Solving the great Air Force systems irony - Focus: The Shaft of the Spear

Aerospace Power Journal, Spring, 2002 by Steven C. Suddarth

Editorial Abstract: Why has the Air Force lost the lead in technology development that it held over industry in the l950s and 1960s? Colonel Suddarth believes we can find the answer in the shift in emphasis from product to process management that began in the early 1960s. Since that time, the Air Force has moved from the simple management of complex systems to the complex management of simple systems--and has gained little in the process.

**********

IT IS HARD to think of a more decisive element of the American military than its technology base. In the past century, the United States has perhaps been involved in more military actions than any other power and has sustained a surprisingly low casualty rate while achieving remarkable military success. Is this a consequence of "warrior spirit" alone or the result of unprecedented, long-term preparations--particularly in technology? Dependence upon technology as an asymmetric advantage underscores the need to constantly improve the advancement process of war-fighting systems. Technology evolves rapidly, and the challenge lies in always staying ahead of it, trying to ensure that some unknown enemy will not gain a deadly advantage. Yet, such efforts to improve the pace at which we create and deploy technology have generally accomplished little. Further, they have not controlled costs and schedules. Increasingly, Americans rely on advancements from decades past and count on facing unsophisticated opponents. Some people would argue that we are less competent at building complex military systems today than we were decades ago. This assertion leads to a great irony: the Air Force has moved from the simple management of complex systems to the complex management of simple systems--and has gained little in the process.

During the 1950s, the United States faced a strategic military challenge of historic proportions. The nation responded with an impressive array of technologies, including jet aircraft, radar and computer systems, command and control ([C.sup.2]) centers, fusion bombs, missiles, and spacecraft. Even existing technologies were perfected at an unprecedented rate out of fear of what our sophisticated adversary, the USSR, was doing. Perhaps no development better exemplifies this trend than our intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability. It began in earnest in 1955 yet had developed three generations of systems (an improved Atlas, Titan, and the solid-fueled Minuteman) in a mere seven years. The effort did not stop with missile development but included the construction of hardened silos, automated command centers, early warning capabilities, and even a nascent space-based surveillance system--all on alert and functioning in time for the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

In contrast, a recent upgrade to the Minuteman III missile is now under way for 500 missiles. The effort began in 1993 with the objectives of ensuring their continued reliability and rapid reprogramming. The new guidance capability was not demonstrated until 1998, and some upgrades took two more years. (1) Furthermore, these upgrades apparently shortened the range and reduced the accuracy of the missile. (2) Understandably, this upgrade was a complicated activity, costing $2.3 billion. It is difficult, however, to compare the complexity of an upgrade to the daunting challenges that the original builders faced, which included having to design systems from scratch with only vision and science to go on.

A brief review of developments during the early Gold War period discloses an impressive array of combat-relevant technologies, including drones, cruise missiles, hydrogen bombs, optically based intelligence satellites, weather satellites, radar-guided weapons, and many more. Technology continues to advance, but innovation today is often limited to continuous improvement of existing capabilities. Even stealth capability, the current flagship of Air Force technology, came into being only because the first such system (the F-117) violated most acquisition rules. (3) Subsequent systems that followed the rules (the B-2 and F-22) took much longer to build into practical aircraft. Furthermore, stealth is almost entirely based on research from the early Cold War period.

One can explain the slowdown in technological development in many ways. The great discoveries in modern physics and the industrial boom of the early twentieth century preceded the aerospace-technology boom of the 1950s and 1960s. Some people argue that we don't have the confluence of discovery and technology now to sustain the rate of progress that we previously knew. Furthermore, the United States no longer has the fearful incentive of its traditional adversary. The USSR, tenacious and technologically sophisticated, drove the United States to go farther in space, as well as become more precise with nuclear weapons and smaller with communications technology; we always needed to be better and get there first. The "Red Scare" was particularly acute in the 1950s and early 1960s, but as time progressed, the fear (and, eventually, the adversary as well) went away. Indeed, our situation has changed, but it is difficult to blame our lack of innovation on the waning Cold War, particularly with so many new and unpredi ctable military challenges today.