2017 Issue

73 The Allied Bombing Campaign in Europe during WWII proved this concept. By D-Day, the German Army was seriously crippled and had little depth to resist the Allied invasion. How was this doctrine of modern air warfare implemented? State-of-the-art all-metal bombers rolled off of assembly lines from the US mainland to be flown to the fight in Europe. Logistics to keep the aircraft maintained and available were combined with tactics to use these ma- chines as a total system flying in formation protecting each other with the guns bristling from every side. Bombsights, radar, radios, and other machines improved their perfor- mance. Adding fighter aircraft into the campaign made this flying army nearly invincible. Once again, the solution was a system of machines. You should be seeing the trend here. A need is filled with ever more increasing complex systems. One last example and then on to the future. Post WWII, United States national leaders took note of the destruction created to Germany and Japan’s industry caused by the realization of the Signal Aviation Section’s new strategic bombardment doctrine. Although America had been the “Arsenal of Democracy” during the war, protection by two vast oceans was no longer enough. If ev- er-improving aircraft and more lethal bombs weren’t proof enough, further evidence was provided a mere decade after the war when Russia’s Sputnik orbited the Earth. What if someone could place an atomic bomb atop the rocket that had lofted Sputnik? The Space Race was on, certainly. But there was also a race to develop our own weapon delivery rockets with inter- continental range. If we had them, certainly they wouldn’t dare use theirs. A new doctrine of nuclear deterrence was born. And the system created to carry out that doctrine was unlike any seen before in its massive complexity. Figure 2: Rise of the Machines Weapon systems, indeed any system, designed to fill a need will have an initial incarnation and then a period of evolution as the technology evolves and the mission is better understood. The current version of America’s ICBMs consist of over 400 intercontinental rockets on short count-down in their buried launch facilities controlled at a distance. Logistics support is spread across the nation and consists of repair depots, specialized engineers, obsoleted parts redesigners, targeting experts, training devices, and many more. Like the B-52 nuclear bomber that was first employed in the 1950s, ICBMs are living long lives because: 1. Replacements are expensive 2. Engineers and other key designers keep getting better at keeping it working 3. The technology to keep it working adequately keeps getting better 4. An effective sustainment management system is in use There is nothing inherently military about this rise of long- lived complex systems. We see it first in the military be- cause of the national priority, that is, the necessity, of the mission. But we see this trend emerging among non-mil- itary systems as well. My favorite example is the push for world-wide internet via high altitude balloons. What does all this mean for the future? In the movie, Terminator, the dystopian future was the year 2029. Our 2029 will certainly see very complex systems in use. Which mission will they support, where will the neces- sity be the mother of invention? In 2029 machines will rise, right up into low Earth orbit (LEO) where commercial space creates the need for com- plex systems that will turn a profit. Machine intelligence will be used to direct space robots (people in orbit is too expensive) in singles and swarms to refuel and repair sat- ellites, pick up trash (keep the space-ways clear), recycle in-orbit materials for use in in-orbit factories (once the mass is in orbit, use it rather than send up more), safely move the ores mined from asteroids (some for Earth, some remain in orbit), support recreation and movie production, maintain fuel depots (some in near space), and the usual communi- cations, navigation, and observation. LEO will be one gigantic system of machines turning profits for many. If this article is convincing, and you are starting to believe that the future holds more and more longer-lived complex systems, this leaves us with a question. In a world where many businesses have trouble keeping their phone menus working correctly, what are the right systems management techniques to keep our massively-complex systems working for decades? That answer appears in my blog: “ weaponsystemsustain- ment.blogspot.com” , in my technical papers available in the AIAA ARC library, and in my presentations on sustaining complex systems. Charlie Vono is a retired USAF colonel who writes and speaks on a wide variety of topics such as “How to Sustain Complex System”, “In-flight Refueling the SR-71 During the Cold War”, and “How America’s ICBM Force Works”. He is available at no cost for your event. You can contact him at charlesvono@comcast.net.