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 83 Air Force acquired aircraft, missiles, and other military hardware also guided this technical effort. “We can no longer afford to order an airframe and then try to stuff it with government furnished equipment developed separately under separate contracts,” observed the chief of WADC’s Weapons Systems Division. “From now on,” he continued, “the faster aircraft go, the more exactly we must tailor our power, aerodynamics, guidance, and firepower to fit each other in a single airframe package.” 44 Lending urgency to these technological considerations was the Air Staff ’s concern about recent advances in Soviet air power and the perceived threat that they posed to American security. Both factors—one technological, the other strategic—prompted ARDC managers and their subordinates at the Wright Air Development Center to rely on industry and the scientific community for major breakthroughs. Such reliance, however, was not to be sought at the complete expense of the in-house R&D programs that already maintained a vital link between the laboratory and the factory floor. 45 Representative examples to be discussed briefly below include the center’s role in the development of the Convair B–58 Hustler, the first supersonic bomber, and the R&D activities underway in the center’s aircraft and power plant laboratories. Development of the delta wing B–58 began in the early 1950s, when the Air Force selected the Convair Division of the General Dynamics Corporation to serve as the program’s prime contractor. In this capacity—a defining feature of the weapon systems concept—Convair managed all phases of the B–58’s development, from the airframe produced in-house to the weapon subsystems (for bombing and navigation, autopilot and controls, offensive and defensive armament, communications, reconnaissance, cooling, and ground support) designed and built by other firms under contract. 46 Convair also handled the complete integration of all subsystems into a fully functional, combat-ready aircraft. ARDC monitored, evaluated, and supervised the overall development program, and, in collaboration with the Air Materiel Command, recommended and selected the contractor—in this case Convair—most qualified to complete the project. The Wright Air Development Center provided technical support. 47 44 “Weapon System Plan Spurs Development,” Aviation Week 59 (17 August 1953): 83. 45 ARDC put several procedural changes in place to accelerate weapon systems development. In 1955, for example, competitive bidding based on paper design studies was eliminated in favor of direct selection of contractors equipped with the expertise to meet specific service requirements. ARDC also made proprietary knowledge of weapons requirements available to a larger pool of contractors to boost industry participation in the procurement process, especially through the expansion of in-house corporate R&D. C. Witze, “Speed R&D, USAF Orders Industry,” Aviation Week 63 (22 August 1955): 12–13; “USAF Urges Aircraft Industry to Use Own Funds for Research,” Aviation Week 63 (5 September 1955): 14–15; “ARDC Trades Secrets for Progress,” Aviation Week Buyer’s Guide 63 (Mid-December 1955): 11; “Progress Proves ARDC’s Mission Vital,” Aviation Week 65 (6 August 1956): 76–77; C. Witze, “Industry Role in New Weapons Increased,” Aviation Week 65 (6 August 1956): 86–88; “How ARDC ‘Buys’ Scientific Ideas,” Aviation Week 66 (3 June 1957): 358. 46 Convair did not manage development and production of the propulsion system. The high development cost prompted the Air Staff to assign those functions directly to ARDC. 47 Other ARDC facilities also provided technical support. Air and ground tests on the B–58’s weapon systems were conducted at Holloman Air Force Base in 1956. See I. Stone, “Holloman Evaluates Missile Systems,” Aviation Week 65 (6 August 1956): 133.
84 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 WADC engineers collaborated with Convair to establish performance specifications for the major subsystems on the B–58. The Wright laboratories handled a related function, which also applied to other weapons programs, namely the development of engineering and production standards for interchangeable parts—fasteners, bearings, vacuum tubes, and other equipment—previously obtained as government-furnished equipment but now procured directly through subcontractors. 48 “We do only enough research and development work in ARDC laboratories and centers to maintain a technical competency in our required fields and to tackle problems that are so specialized for USAF requirements that there is no outside interest in handling them,” observed Lt. Gen. Thomas Power, ARDC’s commander, in 1956. 49 Power’s comments accurately described R&D policy at the Wright Air Development Center in the 1950s, where more than 85 percent of the funds earmarked for research and development were distributed to academic and industrial laboratories and other private-sector R&D organizations. The outsourcing of R&D was not necessarily carried out at the expense of Wright’s own in-house functions, which included a combination of undirected studies in broadly defined fields of science and technology and focused investigations on specific weapons applications. Work along both lines proceeded in two of the center’s six directorates: laboratories and research. 50 General research problems were investigated in the research directorate’s aeromedical, aeronautical research, and materials laboratories, while studies that focused on aircraft hardware were concentrated in the nine commodities laboratories managed by the laboratories directorate: aircraft, aircraft radiation, armament, communications and navigation, electronic components, equipment, photo reconnaissance, power plants, and propellers. 51 Engineers in the aircraft laboratory’s wind tunnel and structures branches tested complete airframes and applied new aerodynamic knowledge to improve flight characteristics, such as lift, drag, stability, and range. They also synthesized test and performance data into specifications and design standards for use by aircraft and component manufacturers. Other work in these two branches focused on static-load testing of wings, tail surfaces, and complete airframes, such as the huge, six-engine Convair B–36 heavy bomber. The mechanical branch carried out similar studies on wheels, brakes, and tire assemblies at simulated speeds, 48 “Weapon System Plan Spurs Development,” 84–85; “ARDC Molds U.S. Air Development,” 78. Convair employed the weapon system concept and concurrency to develop the B–58, but the results were not encouraging. Cost overruns, scheduling delays, and performance shortfalls plagued the program. See Brown, Flying Blind, chap. 5. 49 Power quoted in “Progress Proves ARDC’s Mission Vital,” 76. 50 In addition to laboratories and research, Wright managed four other directorates: flight and allweather testing, engineering standards, procurement, and support. 51 Among the R&D programs managed by the research directorate, a major effort in metallurgical research was supported by the aeronautical research and materials laboratories. Much of the work in the aeronautical research laboratory, for example, focused on the internal structure and physical and electrical properties of ceramics, semiconductors, and other magnetic and electronic materials required for avionics applications in jet aircraft. See J. W. Poynter, “Metallurgy Research Program of the Aeronautical Research Laboratory,” Journal of Metals 9 (May 1957): 675–76.
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:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46: 32 so u R c e s o f we a p o n sy s
Page 95: 82 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?