Carol L. Cook
In looking at the markets of the Aerospace Industry, we see that military aircraft, missiles and space are dependent upon defense spending. Transformation of Eastern Europe’s political structure has left American Defense leaders in “future shock”—but still cautious about pronouncing radical shifts in Western military strategy.
One of the architects of the post-war super power era, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, has said that the deployment plans for allied nuclear and conventional weapons will need to be reconsidered. Yet, General John R. Glavin, Commander-In-Chief of U.S. and allied forces in Europe, has stressed the need for modernization of both nuclear and conventional aircraft and weapon systems. At this point, therefore, we do not know how this will be affecting the Aerospace Industry.
We do know, however, that commercial air service should be an early beneficiary of the thaw in Eastern Europe’s political climate.
Throughout the 20th Century, U.S. science and technology has been the envy of the world and a major factor in maintaining the U.S. as a global economic force.
However, a reorganization of the world order is under way that already has begun to change the balance of economic and technological power around the globe. Unfortunately, the policies and procedures guiding U.S. science and technology have not kept pace with this rapidly changing environment.
This makes it imperative that the White House and Congress revitalize the process by which government and industry select, fund and use major new U.S. science and technology efforts.
The success or failure of this revitalization could significantly influence the U.S. position in the world in the coming decades. While Western Europe is moving to consolidate its technological clout under the “Europe 1992” banner and Japan is executing a broad technology strategy, the U.S. lacks an advanced technology policy to carry the nation into the 21st century.
Compounding the problem is the prospect of significantly reduced U.S. defense spending. One out of three U.S. scientists and engineers is employed by the Defense Industry. Measures must be taken to ensure that Defense cutbacks do not dilute U.S. science and technological capacities.
Reductions in the Defense budget should be viewed as an opportunity to increase the funding for civilian science and technology and to reform the way the government handles such research.
Although Defense research provides employment for those involved, it does comparatively little to benefit the U.S.’s standing in the world scientifically, technically or economically. A disproportionate share of federal science and technology funding has been going toward Defense.
Japan and West Germany spend a higher percentage of their gross national product on civilian science and technology compared with the U.S.
What has been lacking is the strong integration of U.S. economic policy and national technology policy.
Japan already integrates its economic and technological planning and uses that policy to its advantage in the world market. Western European countries are looking to similar strategies as they transform their economic systems starting in 1992.
The space program has, to many Americans, symbolized the highest level of U.S. science and technology.
In reality, however, there are now literally dozens of areas of U.S. science and technology equally deserving of federal funding support, all with significant potential to benefit the nation’s science and technology base. Some reporters have characterized the situation as “the dilemma of the golden age,” where so many worthy projects must vie for such constrained funding.
Transferring more federal science and technology funding to the civil sector could help prime the nation’s technological pump. It also would bring the U.S. more in line with nations like Japan and West Germany, where research and development growth rates have been rising faster than in the U.S., enabling these countries to match U.S. development spending as a percentage of their gross national products.
The massive downsizing of long-range defense spending plans will also force the Pentagon to make difficult choices between moving ahead with new, high-technology weapon programs or upgrading existing systems.
One of the bigger factors in choosing between existing or new systems is the extent to which new systems are needed to meet national security goals. “This requires an assessment of the enemy threat and U.S. needs that aren’t currently available,” according to the Defense Industry.
Defense cutbacks have affected NASA, also. The White House is currently in a search for new ways to advance the nation’s manned space program. It feels that the agency’s high cost of estimates for space ventures is forcing them to search for competitive alternatives.
So, we see that Defense cutbacks can affect the Aerospace Industry in the next decade. We also see that it is hoped that the U.S. will turn to research and development during this time.