Contemporary Issues Shaping China’s Civil Aviation Policy: Balancing International with Domestic Priorities

67 Pages·2016·4.624 MB·English

by  Williams, A.

Review of the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure
and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to Meet the Needs
of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
Committee on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace
Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering Disciplines to
Meet the Needs of the Air Force and the Department of Defense
Air Force Science and Technology Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of
the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard
for appropriate balance.
This is a report of work sponsored by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under grant
number F49620-99-1-0338 between the Department of Defense and the National Academy of Sci-
ences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are
those of the author(s) and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies
or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research or the
U.S. Government.
The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes
notwithstanding any copyright notation thereon.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-07606-4
Copies are available from:
National Academy Press
Box 285
2101 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20055
800-624-6242 or 202-334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area)
http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distin-
guished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of
science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter
granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the
federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the
National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences
the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering
also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and
research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of
the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure
the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters
pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the
National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal govern-
ment and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education.
Dr.Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of further-
ing knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general
policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of
both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing
services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The
Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M.
Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National
Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF THE U.S. AEROSPACE INFRASTRUCTURE AND
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING DISCIPLINES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE AIR FORCE AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ROBERT R. EVERETT, Chair, MITRE Corporation (retired), Concord, Massachusetts
GORDON R. ENGLAND, Vice Chair, General Dynamics Corporation, Falls Church, Virginia
(from September 1999 to May 2001)
KYLE T. ALFRIEND, Texas A&M University, College Station
OLIVER C. BOILEAU, JR., Consultant, Saratoga, Wyoming
MICHAEL P.C. CARNS, U.S. Air Force (retired), Center for Political Economy, Pebble Beach,
California
RAYMOND S. COLLADAY, RC Space Enterprises, Inc., Golden, Colorado
JOHN W. DOUGLASS, Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc., Washington, D.C.
ROBERT B. ORMSBY, JR., Lockheed Aeronautical Group Systems (retired), Roswell, Georgia
GEORGE A. PAULIKAS, Aerospace Corporation (retired), Los Angeles, California
THOMAS M. PERDUE, Consultant, Alexandria, Virginia
WINFRED M. PHILLIPS, University of Florida, Gainesville
HERMAN M. REININGA, Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
ELI RESHOTKO, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
MICHAEL D. RICH, RAND, Santa Monica, California
HAROLD W. SORENSON, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts
Liaisons from the Air Force Science and Technology Board
ROBERT A. FUHRMAN, Lockheed Corporation (retired), Pebble Beach, California
JOHN MICHAEL LOH, U.S. Air Force (retired), Consultant, Williamsburg, Virginia
Liaison from the Board on Army Science and Technology
ALLEN C. WARD, Ward Synthesis, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director
JAMES E. KILLIAN, Study Director (from December 2000)
JAMES D. RENDLEMAN, Study Director (from September 1999 to
October 2000)
LINDA D. VOSS, Consultant
JAMES MYSKA, Research Associate
PAMELA A. LEWIS, Senior Project Assistant (from January 2001)
ANDRE MORROW, Senior Project Assistant (from September 1999 to
January 2001)
iv
AIR FORCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD
ROBERT A. FUHRMAN, Chair, Lockheed Corporation (retired), Pebble Beach, California
ANTHONY J. BURSHNICK, U.S. Air Force (retired), Springfield, Virginia
LYNN CONWAY, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
WILLIAM H. CRABTREE, Consultant, Cincinnati, Ohio
EARL H. DOWELL, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
ALFRED B. GSCHWENDTNER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
ROBERT G. LOEWY, Georgia Institute of Technology School of Aerospace Engineering, Atlanta
JOHN MICHAEL LOH, U.S. Air Force (retired), Williamsburg, Virginia
NOEL LONGUEMARE, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology (retired), Ellicott City, Maryland
THOMAS S. MOORMAN, JR., U.S. Air Force (retired), McLean, Virginia
BRADFORD W. PARKINSON, Stanford University, Stanford, California
RICHARD R. PAUL, Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington
ELI RESHOTKO, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
ALTON D. ROMIG, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director
MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Associate Director
CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate
WILLIAM E. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator
GWEN ROBEY, Senior Project Assistant
DEANNA SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant
v

Preface
The uncertainty of the threats faced by the military since government agencies. To learn more about issues related to
the end of the Cold War is mirrored by uncertainties in the the physical test and development infrastructure, a fact-find-
national defense aerospace infrastructure. The aerospace in- ing team visited the Arnold Engineering Development Cen-
dustry has undergone a significant restructuring in the last ter and received briefings about the work force, budget,
20 years, a dramatic consolidation to adjust to the declining policy, and facilities. Industry representatives made presen-
defense investment. In the 1980s, aerospace was a major U.S. tations on work force issues, business opportunities and
economic sector dominated by defense spending. In the goals, facilities, and financial challenges. In the end, the
1990s, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) accounted for committee focused its attention on the issues most important
only 28 percent of aerospace sales. for the primary client of the defense aerospace infrastruc-
These changes raise questions about the future. The Air ture, the Air Force.
Force is concerned about having available and attracting the Recommendations are focused on how Air Force senior
creative, skilled work force it will take to implement its mili- management can compete for skilled technical personnel, sus-
tary mission. The change in the environment supporting the tain high-quality scientific and technical resources, and re-
defense aerospace infrastructure has also changed the rela- form industrial policy to adapt to the changes in the industry.
tionship between the military and industry. The committee greatly appreciates the support and assis-
The committee was asked to identify problems facing dif- tance of National Research Council staff members James
ferent sectors of the defense infrastructure and how the Air Killian, Pamela Lewis, and Carol Arenberg and consultant
Force could ensure its ability to attract the best and brightest Linda Voss in the production of this report.
to produce the leading-edge technology upon which its
weapons systems rely.
To determine the scope of its study, the committee con- Robert R. Everett, Chair
sulted with representatives of academia and visited repre- Committee on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace
sentatives of the Air Force, Navy, DoD, Defense Advanced Infrastructure and Aerospace Engineering
Research Projects Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Disciplines to Meet the Needs of the Air Force
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, and other and the Department of Defense
vii

Acknowledgments
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individu- David Heebner, Heebner Associates
als chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical exper- R. Richard Heppe, Lockheed Aeronautical Systems
tise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Company
Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. Peter B. Teets, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired)
The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid Brian Wright, Rockwell Collins
and critical comments that will assist the institution in mak-
ing its published report as sound as possible and to ensure Although the reviewers listed above have provided many
that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked
evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The re- to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they
view comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to see the final draft of the report before its release. The review
protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The com- of this report was overseen by Alton Slay, appointed by the
mittee wishes to thank the following individuals for their Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, and William
review of this report: Howard, appointed by the NRC’s Report Review Committee,
who were responsible for making certain that an indepen-
Henry P. Arnold, BF Goodrich Aerospace dent examination of this report was carried out in accordance
William C. Bowes, USN (retired), Litton Integrated with institutional procedures and that all review comments
Systems were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final con-
Natalie W. Crawford, RAND tent of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee
Earl H. Dowell, Duke University and the institution.
ix