with Congreves work, the accuracy of rockets still had not improved much fromthe 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 theenemy. All over the world, rocket researchers experimented with ways to improveaccuracy. An Englishman, William Hale, developed a technique called spin stabilization.In this method, the escaping exhaust gases struck small vanes at the bottom of therocket, causing it to spin much as a bullet does in flight. Variations of the principle arestill 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 againstnewly designed artillery pieces. Breech-loading cannon with rifled barrels and explodingwarheads were far more effective weapons of war than the best rockets. Once again,rockets were relegated to peacetime uses.Modern Rocketry BeginsIn 1898, a Russian schoolteacher, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1857-1935), proposed theidea of space exploration by rocket. In a report he published in 1903, Tsiolkovskysuggested 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 exhaustvelocity of escaping gases. For his ideas, careful research, and great vision, Tsiolkovskyhas been called the father of modern astronautics. Figure 18. Tsiolkovsky RocketsEarly in the 20th century, an American, Robert H. Goddard (1882-1945), conductedpractical experiments in rocketry. He had become interested in a way of achievingAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 38
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013higher altitudes than were possible for lighter-than-air balloons. He published apamphlet in 1919 entitled A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes. It was amathematical analysis of what is today called the meteorological sounding rocket.In his pamphlet, Goddard reached several conclusions important to rocketry. From histests, he stated that a rocket operates with greater efficiency in a vacuum than in air. Atthe time, most people mistakenly believed that air was needed for a rocket to pushagainst and a New York Times newspaper editorial of the day mocked Goddards lack ofthe "basic physics ladled out daily in our high schools." Goddard also stated thatmultistage or step rockets were the answer to achieving high altitudes and that thevelocity needed to escape Earths gravity could be achieved in this way.Goddards earliest experiments were with solid-propellant rockets. In 1915, he began totry various types of solid fuels and to measure the exhaust velocities of the burninggases. Figure 19. Goddard’s 1926 RocketWhile working on solid-propellant rockets, Goddard became convinced that a rocketcould 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 wouldbe needed. In spite of the difficulties, Goddard achieved the first successful flight with aliquid- propellant rocket on March 16, 1926. Fueled by liquid oxygen and gasoline, therocket flew for only two and a half seconds, climbed 12.5 meters, and landed 56 metersaway in a cabbage patch. By todays standards, the flight was unimpressive, but like theAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 39
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013first powered airplane flight by the Wright brothers in 1903, Goddards gasoline rocketwas the forerunner of a whole new era in rocket flight.Goddards experiments in liquid-propellant rockets continued for many years. Hisrockets became bigger and flew higher. He developed a gyroscope system for flightcontrol and a payload compartment for scientific instruments. Parachute recoverysystems were employed to return rockets and instruments safely. Goddard, for hisachievements, has been called the father of modern rocketry.A third great space pioneer, Hermann Oberth (1894-1989) of Germany, published abook in 1923 about rocket travel into outer space. His writings were important. Becauseof them, many small rocket societies sprang up around the world. In Germany, theformation 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 WorldWar II. In 1937, German engineers and scientists, including Oberth, assembled inPeenemunde on the shores of the Baltic Sea. There the most advanced rocket of its timewould be built and flown under the directorship of Wernher von Braun.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 40
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Figure 20. German V2 RocketThe V-2 rocket (in Germany called the A-4) was small by comparison to todays rockets.It achieved its great thrust by burning a mixture of liquid oxygen and alcohol at a rate ofabout one ton every seven seconds. Once launched, the V-2 was a formidable weaponthat could devastate whole city blocks.Fortunately for London and the Allied forces, the V-2 came too late in the war to changeits outcome. Nevertheless, by wars end, German rocket scientists and engineers hadalready laid plans for advanced missiles capable of spanning the Atlantic Ocean andlanding in the United States. These missiles would have had winged upper stages butvery small payload capacities.With the fall of Germany, many unused V-2 rockets and components were captured bythe Allies. Many German rocket scientists came to the United States. Others went to theSoviet Union. The German scientists, including Wernher von Braun, were amazed at theprogress Goddard had made.Both the United States and the Soviet Union realized the potential of rocketry as amilitary weapon and began a variety of experimental programs. At first, the UnitedStates began a program with high-altitude atmospheric sounding rockets, one ofGoddards early ideas. Later, a variety of medium- and long-range intercontinentalballistic missiles were developed. These became the starting point of the U.S. spaceprogram. Missiles such as the Redstone, Atlas, and Titan would eventually launchastronauts into space.On October 4, 1957, the world was stunned by the news of an Earth-orbiting artificialsatellite launched by the Soviet Union. Called Sputnik I, the satellite was the firstsuccessful entry in a race for space between the two superpower nations. Less than amonth later, the Soviets followed with the launch of a satellite carrying a dog namedLaika on board. Laika survived in space for seven days before being put to sleep beforethe oxygen supply ran out.A few months after the first Sputnik, the United States followed the Soviet Union with asatellite of its own. Explorer I was launched by the U.S. Army on January 31, 1958. InOctober of that year, the United States formally organized its space program by creatingthe National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA became a civilianagency 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 orbitedEarth and landed on the Moon. Robot spacecraft traveled to the planets. Space wassuddenly opened up to exploration and commercial exploitation. Satellites enabledscientists to investigate our world, forecast the weather, and to communicateinstantaneously around the globe. As the demand for more and larger payloadsincreased, a wide array of powerful and versatile rockets had to be built.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 41
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Since the earliest days of discovery and experimentation, rockets have evolved fromsimple gunpowder devices into giant vehicles capable of traveling into outer space.Rockets have opened the universe to direct exploration by humankind.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 42
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Chapter 2Changing Times "The defense industry became detached from the rest of the economy"Americas defense companies are turning dual-purposeJul 18th 2002 | from the print editionTHE 1990s were an eventful time for Americas defense industry. With the cold war atan end, the number of big American contractors came down from 15 to five (LockheedMartin, 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 akind of ghetto, despite considerable efforts to make doing business with the Pentagoneasier and less bureaucratic. Barriers to entry were removed in the hope of turningdefense into something more like a normal business, but instead of an influx of newblood, a mass exodus followed. IBM, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, General Electric(except engines) and Texas Instruments all sold or closed their defense companies. AsMerrill Lynchs Byron Callan put it, “The defense industry became detached from therest of the economy.”Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 43
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Figure 21. Aerospace & Defense SalesThe 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 onprocurement have in the past caused some defense companies to lose money on fixed-price development contracts. Many companies decided the defense game was not worththe 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 ofwhich dominates its home market and competes in places such as the Middle East andAsia, proper globalization (in the sense of a number of transnational companiescompeting worldwide) seems out of the question. But that does not mean thatglobalization will have no part in the defense industry at all. Because electronics andcomputing software play an increasing role in defense systems, the core defensecompanies 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 itdoes, the more global it could get at the level of the second- or third-tier suppliers, whomake components or equipment for the prime contractors. Lawrence Freedman ofKings College, London, who has written on the implications of RMA, sees the ghettowalls coming down as the civil sector develops more technical dynamism. The trendtowards increased use of IT and systems integration in warfare should accelerate thistrend:The old defense sector was based on dedicated programs with only a limited civilianspin-off. This now exists side by side with a more dynamic industry, which can passthrough two generations of technology while the official defense-procurementmachinery is still working its way laboriously through its bureaucratic mechanisms.Although the electronics and computing sectors originally took off on the back ofmilitary investment, they have now developed their civilian markets to such an extentthat even the military is a minor player.Underlying this is a worry that the defense industry, having consolidated so much with aloss of competition on both sides of the Atlantic, might begin to lag in innovation, andmight not be up to supporting the transformation of the armed forces it serves. Eventhough Americas military might and technology is streets ahead of anyone elses, thecountry cannot afford to be complacent. A recent study by RANDs National DefenseResearch Institute looked at military revolutions throughout history and found that, byAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 44
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013and large, new ways of waging war were usually developed by a country or a group thatwas not dominant at the time.Indeed, it could be argued that the most revolutionary military development to happenin recent times was the hijacking last September of four kerosene-laden jetliners to useas guided missiles in New York and Washington, DC. Modern electronic technology inthe 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 systemsimmutably determined by defense-department contracts. To take one example, the JointStrike 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 toupdate them.Jerry Daniels at Boeing, which lost the JSF contract, points to the dangers thatengineering teams will scatter and expertise will be lost when Lockheed Martineventually becomes the only company making fighters. “Twenty years ago we had 50-odd defense contractors; today we have a handful. Then there were many rapidopportunities to bid, there was always a new program coming along.” By contrast, heexplains, the trend now is towards fighters that combine many functions and can beordered in bulk. His (perhaps not entirely disinterested) suggestion is that it might bebetter to go for upgrades every five years and put the work out to competitive bids. Tosome extent, this is already being done. Boeing has recently won a contract to rethinkand 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 befinances to be how much per Aircraft? F-22 or F-35. My Brother In-Law finds humor ingames of the things their new Aircraft can Do. When asked at a certain range and sweepwhat is the most effective aircraft? Most USAF Officials’ SAY f-22, answers was F-16.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 45
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Figure 22. Defense Industry Consolidation 1993-2007One 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 asbudgets shrank. But by 1997, when a weak Northrop Grumman thought its best hopewas to become part of the much larger Lockheed Martin, the government had hadenough and blocked the merger on competition grounds. According to Pierre Chao ofCSFB, an investment bank, the defense department then got into a panic about thecollapse of defense shares as consolidation ended.One concern in the Pentagon was that the defense contractors might have increasingtrouble 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 capitalisationof over $100 billion, whereas the top three defense groups together add up to only halfthat. The concern is that top engineers will turn their back on defense companies andwork 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 jetaircraft, 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 ofcomplex systems that have now become routine in civilian applications, such as air-Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 46
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013traffic control or telecommunications. It is no accident that the worlds leading (non-American) company in air-traffic control is Thales, a Paris-based defense-electronicscompany that specializes in dual-use technologies which can be applied to thecommercial market. Figure 23. Aerospace & Defance Stock TrendsAccording to Mr Krepinevich at the Centre for Strategy and Budgetary Assessment, theAmerican government will have to improve its policy towards the defense industrialbase if America is not to lose its technical lead. He thinks too much of what goes underthe name of R&D is really devoted to the engineering and manufacturing developmentof incoming products. That may provide a nice cash cushion for companies, but it meansthey do little innovative research of the sort needed to develop entirely new products. Hewould like the Defense Department to take a hard look at future requirements to seewhich areas of technology could best meet them. Money for this could be found bychopping expenditure on mature technologies where extra R&D produces marginalgains.Two-way trafficCommercial input into the defense industry is not a one-way process. Leading defensecompanies such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman have beenchanging their profile too, turning themselves into something more than makers offighters, missiles and rockets. It is no longer simply technologies that spread frommilitary to civil applications, as they did in the 1950s, when only the defense sector hadAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 47
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013big money to spend on R&D. Instead, the defense companies themselves are movinginto 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 losingmoney and staggering under a debt burden of $12 billion. Integrating the variousbusinesses from Lockheeds takeovers of companies such as Martin Marietta wasproving difficult. Nothing was going right. The companys space rockets kept blowing upon the launch pad, the update of its C130J transport plane was hitting problem afterproblem, 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 byselling parts of its business to BAE Systems, the British contractor which is becomingmore American by the day (of which more in this article). Lockheeds shares look goodlargely because it beat Boeing for the JSF (F35) contract, which will ensure an inflow ofbillions of dollars even if the order is trimmed from 3,000 to 2,000. Its main partners inthis deal are Northrop Grumman and BAE.But there is more to Lockheed than big defense deals. About 30% of its sales are now inthe civil sector (although admittedly civil work for the government far outweighs itsprivate work). Lockheed buys in components and software from the electronicsindustry, but it is itself a huge IT company, employing some 20,000 systems andsoftware engineers on top of its 50,000 mainstream scientists and engineers. The same“system of systems” need for digital battlefields has commercial applications inorganizations such as Americas postal service, the FBI, Medicare and the Social Securitysystem.Boeing offers an even more striking instance of cross-fertilization between thecommercial and military sectors. It became big in defense when it bought McDonnellDouglas in 1996. McDonnell had put itself up for sale after it was excluded from the JSFcompetition in an earlier round, leaving Boeing and Lockheed in the final shoot-out. ButBoeing had also acquired North American Rockwell with its space business, and latergained satellite expertise by buying parts of Hughess electronics business.Once Boeings boss, Phil Condit, and his then number two, Harry Stonecipher (who hadbeen McDonnells last boss), had bedded down the mergers, they realized they weresitting on a collection of assets that could be used to sprout all sorts of businesses asidefrom jetliners, rockets and satellites. Using military technology, Boeing is developing somany new businesses in the commercial market that the share of its civil jet sales willsoon fall from 60% of the groups turnover to around half. For instance, the sametechnology that guides missiles can be repackaged to provide satellite-based air-trafficmanagement systems. And a military radar antenna is the key piece of kit in a system tobring 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 leadcontractor working on Americas national missile-defense system, as well as theAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 48
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013provider of the future combat system that is part of the integrated battlespace system forthe army. Like Lockheed, Boeing sees itself as an integrator of “systems of systems”. Butthese established giants face competition at the electronics-systems end of defensecontracts.Meanwhile, Northrop Grumman is still remaking itself. Its boss, Mr Kresa, says thatNorthrop saw the rundown in bomber production coming in the early 1990s and startedto shift its emphasis to technology and systems. By acquiring Grumman, it got into thebig JointStars aerial surveillance plane contract. With its purchase of Logicon, it got intoinformation warfare. Brushing off the collapse of its planned merger with LockheedMartin, Mr Kresa continued to build up the group. With Westinghouse, it boughtelectronics and radar; with Ryan, Global Hawk. Since then it has bought LittonIndustries and Newport News to become the worlds largest naval shipbuilder. It hassuccessfully bid for TRW, an aerospace and car-parts group, against severalcompetitors, including BAE. If the deal is approved, Northrop will sell off the cars-partsdivision and hold on to the missile and space business, which brings satellite know-howwith it.Other defense companies are still trying to clean up their acts. Raytheon, a missiles andradar 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 itsbid 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 todesign the navys new DDX destroyer, which is expected to be the basic platform for arange 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-3Communications, a company founded only five years ago by Frank Lanza, the formerpresident of Loral, a defense outfit that merged into Lockheed Martin in 1996. Havingsupervised the integration, Mr Lanza persuaded Lockheed to sell him ten electronicscompanies. 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 thenewly burgeoning field of homeland security, with baggage screening devices andsystems. Such civil business accounts for a quarter of its sales.Despite some travails, Wall Streets glowing verdict on their shares gives a goodindication of American defense companies financial prospects. European companies, bycontrast, face flat budgets and, except for the Anglo-American BAE, can hope to get littlemore than crumbs from the worlds biggest defense market.The Total Quality Management Farce Total Quality Management (TQM) was started by Edward Deming, sold to theJapanese as Statistical Process Controls (SPC) and manufacturing techniques to helprebuild their industrial base after the ruin of World WarII. In 1970’s GM broughtAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 49
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Edward Deming in to be part of the First full CAD/CAM program in the World on thePontiac Fiero program. GM people disliked him thought of him as a traitor and boringmathematician not a manufacturing specialist. I was fortunate to be part of thisprogram (sometime in Pontiac) for its fully Automated Engine Assembly & Testproduction Line by Bendix Automation though my Dad’s BoiCo EngineeringCorporation. GM eas right Deming was boring to listen to but his Statistical ProcessControls (SPC) and involving full team empowerment did make a good difference. Thelessons learned here were data with SPC can pin point areas of error so you can drive upits 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 withTotal Quality Management System (TQMS) later nicknamed “Time to Quit and Move toSeattle”. This is where all managers and employees are to be judged by their peers. Theexecutives would have to prove their worth to keep their empire going from 32 VicePresident to only 13 VP positions. Figure 24. A View of Earth from the ShuttleAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 50
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013When Government Gave US AwayGeorge W. Bush signing the technology offsets Law, and Bill Clinton opening up Spacesecrets to China.Exporting military know-howIndustrially advance countries prefer technology transfers to indirect offsets. Arms salesare now routinely accompanied by arrangements for foreign buyers to produce weaponsystems or their components. If a buyer cannot rope with technology transfer, a serviceand maintenance depot for the weapon system might be established.Currently, U.S. law actually encourages the transfer of production technology to NATOand "major non-NATO allies." This law treats the transfer of technology no differentlythan the sale of armaments, merely requiring that Congress be notified of contractsworth $14 million or more. Congress is then given 30 days within which to contest thearrangement (15 days for NATO members).The result is a different kind of proliferation-proliferation of military-industrialcomplexes around the world. In the 1950s, only five developing countries made smallarms, ammunition, or major military equipment (aircraft, armored vehicles, missiles, ornaval craft). By the early 1980s this number had skyrocketed to 54, with 36 countriesproducing major military equipment. The developing countries of Brazil, India,Israel, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey all have asignificant arms industry today.But co-production isnt a free ride. Theres the cost of building the necessaryinfrastructure, as well as licensing, royalty, and technical assistance fees. Licensedproduction or co-production costs the buyer more than weapons bought off the shelf-butthe ability to manufacture high-tech weapons is alluring. To recoup their investmentcosts 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 asundermining the interests of the selling government.Perhaps the most important security implication of co-production deals is theirrevocable transfer of industrial technology and manufacturing know-how needed notonly for conventional weapons production, but also for the possible development oflong-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction. U.S. sales of productiontechnology to the Shah formed the basis of Irans current military industry, and licensedproduction from the Soviet Union, China, Brazil, and others provided the foundation ofIraqs weapons industry.Sidebar: A License to Steal JobsWhen Congress was considering the Korean Fighter Program in August 1991, the GAOwas 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 theairframe for 72 of 120 aircraft. Of the remaining 48 planes, European partners in the F-Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 51
  • DRAFT Jan. 201316 program were entitled to a 15 percent work-share from a previous offset. Only 12planes were to be wholly U.S.-made; the other 36 would be exported in kits to beassembled in Korea.On June 25, 1992, thousands of F-16 production line workers gathered at the gates ofGeneral Dynamics Fort Worth, Texas factory (now Lockheed Martin) for a "FairnessRally" to protest the deal. George Kourpias, international president of the Machinistsand Aerospace Workers union, told them, "GD originally wanted to bring 500 Koreanworkers here.... Our union put a stop to that scheme. At least for now. But the state ofmind of the company hs not changed. They still see no merit in working with us toconvert 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 thepast two years.... This week, another 500.... And the company wanted those of you left toteach Koreans how to do your jobs." The Samsung Aerospace workers were later trainedin Turkey, where General Dynamics has another F-16 co-production facility.Members of Congress had pushed for South Korea to purchase planes manufactured inthe United States. Cong. Richard Gephardt, a Missouri Democrat, said, "GeneralDynamics, not unlike McDonnell Douglas in my district, has had to ... lay off a largenumber of U.S. workers in the past year. These workers are capable of manufacturing amajority 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 ChinaPresident Clinton had put a higher priority on U.S. exports than on national security, and in theprocess strengthened the Chinese Army’s ability to target weapons on the U.S. and fosteredmissile 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.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 52
  • 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 EnoughIn October 2010 President Obama blamed Republicans Saturday for blocking bills thatwould take away tax breaks for U.S. corporations that move jobs to subsidiaries in othercountries. Republicans in Congress, he said, "have consistently fought to keep theseAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 53
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013corporate loopholes open."In the last four years, the president charged, "Republicans in the House voted 11 times tocontinue rewarding corporations that create jobs and profits overseas -- a policy that coststaxpayers 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 forcompanies with overseas operations. Instead, he wants to give tax breaks for Americanfirms to write off the cost of new equipment in 2011, and also make a tax credit for researchand experimentation permanent. "These are common sense ideas," he said in his weeklyInternet address.But there is resistance to Obamas push against favorable treatment for overseas operations,and it isnt coming solely from Republicans and business interests. Some Democrats alsofear that ending the tax help could put the United States at a competitive disadvantage. Thepresident acknowledged that "a lot of companies that do business internationally make animportant contribution to our economy." But he said "theres no reason why our tax codeshould actively reward them for creating jobs overseas."Republicans, in their weekly remarks, said the House of Representatives should return fromrecess immediately to act on the Bush-era tax cuts due to expire in January. "The prosperityof the American people is more important than the political fortunes of any politician or anypolitical party," said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) Democratic leaders say they will deal withthe tax issue after the Nov. 2 election. As we had seen the Democrats took a shellacking inthe Congress but held the Senate and of course still in the White House.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 54
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Chapter 3Where 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 sinceAirbus was created in 1981 by suppliers which produced aircraft sub assemblies forMcDonnell Douglas and Boeing along with some Military Aircraft by the other supplierto Defense like, Northrop, Grumman, and General Dynamics TX. now LockheedMartin.Were falling behind.By Norm Augustine (Ret. Chairman & CEO Lockheed Martin) Figure 25. Norm AugustineI’ve visited more than 100 countries in the past several years, meeting people from allwalks of life, from impoverished children in India to heads of state. Almost every adultI’ve talked with in these countries shares a belief that the path to success is paved withscience and engineering.In fact, scientists and engineers are celebrities in most countries. They’re not seen asgeeks or misfits, as they too often are in the U.S., but rather as society’s leaders andinnovators. In China, eight of the top nine political posts are held by engineers. In theU.S., almost no engineers or scientists are engaged in high-level politics, and there is avirtual absence of engineers in our public policy debates.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 55
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Why does this matter? Because if American students have a negative impression – or noimpression at all – of science and engineering, then they’re hardly likely to choose themas professions. Already, 70% of engineers with PhD’s who graduate from U.S.universities are foreign-born. Increasingly, these talented individuals are not staying inthe 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 thereare also problems inherent in our public education system. We simply don’t haveenough qualified math and science teachers. Many of those teaching math and sciencehave 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 theaerospace industry to pursue a career in education. But I was deemed unqualified toteach 8th-grade math in any school in my state. Ironically, I was welcomed to the facultyat Princeton University, where the student newspaper ranked my course as one of 10that every undergraduate should take.In a global, knowledge-driven economy there is a direct correlation between engineeringeducation and innovation. Our success or failure as a nation will be measured by howwell we do with the innovation agenda, and by how well we can advance medicalresearch, create game-changing devices and improve the world.I continue to be active in organizations like the IEEE to help raise the profile of theengineering community and ensure that our voice is heard in key public policydecisions. That’s also why I am passionate about the way engineering should be taughtas a profession – not as a collection of technical knowledge, but as a diverse educationalexperience that produces broad thinkers who appreciate the critical links betweentechnology and society.Here we are in a flattening world, where innovation is the key to success, and we arefailing to give our young people the tools they need to compete. Many countries aredoing a much better job. Ireland, despite a devastated economy, just announced it willincrease spending on basic research. Russia is building an “innovation city” outside ofMoscow. Saudi Arabia has a new university for science and engineering with astaggering $10 billion endowment. (It took MIT 142 years to reach that level.) China iscreating new technology universities literally by the dozens.These nations and many others have rightly concluded that the way to win in the worldeconomy is by doing a better job of educating and innovating. And America? We’relosing our edge. Innovation is something we’ve always been good at. Until now, we’vebeen the undisputed leaders when it comes to finding new ideas through basic research,translating those ideas into products through world-class engineering, and getting tomarket first through aggressive entrepreneurship.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 56
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013That’s how we rose to prominence. And that’s where we’re falling behind now. Thestatistics 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 livingoff 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 Darwinobserved 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 wayforward. 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 someimportant recommendations and specific actions to implement them. Therecommendations 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 feltconfident that we were finally getting back on the right track.In 2007, Congress passed the America COMPETES Act, which authorized officialsupport for many of the steps urged in the Gathering Storm report. When the stimuluspackage was passed early in 2009, most of the COMPETES Act’s measures receivedfunding. There was an increase in total federal funding for K-12 education, the creationof scholarships for future math and science teachers, and financial support to create theAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 57
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Advanced 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 havedropped out of high school in this country. What kind of future will they have? Likelynot a promising one. It is quite possible that our nation’s adults will, for the first time inU.S. history, leave their children and grandchildren a lower standard of living than theythemselves enjoyed.Global leadership is not a birthright. Despite what many Americans believe, our nationdoes not possess an innate knack for greatness. Greatness must be worked for andwon by each new generation. Right now that is not happening. But we still havetime. If we place the emphasis we should on education, research and innovation we canlead the world in the decades to come. But the only way to ensure we remain greattomorrow is to increase our investment in science and engineering today.Norm Augustine is an IEEE Life Fellow and retired chairman and ex CEO of LockheedMartin.America’s Lost LeadershipIn recent times where Companies cannot make Schedule, Cost Targets and TechnicalProblems continuously arise, we need understand what went wrong. Almost all of theDefense companies make a habit of being behind Schedule and Over Budget because itis guaranteed percentage profit over costs. The DOD tried to improve this starting withMcNamara that did not take well in the military complex industry. Defense is extremelyimportant and has costing the taxpayers a tremendous amount in taxes going to keepthem alive.Lost Leadership precludes you had leadership at one time then lost it. Companies are asum of the leading individuals and head of that Corporation, our Supreme Court allowsa Corporation to vote and politically contribute like an individual. Let’s look at aCorporation by a once head of Chrysler who turned around a company and made it aLeader-unfortunately turned it over to one not suitable to the office. Lee Iacoccaexplains 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.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 58
  • 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 beginningof this book and start of the Industry. One that comes to mind is Northrop’s proposingto 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 thegreatness, “lessons learned” and faults in Aerospace, Defense Industry seeing a potentialgrowing loss in America’s Future. Leadership Lost refers to Companies and Countrylosing its leadership edge by failure in technical requirement s met, schedule and costgoals being met. Otherwise you must ask “What the heck Went Wrong?” we aren’ttalking doom and gloom just seeing our spiraling financial crisis and ineptitude toachieve known milestones on the backs of the taxpayers.It is well known that almost all defense companies bid on project below achievablebudget, just to win because the award goes to the lowest cost producer. After award theyadd Engineering Change Notices or added Requirements (usually never meetingoriginal) based on the Operations Requirement Document (ORD) by the DOD andMission Requirements for Commercial.Lockheed MartinSince we just left off with a great statement from a Legend in Industry Norm Augustinewe 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 theGD Texas buyout. According to a great documentation book “Prophets Of War” by,William D Hartung about Lockheed Martin and Making of the Military Complex. Theyhave made a habit of being over budget and behind schedule along with some briberycases 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. Thefact of recent Program’s the F22 USAF Fighter jet to replace the aging and unbeatableF15 was to Cost: $25 Billion for 750 Aircraft. Americans ended up paying: $62 Billionfor 339 Aircraft and delivered late of course.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 59
  • 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 isthe F-15, which will be replaced by The FA-22 which is several times better. In ActualIn-flight (simulated) Combat Operations against the F-15, two FA-22s were able tooperate Without detection while they went Head to head against (8) F-15s. The FA-22sscored Missile Hits (Kills) Against all the F-15 Aircraft and the FA-22s were neverdetected by Either the F-15s or Ground Based Radar. Maj. Gen. Rick Lewis said: TheRaptor Operated against All Adversaries with Virtual Impunity; Ground Based SystemsCouldnt Engage and NO Adversary Aircraft Survived!In May 2011 the upgrade for the F22 is again behind schedule and over budget: Thelatest hardware and software upgrade for the U.S. Air Forces F-22 Raptor stealth fighterjet is over budget and behind schedule, top Defense Department officials told Congresson May 19. "The Increment 3.2 that they working on for the F-22 for our war-fightingcustomer is taking too long to implement," Air Force procurement chief David VanBuren told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We are working withthe 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 missileand the AIM-120D medium-range air-to-air missile, and to attack eight ground targetswith eight 250-pound Small Diameter Bombs. Software development appears to be theprimary cause of the delay. Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, saidthe F-22s software is written largely in Ada, a programming language that was once aDoD standard but whose use has waned in the past 15 years. "It tends to impede quickAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 60
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013upgrades to the system to which it is the base software," Thompson said. Moreover, hesaid, "The affordability of any upgrade becomes debatable when you purchase arelatively small number of upgrades." Lockheed has built 187 Raptors, of which twohave been lost. The company said it is working with the Air Force to accelerate fieldingof the upgrade, which is split into two components, A and B, while trying to cut costs.Despite Lockheeds confidence, the Defense Departments leaders are worried about theprogram. "The F-22 modernization program is a concern to us," said Pentagonprocurement chief Ashton Carter, who testified alongside Van Buren at the May 19 2011hearing. By DAVE MAJUMDAR Published: 19 May 2011 18:47The F35 Joint Strike Fighter which was mocked up really great in the movie Live Free orDie Harder is still 4 years behind schedule. It was supposed to be an Affordablealternative to building more F22’s said Sec. of Defense Gates. Loren Thompson fromthe Lexington Institute and who partially consults to Lockheed Martin made a claimabout the cost for the F35 would be no more than a current F16 fighter. The projectedcost is a record setting $300 Billion and counting, making it the costliest weapon in USDefense History. Reading about the history of this company you would think the publicwould be told the truth or have a clue of or learn a lesson of where so much governmentwaste 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 FlightPentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committeelast month that without significant changes the plan to purchase more than 2,400 F-35Joint Strike Fighter jets from Lockheed Martin will cost about twice as much as initiallyestimated. "Over the lifetime of this program, the decade or so, the per-aircraft cost ofthe 2,443 aircraft we want has doubled in real terms," said Carter, the undersecretary ofAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 61
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. "Said differently, thats what its goingto cost if we keep doing what were doing. "Thats unacceptable. Its unaffordable at thatrate." Using words such as "jaw-dropping" to describe the cost estimates to produce andoperate the fighter, several members of the Senate Armed Services Committee evenchallenged U.S. Defense Department officials on the once-unthinkable: looking atalternatives 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 costingmore than one trillion dollars (PF, May 11). "People should not conclude that we will bewilling to continue that kind of support without regard to increased costs resulting froma lack of focus on affordability," said Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich," DefenseNews reported May 2011General Dynamics-oldGeneral Dynamics still has Land Systems and Electric Boat Divisions but before thegiant stock incentivized selloff of Aircraft & Space System was one of the largestAerospace powerhouses from the past. They owned the now Lockheed Martin FortWorth 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 theA12 Fighter which was a NAVAIR stealth flying wing. Then Secretary Of Defense DickCheney had cancelled the program over problems. The DOD sued to regain around $1.3Billion 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 forthe development of the A-12 aircraft for the Navy, plus $2.5 billion in interest that hasnow accumulated over that period.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 62
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Figure 29. A12 Avenger ConceptIt appears that both General Dynamics and Boeing have bought more time in repayingthe money when the Supreme Court ruled on May 23 that they would not rule on anappeal 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 theUSAF Atlas2, Atlas2AS, had a Company Manufacturing Senior Manager let (or go tojail) for corruption embezzlement with Murdoch Incorporated which had a contractdoing tooling. I worked on the Atlas2as with some 3 retirees in writing the newManufacturing Plan. These 3 old guys which were a joy to work with, one nicknamedRed even told me he was in the US Army and held Varner Von Braun and his family bygun point to bring him to America. He boasted of his ability to walkthrough the factoryat a fast pace knowing where everything was. On my own time I had created andproposed a new modern Automated Tank Assembly Cell (ATAC) manufacturing systemwhich would have been 140 time more efficient & cheaper than existing methods. I hadsent it up the ladder but fell on deaf ears because Management already was in cahootswith Murdoch. I had also created and proposed recoverable Avionics pods which couldbe build separately and installed in-situ or on site saving huge production & testing timeand 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 Directorand Robert Roe the Head of the Office of Science & Technology in charge of the SpaceCommand.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 forAtlas production from San Diego with Titan facilities in Denver. Approximately 400 jobswere eliminated in San Diego and Denver. Total savings over 10 years were initiallyAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 63
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013estimated at over $300 million (subsequently raised to as much as $500 million); due inpart to filling excess factory space and sharing fixed costs for utilities and other propertyexpenses. This purchase by Martin Marietta of the Atlas launch vehicle gave Martin thedominant role in the space launch business. Figure 30. Atlas2ASMcDonnell Douglas-now BoeingI had enjoyed working for McDonnell Douglas in the design engineering groups waspromoted and learned Project Management as part of the DOD’s IndustrialModernization Incentive Program (IMIP) part of the C17. McDonnell Douglas was thelargest Aerospace Company once above $56 Billion per year in the mid 1988 periodwhen James Worsham (originally from GE) was the President in Long Beach. In one ofhis speeches he was bragging of our Company being number one having a One, TwoThree & Four holes meaning the jets engines look like a hole from front view. At theTime 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 atMcDonnell Douglas and Boeing and didn’t have the rich history in Aviation we did. Iremember meeting Jim once at his home in Palos Verdes, CA. because I was dating hisbabysitter from which also was from Michigan. He had just arrived home after a largesales trip and was discussing his terrific sale of Aircraft to a Middle Eastern Airlinesdiscussing the sales while sitting in a Jacuzzi with the greatest view. His home wasbeautiful with a pool running into the home and a Jacuzzi that flowed down into thepool. While he was running it until the Total Quality Management System TQMSprogram which hit the Company in 1989 it was a Great Company. Once TQMS alsoAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 64
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013nicknamed Time to Quit and Move to Seattle had pretty much changed the company inways meant to be Good which turned sour or Bad.When management changed and noticing the board of Directors many were of CouncilForeign Regulations CFR thus demanding more of a Global image and no moreAmerican Flag waiving only political correctness. The MD-90 was the first to have afacility built in Shanghai to produce the fuselage.The A12 was worked on from the military fighter jet group from the St. Louis onceknown as McAir and to those in the company were still referred to each other as such.Boeing AircraftI have a personal affection for Boeing because I worked in the design engineering groupsstarting with the 777. Back in 1990’s Boeing had received partnership investment of $3½ 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 Boeing777. 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, mleadby Phil Condit and Alan Mulally. It almost fell behind because the Japanese supplierscould not meet schedule and decision making milestones, requiring Boeing to send over200 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 firstcommercial aircraft. Let’s not forget Boeing produced the largest composite wing everfor the B2 Bomber.Northrop GrummanI have a personal affection for Northrop because it got me started in the designengineering 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 achievedrecord achievements and today is still the most penetrating Bomber in the World. Ifyou’re somewhere hostile against US and have time to see it fly over, it’s already too lateyour dead.Boasting for Northrop they had proposed the F20 fighter which could have ended theF16’s life and performed exception. The USAF could not break a commitment to thethen General Dynamics Company of Fort Worth but the F16 had to incorporate themodernized cockpit we had on the F20 into their fighter.The Navy’s replacement for the cancelled A12 was the F18 E/F where McDonnellDouglas builds the fuselage and then McDonnell Douglas St. Louis finished it stuffing itand winging it. This Program lead by Mike Sears had a schedule of 42 Months. Thiswas a totally new assembly line and many advances made fighter, to the materials andprocess along with being stealthy was On Time On Budget and met requirements.Kudos to my Team mates at Northrop Grumman El Segundo and McDonnell DouglasAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 65
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013St. Louis. After much investigation the Northrop group has a superior record, outside ofthe political influences. Figure 31. F18 E/F Carrier Landing The F18 E/F has a great future still because of its strength, power and affordablecost as opposed to the JSF which costs continue to be outside of targeted cost. TheBoeing and Northrop Grumman team has evolved it into a new F18G Growler. The newF18G has improved electronic warfare capabilities,Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 66
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Chapter 4The 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 ImportanceThe Economic Importance of a Nation’s Aerospace & Technical Industry is thedifference 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 influencein 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 largeeconomic Players in the 1980’s and 1990’s is because they export more than theyconsume. Another big reason was in the Transportation manufacturing Aerospace andTechnical industries, requiring skilled workers and not shoes, clothing or simplemerchandise.World Economy vs. USAWould a Country save their own existence, knowing 50 years ahead in time compared tothe beginning? Will our US Government’s running over indebtedness hinder our ownfuture? Ever since the end of World War II when the US Dollar was declared to be theonly World tradable & tangible currency and “yes” some had to do with having the bomband could take & rule over the World. Hitler & Japan’s dream, we only made ourcurrency be the World currency.Now look at the Gross Domestic Product of the World with science and data:Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 67
  • 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’tmean it will stay that way because as other countries mature, evolve and become ahigher 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)Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 68
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Industry Economic HistoriesCommercial aviation is a vital engine for the American economy. The U.S. civil aviationindustry (which includes aircraft, engines and parts manufacturers, airlines, airports,and general aviation) directly or indirectly generates over 12 million jobs and $1.5trillion 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 goodjobs in the United States; creates the products that bring enormous revenues from othercountries; and yields the security and economic benefits that flow uniquely fromAmerica’s civil aviation, space, and defense leadership. It is a privilege to contribute toour 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 CaseAerospace has played a vital and exciting role in the growth of the United States and thenation’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 thataerospace engineers and related professions declined between 2002 and 2012. However,the events of September 11, 2001 have magnified the aerospace industry’s importance tothe national and economic security of our nation, and economic trends show theworkforce picture is beginning to turn around. Other sectors of the economy depend onaerospace businesses and related disciplines for technical skills and technologies thatare critical elements of our security infrastructure and improve America’s position in theglobal marketplace. The diverse sectors of aerospace include commercial, civil andmilitary aviation, space, and defense. They encompass a wide array of talent andcompetencies. The industrial base includes researchers, engineers, technicians,mechanics, skilled machinists, and precision production jobs. According to theAerospace Industry Association, the aerospace industry, including its supplier networkand the economic impact of products, totaled nearly $Trillion in sales and accounts forone in seven U.S. jobs. Even with aerospace employment at its lowest level since thegreat depression, the industry accounts for four percent of the U.S. manufacturingworkforce. This key industry is facing a critical human capital crisis.(Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, Executive Summary)TRADABLE EMPLOYMENTThe tradable part of the economy is the most important part of industry because it is aGross Domestic Product which can be sold to other nations thus getting paid by othersto produce and sell. This is what makes Japan with very few resources make theirNation financially strong along with China, Germany, India and South Korea. USAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 69
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Tradable goods and jobs present a different picture. Figure 32 shows the larger ormajor tradable sectors across three groups of manufacturing (see Figure 31).Figure 31. Description of Manufacturing Industry SplitsManufacturing I:Food, beverage, and tobacco production; textile, apparel, footwear, and leather goodsManufacturing II:Wood and paper products; petroleum and coal; basic chemical products; syntheticmaterials; nonmetallic mineral products; glass; and cement productsManufacturing III:Primary and fabricated metal products; heavy machinery; transportationequipment;computers and electronics; household appliances; semiconductors; and furnitureproductionSource: 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 isolatedpharmaceuticals. Sticking with the methodology just described, those industries that arenot predominantly tradable have an asterisk to indicate that most of the industry is onthe nontradable side.(International Trade Administration, “Flight Plan 2010: Analysis of the U.S. Aerospace Industry,” Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 70
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Figure 34. Tradable Industry Jobs, 1990–2008 (Majors)9Source: 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 inemployment in all three groups. Manufacturing III accounts for the largest drop injobs between 1990 and 2008 (2.2 million). Major industry job loss was in the electronicsindustry (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 (1.3million). In this sector, major industry job loss came from cut-and-sew apparelmanufacturing (597,300), and fabric mill (203,000). Manufacturing II accounts for thethird-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 highlycapital intensive but others (like fruit and vegetables) remain labor intensive. The mostAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 71
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013notable increases in major tradable industries were in finance and in architectural andengineering 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 20 Jet Fuel 7 Gal Gasoline (US) 6.8 Gal Automobile 3200 Avg, $12,750 $21,500 $28,7 Aircraft 525000 747 18M 25M 75M 100M 125M 150M 180M 225 Gold x 16 = lb 1 oz. $38.90 $139.29 $594.90 $327.00 $386.20 $387.00 $272.65 $513. Tax GDP (US) Avg US Earnings Figure 35. Cost ComparisonAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 72
  • 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.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 73
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Non auto transportation equipment production was a major contributor to job losses inthe tradable sector since 1990 (roughly 353,000 jobs). The vast majority of the lossoccurred in aerospace (roughly 340,000 between 1990 and 2008). In total, the nonautotransport equipment industries saw a decrease in value added of 19 percent as one ofonly two industries to see a decrease between 1990 and 2008; the other is mining (59percent). 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 sameperiod.To a large extent, the decline in aerospace value added reflected falling militaryprocurement after the end of the Cold War. However, since 2003, the industry has beenrebounding behind multifront military activities, and both employment and value addedare 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 LaborStatistics historical data series Notably, the United States had a trade surplus in theaerospace industry in 2009, $47.2 billion, up 6.3 percent from 2008.29 According to theInternational Trade Administration, the surplus in aerospace was the largest amongstall U.S. manufacturing industries. It is the result of the top end of the value chain beingin 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 fromthe 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 foreignpolicy decisions.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 74
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Economic Value – A Comparative ModelThe 747 is a Good example of the value growth an Aircraft program can have on theeconomy and it’s Nation. 2010 $ in Airplane Millions Weight- $ Per Avg. $ Families Average dry lb. lb. 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- 85.8 111,650 $768.47 900ER 747 Family 747-8 317.5 525,900 $603.73 $605.44 747-8 319.3 525,900 $607.15 Freighter 767 Family 767- 144.1 260,000 $554.23 200ER $550.29 767- 164.3 295,000 $556.95 300ER 767-300 167.7 309,000 $542.72 Freighter 767- 180.6 330,000 $547.27 400ER 777 Family 777- 232.3 330,000 $703.94 200ER $741.82 777- 262.4 354,600 $739.99 200LR 777- 284.1 380,600 $764.45 300ER 777 269.1 354,600 $758.88 Freighter 787 Family 787-8 185.2 276,700 $750.71 $742.78 787-9 218.1 296,800 $734.84Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 75
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Aerospace & Defense: Least Understood Industrial SectorBy guest author Robert H. TriceAerospace and defense (A&D) is among the least understood and appreciated ofAmerica’s industrial sectors. Largely because of the politically charged, acronym-laden,arcane and sometimes classified world of government contracting within which itoperates, 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 about819,000 private-sector A&D workers, down from 1.2 million in 1990, the end of the ColdWar. For context, there are roughly 2.8 million civilian federal government workers, 1.6million uniformed military and 1.1 million lawyers in America.A&D workers are well compensated. Production workers have an average hourly wagehigher than any other industry ($33), and they are twice as likely to be represented by aunion (16 percent) than the rest of the private sector. With average annual earnings forall employees at $79,000 in 2009, A&D workers are second only to those working forhigh-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 tothe U.S. balance of trade. Including commercial aircraft exports, A&D’s net exports in2008 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. companyspends less than 3 percent of net sales on R&D, aerospace and defense companiesaverage over 13 percent. While the bulk of these funds come from the Department ofDefense and other federal agencies, many of the technologies spawned by theseinvestments find wide commercial applications. Examples are legion, from the Internet,hydraulic brakes, cordless power tools, smoke detectors and airbags to GPS, satellitecommunications and climate monitoring.Ultimately the industry and the DOD acquisition community exist to develop, produceand field the most militarily effective systems possible for those who protect this nationand its freedoms, interests and allies. And when the U.S. government and the A&Dsector get it right – which is most but certainly not all of the time – they have repeatedlydelivered capabilities unmatched by any potential adversary.Today’s A&D industry emerged from the post-Cold War consolidations of the 1990s. Arelatively small number of global “prime” contractors hold responsibility for deliveringAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 76
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013major 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-tiersuppliers that produce and deliver subsystems and materials on up the chain. Onaverage, between 60 and 75 percent of every dollar that goes to a prime is subcontractedout for work performed by others, including more than 20,000 small, minority-ownedand disadvantaged businesses.Some argue that A&D companies make too much money. Using a standard measure ofgross earnings (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, orEBITDA) for various sectors from 2007-2009, A&D lagged most of its competitors, withan average gross return of around 13 percent. The 2009 average net income or profit ofmajor U.S. primes was about 7 percent, in line with the average profit margin for theS&P 500.Like all other elements of the private sector, A&D companies compete for financialcapital and human talent, provide returns for their shareholders and pay taxes. Whatdifferentiates 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 solutionsthey 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 privatecapital because of its longer business cycles, strong cash flows and relatively lowerdownside risks for investors. A&D companies are consistently able to hire and retaintop-tier engineering and scientific talent, not only because of relatively generouseconomic benefits, but also the perceived importance of their work in support of U.S.defense and foreign policy priorities.Lost: Americas Industrial BaseBy, J. David PattersonLike the F-22? Don’t like the F-22? Think we need more F-22s? Think 187 F-22s isabout the right number? Believe we need the capability the F-22 brings to the fight, orthink we don’t. The U.S. Senate’s vote Tuesday of 58 -- 40 to stop F-22 production at 187aircraft is the next to the last nail in coffin of the Air Force’s premier fighter program. AHouse-Senate conference still has to agree on the final result, but it seems like a longshot that the program will be continued.Regardless, of where you come down in the debate, what matters is that by not buyingmore F-22s, the U.S. Air Force’s fifth generation fighter has won a very secure spot onthe 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 theAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 77
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013U.S. aerospace industrial base should have given the Department of Defense andCongress pause. Not because the aerospace industrial base has been reduced to a statethat is not recoverable, but because the decisions being made in the Department havenot considered the impact on the aerospace and defense industry that the Departmentdepends on. Particularly, troubling is that the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) hasnot considered in the past and is currently continuing to ignore the consequences ofwhat 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-22termination leaves a great analytical gap beneath that decision where a solid foundationshould be.The issue is not just about jobs. Though much of the debate in favor of the F-22centered on jobs, the real industrial base issue is about the kind of jobs that are on thechopping block as defense strategy development moves forward without regard to theavailability of the skilled and experienced workforce necessary to build the weapons thatmake the defense strategy actionable.When the industrial base is defined -- more accurately -- it is 1) formed and experienceddevelopmental engineering design teams, 2) highly skilled and experienced aerospacetouch labor and 3) the financial capability to compete in future weapons programs, it isclearly worse than anemic.Since about 1986, there has been a steady decline in the number of aerospace researchand development scientists and engineers the U.S. has had available to ensure thenation’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 AerospaceFacts and Figures.It’s not that the United States is losing research and development engineers in allindustries. In fact, during the same period the number of research and developmentscientists and engineers in all industries has increased from around 670,000 to over onemillion. But, in the aerospace sector the number of aerospace research anddevelopment scientists and engineers as a percentage of the total in all industries hasplummeted 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 definitionoffered here as “formed and experienced.” In their report the Aerospace IndustriesAssociation noted that once lost, “Reconstituting lost production, design andengineering capabilities could take many years.”The picture for highly skilled aerospace touch labor doesn’t look much better. FromAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 78
  • DRAFT Jan. 20131993 to 2007 the number of aerospace production workers declined by nearly 8 percentfrom 390 thousand to 360 thousand. Often there is a mistaken notion that because inthe buildup of wartime manufacturing during World War II “Rosy the Riveter,” withlittle 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 tobecome fully qualified in the aerospace industry takes between three to five years.Modern fighter aircraft use composites and exotic metals that take significant trainingand experience to manipulate.Politicians are fond of saying that putting a new defense program in their district orstate will create so many thousands of new highly paid, highly skilled jobs. The facts arethat new defense programs won because some other company lost. Since the numbersof production workers and engineers are declining, winning a contract means that jobsare migrated and not created. Because the jobs are high paying as well, a certainamount of wealth migrates with the jobs. But, for the country and the industrial base asa whole, new defense programs are essentially a zero sum game.It is a very expensive proposition to compete for major aerospace and defense weaponsand equipment programs. General Dynamics, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon,Northrop Grumman and BAE SYSTEMS with its recent U.S. aerospace and defensecompany acquisitions, are the six remaining aerospace companies. Down from over 50aerospace companies capable of competing for large programs before the spate ofmergers. Ok, you say.It’s survival of the fittest and the “Darwin Factor” has prevailed. The consolidation ofcompanies 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 thatmight have a competitive product or service face a financial barrier to entry that isdaunting. 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 havesevere long-term consequences for America’s ability to attend effectively andresponsibly to future threats. National security strategy crafting like the QuadrennialDefense Review is in no way precise. Even the most prescient of policy experts can onlysee up to the current military operations horizon, not beyond it. Choosing a narrowlyfocused national strategy with the necessary weapon systems to execute that strategywithout 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 BusinessAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 79
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Fading Space Industrial BaseAmerica is the only developed Country which does not have a manned space programafter the retirement of the Space Shuttles.NASAs future is up for grabs in a Washington power struggle, but thats not what mostworries 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 hereTuesday. "Everybody talks about retiring hardware," Lighfoot told the annual CenterDirectors Breakfast update. "But were also potentially retiring a lot of knowledge - awhole lot of knowledge. And that has long-term implications for Marshall, thiscommunity and this country." "I worry about that," Lightfoot said. "I am concerned thatthe skills needed to take this nation beyond Earth orbit wont be there when we needthem." Any list of reasons why would begin with that fight in Washington, althoughLightfoot says thats far beyond his control.President Obama wants to cancel the Constellation rocket program, which was to beNASAs next big mission and which employs 2,200 NASA and contractor employeeshere. Many in Congress want to continue it. The administration has proposedprivatizing spaceflight instead, while assigning Marshall to plan for a new deep-spacerocket and manage robot explorers aimed at other planets. Those initiatives "do providesome 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 shuttleprogram - and rising new talent wait to see what comes next? "We knew we were goingto have a transition," Lightfoot said, referring to the shuttles long-scheduled last flightthis year. "Weve been working to minimize the loss of knowledge and skills. Weve beenplanning for several years on shuttle transition," Lightfoot said. "Of course, thechallenge is deepened with the proposed budget." Other agencies are eyeing NASAstalent pool, too, Lightfoot said, including the Army, Marshalls Redstone Arsenallandlord.NASA and the Army have "a great partnership," Lightfoot said, adding that "ourthoughts and prayers are with them" after last weeks fatal explosion. BRAC recruiterstrying to feed the Armys growing presence here are coming after NASA engineers,technicians and other professionals, Lightfoot said.And the Army isnt the only challenge. Lightfoot illustrated with the history of thesuspension bridge, invented in America and perfected in the world-famous Brooklynand Golden Gate spans. When it was time to build the Tacoma Narrows bridge in 2000,Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 80
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Lightfoot said, the American steel industry had collapsed and bridge expertise hadmoved to Asia, where detailed engineering on the Tacoma bridge was outsourced. Thedeck was built in South Korea and the 19,000 miles of wire inside the main cables weremanufactured in South Korea, China and England. "Its a fact of life," Lightfoot said."Expertise goes where the demand is." Marshalls challenge, Lightfoot said, is to"nurture and encourage" a new generation of rocket scientists, so "the skills are readywhen the call comes" for Americas next bridge into space. "It does keep me awakesometimes," Lightfoot said. Lightfoot and Marshall honored three contractors and aneducational institution Tuesday. They were:* Jacobs Engineering, Science and Technical Services (ESTS) Group, large businessservice 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 forthe Huntsville City School System and longtime NASA partner in the Great MoonbuggyRace and other events. Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 81
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Chapter 5The 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 Trillionover 3 ½ Trillion is in the Commercial Aircraft Market. We have a pretty good pulse inthe Market Analysis for Forecasts; in some detail Boeing has produced a very good 20Forecast Annually. The recent Leader Airbus then follows up with their own adjustingor tweaking some details and inputting the European Union’s point of view.The World’s Growing CompetitionMany countries are becoming growing competition to US Aerospace Industry andcurrently when I write this book, US is second in the world to Airbus & EADS theEuropean Community now the Number 1 Aerospace Company in the World. They donot occupy just a single Country like the USA but a financial and working consortium ofEurope’s producing countries which is Headquartered in Tolouse France.China has been trying hard to build up their own industry and India will help themalong with building up their own. The difference with India is they have so muchunbalanced wealth; corruption and their Government and business will not invest in theinfrastructures to make them capableU.S. faces foreign competition — in spaceBy Peter N. Spotts, The Christian Science Monitor 11/7/2005 6:28 PMThe plan for human space exploration has a familiar ring: Launch probes to scope outthe moon, build rockets powerful enough to get people and supplies there, then send thefirst lunar expedition — all before 2020.These goals form the centerpiece of the U.S. manned spaceflight program. They nowform the centerpiece of Chinas, too.As lawmakers in Washington fret over how to pay for key elements of President Bushsblueprint for space exploration, which aims to send astronauts back to the moon in2018, China is making a bid to place the first bootprints on the moon this century —perhaps in 2017.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 82
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013On one level, Chinas goals — plus those of other space-faring countries — are raisingconcerns among some analysts that the US space program may be on the verge of losingits preeminence in space exploration. The foreign competition also echoes a broaderworry: the possibility that the global center of gravity in science and technology maystart 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, toldCongress last week that the agency needed to make difficult cuts in basic research andtechnology development. Some lawmakers worried about the agencys ability to attractthe 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 worlds 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 its enough to catch up remains to be seen."Check out how NASA With a gross domestic output of $7.3 trillion, second onlyplans to use elements of to the United States in economic terms, China is projectedthe Apollo and shuttle to move into second place in the global R&D sweepstakes this year, overtaking Japan, according to projections fromprograms for the next Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio, and R&Dmoon mission. magazine. On a continental scale, Asia is projected to overtake the Americas this year in total R&D spending andpull well ahead next year.To a large degree, these changes are normal adjustments as economies devastated byWorld War II recovered and the communist economies gave way to more market-basedapproaches, analysts say.Such a move has its benefits, says Kei Koizumi, director of the R&D budget and policyprogram at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington. "Itopens the door for expanded collaborations that didnt 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 hasto do with who sets the rules of international behavior. People from other countriestrain in the U.S. and take that exposure to innovation and democratic values back withthem. I dont know who wed feel comfortable handing that off to."Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 83
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Last month in a major report from The National Academies, panel members expressedconcern over what they saw as the erosion of Americas R&D effort at a time when othercountries are ramping up their R&D efforts. The panel recommended a set of remedies— from improving elementary and secondary science education to offering taxincentives for U.S. innovation and raising federal spending for R&D. Estimated cost: $9billion to $20 billion a year.Yet the competition for federal dollars is fierce, given the war in Iraq, the ballooningfederal deficit, and the rising cost of federal entitlement programs. "We can see the pathwe 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 agencystroubles are self-inflicted, he acknowledges. Still, he adds, the agency can be viewed as amicrocosm 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 affordeverything on its plate today," Dr. Griffin told lawmakers last week. At issue: How theagency will make up what NASA estimates is a $3 billion to $5 billion shortfall in thespace-shuttle program, even as it tries to accelerate development of the shuttlesreplacement — 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. "Nowwe should be oriented toward projects were actually doing. This requires cancelingthings that dont need to be done or dont need to be done right now."The moves, which include layoffs at the agency, could mean fewer young people wouldsign on to the space program.Yet the adjustments are necessary, Griffin argued, if the U.S. is to avoid a period when ithas no homegrown means of putting astronauts in space. Failing to accelerate theprogram beyond the pace President Bush initially envisioned "would take the U.S. out ofmanned spaceflight for four years, when other nations are rising in ascendancy," Griffinsaid."Were seeing the dawning renaissance of NASA," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R) ofNew York and chairman of the committee. "But a renaissance costs money. And I dontsee any Medicis waiting in the wings to underwrite NASA."Noting NASAs proclivity to over-promise on its projects and timetables, he said, "I dontwant to see us go down that road again."Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 84
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Where 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 somewith new downsizing. NASA & the NSF should have more contribution than what hasbeen shelled out to them and with the upcoming changes predicted in the future, weshould not lose our Superpower.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 85
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Figure 38.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 86
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Boeing’s Future ForecastThe US Commercial Aerospace Industry and Defense 2012-2031 Future ForecastMany countries are becoming growing competition to US Aerospace Industry andEuropean Consortium has better manufacturing more automated techniques with theexception in composite on the 787.The Airbus Market Forecast from 2012-2031’s Future ForecastAsia & China’s Future Forecast well they don’t publish one yet but in 1994 while I was inSouth Korea consulting ultimately to Samsung Aerospace through Martin Mariettawhich became Lockheed Martin at that time.Forecast Considerations:Additional considerations to eh Asia & China’s Future Forecast well they don’t publishAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 87
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Chapter 6Our Future Focus and PlansThe Worlds future was at the hands of America when Japan stood on the deck of theMissouri and signed their surrender to US at the end of World War 2. At that momentin time the world was the USA’s apple to take because we had the Atomic bomb andnobody else did. The US had already beaten Germany and Russia was nothing of athreat nor a mighty power in comparison. From that point forward America has directlyrebuilt, industrialized and modernized those countries which have been devastated bywar much to the effect to compete against US. This One Nation under God, indivisiblewith Liberty and Justice for All with endowed Rights by our Creator did not push WorldDomination because it is not American to do so.Now, America’s Future depends mostly on all of us citizens to stand up for it’simportance politically, then win economically. The secret of the value is knownworldwide for boosting society’s standards of living and economic prosperity. China hasbeen trying hard to build up their own industry and India will help them along withbuilding up their own. The difference with India is they have so much unbalancedwealth; corruption and their Government and business will not invest in theinfrastructures to make them capableThe future focus will belong to those who can dream, design and build the ultimate wayto transport people and goods the fastest, cheapest and safest ways possible. On landultra 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 orthe flying car should be our goal because 3 dimensional travel allowing one to avoidstreets with traffic, pollution, potholes (infrastructure) and personal limits speed andyour desire to live near work or school. This is the next phase for us, just like theautomobile brought us out of the train & buggy age in the 20 th century.At an AIAA conference in Los Angeles early 1990’s a NASA Director had spoke of usgetting into our own flying vehicle, telling it or punching in our destination and it wouldtake you there safety with Global Positioning System (not known at the time) and theNational Advanced Air Traffic Control System by the year 2012.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 88
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Where’s our Flying Car?We have all seen articles in Popular Science or movies that have flying cars, well whereare they? Maybe the insurance Companies which almost killed the private AircraftCompanies like, Moonie, Bonanza, Piper, Cessna and others back in the 1970’s. At anAIAA Conference in Los Angeles in 1990 was NASA official talking about the year 2012 aday when you get into your flying craft/car, tell it where you want to go or punch in thedestination and we would get you there. This was to performed using a new GlobalPositioning 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 theUSAF for a successful delivery and what we take for granted today. Not so lucky withthe Air Traffic Management system, which some events have made headline news. In2011 Air Traffic Controllers were sleeping on the job and a dangerously close conditionwith the first Lady Michelle Obama.The most important part of flying cars isn’t only the car themselves but, the safety of acrowded skyway and when a craft fails it cannot pull over to a cloud and wait for AAA tocome and help. If a aircraft fails in the sky it must land on something somewhere andyou don’t want it to be your house or head. This means safety in design and reliabilitymust be incorporated. I happen to have a thrust vectoring design for this originallyproposed to the US Army back in 1990, now it has many technical improvements putinto 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 anAutoplane which was a modified production automobile with wings mounted to the roofbut never really seen true flight just a few hops and skips. In 1929 a German EngineerJ.H. Maykemper made a convertible flying car with folding wings. His car wouldtransfer power from the forward wheels to a front mounted propeller and was capable attakeoff within 100 yards.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 89
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Fortunately I’ve already worked on or engineered or managed the entire development ofElectric Vehicles, so research and capability runs deep into been there, done that.The Super Sonic CruiserAnyone who has flown overseas, understands the lengthy painful experience even infirst or business class and coach, you must be of a small stature to even handle it. Whyis it we still fly Sub Sonic because it is easier to make micro adaptations than go for thegusto of the new way to do things. France tried it with the Concord to find it barelybroke even. Back in Feb. 26, 2002 Boeing showcased the Sonic Cruiser in Singaporeand was proceeding in the preliminary design and investigation for a Super Sonicblended wing body Aircraft called the Sonic Cruiser. Figure 40. Boeing Sonic Cruise vs. BetterAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 90
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013The airplane has a dramatic new configuration and is designed to fly as fast as Mach0.98, shortening travel times with fuel consumption per passenger comparable totodays best performing widebody twinjets. The program remains targeted for 2008entry into service. Figure 41. Boeing Sonic CruiserHypersonic - The Orient ExpressIn the late 1980’s and early 1990’s McDonnell Douglas, Rocketdyne, Pratt and Whitneywere investigating and building some techniques for going Hypersonic or flying fromLos Angeles to Tokyo in 2 Hours.The National Aerospace Space Plane: We made a fuselage section in 1988 for the NASPat 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-carbidefibers) then rolled sheets and superplastic formed (SPF) and diffusion bonded (DB) tocreate shape and Hot Isostatic Processed (Hipped) for molecular stabilization and heattreating. The superplastic formed multi-sheet assembly created a center core for semicryogenic hydrogen slurry to flow thru both carrying the fuel and cooling the hypersonicaircraft to 20 time the speed of sound at mach20 and over 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 91
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Figure 42. Hypersonic AircraftThe X-51 WaveRider team is focused on developing a free-flying vehicle that will flylonger hypersonically than all of it predecessors combined. Hypersonic speeds are thosein 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 AdvancedResearch Projects Agency, with support from NASA.The Boeing X-51 team purposely developed the vehicle to package a specific engine typeinto a soon-to-be-demonstrated platform. When this jet-fueled, air breathing hypersonicvehicle flies in late 2009 and early 2010, it will demonstrate a reliable system capable ofoperating continuously on jet fuel and accelerating through multiple Mach numbersSpace TourismToday you can buy tickets to travel into space around $200,000 per seat on the Virgin’sGalactic. 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 inSirVigin ….Space Based Solar Power-EnergyWhy Space Energy: Us Humans have found the way to convert solar radiation toelectrical energy, at this moment still DC creation. In space you have un interruptedAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 92
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013energy and less the diffusion of clouds. The ultimate clean energy known to man is theSpace Based Solar Power Stations thought of back in the 1968 by NASA. When I wasworking at General Dynamics Space Systems in San Diego in 1990, I remember theproposal department was always working on and submitting this Space Based SolarPower system to our Government they even included it in our Annual Christmas bookwith all the other space technologies being proposed. (unfortunately NASA-“at timesGreat” 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 ofAmerica the Great Land of Freedom, when a choice looks or prejudice flavor is to beallowed in America? In Christmas 2009 I had a Jobs Forum and Christmas party from friends from VoughtAircraft of LTV (now Triumph), Northrop Aircraft of El Segundo and my personalfriends from Boeing. In this Jobs Forum lead by Valerie Jarrett I mentioned this as agreat way to achieve energy independence. The Energy I know we can do is over 1Terawatt per year per space system that equals 114.5 Kw per hour. Figure 43. SBSP ConceptsThe concepts shown are not the high powered techniques proposed to the DoD but arevaluable to understand easy accomplishable goals. We (humans) have sent microwavesAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 93
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013down to Earth at levels to do this and Europe has sent it via Laser Beam, Japan mainlyMitsubishi has dedicated Billions for this to be Japans source by or before 2040.Unfortunately our White House was looking through Oil Tainted/Tinted glasses. Thiswould be a reason self resourcefulness which would eliminate most suppliers tohousehold energy systems. For Mankind: If you provide the Material, Energy andProduction Capability to any Nation they can create industry to have “DevelopmentalSelf Support and Civilization Improvement”.I would like to quote a Letter sent to the President Obama from an Organizationdedicated 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 governmentsthis century. China and India alone will need to raise energy generating capacity by astaggering 4 to 5 times over the next 20 years in order to meet demand – an equivalentof 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 21stcentury. (See the paper "War Without Oil.")Safe, reliable, renewable, base-load power that is affordable and widely available haslong been the ‘holy grail’ of researchers and scientists in the energy industry. Aside fromaverting conflict associated with resource wars, abundant clean energy has the potentialto truly improve life around the world in many ways. Rural electrification can offer oneof the fastest ways out of poverty for developing areas. It can ensure that food andmedicines are preserved and made available where they are needed the most. It canprovide power for water purification and desalination and light so that children canstudy and develop their potential.This is why Space Energy is committed to harnessing existing and new methods forclean energy generation and transmission, such as from ground-based solar power andspace-based solar power.Space Energy seeks to improve the lives of millions of people, provide viable alternativesto polluting energy sources and help abate some of the challenges caused by increasingdemand for energy and declining natural resources.It intends to become the leading commercial enterprise in the field of renewable energyby harnessing the benefits of traditional and new methods for clean, safe, reliable, powergeneration and transmission. This includes developing owning and operating groundbased solar parks in the United States and internationally through the mobilization ofexisting and proprietary technologies.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 94
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Moreover it intends to be the world’s first private enterprise to successfullycommercialize Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) – a proven technology, now madecommercially viable by changed market conditions and further advancements. SBSPuses arrays of solar panels to harvest the abundant supply of clean solar energy inEarth’s orbit to transmit a safe, uninterrupted supply of electricity anywhere on Earth ataffordable, fair market prices.Tomorrows new BomberNorthrop Grumman knows how and competes with Boeing and Lockheed Martinwhich are working closely at all levels to capture the best of industry to develop andprovide an effective and affordable solution for the warfighter. (Maybe if our Senateand White House People where mostly from Lockheed & Boeing States they would getthe program much like the last Decade.) Figure 44. Next Generation BomberThis collaborative effort for a long-range strike program will include work inadvanced sensors and future electronic warfare solutions including advancements innetwork enabled battle management, command and control, and virtual warfaresimulation and experimentation. The work performed by the Boeing/LockheedMartin team is designed to help the Air Force establish capability-based roadmaps fortechnology maturation and date certain timelines for the 2018 Bomber program.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 95
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Educating Tomorrow’s PeopleThe next generation of students going into Engineering and Aerospace to take up thereigns of tomorrow has been dwindling in the last couple decades. We have moreLawyers graduating Universities than we do the creators of tomorrow.10 Incredible Airplane Designs of the Futureby Michele ColletNASA awarded three contracts this fall for designs of aircraft that will be flying in 2025to 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 ofsound; cover a range of approximately 7,000 miles; and carry between 50,000 and100,000 pounds of payload, either passengers or cargo."Here are the three concept designs as well as some from April and earlier. Not all ofthem 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 flightPhoto: NASA/The Boeing CompanyAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 96
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013The Icon-II is a design for supersonic flight over land that comes from Boeing. Apartfrom fulfilling the specifications, it also reduces fuel consumption and airport noise. 9. Green Supersonic Machine Figure 46. 9) Green Supersonic MachinePhoto: NASA/Lockheed Martin CorporationThis concept design by Lockheed Martin is one that the company presented to NASA inApril of last year and is designed for overland supersonic flight. It showed that by usingthe inverted V engine under the wing configuration, one can really lower the level ofsupersonic booms.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 97
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Figure 47. 8) Blended WingPhoto: NASA/The Boeing CompanyThese blended wing concept aircraft are from Boeing and one of the three that wasshown to NASA when the contract awards were granted in the fall.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 98
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 7. X-45A UCAV Figure 48. 7) X-45A UCAVPhoto: BoeingThe UCAV air vehicle was unveiled at a special exhibition in Missouri, along with twoother elements of the UCAV system, a mission control and air vehicle storage system. 6. Solar Eagle Figure 49. 6) Solar EaglePhoto: BoeingAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 99
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013The Solar Eagle is Boeings entry into the Vulture program by the defense program tocreate an ultra-long endurance aircraft. 5. SUGAR Figure 50. 5) SUGARPhoto: NASA/The Boeing CompanySUGAR is a Boeing concept aircraft presented in April 2010 that stands for SubsonicUltra Green Aircraft Research. It combines gas and battery technology. 4. Lockheed Martin, Fall Figure 51. 4) Lockheed MartinAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 100
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Photo: NASA/Lockheed MartinLockheed Martins concept plane this fall doesnt look so different on the outside exceptfor 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 BetterPhoto: NASA/MIT/Aurora Flight SciencesThis aircraft was presented in April by MIT. Known as the Hybrid Wing Body H series, itis designed to fly at Mach 0.83, carrying 354 passengers over 7,600 nautical miles. 2. Northrop Grumman, Fall Figure 53. Northrop GrummanAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 101
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Photo: NASA/Northrop GrummanThis is Northrop Grummans artist concept, which was presented in the fall of 2010. Figure 54. The PuffinPhoto: NASAAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 102
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013This amazing design is the Puffin Personal Aircraft. It is designed to go about 150 milesan hour for about 50 miles. Needless to say, it has been one of NASAs most viralimages.But there is a limit to solar energy. And the question that leaves engineers scratchingtheir heads now, is how to make that leap from the light aircraft we’ve seen make amajor technological breakthrough today, to fuelling the passenger airliners oftomorrow? If an entire aircraft were to be covered with 100 percent efficient solarpanels, it would still not be enough to sufficiently propel a large aircraft. Even greatlyincreasing the output of photovoltaic cells wouldn’t make an airliner fly. In the moreimmediate future solar power could provide electricity on board the aircraft once it hasreached altitude. But who knows what the future will bring!The motto of tomorrow will be flexibility.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 103
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Figure 55. Airbus Solar AircraftIn the future there will be so many different ways to fly. For your personal travel, not farfrom home, you’d choose your own vehicle – perhaps the much-vaunted ‘flying car’. Butas soon as you want something more economical or faster for longer distances you’dneed something else that allows for masstransportation. 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 finaldestination.But what about ground-space? How do we avoid sprawling airports and extendingrunways?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 globeand on which small aircraft can dock.In the middle of this century, telecommunications will be soperfect that we will have to travel far less for our work. On the other hand, it will be easyto work… as we travel! Communication technology will be as accessible on a plane as itis in an office. But it still won’t replace the benefits of face-to-face meetings, thesensation of holding a new grandchild or the excitement of visiting a new country for thefirst 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 thedistance: 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, forexample, in just two to three hours. Unless we decide to take our time and enjoy a tripwith every comfort: swimming pools, spas, tennis courts etc. The next generation of airtourism 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, restaurantsand 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 fasttravel, luxury travel or basic leisure travel. To make this choice you could be assisted bya personal cyber assistant that is always around you, knows what you want and what youfeel 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 towardsspace tourism today,but an orbital space station could become the ultimate holiday destination. Experiencethe joys of weightlessness… and the unrivalled view of our very own Earth, the planetthat we have been able to preserve in all its splendid diversity.Boeing’s 797 ConceptAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 104
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 105
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Conclusion 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 tosupersonic flight without an afterburner. Over the last 30 years the commercial sideof flight has made very little advancement from the barrel with swept wingsdeveloped 60 years ago. The materials may have improved for strength to weightimprovements and most improvement have been in the Jet propulsion made thegreatest improvements in efficiencies, many thanks to the ultra high bypass system.Many of these achievements could not exist without the fostering of technologyevolution by Defense Systems.We currently are in program development and GDP market share of less than ½ dueto competition. In the future there will be so many different ways to fly. For yourpersonal travel, not farAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 106
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 107
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 108
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013References & Contributors:Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 109
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013 Chapter 1: Beginnings & Buildups History:"Airbus Industrie: An Economic and Trade Perspective." Congressional ResearchService, 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 OverGermany. 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 RevisedEdition. 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, 1982Bowers, 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.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 110
  • 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. MartinsPress, 1998.. Boeing B-52: a Documentary History London; New York: Janes, 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 forApollo: History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. Washington: NASA, 1979. Available at, 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: CrownPublishers, Inc. 1981.Chant, Chris. The Worlds Great Bombers. London: Amber Books, 2000 and Barnes &Noble, Inc.and Taylor, Michael J.H. The Worlds 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 Bishops Boys – A Life of Wilbur and Orville Wright. New York:W.W. Norton & Co., 1989.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 111
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Cunningham, 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 Yearsand Counting. Elk Grove, Calif.: Aero Vintage Books, 1995Davies, 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. NewYork: Twayne Publishers, 1998.Fairchild Hiller Corporation. Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Fifty Years of FairchildAviation. The Corporation, 1970.Francillon, René J. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920. London: Putnam, 1979.Francillon, René J. Grumman Aircraft Since 1929. Annapolis, Md.: Naval InstitutePress, 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 TurbineTechnology. 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 Endof World War II. London: Her Majestys Stationery Office, 1970.Glines, Carroll V. and Moseley, Wendell F. The DC-3 – The Story of a FabulousAirplane. Philadelphia and New York: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1966.Gunston, Bill, editor-in-chief. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Propeller Airliners.London: Phoebus Publishing, 1980.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 112
  • 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: PrenticeHall Press, 1988.. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Commercial Aircraft. New York: Phoebus PublishingCo., 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 InstitutionPress, 1981, 1988.Hardy, M. J. Sea, Sky and Stars: An Illustrated History of Grumman Aircraft. NewYork: 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.: EthylCorporation, 1961.Higham, Charles. Howard Hughes: the Secret Life. New York: Putnams, 1993Holden, Henry M. The Legacy of the DC-3. 1st ed. Niceville, Fla.: Wind Canyon Pub.,1996Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 113
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Ingells, Douglas J. 747: The Story of the Boeing Superjet. Fallbrook Cal.: AeroPublishers, 1970.Ingells, Douglas J. L-1011 Tristar and the Lockheed Story. Fallbrook, Cal.: AeroPublishers, 1973.Irving, Clive. Wide-Body – The Triumph of the 747. New York: William Morrow andCo., Inc., 1993.Janes All the Worlds Aircraft, 1919. London: Sampson Low, Marston and Co., 1919.Janes All the Worlds Aircraft. Alexandria, Virginia: Janes Information Group. Annualeditions; most recent, 2001-2002. See also http://www.janes.comJohnson, Clarence L., with Maggie Smith. Kelly. Washington, D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution 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 ofAlabama Press, 1973.Lynn, Matthew. Birds of Prey: Boeing vs. Airbus, a Battle for the Skies. New York: FourWalls Eight Windows, 1997.Maheu, Robert and Hack, Richard. Next to Hughes: Behind the Power and TragicDownfall 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. TradeRelations. New York: St. Martins Press, 1997.McIntyre, Ian. Dogfight: The Transatlantic Battle Over Airbus. Westport, Conn.:Praeger, 1992.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 114
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Mellberg, 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 StateUniversity 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 Makingand Selling Commercial Airliners. New York: Knopf, 1983.“Northrop Grumman History.” Northrop Grumman Corporation (provided by Manager,Corporate Public Information)OLeary, Michael. DC-3 and C-47 Gooney Birds. Osceola, Wis.: MotorbooksInternational, 1992Pape, Gary R. and Campbell, John M. Northrops Flying Wings: A History of JackNorthrops 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: AirlifePublishing 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.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 115
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013The Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Story. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft division of United AircraftCorporation, 1950.Rich, Ben R. and Janos, Leo. Skunk Words: A Personal Memoir of My Years atLockheed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1994.Robinson, Anthony, ed. The Encyclopedia of American Aircraft. New York: GalahadBooks, 1979.Rodgers, Eugene. Flying High: The Story of Boeing and the Rise of the JetlinerIndustry. 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 Boeing777. New York: Scribner, 1996.Schoen, Arthur L. Vought: Six Decades of Aviation History. Plano, Texas: AviationQuarterly Publishers, 1978.Serling, Robert J. Legend and Legacy; The Story of Boeing and Its People. New York:St. Martins 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: DoverPublications, 1996.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 116
  • 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 NewOcean: A History of Project Mercury. Washington, D.C.: NASA SP-4201, 1966,reprinted 1999. Found at, Jan. B-47 Stratojet : Boeings Brilliant Bomber. New York: McGraw Hill, 2000.Thornton, David Weldon. Airbus Industrie: The Politics of an International IndustrialCollaboration. New York: St. Martins Press, 1995.Thruelsen, Richard. The Grumman Story. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976.Treadwell, Terry. Ironworks: Grummans Fighting Aeroplanes. Shrewsbury, UK: AirlifePublishing, 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 PioneerAirman & Businessman T. Claude Ryan. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971.Wings for the Navy: A History of Chance Vought Aircraft. Stratford, Conn.: UnitedAircraft Corporation, 1943.Woods, George Bryant. The American Manufacturing Industry: Present and FutureProspects. 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.” Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 117
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013“Alexander de Seversky.”“Apollo-Spacecraft News Reference.”“Boeing – A Brief History.” The Boeing Company.“Claude Ryan.” San Diego Historical Society.“Conspiracy.”, John D. “Republic Aircrafts F-105 Thunderchief.”“Curtiss JN-4 ‘Jenny.” Museum of Naval Aviation.“Curtiss JN-4D ‘Jenny.” U.S. Air Force Museum.“Early Martin Planes.”“Engines.” U.S. Air Force Museum.“F-22 Raptor.”“F-24.” Air & Spacecraft Collection. Museum of Flight.“The Fairchild Story.” The Fairchild Aerial Photography Collection at Whittier College. Aircraft Engines: Nine Decades That Changed the World.“General Dynamics – Aviation and Aerospace Milestones.” 2001. General Dynamics. Glenn L. Martin Aviation Museum. Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 118
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Guttman, Robert, “Boeings Trailblazing P-26 Peashooter.”“History of General Dynamics” 2001. General Dynamics.“Howard Hughes.” Aerofiles Capsule Biographies.“Hughes, Howard (Robard).” Encyclopedia Britannica. Available in print, on CD, andon-line at by subscription.Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company History.“Lockheed Martin Team Wins Joint Strike Fighter Competition, Pledges FullCommitment to This Cornerstone of Future Defense Capability.” Lockheed Martin PressRelease. Space Systems Company.“Lockheed Vega.” National Air and Space Museum.“The Man, His Machines, and the Company He Built.” Vought Heritage Museum.“Mariner-10.”“Martin Aircraft.” Glenn L. Martin Aviation Museum.“McDonnell Douglas F-4C ‘Phantom II.” U.S. Air Force Museum.“McDonnell Douglas History.”, Evan D. “The Bumblebee Project.” 1998.“North American History.” Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 119
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013“Northrop B-35.”“Northrop Grumman History.” Northrop Grumman Corporation. News Release. “Northrop Grumman Completes Tender Offer forNewport News Shipbuilding; Acquisition Creates Nations Third Largest DefenseContractor, Worlds Largest Naval Shipbuilder.” November 30, 2001.“Northrop YB-35.” U.S. Air Force Museum.“Northrop YB-49.” U.S. Air Force Museum.“Northrop YB-49/YRB-49A.”“The Nurflugel Page.”“Orbital to Sell Fairchild Defense Unit to Smiths Industries for $100 Million.”, John. “Atlas Facilities.” October 25, 1996. Federation of American Scientists. “SM-65 Atlas – United States Nuclear Forces.” March 10, 1999. Federation ofAmerican Scientists.“Project Bumblebee.”“Ranger L-440-1.” The National Warplane Museum.“Ryan STM-S2.” New Zealand Warbirds Association.“Seversky Aircraft & Republic Aviation: P-47 Thunderbolt: Aviation Darwinism.” TheCradle of Aviation Series, The Cradle of Aviation Museum. Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 120
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013“Seversky P-35.”“Sherman Fairchild.” Aerofiles Capsule Biographies.“Sherman Mills Fairchild. National Aviation Hall of Fame Enshrinees.“Sherman M. Fairchild (1896-1971).” Sherman Fairchild Library of Engineering andApplied Science.“Shockley Semiconductor.”, Igor. “The S42. The Development and Characteristics of a Long-Range FlyingBoat.” A speech given to the Royal Aeronautical Society, London, on November 15, 1934by Igor I. Sikorsky.“Soaring Through Time.” Pratt & Whitney.“The Spirit of Innovation.” Curtiss-Wright Corporation.“Spruce Goose.”, Earl. Vought F4U Corsair.“T-38 Talon.” U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet., Joseph D. “Peoples and Planes: B.F. Mahoney.”“Thomas K. Finletter.” 2001. United States Air Force.“The Vought F-8 Crusader.”“Vought F4U-1D Corsair.” National Air and Space Museum. Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 121
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013“Vultee ‘Lady Peace” 2001. Aerofiles.“World Flight Chronicle.” World Flight Chronicleis a fictitious newspaper-style web document designed to add interest to the eventssurrounding the first round-the-world flight in 1924. Any similarity to an actualnewspaper or newsletter is purely coincidental. Events reported in the World FlightChronicle are true and drawn from primary and secondary sources and cited whereappropriate. 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. Economic History:BibliographyAerospace Industries Association of America, Inc., Washington D.C. Aerospace Facts& Figures. This is an annual statistical series, dating back to 1945, about developmentsin the aerospace industry.Bilstein, Roger E. The American Aerospace Industry: From Workshop toGlobal Enterprise. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1996.Brumberg, Joan Lisa. NASA and the Space Industry. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1999.Bugos, Glenn E. Engineering the F-4 Phantom II: Parts Into Systems.Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1996.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 122
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Hayward, Keith. The World Aerospace Industry: Collaboration andCompetition. London: Duckworth, 1994.Pattilo, Donald M. Pushing the Envelope: The American Aircraft Industry. AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998.Pisano, Dominick and Cathleen Lewis, editors. Air and Space History: AnAnnotated 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 MilitaryIndustry. 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 History of the Aerospace IndustryPosted Mon, 2010-02-01 18:21 by AnonymousGlenn E. Bugos, The Prologue GroupThe aerospace industry ranks among the worlds largest manufacturing industries interms of people employed and value of output. Yet even beyond its shear size, theaerospace industry was one of the defining industries of the twentieth century. As asocio-political phenomenon, aerospace has inflamed the imaginations of youth aroundthe 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 aneconomic phenomenon, aerospace has consumed the major amount of research anddevelopment funds across many fields, subsidized innovation in a vast array ofcomponent technologies, evoked new forms of production, spurred construction ofenormous manufacturing complexes, inspired technology-sensitive managerialtechniques, supported dependent regional economies, and justified the deeper incursionof national governments into their economies. No other industry has so persistently andintimately interacted with the bureaucratic apparatus of the nation state.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 123
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013Aerospace 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 definedby those firms that design and build vehicles that fly through our atmosphere and outerspace.The First Half-CenturyAircraft remained experimental apparatus for five years after the Wright brothersfamous first flight in December 1903. In 1908 the Wrights secured a contract to make asingle aircraft from the U.S. Army, and also licensed their patents to allow the AstraCompany to manufacture aircraft in France. Glenn Curtiss of New York began selling hisown aircraft in 1909, prompting many American aircraft hobbyists to turnentrepreneurial.Europeans took a clear early lead in aircraft manufacture. By the outbreak of the GreatWar in August 1914, French firms had built more than 2,000 aircraft, German firms hadbuilt about 1,000, and Britain slightly fewer. American firms had built less than ahundred, most of these one of a kind. Even then aircraft embodied diverse materials atclose tolerances, and those who mismanaged the American wartime manufacturingeffort failed to realize the need for special facilities and trained workers. Americanwarplanes ultimately arrived too late to have much military impact or to impart muchmomentum to an industry. When contracts were cancelled with the armistice theindustry collapsed, leading to the reconfiguration of every significant aircraft firm. Bycontrast, 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 aircraftengine industry -- led by Wright Aeronautical Company and Curtiss Aeroplane andMotor.Still, the war induced some infrastructure that moved the industry beyond itsfragmented roots. National governments funded testing laboratories -- like the NationalAdvisory Committee for Aeronautics established in May 1915 in the United States -- thatalso disseminated scientific information of explicit use to industry. Universities began tooffer engineering degrees specific to aircraft. American aircraft designers formed apatent pool in July 1917 -- administered by the Aircraft Manufacturers Association --whereby all aircraft firms cross-licensed key patents and paid into the pool without fearof infringement suits. The post-war glut of light aircraft, like the Curtiss Jenny trainersin America, allowed anyone who dreamed of flying to become a pilot.Most of the companies that survived the war remained entrepreneurial in spirit, led bydesigners more interested in advancing the state of the art than in mass production.During the 1920s, aircraft assumed their modern shape. Monoplanes supercededbiplanes, stressed-skin cantilevered wings replaced externally braced wings, radial air-cooled engines turned variable pitch propellers, and enclosed fuselages and cowlingsgave aircraft their sleek aerodynamic shape. By the mid-1930s, metal replaced wood asAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 124
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013the material of choice in aircraft construction so new types of component suppliers fedthe aircraft manufacturers.Likewise, the customers of aircraft grew more sophisticated in matching designs to theirneeds. Militaries formed air arms specifically to exploit this new technology, whichbecame dedicated procurers of aircrafts. Air transport companies began flyingpassengers in the 1920s, though all those airlines were kept afloat by governmentairmail contracts. European nations developed airmail routes around their colonies --served by flag-carriers like the British Overseas Airways Corporation, Lufthansa, andAeropostale. Pan Ams routes to Asia and Latin America, linked by flying boats built bySikorsky, Douglas and Lockheed, was the equivalent in the American empire.The United States was the only country with a large indigenous airmail system, and itdrove the structure of the industry during the 1920s. The Kelly Air Mail Act of 1925 gaveairmail business to hundreds of small pilot-owned firms that hopped from airport andairport. Gradually, these operations were consolidated into larger airlines. In 1928 -- ina mix of stock market euphoria and aviation enthusiasm following Charles Lindberghstransatlantic flight -- Wall Street financiers formed holding companies that integratedairlines with the manufacture of aircraft and engines. United Aircraft and Transport, forexample, combined United Airlines with Boeing, North American Aviation, and theAviation Corporation. These holding companies struggled for profitability following thestock market crash of 1929, and were ultimately undone in 1934 through legislation thatsplit manufacturers and airlines -- a separation that continued thereafter.The United States was also the only country large enough for air travel to challenge railtravel, and in the 1930s airlines competed for passengers by forging alliances withaircraft 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 ratherthan mail. Many advances in aircraft design during the 1930s addressed the comfort,efficiency and safety of air travel -- cabin pressurization, retractable landing gear, betterinstrumentation and better navigational devices around airports. Britain and Germanyproduced the best large bombers at the start of the 1930s, though by the start of theWorld War II American designs were better. American firms, by contrast though, wereproducing very few of them.During the 1930s, the European states had begun ramping up production of militaryaircraft, training pilots to fly them, and building airfields to host them. Once the warbegan, though, factories were bombed and supply lines cut off. As it became less likelythey would overwhelm their enemies with vast fleets of aircraft, German and Britishaircraft 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 GermanMesserschmitt 262 fighter aircraft -- which combined a strong turbine engine with theinnovation of swept wings -- approached the speed of sound. The Europeans alsoAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 125
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013innovated in tactics and logistics to use fewer aircraft more effectively. The discipline ofoperations research grew out of British needs to use patrol aircraft more efficiently.Though American designers also proved innovative in the crucible of war, Americanfirms clearly triumphed in mass production.In the six-year period 1940 through 1945, American firms built 300,718 militaryaircraft, including 95,272 in 1944 alone. In the previous six-year period, American firmsbuilt only 19,587 aircraft, most of those civil. In 1943, the aviation industry wasAmericas largest producer and employer -- with 1,345,600 people bent to the task ofmaking aircraft. A vast array of firms -- especially automobile makers -- fed this rapidescalation of production. Engineers disaggregated aircraft into smaller parts to parcelout to subcontractors, managed distributed manufacturing, and devised the concept ofthe 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, andfor the next half-century Americans would set the agenda for the aircraft industryaround the world. Mass production, though, slipped from that agenda. On VJ Day theAmerican 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 blipfor the wars in Korea and Vietnam. Instead, research ruled the industry.The Cold WarThe Berlin airlift of 1947 marked the start of the Cold War between the United Statesand the Soviet Union, a symbolic conflict in which perceptions of aerial might played akey role. Once they divested themselves of their surplus plants, American aircraft firmsrushed to incorporate into their designs the technological advances of World War II. Thepreeminent symbol of these efforts, and of the nature of the Cold War, was the massiveBoeing B-47 long-range strategic bomber, with six engines and swept wings. Boeingbuilt 2,000 B-47s, following its first flight in December 1947, and emerged as thedominant 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, inDecember 1947, became the first aircraft to break the sound barrier. The X-1 was thefirst in the X-series of experimental aircraft - sleek, specially built research aircraft thatjousted with Soviet aircraft to set speed and altitude records. More importantly, theaerospace 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. Establishedairframe firms shifted from manufacturing to research, while the military channeledfunds to technology-specific startup firms. For example, Sikorsky, Hiller and Bellquickly dominated the market for new type of airframe known as a helicopter.Electronics specialists like Raytheon, Sperry, and Hughes became prime contractors forthe new guided missiles, while airframe manufacturers subcontracted to them. TurbojetAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 126
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013engines were the most disruptive new technology. Turbojets shared little in commonwith piston engines so two firms specializing in steam turbines -- General Electric andWestinghouse -- grabbed the bulk of jet engine orders until Pratt & Whitney caught up.Aircraft firms also struggled to modify their airframes for the greater speeds andaltitudes possible with jet engines. Those firms that failed were superceded by those thatsucceeded -- notably McDonnell Aircraft and Lockheed.Intercontinental ballistic missile programs, started in 1954, fueled the micro-levelrestructuring of the industry. ICBMs were touted as "winning weapons" to replacemassive 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 thehurry in which the missiles had to be designed and built, new management modelsemerged from the military and aerospace firms. The Aerospace Corporation, SpaceTechnology Laboratories of TRW Inc., and Lockheed Missiles & Space were three firmsthat proclaimed proprietary expertise in this new aerospace management. The ICBMefforts introduced, to all high-tech industries worldwide, the ideal and techniques ofprogram management and systems engineering. When Europeans fretted over TheAmerican Challenge in the 1960s, they meant not so much American technology asmanagement 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. Theneologism "aerospace" reflected the shape of the money that flowed into the industryfollowing the Soviet launch of Sputnik in October 1957. The U.S. Aircraft IndustriesAssociation changed its name to the Aerospace Industries Association of America, so thepublic might think it natural that the firms that built aircraft should also build vehiclesto travel through air-less space. Furthermore, the laboratories of the National AdvisoryCommittee for Aeronautics formed the kernel of the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, then bent the efforts of academic aeronautics toward hypersonics andspace travel. In 1961, NASA got the mission to send an American to the Moon and returnhim safely to Earth before the decade was out. NASA built enormous space ports inFlorida and Texas, enhanced its arsenal of research laboratories, bolstered its ownnetwork of hardware contractors, opened up new areas of material science, andpioneered new methods of reliability testing. Following the success of Apollo, in the1970s NASA invested ahead of demand to create the space shuttle for regular access tospace, then struggled to find ways to industrialize space.Program management and systems engineering were applied to military aircraft in the1960s, as the Defense Department took a more active role in telling the industry what tomake and how to make it. Because of a uniformity in contracting rules, this was one ofthe few epochs in which the aerospace industry approached monopsony -- dominated bya single customer. This systems engineering mentality drove greater design costs up-front. Aircraft grew more expensive, so the fewer produced were expected to have longerAerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 127
  • DRAFT Jan. 2013lives with more frequent remanufacturing. To get more diverse types of engineeringtalent involved in design, the Defense Department insisted that airframe firms -- formercompetitors -- team to win aircraft contracts. Key members in these teams were avionicsfirms, 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 anyother industry.Amidst all the other shocks to the American economy in the 1970s, in 1975 the UnitedStates would record its last trade surplus of the twentieth century. While other Americanindustries lost ground to European or Japanese competitors, American aircraft haveremained in consistent demand. Since the mid-1960s, aerospace products havecomprised 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 othercountries money to buy American airliners. Yet increasingly, the aerospace industry wasseen as a cause of American economic failure. So much federal research anddevelopment funding filtering through the aerospace firms distorted innovation so thatAmerican consumer products suffered. Conglomerates formed in the late 1960s aroundaerospace firms -- like LTV and Litton -- suggested that their core competence was notaerospace systems but the ability to read government contracting trends. Aerospacefirms that were not consolidated in the mid-1970s, after aircraft lost in Vietnam werereplaced, pursued diversification strong in the belief that the engineering skill that madeAmerican aircraft so dominant could also make world-class busses and microwaveovens. They failed. Waste, fraud and abuse dominated discussion of military aerospace.Persistent cost overruns and delays suggested no one in the industry took efficiencyseriously.Matters got worse in the 1980s. Republican administrations channeled enormous fundsinto the aerospace firms dotting the American sunbelt, without a concomitant increasein aircraft actually built. Efforts to build a space-based missile defense systemsymbolized the accepted futility of this spend-up. Likewise, NASA poured money intoSpace Shuttle operations without an increase in flights. NASA engineers sketched, thenresketched 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.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 128
  • 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.Aerospace Industry – America’s Future? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 129
  • 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? Shawn Paul Boike Copyright 2011-2012 130