Aerospace File ENDI 2011
115/116 Your User Name
Aerospace Good-Bad - ENDI 2011
UNIQUENESS
***UNIQ – US Aero low 2
US Aero low - declining 2
US Aero low – challenges ahead 4
China ahead 6
China leading aerospace now 7
***UNIQ – US AERO HIGH 8
US lead locked in 9
US AEROSPACE BAD
***AIR POWER 9
Shell - Air Power Bad 10
AP bad – heg, china, prolif 12
AP bad – makes conflicts more likely 13
AP bad – increases casualties 14
AP bad – needs other forces 15
AP bad – humanitarian crisis 17
A2 – air power deters 18
A2 – air power key to heg 19
A2 – air power checks NK – inevitable 20
AP – guaranteed now 21
***A2 ECON 21
Aero strong & no IL to overall econ 22
Aero strong now 23
Gov’t involve bad for Econ 24
***ENVIRONMENT 24
Shell – Env’t 25
Aviation --> Climate Change 26
Aviation --> Env’t Harm 27
Aviation --> Emissions 28
Air Pollution Mpx 30
Air Quality Improving 31
***JAPAN-EU 31
Shell – JA/EU 32
UNIQ – Japan Aero growing 33
Relations Zero-Sum 34
US decline --> EU/JA 35
Trade key to EU/JA relations 37
EU/JA good – EU Leadership 38
EU good – everything 39
EU/JA good - econ 41
EU/JA good – competitiveness 42
EU/JA good – warming 43
EU/JA good - democracy 45
EU/JA good – Prolif 46
EU/JA good – terror 47
***NANOTECH 47
Shell-Nanotech 48
Aerospace drive Nano 49
Nano --> grey Goo 50
Nano Bad – Grey Goo 52
Nano Bad - extinction 53
Nano inevitable 54
US AEROSPACE GOOD
***US AEROSPACE GENERICS 54
Heg 55
Laundry List 57
***AIR POWER 57
Shell – Air Power Good 58
Aero key to Air Power 60
AP good – heg 62
AP good – deterrence 64
AP good – solves instability 66
AP good – force multiplier 67
AP good – irregular warfare 68
AP good – terror 69
AP good – NK aggression 70
AP good – misc 72
***ECONOMY 73
Econ IL – multiplier 74
Econ IL – large industry 75
Econ IL – jobs 76
Econ IL – aero competitiveness 77
Econ IL – trade relations 78
Econ IL – trade 79
Econ IL - manufacturing 80
***ENVIRONMENT 80
Cleaner environment 81
developing clean tech 82
Monitors warming 84
Europe sovles the mpx 85
A2 Air Pollution Mpx 86
Air Quality Improving 88
***A2 JAPAN-EU 88
Trade not key to EU/JA 89
JA Aero u/m US power 90
US-JA bad now 91
Alt Cause – debt 92
***NANOTECH 92
Shell-Nanotech 93
Aerospace drive Nano 94
US nano leadership good 95
Nano Good – Heg 96
Nano Good - industry 97
Nano Good – checks Chinese 98
A2 Grey Goo 99
Nano inevitable 100
RANDOM CARDS ON RANDOM THINGS
***MISCELLANEOUS 100
Econ turns Aerospace 101
US Aero solves US/JA trade 102
US/JA bad – china 103
US/JA good – laundry list 104
Strong lobby --> Space Weaponization 106
Strong lobby --> Deficit 107
A2 Chinese transfer 108
Gov’t Axn hurts military tranformation 109
No Tech Transfer 110
People in space --> aerospace 111
IT good 112
China Aerospace Bad 113
Heg Impact 114
***UNIQ – US Aero low
US Aero low - declining
The US aerospace industry is failing – it’s at historic lows
Christopher E. Kinne, United States Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, 11 [Air Force Journal of Logistics, “Preserving the Indus: Is the United States Air Force Responsible?”, http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-101122-031.pdf /Ghosh]
In highlighting its concern about the future preeminence of the US aerospace industry, the commission observed: “The US aerospace industry has consolidated to a handful of players— what was once more than 70 suppliers in 1980 is down to 5 prime contractors today. Only one US commercial prime aircraft manufacturer remains. Not all of these surviving companies are in strong business health.”14 The commission also noted: “New entrants to the industry have dropped precipitously to historical lows...[and] the industry is confronted with a graying workforce in science, engineering, and manufacturing...[and] the US K-12 education system [is failing] to properly equip US students with the math, science, and technological skills needed to advance the US aerospace industry.”15
Aerospace industry declining now: talent, terrorism, management.
GAO 6 [United States Government Accountability Office; “U.S. AEROSPACE
INDUSTRY…”; September 2006; http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06920.pdf; Boyce]
Despite the economic importance of the aerospace industry, many challenges face both government and private industry in maintaining the industry’s health. First, the current approach to managing air transportation is becoming increasingly inefficient and operationally obsolete. The government will be faced with transforming the U.S. air traffic management system to accommodate expected increases in demand while ensuring the continued safety and security of the flying public. Second, given the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has had to reevaluate whether existing arms export-control policies support national security and foreign policy goals. Finally, the U.S. aerospace workforce is aging and a significant percentage of the aerospace workforce will be eligible to retire by 2008. Therefore, the industry must attract, train, and retain new workers with the engineering, science, and technical capabilities it needs. But recent trends show declines in the future supply of such workers. For example, the Commission highlighted that the number of doctorate degrees awarded annually in engineering had declined by 15 percent from the mid 1990s.
US Aero low – challenges ahead
The Aerospace industry is facing challenges – investment invigorates the industry
Materna 11[ Dr. Robert Materna, Professor of Business Administration and Director of the Center for Aviation and Aerospace Leadership at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, “The Power of Vision in the Aviation & Aerospace Industry” March 3 2011 http://thecaalblog.com/aviation-and-aerospace-leadership/the-power-of-vision-in-the-aviation-aerospace-industry.html]
It is clear that the past decade has been a challenge for most of the U.S. aviation and aerospace industry. 9/11, the financial crisis, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the global recession and current geopolitical situation have created an environment that makes it difficult to plan and execute traditional business strategies. Commercial aviation has struggled, general aviation has been devastated, the space program is in turmoil, and the future of military aviation is unclear. But despite these challenges, many aviation and aerospace executives remain optimistic about the industry and America’s role in the future. To illustrate, last week the Center for Aviation and Aerospace Leadership held its 2nd Aviation and Aerospace Manufacturing Summit in Orlando, Florida. The list of speakers was phenomenal and included the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force; the Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services, U.S. Department of Commerce; the President and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association; the President of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association; the Acting Director of the Commercial Spaceflight program at NASA; the editor of Aviation Week & Space Technology, and many other dignitaries. Although each speaker had a different message a common theme emerged: despite the turmoil of the past ten years, both government and industry leaders are optimistic about the future of aviation and aerospace in America. This does not necessarily mean that the industry will return to where it was in the past because the industry itself is changing. New competitors are emerging, manufacturing technologies are evolving, supply chains are getting more complex, offsets are expected, the workforce is aging, exchange rates are more dynamic and, at least for now, capital is still elusive for small to medium manufacturers. Exactly what must be done will vary by sector, but It is clear that vision and leadership are, perhaps, more important than ever. It is also clear that leverage is important and that the envelope for success will be expanded if the government, industry and academia work together to seek solutions to our most challenging problems. As stated in a February 21st editorial in Aviation Week, the aerospace and defense industry is more than just a collection of companies. It is a major contributor to our economy and a pillar of national defense. Hence, market forces alone may be not be sufficient to move us from where we are to where we need to be. In situations like this, what is often needed is a vision that can be shared, which is greater than what can be achieved by parties working alone. A single example may help. The aging workforce is a major threat to the viability of the U.S. aerospace industry. It is also difficult for industry to solve this problem alone. But by working together, the industry and government raised our awareness of this issue and are now working with high schools, colleges and universities to create and deliver programs to meet the demand. The threat is real and the challenge is enormous, but by working together to create a shared vision for the future, the solution became obvious and the problem will be overcome. To summarize, in my opinion, the challenges facing the U.S. aviation and aerospace industry are tremendous, but the opportunities may be greater than they have ever been before. This is the theme that we heard at the Summit. It was a message of hope and perseverance – and a vision for the future that can sustain our role in the industry for years to come.
Aerospace industry has problems ahead.
UPI 6-8 [United Press International, newswire service; “Problems ahead for aerospace industries”; 6/8/2011; http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/06/08/Problems-ahead-for-aerospace-industries/UPI-29641307557417/; Boyce]
NEW YORK, June 8 (UPI) -- Analysts say worldwide aerospace and defense industries in the next few years will face unprecedented pressures. In the civilian sector, these include an anticipated 25 percent increase in commercial-aircraft orders for deliveries by 2014, while the defense sector worldwide is facing declining budgets. Global business-advisory firm AlixPartners highlighted the problems in a recently issued study. AlixPartners Managing Director and co-leader of the firm's Global Aerospace and Defense Practice David Fitzpatrick said: "While bruised, the aerospace and defense industry emerged from the economic downturn in better shape than most industries, due largely to increased demand in the defense sector, plus some petty vigilant cost-cutting overall. "However, the industry now faces the 'big squeeze' -- the contradictory challenge of quickly ramping up production for expected growth in the commercial sector coupled with the need to address expected cuts and therefore a sharpened focus on affordability in the defense sector. And those squeezed the most will be the supply chain."
Challenges coming now – U.S. will need to get ahead in aerospace some other way.
Beene 1 [Jeffrey K. Beene, Vice Commander, 552nd Air Control Wing, USAF; “CONSTRAINTS, RESTRAINTS, AND THE ROLE OF AEROSPACE POWER IN THE 21ST CENTURY”; INSS Occasional Paper 38 Aerospace Issues and Planning Series April 2001; http://www.usafa.edu/df/inss/OCP/ocp38.pdf; Boyce]
This study examines aerospace power (e.g., the use of aircraft, spacecraft, and information in the air and/or space medium to project military power in order to create political and military effects) employment in the emerging 21st century strategic environment and evaluates how its capabilities can best be used in tightly restrained conflicts. Now, perhaps more than ever before, it is important for airmen (e.g., any military or military-related practitioner of aerospace power employment) to understand how best to employ aerospace power in pursuit of national objectives. The reason is found in the magnitude of the potential dilemma. While the United States (US) and its military stand on the verge of coming to grips with the incredible potential of aerospace power and the technological means to employ it, the military may be limited from using it in preferred ways and from achieving its fullest potential only in the most extreme cases. The emerging strategic environment will become more complex with increasing challenges to US national security below the vital interest level. This environment will consist of new threats, new actors, with forces increasingly joined by military allies and agencies outside the military—domestic and foreign. In most of these environments if the US responds militarily it will be limited. Restraints (e.g., political and/or military choices affecting employment of the military instrument short of physical or legal limits that might otherwise be considered achievable, allowable, or acceptable) will be imposed—largely as a function of the conflict’s relation to national interests. As a result, the increasing complexities involved in application of the instruments of national power (i.e., political, economic, military, and informational) to achieve national/coalition objectives are such that, as a minimum, these instruments must be better integrated in the future to have a reasonable chance of achieving a desired end state. The US military will need to be increasingly able to provide national leadership with sound military strategies developed—within tight political controls—while operating more effectively with allies and non-military agencies from both within the US and outside. Aerospace power will continue to develop as a potent element of military power; capabilities will overcome many current and foreseen constraints (e.g., the physical and moral limits on the application of the military instrument), and aerospace power will increasingly be viewed as the military instrument of first (and possibly only) choice among world democracies. Therefore, the US military, and principally the Air Force, must be able to execute decisive operations across the spectrum of conflict. Future conflicts requiring the use of military power, while increasing in technological aspects, are likely to be more about application of sound strategy and operational art than maximizing operational effectiveness or employing new capabilities. Technological advances will provide increasing means for aerospace power to overcome constraints—most notably weather—providing attractive lethal and non-lethal means to achieve goals. However, it is difficult to understand if aerospace power, singly or predominantly, can achieve desired objectives in the face of increased restraints that, at best, reduce efficiency and, at worst, preclude its effectiveness. Warfare will remain an art form, not a science. Therefore, strategy provides more hope for a panacea than does technology. This creates a strategy imperative in the face of rapidly changing technology, tactics, and restraints. The same level and intensity with which the Air Force pursues tactical expertise must be pursued at the operational level. This means the airman has got to be able to know what kind of war it is the US has to fight, whether or not the US can fight it, or whether the conflict at hand requires resolution by other means. ALLIED FORCE demonstrated that the US military has not thought through all “how’s,” especially when a military component other than the land force functions as the supported commander for the operation at hand.
Challenges coming for the U.S. aerospace industry
ITA 11 [Office of Transportation and Machinery International Trade Administration U.S. Department of Commerce, Flight Plan 2011 Analysis of the U.S. Aerospace Industry March 2011; http://trade.gov/wcm/groups/internet/@trade/@mas/@man/@aai/documents/web_content/aero_rpt_flight_plan_2011.pdf; Boyce]