To download as a PDF click here - US Army Center Of Military History

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ReseaRch a n d developmenT In T h e aIR fo R c e 71 trend that was reversed in the 1980s, the Air Force System Command remained largely intact throughout the Cold War. 11 Following a brief discussion of the origins of R&D in the Army’s air arm before and during World War II, this chapter examines in detail some of the major ARDC and AFSC installations that supported significant research, development, testing, and evaluation functions for the Air Force after 1945. Because Wright Field, which remained the Air Force’s primary in-house R&D facility throughout the Cold War, lacked suitable wind tunnels and related experimental facilities for jet engines, rocket motors, and other high-speed propulsion systems, the Air Materiel Command established a new test facility for this purpose in southeastern Tennessee. In 1946, planning began for the new Air Engineering Development Division (later renamed the Arnold Engineering Development Center [AEDC], after Army Air Forces General Henry Arnold). Construction commenced in 1950, and the facility was formally dedicated the following year. In addition to overseeing routine testing and evaluation functions, AEDC scientists and engineers worked closely with their counterparts at NACA (after 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA]) and also with industrial contractors. Together they extended AEDC’s knowledge base in propulsion-related subjects, including fluid dynamics in near-ground and space environments, thermodynamics, electronics, fuels, propellants, and the structure and behavior of materials. Major advances in solid-state electronics matched similar developments in propulsion, airframe, and materials technologies. Established in Boston in 1945, the Air Force Cambridge Research Center spearheaded electronics R&D, focusing on radio and radar technology and new classes of semiconductor materials used in aircraft avionics systems. Cambridge also managed large research and development programs in geophysics, optics, and plasma and space physics. The Rome Air Development Center, founded at Griffiss Air Force Base near Syracuse, New York, in 1950, managed, through industrial contracts and in-house R&D, the development of hardware for ground-based navigation and communication systems. Although the Air Force operated an extensive network of support facilities, a handful of installations held primary responsibility for the testing and evaluation of new aircraft, missiles, and other major weapon systems manufactured by industrial contractors. Moreover, these functions were often carried out with the assistance of in-house laboratories operating on-site. The Air Force established the Air Force Armaments Center at Eglin Air Force Base near Pensacola, Florida, in 1949 to test all nonnuclear weapons—bombs, rockets, and missiles—fired from aircraft. It also compiled firing and bombing tables. The nuclear weapons developed by the civilian-controlled Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), by contrast, were mated to advanced delivery systems at the Special Weapons Center at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. In the 1960s, Kirtland’s R&D 11 OAR reported directly to the Air Staff, not to the weapons divisions. Michael H. Gorn, Vulcan’s Forge: The Making of an Air Force Command for Weapons Acquisition, 1950–1985, 4th pr., vol. 1 (Andrews Air Force Base, Md.: Office of History, Air Force Systems Command, September 1989), 73, 76, 118.
72 so u R c e s o f we a p o n sy s T e m s In n o v a T Io n In T h e depaR TmenT o f defense capabilities expanded into the development of high-energy laser, microwave, and particle-beam weapons. The Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base in California carried out flight testing of complete weapon systems (the combination of airframe, avionics, and ordnance). Edwards also static-tested the propulsion units for ballistic missiles, while Patrick and Holloman Air Force Bases in Florida and New Mexico, respectively, conducted test firings of short- and long-range missile delivery systems. These bases and their functions remained largely intact throughout the postwar period, albeit with a few exceptions. As concurrency and the weapon systems concept became more fully integrated into the Air Force’s acquisition process, some research laboratories and test facilities closed, merged into new organizations, or transferred to other locations. From Army Air Corps to United States Air Force, 1907–1950 Before World War II, research and development in the Army Air Corps was subordinated to procurement and production. R&D was essentially a support function in a larger program to expand the air arm through close coordination with the domestic aircraft industry. This relationship grew stronger after 1940. As demand grew for military aircraft, so did pressure on airframe manufacturers and the engineering departments in the Air Corps to favor quantity over quality. Production of proven designs took precedence over the massive R&D investments required to generate wholesale improvements in quality. 12 To be sure, the preference for quantity over quality did not preclude the introduction of important breakthroughs in design and construction, materials performance, and propulsion technologies during this period. A broad range of new innovations emerged from private industry and government laboratories. Nonetheless, it was not until 1945 that the Air Staff and a small group of civilian scientists began crafting a comprehensive R&D policy to strike what they believed should be a more even balance between production levels and technological superiority. The ensuing struggle, however, did not focus on this issue alone. The differences of opinion also involved an attempt to sort out the extent to which any new service-wide R&D program should be separated from the Army’s traditional procurement functions. Some members of the War Department General Staff favored a close connection between R&D and procurement, whereas others, including many influential civilian experts, argued that full separation of the management of the two functions was a necessary prerequisite to successful weapons innovation. Although disagreements along this line resurfaced routinely throughout the postwar period, the advocates of separation won a crucial victory in 1950, when the Air Research and Development Command was fashioned 12 Donald R. Baucom, “Air Force Images of Research and Development and Their Reflections in Organizational Structures and Management Policies” (Ph.D. diss., University of Oklahoma, 1976): 7; Amy E. Slaton, “Aeronautical Engineering at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: A Historical Overview,” in The Engineering of Flight: Aeronautical Engineering Facilities of Area B, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, ed. Emma J. H. Dyson, Dean A. Herrin, and Amy E. Slaton (Washington, D.C.: HABS/HAER, National Park Service, 1993), 25.
Page 2 and 3:
Sou r c e S of We a p o n Sy S t e
Page 4:
Chapter Page Foreword..............
Page 7 and 8:
in the study and should help DoD ac
Page 10 and 11:
When I began working on this monogr
Page 12:
Sou r c e S of We a p o n Sy S t e
Page 15 and 16:
2 so u R c e s o f we a p o n sy s
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34: 20 so u R c e s o f we a p o n sy s
Page 83: 70 so u R c e s o f we a p o n sy s
Page 113 and 114: 100 so u R c e s o f we a p o n sy
Page 122 and 123: Conclusion: Review and Retrospect c
Page 124 and 125: co n c l u sIo n : RevIew a n d ReT
Page 126 and 127: Unpublished Documents Converse, Ell
Page 128 and 129: BIBlIogRaphy 115 A History of Rock
Page 130 and 131: BIBlIogRaphy 117 ———. Install
Page 132 and 133: BIBlIogRaphy 119 ———. “Stev
Page 134 and 135:
BIBlIogRaphy 121 Hammond, P. H. “
Page 136 and 137:
BIBlIogRaphy 123 Meader, J. W. “T
Page 138 and 139:
BIBlIogRaphy 125 “Research Lab St
Page 140 and 141:
BIBlIogRaphy 127 “Weapon Center,
Page 142 and 143:
BIBlIogRaphy 129 Dyer, Davis. TRW:
Page 144 and 145:
BIBlIogRaphy 131 ———. “Cold
Page 146 and 147:
BIBlIogRaphy 133 ———.“A Hom
Page 148 and 149:
In d e x AAF. See Army Air Forces.
Page 150 and 151:
In d e x 137 percent of R&D funds a
Page 152 and 153:
In d e x 139 primary source of tech
Page 154 and 155:
In d e x 141 organizational structu
Page 156 and 157:
In d e x 143 internal friction of m
Page 158 and 159:
In d e x 145 superalloy research, 6
Page 160 and 161:
In d e x 147 Naval Ship Research an
Page 162 and 163:
In d e x 149 Matador missile develo
Page 164 and 165:
In d e x 151 Sidewinder missile, 9,
Page 166:
In d e x 153 Army arsenal system fu
show all

To download as a PDF click here - US Army Center Of Military History

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?