Acquisition Management

in the United States Air Force

and its Predecessors

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENTA

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

Lawrence R. Benson

Air Force History and Museums Program

1997

20050429 024
FOREWORD

In its first fifty years as an independent armed service, the

United States Air Force (USAF) has fostered science and technology and-in partnership with the private sector-developed

and produced the complex tools of aerospace power that helped

the Free World prevail in the Cold War. The foundation for

these extraordinary achievements was laid in the forty years

before the Air Force separated from the U.S. Army in 1947.

This booklet tells the story of how the air components of the

Army and then the USAF organized and managed the activities

required to get aircraft and other weapon systems from the

drawing board to the flightline or the launch pad.

Published as one of a series of booklets celebrating the 50th

anniversary of the USAF in 1997, this study is the first overall

historical synopsis of the service's acquisition structure. The

text was originally prepared as a chapter in the Air Force Acquisition Factbook, a compendium of acquisition programs and

policies published by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the

Air Force (Acquisition). Hence the study is intended both to

educate personnel in today's acquisition community about their

antecedents and to commemorate this aspect of the Air Force's

heritage to a wider audience.

RICHARD P. HALLION

Air Force Historian

ii
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

1997 na/ 1

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

Acquisition Management in the U.S. Air Force and Its Predecessors n/a

5b. GRANT NUMBER

n/a

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

n/a

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Benson, Lawrence R. n/a

5e. TASK NUMBER

n/a

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

n/a

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

Air Force History Support Office REPORT NUMBER

3 Brookley Avenue Box 94 n/a

Bolling AFB DC 20032-5000

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

n/a n/a

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

NUMBER(S)

n/a

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

n/a

14. ABSTRACT

Summarizes how the Air Force and its predecessors organized the process of acquiring the aircraft and other systems to help fight the

nation's armed conflicts and ultimately prevail in the Cold War

60 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.

GPO Stock no: 008-070-00715-1

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE ABSTRACT OF Richard 1. Wolf

PAGES SU 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) UUU46 202-404-2186

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39,18
CONTENTS

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

From the Great War through the Great Depression,

1914-1939 . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The Arsenal of Democracy, 1939-1945 ............... 13

Postwar Demobilization and Deliberations, 1945-1950 . . . 19

Separate R&D and Procurement Commands, 1950-1961 . . 22

The Ascendancy of Systems Command, 1961-1986 ..... .31

Reform, Streamlining, and Centralization, 1986-1996 . . . 40

Appendix: Key Acquisition Organizations and Leaders . . . 51

Glossary of Abbreviations ........................ 56

Bibliography ................................. 58

Notes ..................................... 60

ioi
Acquisition Management

in the United States Air Force

and its Predecessors

Overview

During the Twentieth Century the United States became the world's premier aerospace nation, both commercially and militarily. Inventing, developing, testing,

evaluating, buying, and producing the implements of air

power grew into an enterprise of unprecedented complexity. Leading this effort, the United States Air Force

evolved from a small division of the Army's Signal Corps

into one of the nation's largest purveyors of technology.

As it did so, the Air Force frequently revised its organizational structure to manage these tasks-now referred

to collectively as the acquisition process. Although the

historical circumstances and the state of technology

changed greatly as the century progressed, some recurring patterns of organization emerged.

Before World War II, when the manufacturing of

American military airplanes was a low-volume, handwork-type industry, the U.S. Army concentrated almost

all air acquisition management activities at one organization in the vicinity of Dayton, Ohio (the birthplace of

aviation). Also included within this organization--designated in 1926 as the Air Corps' Materiel Division-were

the logistics functions of supply, maintenance, support

equipment, and industrial planning. Although some key

procurement decisions were made in Washington, D.C.,

the Materiel Division played a critical role in fostering

the development of American aviation technology during
the interwar period. In many areas, however, this technology lagged behind that of other industrial nations.

The vast expansion of the Army Air Forces during

World War II led to a split between the functions of research and development (R&D) and those of materiel

and support. This was accompanied by some dispersal of

procurement authority (i.e., purchasing and contract

management). As the Army Air Forces demobilized after

victory over Japan, it once again centralized development, procurement, and logistics into the Air Materiel

Command. Before long, however, the crucible of the Cold

War and its arms race led the young U.S. Air Force in

1950 to assign R&D to a new Air Research and Development Command. Then in 1961-after a decade of growing experience with managing weapons as comprehensive systems-the Air Force realigned acquisition with

research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) to

create the Air Force Systems Command. At the same

time, the remaining functions of Air Materiel Command

were retained in a new Air Force Logistics Command.

In the late 1980s, demands for a more streamlined acquisition process led the Air Force to centralize management for major systems in the Pentagon under a new

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition.

With the end of the Cold War, the U.S. defense industry

began to consolidate into fewer companies and return to

low-volume production reminiscent of the 1930s (albeit

with high technology products). For its part, the Air

Force in 1992 reinstated a single command to handle

RDT&E, small acquisition programs, and logistics. Located once more near Dayton, Ohio, at Wright-Patterson

Air Force Base (AFB), the Air Force Materiel Command

carries on a long tradition into a new and uncertain era.

The essay that follows summarizes how the Air Force

and its predecessors organized the process of acquiring

the aircraft and other systems to help fight the nation's

armed conflicts and ultimately prevail in the Cold War.

Acquisition management is a subject of exceeding complexity, especially in the context of related areas such as

military doctrine, operational requirements, defense

strategy, industrial preparedness, and policies fostering

2
science and technology. As prefaced in the definitive

study of aircraft acquisition in World War II, "one cannot truly understand.. .air power without first coming to

appreciate something of the enormous complexity of procurement."1 A comprehensive analysis of acquisition is

well beyond the scope of this essay. It is intended merely

to acquaint readers with the evolving organizational

framework used by the Air Force to acquire the tools of

aerospace power.

3
From the Great War through the Great

Depression, 1914-1939

Although Orville and Wilbur Wright sold the first military

airplane to the U.S. Army Signal Corps in 1909, the United

States soon fell behind the European powers in aircraft design

and production-especially after the outbreak of World War I in

1914. Recognizing the nation's lag in aviation technology, Congress created the interagency National Advisory Committee for

Aeronautics (NACA) in March 1915. But until the long-delayed

completion of its experimental center at Langley Field, Virginia, in 1920, NACA was unable to contribute directly to aircraft development. For advancing military technology in

general, the National Academy of Sciences convinced a reluctant President Woodrow Wilson to endorse the formation of the

National Research Council in April 1916 to help mobilize

American scientific resources in support of national preparedness. Funding and administrative restrictions, as well as the

military leadership's lack of appreciation for the potential of

new technologies, limited the benefits of this umbrella organization.

After the United States declared war on 6 April 1917, NACA

took the lead in drawing up a plan for aircraft production. The

War Department disregarded NACA's plan in favor of a more

ambitious one of its own. Not even an expensive, crash program

by an energized government-industry partnership could make

this rash plan into a reality. The effort came under the aegis of

the Aircraft Production Board--created on 12 April 1917 as an

element of the recently formed National Defense Council to coordinate aircraft manufacturing for both the Army and Navy.

The Army's internal organization also proved inadequate for

managing its air mission, and on 20 May 1918, President Wilson elevated Army aviation from the Signal Corps to the War

Department. Three days earlier, the President had established

within the Army a Bureau of Aircraft Production, responsible

for what would today be considered acquisition management.

The War Department had already created the Division of Military Aeronautics, responsible for operations and training. On

24 May 1918 both organizations became components of the

newly created Air Service. The Air Service, however, was not

4
placed under a single leader until John D. Ryan, head of the

Bureau of Aircraft Production, was also named Director of the

Air Service on 28 August 1918.

The Air Service progressively consolidated its acquisition-related functions near the home of the Wright Brothers. The Bureau of Aircraft Production included an Engineering Production

Department located at McCook Field, founded in 1917 just outside Dayton, Ohio, and an Airplane Experimental Department

in Washington, D.C. These two overlapping departments, frequently at odds with each other, were later combined with the

Bureau's Science and Research Department and Technical Information Department to create a new Engineering and Research Division. On 13 September 1918 this element was

reorganized as the Engineering Division of the Air Service and

consolidated at McCook Field. Five days later, the Bureau of

Aircraft Production ordered the Armament Section of its Ordnance Department to also move to McCook Field so its technicians could work directly with the aircraft engineers.

The war ended too soon for these reorganizations and other

management changes to have much beneficial effect. Because of

mismanagement, distance from the theater of operations, and

technical obstacles, the United States did not develop effective

combat aircraft. As a result, its pilots in Europe flew mostly in

French and British machines. American industry was able to

supply the Army with approximately 12,000 aircraft (mostly

trainers and observation aircraft). The Allies sold the United

States approximately 5,200 aircraft (including almost all its

pursuit models). The Air Service's major acquisition success

story of World War I was mass production of the Liberty engine, thanks in part to the existing capabilities of the automobile industry. But aircraft themselves proved much more

complicated to produce than autos. And the use of contracts negotiated to reimburse private companies for their costs plus an

additional percentage of these costs encouraged private companies to enter the risky new aviation industry but proved a disincentive for improving efficiency.

Despite the accelerating contributions of aviation to the war,

the Army failed to recognize the potential significance of air

power or apply the lessons learned in combat. "But even doctrine is inadequate," observed a noted airpower historian,

"without an organization to administer the tasks involved in se5
lecting, testing, and evaluating inventions. The history of weapons in the United States is filled with evidence on this point."lWith the postwar demobilization, the Air Service abruptly

terminated most acquisition programs, leading to financial

chaos in the fledgling aircraft industry and thousands of court

claims against the Government. For the future, Congress mandated fixed-price contracts because of its perception that the

cost-plus contracts used during the war had led to excess profiteering. In the immediate postwar period, the Air Service focused much of its attention on managing the surplus of supplies

and equipment inherited from the war. In 1919 its residual aircraft development resources were further concentrated at

McCook Field. Here the Engineering Division added the Technical Section of the Division of Military Aeronautics, a testing

squadron at nearby Wilbur Wright Field, and aircraft experimental activities from Langley Field. The Supply Division in

Washington exercised procurement responsibility for the Air

Service; however, as formalized by the National Defense Act of

1920, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of War was tasked

with industrial planning for the Army. Formation of the ArmyNavy Munitions Board helped assure some degree of inter-service coordination in acquiring weapons.

Despite the postwar drawdown, the Materiel Division-under the command of Col. Thurman H. Bane--developed some

Like top-ace Eddie Rickenbacker, shown here with his French Spad

13, all American combat pilots in the Great War had to fly Allied aircraft.

6 4
significant technical innovations as it began to evolve into an

arsenal-type organization. The Division even built some new

aircraft models. After 1923, however, money for such experiments became even scarcer. In recognition of the need to maintain an industrial base of private aircraft companies, Chief of

the Air Service Maj. Gen. Mason Patrick in 1925 restricted the

Engineering Division's design activities and prohibited it from

building experimental aircraft.

The U.S. Army Air Corps, which replaced the Air Service on

2 July 1926, united the Engineering Division with the Field

Service Section at nearby Wilbur Wright Field to form the Materiel Division on 15 October 1926. The new division, which

moved to Wright Field* when McCook Field closed in 1927, was

responsible for the Air Corps' acquisition functions. It included

the following six sections: (1) War Plans (responsible for industrial mobilization), (2) Experimental Engineering (research, development and testing), (3) Field Service (depot management),

(4) Repair and Maintenance, (5) Inspection, and (6) and Procurement (later Contracting), which had previously been controlled from Washington, D.C., by the Air Service's Supply

Division. Delegated great authority for all these functions, the

Materiel Division was represented in Washington by a liaison

office. It thereby practiced a form of "cradle to grave" management, although some of its authority began to migrate back to

the Office of the Chief of the Air Corps in Washington in the

late 1930s.

Despite some interesting work in its laboratories, the Materiel Division's R&D activities focused primarily on applied research. Most fundamental (i.e., basic) research during the

interwar years was, by law, the province of NACA and the National Bureau of Standards. With its limited resources, the Materiel Division initially concentrated on maintaining and

upgrading the Air Service's inventory of fewer than 1,000 serviceable aircraft and related equipment.

*To keep the Engineering Division in Dayton, as McCook Field became too

small, a group of local businessmen in 1924 purchased and donated to the Air

Service an area that encompassed Wilbur Wright Field, Huffinan Prairie, and

the Fairfield Supply Depot. The installation, which opened in 1927, was renamed Wright Field in honor of both Orville and Wilbur. In 1931 the eastern

portion was designated Patterson Field in honor of the leader of the purchase

campaign's son, who had died testing a DH-4 there during World War 1.

7
Col. Thurman H. Bane, Commander of the Engineering

Division after World War I, established the foundation for

the future technology complex at Wright-Patterson AFB,

Ohio.

The Materiel Division at Wright Field in the early 1930s.

8
Examples of Aircraft Procurement by the

Air Service and Air Corps

Liberty V-12 aircraft engines being produced by the DaytonWright Airplane Company in July 1918. (Note that women worked

in the aviation industry during World War I as well as World War

II.)

Curtiss JN-4 "Jenny" trainers, which the American aircraft industry was able to produce in quantity during World War I.

9
Martin MB-2 Bomber, one of 50 built by Curtiss Aircraft as part of an

Air Service program to divide orders among different manufacturers

during the postwar recession in the aircraft industry.

The all-metal Martin B-10 was the world's most advanced bomber

when first delivered in 1934 but became obsolete in only a few years.

10
As illustrated by the fabrication of this YB-17 cockpit, hand

crafting rather than mass production characterized the aircraft industry before World War II.

The legislation which created the Air Corps and earlier laws

enacted after World War I ordained a process of circulars and

sealed bids that were designed to encourage impartial competition among numerous small airplane companies existing in the

early 1920s. In 1926 Congress also authorized a special fiveyear aircraft procurement program, and after a one-year delay,

the Air Service embarked on a modest expansion in the late

1920s. The Great Depression, however, dried up appropriations

for the program in the early 1930s, and with commercial contracts scarce as well, only relatively small number of the hardiest manufactures survived.

Yet this was a time of great aeronautical progress when even

the latest models rapidly grew obsolete in the face of advances

such as streamlined all-metal monocoque fuselages, retractable

landing gear, turbocharged engines, variable pitch propellers,

and increasingly reliable navigation gear. As reflected by the

disastrous attempt to take over air mail operations in 1934, the

Air Corps in many ways had fallen technologically behind commercial aviation (not to mention the rapidly expanding air

power of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan). "At best the progression from idea to aircraft was a difficult journey. Numer11
ous barriers stood in the way. Provisions in the laws enacted after World War I to foster competition and prevent profiteering

resulted in rigid and inflexible procurement practices unsuited

to the realities of the aviation industry. The political forces of

isolationism and widespread distrust of "the merchants of

death" (i.e., the armaments companies), as well as Congressional frugality and Air Corps timidity, precluded an efficient

relationship with private industry and an effective buildup of

air power.

The acquisition process remained slow and deliberate. Socalled "design competitions" yielded unrealistic paper proposals

from inexperienced businesses. Meanwhile, the prospects of

only short-term fixed-price production contracts awarded to the

low-bidder in sealed-bid competitions deterred the more capable aircraft manufactures from risking loss of capital or even

bankruptcy to develop advanced aircraft. To obtain limited

numbers of new aircraft, the Materiel Division relied heavily on

small purchases of experimental aircraft, which it then ran

through exhaustive tests. Although seldom leading to production in quantity, these contracts and other arrangements

helped maintain a residual capacity for producing military aircraft. The Navy's Bureaus of Aeronautics and Ordnance also

helped advance aviation technology with projects that sometimes complemented and sometimes competed with those of the

Air Corps. In late 1938 the War Department began to reform

Air Corps acquisition procedures to provide more incentives for

aircraft manufactures to develop new aircraft. But this promising concept was soon overtaken by world events.

Consistent with Air Corps doctrine, a large share of its limited funds in the late 1930s went toward bombers, such as the

four-engine B-17 Flying Fortress, at the expense of advanced

pursuit aircraft comparable to those being produced in Europe.

Other available funds went toward observation aircraft, soon

proven an outmoded type. Nevertheless, a few competitive

American fighters, such as the P-38 Lightning and P-39 Airacobra, were being developed, and others began to enter design

and experimental stages. These would be ready for large-scale

production after the war began. Successful commercial aircraft,

such as the DC-3, would be easily adaptable for military use as

cargo and troop carriers to support a truly global conflict.

12
Meanwhile, British and French aircraft orders began to prime

the pump of the American aircraft industry.

The Arsenal of Democracy, 1939-1945

The United States during World War II became an industrial

giant of unprecedented proportions. When President Franklin

Roosevelt, in May 1940, boldly called for production of 50,000

aircraft per year, even the Air Corps was taken aback. In the

next five years, after having mobilized its industrial resources

for total war, the United States produced more than 300,000

military aircraft. Three quarters of these were acquired by the

U.S. Army Air Forces (AAF), which was established on 20 June

1941. The Chief of the AAF, General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold,

devoted much of his attention to the daunting challenge of

building the greatest air armada of all time. Adapting assembly

line procedures to the mass production of aircraft, the small

aviation companies of the 1930s grew into major corporations.

At the same time, the already mature automotive companies retooled to produce engines and some aircraft as well as legions of

trucks and tanks. At its peak in 1943, the American aircraft

industry employed more than 2.1 million men and women.

The AAF was part of a national structure for weapons development and procurement which also included Great Britain. At

the top, the War Production Board, created in January 1942

helped mobilize and allocate industrial resources.t Under this

powerful body, which included an Aircraft Production Board,

was the Joint Aircraft Committee. Comprised of British, U.S.

Navy, and AAF officials (including General Arnold), this committee decided overall aircraft production priorities as well as

ruling on standardization questions. As before the war, NACA

continued to serve as the "silent partner" of U.S. air power with

its research projects and technical expertise. Another high-level

*The largest aircraft manufacturers of World War II were (in order of numbers produced) North American, Consolidated, Douglas, Curtiss, Boeing,

Lockheed, Grumman, Republic, Eastern, Bell, Martin, Chance-Vought, Beech,

Ford, Fairchild, Cessna, Piper, and Goodyear-all of which had been in the

aircraft business before the war.

tThe War Production Board superceded the Office of Production Management, which the President in January 1941 superimposed on a National Defense Advisory Commission he had appointed in May 1940.

13
Lt. Gen. William S. Knudsen, formerly President of

General Motors Corp., who

became Director of Production in the War Department

in 1942 and served as the

Director of the Air Technical Service Command during 1944 and 1945.

z "~

The North American XP-51, developed originally for the Royal Air

Force, evolved into the most capable propeller-driven fighter of the

war.

14
When he took charge of the

B-29 project, Brig. Gen.

Kenneth B. Wolfe became

the first manager to be responsible for all aspects of

an aircraft acquisition pro- _.... gram.

Producing the Boeing B-29 Superfortress-the most complex aircraft

of World War II-presented unprecedented technical and management challenges.

15
government body, the National Defense Research Committee of

the Office of Scientific Research and Development (successor to

the National Research Council of World War I), worked directly

with private industry and universities on many key non-aeronautical projects of direct benefit to the AAF.

Internally, the Air Corps and then the AAF frequently reorganized to deal with their explosive growth from a close-knit

element of the small pre-war Army into the largest aerial force

of all time. With the outbreak of World War II in Europe, the

Air Corps moved the position of Chief of the Materiel Division

to Washington on 2 October 1939, with an assistant supervising activities at Wright Field. The Air Corps began expanding

rapidly, and the Materiel Division was superseded by two new

commands.

To manage logistics functions, the Air Corps Maintenance

Command was formed on 29 April 1941 at Patterson Field, located adjacent to Wright Field. This command, originally built

from the Materiel Division's Field Service Section, was replaced

on 17 October 1941 by the Air Service Command. In December

1941 it came directly under General Arnold. For exactly one

year, until 15 December 1942, the command's headquarters

were located in Washington, D.C., but thereafter returned to

Patterson Field.

To manage its procurement and related RDT&E functions,

the AAF made two changes on 16 March 1942. It redesignated

the growing office of the Chief of the Materiel Division in Washington as the Materiel Command, while redesignating subordinate elements at Wright Field as the Materiel Center. On 1

April 1943 Headquarters Materiel Command moved back to

Wright Field to be near the headquarters of the Air Service

Command, but it left behind the former commander and much

of his staff as the Assistant Chief of Air Staff for Materiel,

Maintenance, and Distribution.

The split between acquisition and logistics caused confusion

and duplication. So, on 17 July 1944, the AAF merged the two

commands into the AAF Air Technical Service Command,

headquartered at Patterson Field.* Once again the management of materiel functions were together, but on a much

*Wright and Patterson Fields were administratively merged in 1945 and

named Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB) in 1948.

16
greater scale than in 1939. Significantly, Lt. Gen. William S.

Knudsen, formerly president of General Motors (who had

served on the National Defense Advisory Commission and directed the Office of War Production), took charge of the new

command. To emphasize its business orientation, he used the

title of director rather than commanding general.

Much authority over acquisition matters remained in Washington. In addition to the close attention devoted to aircraft production by General Arnold, Under Secretary for War Robert P.

Patterson was legally vested with overall procurement responsibilities for the Army. As the war went on, however, he progressively delegated much of this authority to field commands

and their subordinate elements, retaining approval authority

only for contracts over $5 million. Robert A. Lovett, appointed

in early 1941 to fill the long vacant position of Assistant Secretary of War for Air, had no statutory procurement responsibilities, but he played an active role in handling aircraft

production issues within the War Department.

Under its evolving organizational structure and benefiting

from the work of outside agencies, the AAF tried to devise

streamlined acquisition practices to deal with speed and scope

of wartime aircraft development and production. Despite commissioning many officers with business experience in civilian

life, the AAF remained short of knowledgeable contracting and

engineering officers. Hiring and keeping experienced civil servants in competition with the higher salaries being offered by

private industry was also a continuing challenge.

With the large bureaucracy necessitated by the scope of the

aircraft procurement effort, finding a compromise between the

need for centralized control and coordination and the advantages of decentralized execution proved exceedingly difficult.

Attempts to reach out to small -businesses scattered across the

country also encountered many hurdles and contributed to production, delays. Yet despite administrative complications and

mountains of paperwork, the Materiel and Air Technical Service Commands eventually were able to achieve timely delivery

of planes and equipment.

Flexible contracting practices and allowing the aircraft companies themselves to perform accelerated RDT&E activities no

doubt helped expedite the acquisition process. In some cases,

the government entered into full-scale production contracts for

17
aircraft still on the drawing board. Provisions for negotiated

cost-plus fixed fee contracts, advance payments, contract

amendments, and construction of government-owned/contractor-operated facilities-all of which were authorized by legislation in mid-1940 and the War Powers Act of 1941-afforded

the required latitude and incentives. Peacetime thrift and

oversight were set aside to meet the needs for expansion. Until

the summer of 1944, AAF policy also called for freezing and

standardizing designs to keep assembly lines running smoothly, not for incorporating changes to correct deficiencies or improve performance of aircraft during production.

The emphasis on standardization and quantity over quality

greatly expedited production and simplified logistics, but it had

some less advantageous consequences when aircraft reached

the field. The need for modifications to correct design flaws and

improve effectiveness caused many problems. Others resulted

from the fact that airframes and their major components were

developed and produced separately, not as a total package.t

The various Army corps and technical services (e.g., Quartermaster, Ordnance, Chemical) were responsible for providing

supplies, consumables, general purpose vehicles, and support

equipment, as well as aircraft weapons and subsystems. These

included armaments, munitions, and (until the last year of the

war, when part of the Signal Corps was absorbed by the AAF)

communications and radar. Integration of these components

into increasingly sophisticated aircraft left much to be desired.

Operational suitability tests by the Air Proving Ground Command (formed at Eglin Field, Florida, in April 1942) revealed

many of the design and integration problems, but mainly after

production. The AAF relied on its depots, a network of special

modification centers, and even units in the field to make the extensive post-production modifications needed to improve performance and reliability. Only toward the end of the war did

*Unlike the cost plus percentage contracts of World War I, the fixed fee, set

at a maximum of seven percent, encouraged efficiency while still offering an

adequate profit margin.

tThe B-29 Superfortress-the most complex aircraft produced during the

war-became the first major aircraft to be managed in many ways as a comprehensive weapons system.

18
the "block" system of incorporating modifications to aircraft on

production lines become standard practice.

Postwar Demobilization and Deliberations,

1945-1950

Following the unconditional surrender of Japan in September 1945, the war-weary United States began another great demobilization. From wartime peaks of 2.5 million personnel and

80,000 aircraft, the AAF shrank to 730,000 personnel and

30,000 aircraft (many inactive) by mid-1947. The much reduced AAF continued, in some ways, the acquisition system of

the pre-war era. The Air Technical Service Command, which

became the Air Materiel Command (AMC) on 9 March 1946, remained the single manager of development, testing, procurement, and logistics.

After the United States Air Force (USAF) achieved its independence on 18 September 1947, the first Secretary of the Air

Force, W. Stuart Symington, in consultation with the Commander of AMC, Lt. Gen. Nathan F. Twining, centralized the

command's organization to perform three pair of core functions:

(1) research and development, (2) supply and maintenance, and

(3) procurement and industrial planning. With some exceptions, however, AMC devoted more attention to maintaining

and improving the most valuable assets inherited from World

War II rather than to developing a new generation of aircraft or

guided missiles. The combination of functions were reflected on

the new Air Staff at the Pentagon, where the Deputy Chief of

Staff (DCS) for Materiel oversaw everything from research and

development to maintenance and supply.

Although acknowledging the engineering and production

miracles of World War II, some Air Force leaders and independent experts were concerned by the AAF's relatively modest

record in achieving scientific and technical breakthroughs. Britain and Germany had deployed such revolutionary airpower innovations as radar, jet engines, swept wings, rockets, cruise

missiles, and ballistic missiles. Even the AAF's famous Norden

bombsight had been developed by the Navy. The greatest scientific achievement of the war-the Atom Bomb-would have

been impossible without the contributions of European physi19
Maj. Gen. Donald L. Putt was

an influential proponent of a

separate command for Research and Development.

-0

Air Materiel Command Headquarters at Wright Field after World

War H.

20
cists. In many areas of research, the practical tradition of

American science had been found wanting compared to the

more theoretical heritage of European science. With the end of

the war, however, the National Defense Research Council was

disbanded and research contracts with private industry canceled. The services themselves had to assume more R&D responsibilities. For its part, the AAF began to use universities

for basic research.

Air Materiel Command actively expanded its RDT&E mission in the late 1940s-exploiting equipment, records, and experts captured from Germany and leveraging limited funds to

work with private industry in developing many promising new

technologies. As a general rule, the new U.S. Air Force relied

more on contracting for R&D services than using its own personnel to the degree of the Navy or Army. In part, this reflected

the Air Force's lack of existing in-house expertise comparable to

that in the technical branches, arsenals, shipyards, and major

laboratories of the other services.

AMC did achieve some notable successes in its R&D mission-witness Capt. Chuck Yeager's X-1 breaking the sound

barrier in 1947. There was, however, a growing body of opinion

that the command's focus on the practical matters of logistics

management and building a supply system independent of the

Army left AMC unsuited to address the Air Force's pressing

need to harness science and technology for the future. Dr. Theodore von Karman and his AAF Scientific Advisory Group, under

the sponsorship of General Arnold, had highlighted this need in

their wide-ranging and influential multi-volume report, Toward

New Horizons, released in 1945. The creation in June 1946 of

the Scientific Advisory Board (which Dr. von Karman chaired

from 1948 through 1955) helped institutionalize a constituency

for R&D. This was further strengthened with the creation in

1948 of the nonprofit Rand Corporation (from an element of

Douglas Aircraft formed three years earlier).

Maj. Gen. Donald L. Putt, as Deputy Chief of AMC's Engineering Division and later as Director of R&D under the Air

Force DCS/Materiel, laid much of the groundwork for a separate R&D command. He astutely identified the enduring dichotomy between "technology-push" and "requirements-pull" in the

acquisition process when he observed "there are those in high

positions in the Air Force today who hold that research and de21
velopment must be kept under rigid control by 'requirements'

and 'military characteristics' promulgated by operational personnel who can only look into the past and ask for bigger and

better weapons of World War II vintage."4 In 1949 Gen. Hoyt S.

Vandenberg, CSAF, at the urging of the universally respected

James H. (Jimmy) Doolittle (Lt. Gen., USAF-Retired),* appointed a special committee of the Scientific Advisory Board

headed by Dr. Louis N. Ridenour. This group recommended the

Air Force establish a new Research and Development command

and approach R&D on a system basis, a viewpoint generally endorsed by another committee headed by Maj. Gen. Orvil Anderson at the Air University.

Separate R&D and Procurement Commands,

1950-1961

On 23 January 1950, after the long and sometimes heated

debate, the Air Force created the Research and Development

Command, with its headquarters initially at Wright-Patterson

AFB. It was constructed (after some foot dragging) from Air

Materiel Command's RDT&E elements and facilities. Renamed

the Air Research and Development Command (ARDC) on 16

September 1950, the new command moved its headquarters to

Baltimore, Maryland, in June 1951. Coinciding with the creation of ARDC, the Air Staff established a new DCS for Development, with directorates for R&D and Requirements. AMC,

which had been delegated contracting authority from the Secretary of the Air Force in 1950, retained responsibilities for procurement and logistics at its headquarters at Wright-Patterson.

As ARDC matured, the DCS/Development delegated much

decision-making authority to the new command, but remained

its main point of contact on the Air Staff. By 1953 the Office of

the Secretary of the Air Force's increasing involvement in the

*Before becoming a war hero, combat leader, and private sector executive,

Doolittle had achieved several aviation milestones as an engineer and test pilot at McCook and Wright Fields from 1918 to 1928, while earning the first

doctorate in aeronautical engineering awarded in the United States.

22
Laurence C. Craigie, godfather of

the weapon system concept, as a

major general.

The Boeing B-52 represented the first truly successful application of

the weapon system concept.

23
R&D mission was recognized by establishing a Special Assistant for Research and Development as part of the Secretariat.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense also expanded its R&D

role in June 1953 by creating the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, whose office absorbed the

functions of the National Research and Development Board.

Meanwhile, Soviet progress in developing atomic weapons,

the Communist invasion of South Korea, and the unabated

threat to Western Europe intensified the Cold War and accelerated an "arms race" between the two superpowers. As a result,

the Air Force's RDT&E budget grew rapidly, and with it, the

workload and size of ARDC. Much of its activities took place

quietly in laboratories, both its own and those of universities

and private companies. The most tangible evidence of ARDC's

developmental activities included many of the X-series of experimental aircraft, the "century" series of supersonic jet fighters, strategic bombers, and a growing inventory of guided

missiles. At first the Air Force as an institution was slow to acknowledge the revolutionary potential of ballistic missiles, but

by the mid-1950s, a new generation of more technologically astute officers began rising to leadership positions.

The increasingly complex and multifaceted nature of developing aircraft and missiles engendered the concept of a "weapons

system" encompassing a vehicle with its related airborne and

ground equipment, services, facilities, and trained personnel required for it to operate as an instrument of combat. Associated

with this concept was the goal of beginning production of the

airframe and its components as early as possible despite their

increasing sophistication and inter-relatedness. Lieutenant

Generals Laurence C. Craigie (a long-time advocate of science

and technology ) and Orval R. Cook formalized this in 1953

when they were the Air Force's DCS/Development and

DCS/Materiel respectively. Endorsed by a study group, it became known as the "Cook-Craigie plan." The concept of weap-

*Some of the most successful aircraft of the 1950s, however, were initiated

as private or largely private ventures. These included the C-130, KC-135, T38, and U-2.

ýAs Chief of the Materiel Center's Experimental Aircraft Section, Col.

Laurence "Bill" Craigie had become America's first military jet pilot in the

XP-59A at Muroc Field, California, on 2 October 1942.

24
ons system managenmnt was not possible until the Air Force

had become independent and self sufficient in various types of

support equipment and components and gained the expertise to

procure and maintain them. Despite attempts to coordinate activities from its earliest stages, development of the giant B-36

bomber in the mid-1940s highlighted the flaws of the traditional practice of procuring the airframe, engines, navigation

aids, fire control system, ground equipment, etc., from different

sources and then relying on the airframe manufacturer to fit

them together and make them function as a unit.

Although the B-47 medium bomber and F-102 interceptor

were two of the first aircraft to be ostensibly developed from

early on as weapon systems, management mistakes and technical obstacles resulted in both experiencing numerous delays,

modifications, cost overruns, and chronic performance deficiencies. With the B-52 heavy bomber, however, the Air Force applied weapon system management with more success. Using

Boeing as its prime contractor, the Air Force developed in one

integrated package what has become the world's longest serving combat aircraft.

Adoption of the weapon system concept corresponded closely

with the formation of a single dedicated field element to manage all aspects of the development and procurement of a specific system. First named in 1951 as a weapon system project

office (WSPO)-although sometimes referred to under an earlier name of joint project office (JPO)-this type of organization

had been endorsed by Cook-Craigie plan in 1953. The WSPO

could trace its roots to the B-29 bomber in 1942, when Brig.

Gen. Kenneth B. Wolfe had become the first program official to

exercise development, production, and deployment responsibilities. WSPOs pulled together members of ARDC, AMC, the operational command(s) who would use the system, Air Training

Command, and various other agencies involved in developing

and operating the system. WSPOs also maintained close liaison

with the contractors involved.

Even though the WSPO members worked together, usually

under one roof, the separation of development and procurement

into two MAJCOMs with parallel reporting channels and loyal-

*The B-47 nevertheless played an important role in the Cold War as a forward-based jet bomber well into the 1960s.

25
ties made the concept tricky to implement. It was highly dependent on the personalities involved to operate smoothly. Conflicts over who was in control were alleviated by beginning a

development program with the WSPO under overall direction of

ARDC and then transferring program management responsibility (referred to at the time as "executive responsibility") from

ARDC to AMC at the time of a production decision. The dual

chains of command inevitably generated friction, however. Disputes that could not be resolved between the two headquarters

had to be elevated to the Pentagon.

There, at Headquarters Air Force, both the Air Staff and the

Secretariat shared in acquisition matters. In the former, the

DCS/Logistics oversaw most AMC functions, while the DCS/Development did the same for ARDC. The strong-willed Trevor

Gardner, who had been the Secretary of the Air Force's Special

Assistant for Research and Development, became the first Assistant Secretary for R&D in 1955. AMC fell under the purview

of the Assistant Secretary for Materiel.

Building upon the Cooke-Craigie plan, the weapons system

approach also fostered the acquisition strategy of "concurrency"

in an attempt to deal with the increasing time required to field

more complex systems. By the mid-1950s, the services took on

high priority "crash" programs to deploy intermediate-range

and intercontinental ballistic missiles (IRBMs and ICBMs) as

rapidly as possible. Instead of following the deliberately paced

step-by-step process of research, development, testing, fixing,

retesting, evaluating, producing, and deploying weapons and

their major components, the Air Force condensed these steps

into a carefully orchestrated effort to overlap them as much as

possible. Concurrency was somewhat reminiscent of the

streamlined procurement of World War II, but the increased sophistication of the weapons being developed demanded much

more intensive planning and coordination. The need for preparations to field a weapon system and all its subsystems to overlap or take place simultaneously mandated a single focal point

to control the entire acquisition process.

After the Soviet test of a hydrogen bomb in 1953, ballistic

missile development began to become a national priority on the

scale of the Manhattan Project of World War II. Trevor Gardner championed special command arrangements for the Air

Force ICBM program, implemented in 1954, which cut across

26
the jurisdictional lines separating ARDC and AMC. Authority

flowed from the Secretaries of Defense and Air Force (both of

whom were advised by a special scientific committee) through

the CSAF (who had an Assistant Chief of Staff for Guided Missiles) and the ARDC commander to Brig. Gen. Bernard A.

Schriever-who had been appointed to manage the Atlas missile program on 5 May 1954. Dual-hatted in 1955 as ARDC

Deputy Commander for Ballistic Missile Programs and Commander of ARDC's Western Development Division (ancestor of

today's Space and Missile Systems Center) at Inglewood, California, General Schriever enjoyed unprecedented authority over

the Atlas and, starting in 1955, the parallel Titan ICBM program.

Bernard Schriever pioneered both the ultimate realization of

the WSPO concept-and the strategy of concurrency. He also pioneered the use of a special technical contractor for system engineering-the Ramo-Wooldridge Corporation-rather than

relying on the prime production contractor.t The Western Development Division moved near Los Angeles International Airport in 1955 and was renamed the Air Force Ballistic Missile

Division in 1957. It used subcontracting on a grand scale, and

AMC established a Special Aircraft Project Office (renamed the

Ballistic Missile Office in 1956) to support the ARDC Division.

The Air Force Ballistic Missile Division also managed the Thor

IRBM program and-of profound significance to future American intelligence capabilities-the WS-117L reconnaissance satellite program.

Taking advantage of its privileged management arrangements, the Ballistic Missile Division enjoyed funding priority

after the wake-up call of Sputnik in October 1957. In a crash effort to close the perceived "missile gap," it employed concur-

*In a very different organizational and political environment, the Navy's

Hyman Rickover, dual-hatted as chief of the Nuclear Power Division in the

Bureau of Ships and head of the Atomic Energy Commission's naval reactors

program, supervised development of the nuclear powered submarine Nautilus, launched in 1954. His continued authority over nuclear submarine development for the next two decades went far beyond that of any other program

executive in modern American military history.

tRamo-Wooldridge later combined with Thompson Products to form the

TRW Corporation, which in 1960 spun off the nonprofit Aerospace Corporation to perform space system engineering for the Air Force.

27
Brig. Gen. Bernard A. Schriever (above left) pioneered the weapon

systems management concept in developing the Air Force's first generation of ballistic missiles. These included the Douglas Thor missile

(above right) being tested at Cape Canaveral in 1958, Convair Atlas

Missile (below left) being launched by an operational crew at Vandenberg AFB circa 1959, and Martin Titan I (below right) being tested at

Cape Canaveral in 1960. General Schriever later became the first

commander of Air Force Systems Command.

28
rency to develop and deploy the new U.S. missiles and their

subsystems, launch sites, support equipment, and crews-all at

the same time. Although this effort-which entailed the largest

construction project of its time-led to cost overruns, extensive

modifications, and unrealistic training, it truly achieved the

goal of giving the United States a ballistic missile deterrent as

soon as possible. The Strategic Air Command (SAC) and Royal

Air Force reached operational status with a Thor IRBM squadron at RAF Feltwell in June 1959. SAC achieved an initial

ICBM operational capability in September 1959 when its first

Atlas Squadron went on alert at Vandenberg AFB, California.

The first squadron of the more capable Titan became operational at Lowry AFB, Colorado, in April 1962. By the Cuban

Missile Crisis in October 1962, the first ten solid-fuel Minuteman ICBMs came on alert at Malmstrom AFB, Montana.

The speedy deployment of ballistic missiles served as a model

to ARDC and its allies for expanding the systems approach to

management of aircraft and other acquisition programs. The

AMC leadership, by and large, remained suspicious of delegating too much authority to program offices. In general, ARDC

felt AMC hampered development through its control of funds,

while AMC thought the R&D process extended too far into the

production phase. Despite their differences, both commands cooperated as needed in the late 1950s to fend off creation of any

weapons systems coordination office at Headquarters Air Force.

As with missiles, they designated parallel field organizations to

improve interface on other acquisition programs. AMC's Aeronautical Systems Center and ARDC's Wright Air Development

Center (later Division) worked together on aircraft development

at Wright-Patterson, while AMC's Electronic Systems Center

and ARDC's Command and Control Development Division at

Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts, dealt with communications,

command, and control (C3) systems. In early 1958 Headquarters ARDC itself moved from Baltimore to Andrews AFB, Maryland, even closer to Washington, D.C.

Outside the Air Force, three organizations of great future significance to its own R&D aspirations were born in 1958. In February, the Secretary of Defense created the Advanced Research

Projects Agency (ARPA). Although initially focusing on space

programs and anti-missile defenses, ARPA received a broad

charter to encourage innovative, long-term technologies. In Au29
gust the Defense Reorganization Act created the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) with the potential to

oversee the services' R&D programs. In October 1958-one year

after Sputnik-the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was created on the existing framework of

NACA to operate the nation's new civilian space program. Although primarily absorbing the Army's space and missile organizations (along with the legendary Wernher von Braun),

NASA drew upon some Air Force resources as well.

Within the Air Force, the concurrency philosophy and the expectation that conventional combat operations were less relevant in the nuclear age led to a streamlining of the sequential

test and evaluation process. T&E had been divided into seven

phases in 1951 and expanded to eight in 1956. The last two

phases were conducted by the Air Proving Ground Command

and operational units. With encouragement from ARDC, the

Air Force in 1957 abolished the Air Proving Ground Command

to save money and to help expedite production decisions without the need first to complete operational testing. Then, in

1958, the Air Force replaced the eight-phase testing process

with a three-category system: Category I by the contractor,

Category II by an ARDC test center, and Category III (after

production began) by the using command.

In May 1959, after numerous earlier studies, Headquarters

Air Force formed the Weapons Systems Management Study

Group to take a new look at the acquisition cycle and concurrency. The group included Gen. Samuel E. Anderson, who had

been promoted from commander of ARDC to that of AMC in

March 1959, as chairman, as well as his new replacement at

ARDC, General Schriever. Unable to agree on a single solution,

the group presented the options of re-combining the two commands, transferring procurement authority to ARDC, or making other less sweeping adjustments. In June 1960 Gen.

Thomas D. White, CSAF, vetoed the first two options, and the

Group then reached a compromise on better defining authority

at each stage of the acquisition cycle. The procedures were implemented by a new series of regulations, one of which

strengthened the WSPO and renamed it the System Program

Office (SPO). The dropping of the word "weapon" also recognized the growing importance of C3, surveillance, and other

technologies that supported war fighting. The friction between

30
ARDC and AMC continued, however. General Schriever, who

recognized what today would be called the different "cultures"

of the two commands, continued to seek procurement authority

for ARDC.

The Ascendancy of Systems Command, 1961-

1986

The Kennedy administration, with Robert S. McNamara as

Secretary of Defense, brought more emphasis on the nation's

space programs. This presented the Air Force another chance to

realign its procurement responsibilities as part of a broader

roles and missions adjustment. In March 1961 the Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric made Secretary of the

Air Force Eugene M. Zuckert an offer the Air Force could not

refuse-responsibility for the military space program-if it reformed its acquisition structure to accommodate this mission.

Headquarters Air Force almost immediately adopted General

Schriever's previously rejected position. Effective 1 April 1961,

ARDC expanded into a new Air Force Systems Command

(AFSC), gaining its long-sought authority for procurement.

AMC, which was redesignated Air Force Logistics Command,

(AFLC), transferred its three systems centers and numerous

contract management offices to AFSC. The ARDC Research Division, which focused on basic research, was transferred to

Headquarters Air Force as the Office of Aerospace Research.

On 1 July 1962, Headquarters Air Force combined its DCSs

for Materiel and Development into a new DCS for Systems and

Logistics with the intention of providing integrated acquisition

and support guidance to both commands. For designated acquisition programs, managers in the field were to use "redline"

procedures to report directly to system offices in the Pentagon

for decisions by a Systems Review Board (much as General

Schriever had done with the Atlas and Titan). The Air Staff

also formed a new DCS for Research and Technology to focus on

basic and applied research that was not part of a specific system.

General Schriever, who would lead AFSC through August

1966, promptly reorganized his new command to take on procurement and contracting responsibilities. He expanded the

31
weapon system approach and otherwise institutionalized the

principles he had employed in the ballistic missile programs.

Under the new AFSC-AFLC relationship, the SPO was responsible for program management well into production. At a mutually-agreed time after deployment, a program management

responsibility transfer (PMRT) between an AFSC product division and an AFLC logistics center would occur. Most of the

SPOs fell under one of these product divisions, which included

Aeronautical Systems Division at Wright-Patterson AFB, Armament Division at Eglin AFB, Electronic Systems Division at

Hanscom AFB, Space Systems Division at Los Angeles Air

Force Station, Ballistic Missile Division at Norton AFB, California, and Aerospace Medical Division at Brooks AFB, Texas.

(The new Air Force Communications Service, formed on 1

January 1962, later assumed management of non-tactical communications and computer systems.) Other AFSC divisions performed special roles. The Contract Management Division in Los

Angles oversaw production at contractors' plants, the Foreign

Technology Division at Wright-Patterson AFB analyzed threat

systems, and the Research and Technology Division, first located at Bolling AFB, D.C., managed many of AFSC's laboratories.

By 1963 the "redline" management technique, which had

worked well for a few top priority programs, had been found

wanting when used routinely. The type of information provided

by SPOs to the system offices in the Pentagon dealt with individual problems and limited data, not the total program analyses needed to make major decisions on resource allocation and

priorities. To provide the detailed information and evaluations

required, the number and types of reviews multiplied, as did

the layers of management oversight within AFSC and Headquarters Air Force. At the top was the Office of the Secretary of

Defense (OSD) and its new requirements for cost effectiveness

data and disciplined programming and budget schedules. To

provide a more transparent interface with the field, the DCSs

for Systems and Logistics and the DCS for Research and Development were realigned to parallel the functions of AFLC and

AFSC respectively.

Although AFSC, in one sense, owed its existence to Robert

McNamara, the secretary's management philosophy put heavy

demands on the new command. In addition to the programming

32
and budgeting system featuring five-year defense plans and rigorous use of models and cost-benefit analyses in all decisions,

McNamara introduced revolutionary contracting methods and a

total package procurement concept. This concept gave wide programmatic responsibilities to prime contractors to both develop

and produce systems---offering greater rewards but presenting

greater risks. The scope of the programs made cost predictions

difficult and led to unrealistic bids. Another characteristic of

the new concept was a proliferation of detailed proposals, studies, and paper competitions, followed up by reports, audits, program reviews, and other oversight tools. All of these requirements focused power in OSD, including a more powerful

DDR&E. To interface with OSD, Headquarters Air Force had to

establish parallel management structures which, for example,

increased the importance of program element monitors (PEMs).

Secretary McNamara also sought to improve standardization

and inter-operability while reducing duplication and unneeded

competition among the services. Other goals included improving conventional warfare capabilities to support the Kennedy

AFSC Headquarters building at Andrews AFB in the early 1960s.

33
Administration's new defense policy of flexible response. Although OSD brought many beneficial reforms, consistencies,

and cost savings, its total package procurement concept and desire for commonality led to some embarrassments in weapons

development. Most notable was the attempt to develop the Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX)-which became the F-111-

as a multi-purpose aircraft for both the Air Force and the Navy.

With the giant C-5A transport, the total package procurement

concept inspired an unrealistically low bid and thereafter limited the ability of AFSC and its SPO to correct the cost overrun

problem.

Meanwhile, AFSC had to turn much of its attention from developing new systems to modifying existing ones to meet requirements of the war in Southeast Asia. The Century series of

nuclear strike and interceptor aircraft proved less than desirable for conventional combat, and the Air Force had to adapt

the Navy's A-1 Skyraider, A-7 Corsair, and F-4 Phantom II for

its own uses. Successful AFSC innovations included gunships,

sensors, drones, electronic jamming pods, and precision-guided

weapons. AFSC also filled the gap created by NASA's de-emphasis on aeronautics in favor of space technology by conducting a wide variety of applied research on high-performance

flight. Problems encountered in Vietnam, however, led to a perception affecting all the services that many sophisticated weapons did not perform as advertised. Some were unreliable and

difficult to maintain in the heat and humidity; others proved

too difficult for the average soldier or airman to employ in real

combat. In a sample of 22 weapon systems deployed to Southeast Asia from 1965-1970, DoD studies found all but one had

suffered major deficiencies in the field.

In view of such analyses, cost overruns, congressional concerns, and unfavorable media attention, the new Nixon administration began another round of acquisition reforms in 1969.

Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard (co-founder of

Hewlett-Packard) led these efforts. New policies included detailed selected acquisition reports to Congress, more realistic

cost estimates, more precisely defined operational requirements, technical risk analyses, less concurrency in favor of sequential schedules, a return to the practice of building

prototypes, and-for aircraft--competitive "fly-offs" between

contractors. Packard also established the Defense Systems Ac34
quisition Review Council (DSARC), forerunner of today's Defense Acquisition Board (DAB), to review program status and

recommend milestone decisions to the Secretary after each

phase of a major program from concept definition through development to production. While further standardizing OSD review and decision-making, the Under Secretary's reforms also

called for giving program managers more tenure and broader

authority. In retrospect, the need for centralized program reviews and oversight seems inherently at odds with the goal of

decentralizing program management.

In July 1970 the report of President Nixon's Blue Ribbon Defense Panel endorsed many of these steps and called for some

others, such as the establishment of independent operational

test and evaluation (OT&E) organizations to help ensure that

complex weapon systems really worked in the field. In 1971 Mr.

Packard introduced the requirement to supplement development test and evaluation (DT&E) with an initial operational

test and evaluation (IOT&E) before production, which was

mandated by Congress later in the year. Many institutions

within the Air Force, especially Systems Command, opposed

creation of a separate operational test agency. But after more

pressure from outside the Air Force, CSAF Gen. George S.

Brown (formerly the AFSC Commander) ordered formation in

1974 of the Air Force Test and Evaluation Center (renamed the

Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center or AFOTEC

in 1983).

In other areas, Headquarters Air Force and AFSC enthusiastically embraced steps to adapt acquisition management practices to the Packard initiatives as the command developed new

weapons that would serve the Air Force well in the decades to

come. With the new F-15 air superiority fighter, for example,

AFSC emphasized field management with the appointment of a

general officer as SPO director in 1969. By year's end the Air

Staff had shifted PEMs for the F-15, C-5A, Minuteman, and

Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) to Headquarters AFSC. Lt. Gen. James T. Stewart, Commander of Aeronautical Systems Division from 1970-1976, was especially

influential in modernizing the USAF inventory for the post-Vietnam era with a new generation of aircraft.

The 1970s brought administrative changes, such as a comprehensive series of formal program reviews, to keep AFSC and

35
Selected Fighter Aircraft of the

1960s and 1970s

ii '

The General Dynamics F-111A, which originated as part of the controversial TFX program, eventually became a highly capable longrange strike aircraft.

The Navy-developed McDonnell Douglas Phantom H, as adapted for the Air Force as the F-4C,

became the workhorse of the war in Southeast

Asia and the cornerstone of USAF tactical capabilities through the 1970s.

36
McDonnell Douglas F-15A test aircraft over Edwards AFB in the

early 1970s.

The General Dynamics YF-16 was developed for the Lightweight

Fighter Demonstration/Validation, a very successful prototype program of the mid-1970s. It led to the F-16 Fighting Falcon, which

equips the air forces of 18 nations.

37
Air Force headquarters, OSD, and Congress informed of major

programs while still allowing delegation of authority. Meanwhile, Packard's "fly before buy" philosophy was put into practice with competitive prototype and demonstration/validation

projects, such as the Lightweight Fighter (YF-16 and YF-17),

A-X Close Air Support (A-9 and A-10), and short take-off

transport (YC-14 and YC-15) programs. Highly complex programs with far-reaching new capabilities, such as the E-3

AWACS, were marked by thorough DT&E and OT&E. At the

same time, AFSC became increasingly involved in special access required (SAR) or "black" programs, which included lowobservable technologies fostered by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and sophisticated reconnaissance programs under the aegis of the Intelligence Community.

The philosophies expounded by Under Secretary Packard

continued to gain momentum even after he left OSD in 1971. In

1976 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released

two circulars (A-102 and A-109). Citing poor cost-estimating

techniques, threat analysis, and need statements as well as

program instability and excessive technological risk-taking,

OMB called for stating objectives in terms of missions, not

equipment, emphasizing contractor competition from the start,

keeping Congress informed of the relationship between specific

programs and overall DoD needs, drawing clear lines of authority and accountability, and improving the status of program

managers. In response, OSD strengthened the DSARC review

process, and the Air Force established an Air Force Systems Acquisition Review Council (AFSARC) to conduct internal reviews. Headquarters AFSC, in turn, implemented numerous

panels and other management tools to keep track of program

progress, control costs, and encourage competition among contractors.

At the same time, Air Force Logistics Command launched a

new examination of how to deal with the discontinuity inherent

in the program management responsibility transfer (PMRT).

One result was the creation at Air Staff direction of the Acquisition Logistics Division at Wright-Patterson in 1976. Its mission was to serve as a watchdog over AFSC product divisions to

ensure that reliability, maintainability, and supportability

were built into weapon systems. AFLC and AFSC also devised

several mechanisms and conducted comprehensive reviews to

38
The Rockwell B-1B, shown here over Edwards AFB in the

early 1980s, illustrated the risks of concurrent development, production, and testing.

provide more timely and smoother PMRTs, but certain disconnects remained. In 1979 Headquarters Air Force chartered a

study team which recommended further refinements of the

process, but it left AFLC convinced that only close and continuous attention to each program by the two commands and their

field units could alleviate the problems inherent in the hand-off

of responsibility.

Although the administration of President Jimmy Carter initially canceled some major acquisition programs, such as the

B-1 bomber, it generally continued on the same path as the

Ford administration in regards to acquisition policies. Recognizing an intensification of the Cold War, the Carter administration began to increase defense funding in its last two years.

The administration of President Ronald Reagan, who had

promised an accelerated defense buildup during the 1980 campaign, then brought a new round of changes in the acquisition

process. In early 1981, Deputy Secretary of Defense Frank C.

Carlucci launched a program of 32 acquisition-related initiatives. Among these, he fostered decentralization to the services

(e.g., by doubling the dollar thresholds for programs requiring

DSARC reviews), encouraged the tailoring of management

practices to suit specific programs, and encouraged multi-year

39
procurement, budgeting flexibility, and pre-planned product

improvement. AFSC adopted and adapted a vast majority of

the Carlucci initiatives.

The problems with the reliability, maintainability, and supportability of ever more complex new systems that were addressed in the Carlucci initiatives also highlighted the

continued split in responsibilities in the Air Force between acquisition and logistics. To cement the Acquisition Logistics Division's relationship with Systems Command elements, AFSC

and AFLC agreed in 1983 to replace the division with a dualmanned Air Force Acquisition Logistics Center, which became a

special operating agency of Headquarters Air Force on 1 July

1984. In hindsight, this reuniting of the two commands at

Wright-Patterson was a harbinger of more sweeping changes to

come in the next several years.

Reform, Streamlining, and Centralization,

1986-1996

The Reagan defense buildup reached its peak during the

command of Gen. Lawrence A. Skantze, who led AFSC from

1984-1987. The command's projects encompassed numerous

major programs, more of them than ever hidden in the "black

world" of special access programs. Those conducted in the open

came under ever closer public scrutiny, especially in the late

1980s. Many major new Air Force systems-whether aircraft,

missiles, satellites, or command and control equipment-relied

increasingly on computer hardware and software for both performance and maintenance diagnostics. This was especially

true for electronic warfare, avionics, and command and control

capabilities. Numerous unanticipated problems were encountered, especially during subsystems integration. In some cases,

most publicly for the Air Force with the resurrected B-1B

bomber, such problems provided fodder for critics of the acquisition management process. By the mid and late 1980s, evidence

of waste and corruption-most infamously those identified by

the "Ill-Wind" investigation of extortion, bribery, and kickbacks

involving some contractors, consultants, and DoD (mostly

Navy) officials-further wounded the credibility of the acquisition system.

40
The 1980s brought the apex of the Congressional Military

Reform Caucus, a bipartisan coalition of senators and representatives supported by the General Accounting Office (GAO)

and various analysts and pundits. The tenets generally shared

by caucus members included a distrust of concurrent development, testing, and production. Many also expressed a belief

that DoD should decrease its reliance on small quantities of expensive "high tech" airborne systems in favor of larger numbers

of simple, single-mission aircraft reminiscent of those used in

World War II. The Caucus exerted considerable influence on

the acquisition process prior to Operation Desert Storm in

1991, when the remarkable performance and reliability of a

host of sophisticated aerospace systems proved certain assumptions regarding the disadvantages of technology expounded by

some of the more vocal members of the Caucus had been seriously flawed.

Pressures for reform in the late 1980s also came from other

directions. Once again, David Packard was the most influential,

this time as chairman of President Reagan's Blue Ribbon

Commission on Defense Management. Formed in 1985, the

Packard Commission released its final report in June 1986.

Among a host of recommendations, it called for DoD to "establish unambiguous authority for overall acquisition policy, clear

accountability for acquisition execution, and plain lines of command for those with program management responsibilities."

The Commission called for a streamlined structure consisting of

a Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE) who would act like the

chief executive officer of a major corporation, Service Acquisition Executives (SAEs) to perform as CEOs of principal corporate subsidiaries, Program Executive Officers (PEOs) to

manage a select number of related major programs, and program managers (PMs) who would report directly and exclusively to their respective PEO.*

The second major influence was the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. Although best

known for strengthening the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff and the unified commands, it also contained provisions intended to encourage civilian control and trim duplicative func-

*This streamlined reporting chain is reminiscent of the "redline" technique

attempted by the Air Force in the early 1960s. See above pages 31-32.

41
tions within the service headquarters by eliminating military

acquisition staffs and consolidating this function as part of the

service secretariats.

Even before the Packard Commission's final report, President Reagan began to implement its interim recommendations

by issuing National Security Decision Directive 219 on 1 April

1986. This established an Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition) to set policy for and oversee program management

through the new SAEs and a number of high-level committees

with interlocking membership. The most influential of these became the DAB (which replaced the DSARC),* the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and the Defense Planning and

Resources Board. Each of the military departments, in turn,

was to appoint service acquisition executives to interface with

the new Under Secretary (often referred to as the "Acquisition

Czar"). On 18 February 1987, Secretary of the Air Force Edward C. Aldridge informed the Secretary of Defense that most

of the staff of the DCS/Research, Development, and Acquisition

(AF/RD) would be combined with that of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Research, Development, and Acquisition)

(SAF/AL) to form the office of the new Assistant Secretary of

the Air Force (Acquisition) (SAF/AQ). Daniel S. Rak was named

to fill the new position on a temporary basis on 7 April 1987,

but the amalgamation of the two offices did not take place until

a few months after John J. Welch was appointed as the Air

Force's acquisition executive on 28 October 1987. The last

holder of the AF/RD position, Lt. Gen. Bernard P. Randolph,

soon went on to command AFSC, where he would have to deal

with the Packard Commission recommendations for streamlining acquisition commands in the field.

At first the Air Force attempted to graft the new PEO idea on

the existing framework of Air Force Systems Command by appointing the commanders of the product centers as PEOs, with

the Commander of AFSC serving as the PEO for major systems

that cut across product divisions. General Randolph also reduced the command's overhead, both at the headquarters and

in the field, where, for example, he abolished the Contract Man-

*DAB members include the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, the

Vice Chairman of the JCS, the three service acquisition executives, and various OSD civilian officials.

42
agement Division. Pressure for a more fundamental overhaul

continued, however, and the compromise PEO arrangement did

not long endure. The Air Force formally established a separate

PEO structure in the Pentagon on 15 February 1990. Organized as a direct reporting unit of SAF/AQ, it included six individual PEOs assigned the following families of systems: (1)

strategic, (2) tactical strike, (3) tactical airlift, (4) space, (5)

command, control, and communications, and (6) information

support. On the same date AFSC transferred management responsibilities for 37 major programs to these PEOs. The product center commanders were re-titled as designated acquisition

commanders (DACs) and left with management of lesser programs.

The new PEO structure broke the military chain of command

that had run from the CSAF through the Commander of AFSC

and the product division/center commanders to the individual

SPOs and their program managers (PMs). It also cut away

much of System Command's core mission. AFSC was left

mainly with continued management of smaller programs, supporting (but no longer managing) the SPOs who reported to

PEOs, and operating RDT&E facilities and laboratories. These

changes left in doubt AFSC's viability as a separate MAJCOM.

To study the feasibility of merging AFSC and AFLC into a

hypothetical "AFXX," Lt. Gen. Charles C. McDonald, the Air

Force DCS/Logistics, and Lt. Gen. John M. Loh, Commander of

AFSC's Aeronautical Systems Division, co-chaired a panel in

the summer of 1989. The study distinguished among common,

similar, and unique functions performed by each command and

the potential savings in merging the first two types of functions. It also looked at two potential models for AFXX: one

based on the product division commanders serving as the program executive officers, the other assuming PEOs would be independent of the product divisions and have their own staffs.

Both models had their advantages and disadvantages, but the

group concluded that the second model adhered more closely to

the spirit and intent of acquisition reform efforts. Any merger,

however, would present the threat of major disruptions to the

existing acquisition and logistics systems, which were already

being significantly streamlined.

With talk of merger as a backdrop, the leadership of AFSC

and AFLC fought what became a rear guard action to preserve

43
the integrity of their commands. As stated by the AFLC Commander, Gen. Alfred G. Hansen, "my concern is that we will

take an efficient logistics structure and destroy it to fix an acquisition function that really needs only fine tuning.5

" His

counterpart at AFSC, General Randolph, felt much the same.

He trimmed the size of his headquarters, abolished redundant

field organizations, and relinquished traditional program management responsibilities to the newly emerging PEO structure.

The two commanders' sincere efforts to downsize-and promises of more to come--convinced Gen. Larry D. Welch, CSAF, to

set aside a preliminary determination in August 1989 to merge

their two MAJCOMs.

This proved to be only a stay of execution. In the fall of 1989

the OSD followed up on the original Defense Management Review by beginning to issue a series of DMR Decisions (DMRDs),

some of which were unfavorable for the Air Force keeping separate acquisition and logistics commands. DMRD 943, which in

November 1990 proposed disestablishing AFSC and combining

the remaining staff with AFLC, was the most obvious. Secretary of the Air Force Donald B. Rice soon made the decision

that the time was ripe for their integration, but he allowed the

two commands to determine how best to do it.

General McDonald and Gen. Ronald W. Yates (who had replaced General Randolph) and key members of their staffs

quickly began to work on this mammoth and sensitive task. In

an attempt to counter the appearance of returning to the past,

they and the Secretary chose a new name-Air Force Materiel

Command (AFMC)-and characterized the merger as a double

liquidation, forming a new corporation from the assets of the

dissolved companies. The new command's headquarters would

replace that of AFLC at Wright-Patterson AFB but would incorporate as many personnel from Andrews AFB as possible.

Recognizing the deep-seated cultural differences between the

two commands, the leadership emphasized the need to forge a

new partnership. The effort began in earnest after announcement of the decision on 10 January 1991 and accelerated

after the establishment of a provisional AFMC headquarters at

Wright-Patterson on 15 April 1991. This entity served as a

planning element and then nucleus for a permanent, integrated

headquarters. Much of the complicated melding process was

completed on 1 July 1992, when Headquarters AFLC and

44
Gen. Ronald W. Yates,

last commander of AFSC

and first commander of

AFMC.

Entrance to the Air Force Materiel Command Headquarters building,

which had previously served as headquarters for Air Force Logistics

Command and Air Materiel Command.

45
AFSC were officially replaced by Headquarters AFMC under

the command of General Yates. AFMC also absorbed the acquisition functions of Air Force Communications Command

(AFCC), which was reduced to a field operating agency (FOA) of

the Air Staff.

In addition to the organizational and procedural changes set

in motion by the Packard Commission, the entire acquisition

career field was also revamped. A DMRD on 12 June 1989 had

directed the services to correct deficiencies in the training and

development of personnel involved in acquisition by devising

plans for a dedicated corps of officers to serve as acquisition

specialists. SAF/AQ and AFSC enhanced existing Air Force programs for both officers and career civilians. In 1990 Congress

passed the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act,

which created new formal standards for the services to manage

their acquisition professionals. Among these were specific education, training, and experience requirements-with more

stringent standards at the higher grades. Balancing opportunities for operational experience in the field with the new requirement for professional acquisition specialists represented a

considerable personnel management challenge.

In June 1991 OSD distributed a comprehensive and inter-related new directive, instruction, and manual (all in the "5000"

series of DoD publications) to govern the entire acquisition

process. Replacing some 65 acquisition-related publications, the

The Lockheed YF-22, winner of the Advanced Tactical

Fighter Competition of the early 1990s.

46
new guidelines standardized practices, correlated the acquisition management system with requirements definition and the

planning, programming, and budgeting system, and emphasized timely documentation. Based mainly on program cost, the

new directive defined four acquisition categories (ACATs) to

more clearly differentiate the degree of oversight required. Program phases and intervening reviews ("milestones") were renamed and realigned, with six phases in the life cycle of a

system identified as (1) mission need determination, (2) concept

exploration and definition, (3) demonstration and validation, (4)

engineering and manufacturing development, (5) production

and deployment, and (6) operations and support. In mid-1991

Deputy Secretary of Defense Donald J. Atwood took additional

steps to centralize acquisition authority in the OSD and provide

even closer supervision over the services.

The SAF/AQ organization continued to develop in response to

both DoD policies and changes in the Air Force. The end of the

traditional dichotomy between strategic and tactical operations,

which prompted the replacement of the war-fighting elements

of the Strategic and Tactical Air Commands by Air Combat

Command in 1992, led to the realignment of the PEOs. Strategic Systems became Fighter, C2 , and Weapons Programs; Tactical Systems became Combat Systems; and the word strategic

was dropped from Strategic, Special Operations Forces, and

Airlift. By mid-1996, there were eight PEOs: Fighters & Bombers; Weapons; Airlift and Trainers; C3; Battle Management;

Joint Logistics Systems, Space; and Joint Advanced Strike

Technology. Above the PEOs, SAF/AQ designated four mission

area directors (MADs): Global Power; Global Reach; Information Dominance; and Space and Nuclear Deterrence.

The first half of the 1990s brought numerous refinements in

the acquisition procedures and fine tuning of various management tools and techniques. Continued reductions in R&D and

procurement funding made further downsizing of the acquisition workforce inescapable. Acquisition leaders continued the

quest for more efficient management, such as reducing over-

*Authorized Air Force acquisition manpower dropped from 28,997 in 1992

to 22,586 in 1995, with a further reduction of 30 percent projected through

2001.

47
head, cutting paperwork, deleting many military specifications,

sharing components among the services, and using commercial

purchasing practices. These goals complemented those of Vice

President Albert Gore's National Performance Review. Both

Secretary of Defense William J. Perry and Undersecretary of

Defense (Acquisition and Technology) Paul G. Kaminsky had

been heavily involved with the stealth systems initiated in the

1970s and favored much of the streamlined management used

for special access programs. Other key tenets of DoD acquisition reform were to view industry as a partner, not an adversary, and to consider the cost of systems as an independent

variable rather than an outcome of the acquisition process.

Tragedy struck the Air Force AQ community on 25 April

1995 when Clark G. Fiester, who had served as the Assistant

Secretary for only one year, died in a C-21 crash in Alabama.

Deputy Assistant Secretary Darleen Druyun acted as the Air

Force acquisition executive for the next nine months. She

pushed steps to further streamline the acquisition process

wherever possible, issuing a series of reform measures known

as "Lightning Bolt" initiatives.* Mr. Arthur L. Money, who became the new Assistant Secretary after being confirmed on 29

January 1996, carried on the push toward "faster, better, and

cheaper" acquisition programs.

In the field, a hallmark of the new Air Force Materiel Command was the concept of integrated weapons system management (IWSM). With one command in charge of research,

development, DT&E, acquisition, and logistics, it could appoint

a single manager for each system and do away with the need

for a PMRT. Although complicated to implement, the goal was

simple: to establish seamless SPOs that would be responsible

*The eleven Lightning Bolt initiatives in brief: (1) centrally scrub all major

requests for proposal; (2) create a standing acquisition strategy panel; (3) develop a new SPO manpower standard based on SAR programs; (4) cancel all

AFMC center acquisition policies; (5) "reinvent" the AFSARC process using

IPTs; (6) improve the consideration of past performance in making source selections; (7) consolidate documents required for milestone decisions into a single acquisition management plan; (8) incorporate acquisition reform into the

PEO and DAC portfolios; (9) enhance workforce training and education; (10)

cut contract award time in half; and (11) adopt business processes in laboratories.

48
for the wide range of activities needed to manage assigned systems and equipment "from cradle to grave." AFMC implemented the concept gradually, assigning candidate programs to

SPOs at either product centers or logistics centers depending on

their maturity and other characteristics. The expansion and refinement of the IWSM system toward meeting the principle of

life-cycle management continued well into the mid-1990s.

Under General Yates, the command accentuated the Total

Quality Management (TQM) approach begun by General Randolph in AFSC and later adopted Air Force-wide. It also sought

to deal with programmed and anticipated personnel cuts

through reengineering its processes and organizations. At the

program level, the command adopted the use of integrated

product teams (IPTs) and other innovations developed by managers such as Lt. Gen. James A. Fain, who supervised various

acquisition programs (including the Advanced Tactical Fighter)

at Aeronautical Systems Center from 1981 to 1992 and then

served as the Center's commander from 1992 to 1994. Trends

toward out-sourcing were reinforced by the decisions of the

Base Realignment and Closure Commission in 1995 to shut

down the Sacramento and San Antonio Air Logistics Centers

and the Clinton administration's subsequent goal to "privatize"

them in place. To lead AFMC toward meeting these changes

and other challenges, Gen. Henry Viccellio Jr. assumed command on 30 June 1995.

With the cancellation of many acquisition programs after the

end of the Cold War and the ever-escalating unit costs of the

stretched out programs that remained, the life cycles of weapon

systems continued to lengthen. By the mid-1990s, the Air

Force had only three new major advanced aircraft programs in

production or development: the B-2 stealth bomber, the C-17

transport, and the F-22 air superiority fighter. To upgrade the

capabilities of aircraft already in the inventory and extend

their service lives, existing models, such as the F-15 and F-16

underwent continuous modifications. RDT&E efforts no longer

focused so much on aircraft themselves as on their avionics and

weapons. Many of the new systems still being developed were

unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), precision-guided munitions

(PGMs), and command, control, communications, and computer

(C4) systems to exploit the force multiplier of information warfare, including space-based systems. Exemplifying these new

49
programs is the E-8 Joint Surveillance and Attack Radar System (J-STARS), which provides the Air Force and Army with a

picture of the battlefield, much as the E-3 AWACS had revolutionized command and control of air operations. The only new

tactical combat aircraft on the horizon is the stealthy, multimission joint strike fighter, an interservice program emphasizing affordability and versatility. The acquisition and logistics

communities thus face the twin challenges of keeping old systems viable while fostering new technologies appropriate for

the 21st century.

For the past eight decades the Air Force and its predecessors

have striven to organize and manage the acquisition of weapons systems as effectively as possible. The chosen structures

and processes reflected the technologies, politics, economics,

world events, and prevailing corporate culture of the times. Occasionally old patterns reasserted themselves in new forms; at

other times, true innovations emerged. If history is a guide, the

acquisition management journey will continue to both retrace

old paths and blaze new trails in the years ahead.

50
"APPENDIX

KEY ACQUISITION ORGANIZATIONS AND LEADERS

Organization/Location Commander MonthlYear

Air Service, U.S. Army (May 1918)

Bureau of Aircraft Production

Washington, D.C. John D. Ryan May-Nov 1918

Airplane Engineering Division

McCook Field, Ohio Lt. Col. Jesse G. Vincent Aug-Nov 1918

Col. Thurman H. Banet Nov 1918-Jan 1919

Technical Division

McCook Field, Ohio Col. Thurman H. Bane Jan-Mar 1919

Engineering Division

McCook Field, Ohio Col. Thurman H. Bane Mar 1919-Jan 1923

Maj. L. W. McIntosh Jan 1923-Jul 1924

Maj. John F. Curry Jul 1924-Oct 1926

Air Corps, U.S. Army (July 1926)

Materiel Division

McCook Field, Ohio Brig. Gen. William E. Gillmore Oct 1926-Jun 1929

Wright Field, Ohio (March 1927) Brig. Gen. Benjamin D. Foulois Jul 1929-Jun 1930

Brig. Gen. Henry C. Pratt Jul 1930-Mar 1935

Brig. Gen. Augustine W. Robins Apr 1935-Feb 1939

Brig. Gen. George H. Brett Feb 1939-Oct 1940

Washington, D.C. (October 1939)

Brig. Gen. Carl A. Spaatz Oct-Nov 1940

Brig. Gen. Oliver P. Echols Dec 1940-Nov 1942

U.S. Army Air Forces (June 1941)

Materiel Command

Washington, D.C. Maj. Gen. Oliver P. Echols Mar 1942-Mar 1943

Wright Field, Ohio (April 1943) Maj. Gen. Charles E. Branshaw Apr 1943-May 1944

Maj. Gen. Bennett E. Meyers (Actg) Jun-Jul1944

Brig. Gen. Kenneth B. Wolfe Jul-Aug 1944

* Appointed as Director of Air Service and Second Assistant Secretary of War in August 1918.

t Began as chief of both the Airplane Engineering Division and the Technical Section of the Division of Military Aeronautics. Also served as Commandant of the Air Service Engineering School,

which began its first formal class in November 1919.

51
KEY ACQUISITION ORGANIZATIONS AND LEADERS

OrganizationfLocation Commander Month/Year

Assistant Chief of Air Staff, Materiel, Maintenance, and Distribution

Washington, D.C. (March 1943) Maj. Gen. Oliver P. Echols Mar 1943-Jul 1944

Assistant Chief of Air Staff, Materiel and Services

Washington, D.C. (July 1944) Maj. Gen. Oliver P. Echols Jul 1944-Apr 1945

Maj. Gen. E. M. Powers Apr 1945-Oct 1947

Air Technical Service Command

Patterson Field, Ohio Lt. Gen. William S. Knudsen Sep 1944-Apr 1945

(September 1944) Maj. Gen. Hugh J. Knerr Jun-Dec 1945

Lt. Gen. Nathan F. Twining Dec 1945-Mar 1946

Air Materiel Command

Patterson Field, Ohio (March 1946) Lt. Gen. Nathan F. Twining Mar 1946-Oct 1947

U.S. Air Force (September 1947)

Major Commands

Air Materiel Command

Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio Gen. Joseph T. McNarney Oct 1947-Aug 1949

Gen. Benjamin W. Chidlaw Sep 1949-Aug 1951

Gen. Edwin W. Rawlings Aug 1951-Feb 1959

Gen. Samuel E. Anderson Mar 1959-Mar 1961

Air Research and Development Command

Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio Maj. Gen. David M. Schlatter Feb 1950-Jun 1951

(January 1950)

Baltimore, Md (June 1951) Lt. Gen. Earle E. Partridge Jun 1951-Jun 1953

Lt. Gen. Donald L. Putt Jun 1953-Apr 1954

Lt. Gen. Thomas S. Power Apr 1954-Jun 1957

Andrews AFB, Md (January 1958) Lt. Gen. Samuel E. Anderson Aug 1957-Mar 1959

Maj. Gen. John W. Sessums Jr. Mar-Apr 1959

Lt. Gen. Bernard A. Schriever Apr 1959-Apr 1961

*Wright and Patterson Fields were renamed Wright-Patterson AFB in January 1948.

52
KEY ACQUISITION ORGANIZATIONS AND LEADERS

Organization/Location Commander Month/Year

Air Force Systems Command

Andrews AFB, Md (April 1961) Gen. Bernard A. Schriever Apr 1961-Aug 1966

Gen. James Ferguson Sep 1966-Aug 1970

Gen. George S. Brown Sep 1970-Jul 1973

Gen. Samuel C. Phillips Aug 1973-Aug 1975

Gen. William J. Evans Sep 1975-Jul 1977

Gen. Lew Allen Jr. Aug 1977-Mar 1978

Gen. Alton D. Slay Mar 1978-Feb 1981

Gen. Robert T. Marsh Feb 1981-Aug 1984

Gen. Lawrence A. Skantze Aug 1984-Jul 1987

Gen. Bernard P. Randolph Jul 1987-Apr 1990

Gen. Ronald W. Yates Apr 1990-Jul 1992

Air Force Materiel Command

Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio Gen. Ronald W. Yates Jul 1992-Jul 1995

(July 1992) Gen. Henry Viccellio Jr. Jul1995-

Headquarters USAF, Air Staff

Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS), Materiel

Lt. Gen. Howard A. Craig Oct 1947-Sep 1949

Maj. Gen. Kenneth B. Wolfe Sep 1949-Jun 1951

Lt. Gen. Orval R. Cook Jul 1951-Mar 1954

Lt. Gen. Bryant L. Boatner Apr 1954-Apr 1955

Lt. Gen. Clarence S. Irvine Apr 1955-Apr 1959

Lt. Gen. Mark E. Bradley Jun 1959-Jun 1961

DCS, Systems and Logistics

Lt. Gen. Mark E. Bradley Jul 1961-Jun 1962

Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Gerrity Jul1962-Jul 1967

Lt. Gen. Robert G. Ruegg Aug 1967-Jul 1969

Lt. Gen. Harry E. Goldsworthy Aug 1969-Dec 1972

Lt. Gen. William W. Snavely Jan 1973-Aug 1975

Lt. Gen. Robert E. Hails Sep 1975-Jun 1977

Lt. Gen. Thomas M. Ryan Jr. Jul-Sep 1977

Lt. Gen. John R. Kelly Jr. Oct 1977-Jun 1978

DCS, Logistics and Engineering

Lt. Gen. John R. Kelly Jr. Jun 1978-Apr 1979

Lt. Gen. Billy M. Minter May 1979-Jun 1982

Lt. Gen. Richard E. Merkling Jul 1982-Jul 1983

53
KEY ACQUISITION ORGANIZATIONS AND LEADERS

Organization/location Commander Month/Year

DCS, Logistics and Engineering, cont'd.

Lt. Gen. Leo Marquez Aug 1983-Jul 1987

Lt. Gen. Charles C. McDonald Aug 1987-Oct 1989

Lt. Gen. Henry Viccellio Jr. Oct 1989-Feb 1991

DCS, Development

Maj. Gen. Gordon P. Saville Jan 1950-May 1951

Maj. Gen. Donald L. Putt (Actg) Jun-Nov 1951

Lt. Gen. Laurence C. Craigie Nov 1951-Apr 1954

Lt. Gen. Donald L. Putt Apr 1954-Jun 1958

Lt. Gen. Roscoe C. Wilson Jul 1958-Jun 1961

DCS, Research and Technology

Lt. Gen. Roscoe C. Wilson Jul-Nov 1961

Lt. Gen. James L. Ferguson Dec 1961-Jan 1963

DCS, Research and Development

It. Gen. James L. Ferguson Feb 1963-Aug 1966

Lt. Gen. Joseph R. Holzapple Sep 1966-Jan 1969

Lt. Gen. Marvin L. McNickle Feb 1969-Jan 1970

Lt. Gen. Otto J. Glasser Feb 1970-Jun 1973

Lt. Gen. William J. Evans Aug 1973-Aug 1975

Lt. Gen. Alton D. Slay Sep 1975-Mar 1978

Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford Apr-Jun 1978

DCS, Research, Development, and Acquisition

Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford Jun 1978-Oct 1979

Lt. Gen. Kelly H. Burke Nov 1979-Jul 1982

Lt. Gen. Lawrence A. Skantze Aug 1982-Oct 1983

Lt. Gen. Robert D. Russ Oct 1983-May 1985

It. Gen. Bernard P. Randolph May 1985-Mar 1987t

Headquarters USAF, Secretariat

Assistant Secretary (Materiel)

Roswell L. Gilpatric May-Oct 1951

Edwin V. Huggins Jan 1952-Feb 1953

Roger Lewis Apr 1953-Sep 1955

From October 1953 to June 1955, the DCS/Development reported to the DCS Materiel.

t Most DCSIRD&A functions transferred to the new Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition).

54
KEY ACQUISITION ORGANIZATIONS AND LEADERS

OrganizationlLocation Commander Month/Year

Assistant Secretary (Materiel), cont'd.

Dudley C. Sharp Oct 1955-Jan 1959

Philip B. Taylor Apr 1959-Feb 1961*

Joseph S. Imirie Apr 1961-Oct 1963

Robert H. Charles Nov 1963-Feb 1964

Special Assistant for Research and Development

William A. M. Burden Sep 1950-Jun 1952

Trevor Gardner Feb 1953-Feb 1955

Assistant Secretary (Research and Development)

Trevor Gardner Mar 1955-Feb 1956

Richard E. Homer Jul 1957-May 1959

Joseph V. Charyk Jun 1959-Jan 1960

Courtland D. Perkins Feb 1960-Jan 1961

Brockway McMillan Jun 1961-Jun 1963

Alexander H. Flax Jul 1963-Mar 1969

Grant L. Hansen Mar 1969-May 1973

Joe C. Jones (Actg) Jun-Sep 1973

Walter B. LaBerge Sep 1973-Mar 1976

John J. Martin Mar 1976-May 1977

Assistant Secretary (Research, Development, and Logistics)

John J. Martin May 1977-May 1979

Robert J. Hermann Jul 1979-Aug 1981

Alton G. Keel Aug 1981-Sep 1982

Martin F. Chen (Actg) Sep 1982-Jan 1983

Thomas E. Cooper Jan 1983-Apr 1987

Assistant Secretary (Acquisition) Daniel S. Rak (Actg) Apr-Oct 1987

John J. Welch Jr. Oct 1987-Apr 1992

G. Kim Wincup May-Dec 1992

Darlene A. Druyun (Actg) Jan 1993-May 1994

Clark G. Rester May 1994-Apr 1995

Darlene A. Druyun (Actg) Apr 1995-Jan 1996

Arthur L Money Feb 1996-

*With transfer of procurement responsibilities from Air Materiel Command to the new Air Force

Systems Command in April 1961, most acquisition-related matters migrated to the Assistant Secretary (R&D).

55
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS

AAF Army Air Forces

ACAT Acquisition Category

AFB Air Force Base

AFLC Air Force Logistics Command

AFMC Air Force Materiel Command

AF/RD DCS, Research, Development, and Acquisition

(office symbol)

AFSARC Air Force Systems Acquisition Review Council

AFCC Air Force Communications Command

AFOTEC Air Force Operational Test and Evanuation

AFSC Air Force Systems Command

AL Assistant SAF, Research, Development, and

Acquisition (office symbol)

AMC Air Materiel Command

AQ Assistant SAF for Acquisition (office symbol)

ARDC Air Research and Development Command

ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency

AWACS Airborne Warning and Control System

C2 Command and Control

C3 Command, Control, and Communications

C4 Command, Control, Communications, and

Computers

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CSAF Chief of Staff, Air Force

DAB Defense Acquisition Board

DAC Designated Acquisition Commander

DAE Defense Acquisition Executive

DCS Deputy Chief of Staff

DDR&E Director of Defense Research and Engineering

DMR Defense Management Review

DMRD DMR Decision

DSARC Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council

DT&E Development Test and Evaluation

FOA Field Operating Agency

GAO General Accounting Office

ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

IOT&E Initial Operational Test and Evaluation

IPT Integrated Product Team

IRBM Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile

56
IWSM Integrated Weapon Systems Management

JPO Joint Program Office

MAD Mission Area Director

MAJCOM Major Command

NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

OT&E Operational Test and Evaluation

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PEM Program Element Monitor

PEO Program Executive Officer

PM Program Manager

PMRT Program Management Responsibility Transfer

R&D Research and Development

RDT&E Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

SAC Strategic Air Command

SAE Service Acquisition Executive

SAF Secretary of the Air Force

SAR Special Access Required

SPO System Program Office

TAC Tactical Air Command

TQM Total Quality Management

WSPO Weapon System Project Office

57
Selected Bibliography

Air Force Regulations (AFRs): AFR 70-9, Procurement and Contracting, 12

November 1953-30 April 1971; AFR 80-14, Test and Evaluation, 11 September 1951-3 November 1986; AFR 80-15, Research and Development,

1 October 1951-16 February 1986; AFR 375-1, System Management:

Weapon/Support Systems Management, 31 August 1960, 23 January

1961, 12 February 1962, 25 November 1963, 6 March 1970; AFR 800-2,

Program Management, 27 July 1971.

Air Force Flight Test Center History Office. Ad Explorata: The Evolution of

Flight Testing at Edwards Air Force Base. Edwards AFB, California:

AFFTC/HO, 1996.

Benson, Lawrence R. History of Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation

(OT&E): Mission, Organization, and Policy. Kirtland AFB, New Mexico:

Directorate of Research Services, Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center, 1992.

Carlin, H. P. Building a New Foundation: Plans and Preparations for Establishing the Air Force Materiel Command. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio:

Office of the Command Historian, Air Force Materiel Command, 1992.

Cornelisse, Diana G. Building Air Power Supremacy: Wright Field During

World War H. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: History Office, Aeronautical

Systems Center, 1995.

Correll, John T. "A Choice of Roads to Procurement Reform," Air Force Magazine, August 1989, pages 26-29.

Craven, Wesley F. and James L. Cate, eds. The Army Air Forces in World War

II, Vol. 6, Men and Planes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955;

reprinted by Office of Air Force History, 1983.

Follis, Col. Beverly S. Air Force Materiel Command: A Legacy in Military

Aviation Logistics and R&D. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: Office of the

Command Historian, Air Force Materiel Command, 1993.

Futrell, Robert Frank. Ideas, Concepts, and Doctrine: Basic Thinking in the

United States Air Force, Vol 1, 1907-1960, Vol 2, 1961-1984. Maxwell

AFB, Alabama: Air University Press, 1989.

Goldberg, Alfred (ed.). A History of the United States Air Force, 1907-1957.

Princeton New Jersey: Van Norstrand (for the Air Force Association),

1957.

Gom, Michael H. Vulcan's Forge: The Making of an Air Force Command for

Weapons Acquisition. Andrews AFB, Maryland: Office of History, Air

Force Systems Command, 1989.

Greer, Peter. "Another Run at the Acquisition Process," Air Force Magazine,

June 1993, pages 48-52.

Hallion, Richard P. "Girding for War: Perspectives on Research, Development,

Acquisition, and the Decisionmaking Environment of the 1980s," Air

University Review, Vol. 37, September-October 1986, pages 46-62.

58
Hanley, Timothy C. and Harry N. Waldron. Historical Overview: Space &

Missile Systems Center, 1954-1995. Los Angeles AFB, California: SMC

History Office, 1996.

Head, William. Every Inch a Soldier: Augustine Warner Robins and the Building of U.S. Airpower. College Station: Texas A&M Press, 1995.

Headquarters USAF History Branch. Headquarters USAF Succession of

Statutory Appointees and Principal Leaders, September 1947-Present.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Air Force History, January 1990.

Holley, I. B. Jr. Buying Aircraft: Materiel Procurement for the Army Air

Forces. Special Studies, United States Army in World War II. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 1964.

___ Ideas and Weapons: Exploitation of the Aerial Weapon by the

United States During World War I; A Study in the Relationship of Technological Advance, Military Doctrine, and the Development of Weapons.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Air Force History, 1983; Originally printed

by Yale University Press, 1953.

Knaack, Marcelle S. Encyclopedia of U.S. Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems, Vol. 1, Post World War II Fighters, 1945-1973, Vol. 2, Post World

War II Bombers. Washington, D.C.: Office of Air Force History, 1986.

Neufeld, Jacob. Ballistic Missiles in the United States Air Force, 1945-1960.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Air Force History, 1990.

_ (ed.) Research and Development in the United States Air Force.

Washington, D.C.: Center for Air Force History, 1993.

. Organizational Charts: Headquarters USAF, 1947-Present (Air

Force Pamphlet 210-5) Office of the Secretary of the Air Force (AFP 210-

6), 1985, 1989.

Ravenstein, Charles A. The Organization and Lineage of the United States Air

Force. Washington, D.C.: Office of Air Force History, 1986.

Romesburg, Lt. Col. Laura N. Visions of the Past: The Evolution of Aeronautical Development at the Aeronautical Systems Center. Wright-Patterson

AFB, Ohio: ASC History Office, 1995.

Sturm, Thomas A. The USAF Scientific Advisory Board: Its First Twenty

Years, 1944-1964. Washington, D.C.: USAF Historical Liaison Division,

1967, reprinted by the Office of Air Force History, 1986.

Termena, Bernard J., Layne B. Peiffer, and H. P. Carlin. Logistics: An Illustrated History of AFLC and Its Antecedents, 1921-1981. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: Office of History, Air Force Logistics Command, n.d.

Walker, Lois E. and Shelby E. Wickam. From Huffman Prairie to the Moon:

The History of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office (for Office of History), 2750th Air Base Wing,

ca. 1986.

59
Young, James 0. "Riding England's Coattails: the U.S. Army Air Forces and

the Turbojet Revolution." Unpublished Manuscript, Air Force Flight

Test Center History Office, 1995.

Notes to Quoted Sources

1. I. B. Holley, Buying Aircraft, page 4.

2. I. B. Holley, Ideas and Weapons, page 19.

3. I. B. Holley, Buying Aircraft, page 109.

4. As quoted by Robert F. Futrell in Ideas, Concepts, and Doctrine, Vol I,

p. 276.

5. As quoted by H. P. Carlin in Building a New Foundation, p. 28.

Photographic Sources

The pictures used in this booklet are from USAF photographs provided

courtesy of the Aeronautical Systems Center, Air Force Flight Test Center,

and Air Force Materiel Command History Offices, and the Air Force History

Support Office.

60

*US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFlCLE 1997 -417-353/3320=