US Engineers

By Matt Kelley
USA Today

The Pentagon risks running out of scientists to operate and upgrade the
nation's arsenal of intercontinental nuclear and conventional missiles,
according to a report released this week by the Defense Science Board.

As the nation's veteran engineers and scientists retire, the military will
lose much of its expertise in long-range missile technology, the report
says. That means the Air Force and Navy, which operate most of the
1960s-vintage missiles, will be unable to cope with system failures or
develop improved weapons, the report says.

Not only are fewer American engineers and scientists choosing to work on
missile technology, there are fewer of them altogether, the report says.
Each year, about 70,000 Americans receive undergraduate and graduate science
and engineering degrees that are defense related, compared with a combined
200,000 in China and India, the report says.

The government should pay higher salaries and offer other incentives to
attract more experts into the strategic missile field, the report says.

A task force of five outside missile experts spent two years preparing the
report at the Pentagon's request.

Although the board lacks the power to force the Pentagon to act, Lt. Gen.
Frank Klotz, acting head of the Air Force Space Command, told a Senate
committee this month that the Pentagon is trying to improve its recruiting
and retention of missile experts. Space Command runs the intercontinental
ballistic missile system.

The report does not give specifics on the number of experts who are retiring
or the numbers needed to replace them, but it says about 20,000 research and
development scientists and engineers work in the aerospace industry as a
whole, down from more than 140,000 in the mid-1980s.

John Steinbruner, head of the Center for International and Security Studies
at the University of Maryland, says few scientists want to work on
long-range missiles because "it's not too hard to figure out that American
security doesn't depend on this any more."

Instead, Steinbruner says, the Pentagon's priorities have shifted toward
fighting terrorism and "low-intensity conflicts," such as the insurgency in
Iraq.

The report, he says, sounds like the Pentagon advisory board is "just trying
to keep the money flowing" and may be biased toward Cold War-era ballistic
missile systems.

The report also questions a Pentagon plan to seek more than $500 million to
replace nuclear warheads on some submarine-launched Trident ballistic
missiles with conventional warheads. The Pentagon says those missiles could
be used to strike fortified targets such as nuclear weapons facilities in
rogue nations.

Converting the warheads on these missiles will be difficult, the report
says, because the Pentagon lacks the necessary engineering skills. It adds
that technical requirements for non-nuclear warheads are much different for
long-range missiles from those for shorter-range missiles or nuclear
weapons.

Panel cites weaknesses in strike force

A two-year study by a panel of the Defense Science Board found several flaws
in the nation's strategic missile system. They include:

.Expertise: There's a lack of industry and government expertise in
long-range missile systems, and what exists may not be available for future
systems.

.Rebuilding costs: It would take five to seven years to rebuild a skilled
workforce, and even then there would be mistakes and cost overruns because
of inexperience.

.Failure to cope: The Pentagon "may not be able to cope with unanticipated
failures" in intercontinental nuclear missiles.

.Inexperience: It's been 25 years since the last long-range missile was
designed, and few in the Air Force have helped design a missile system.

.Shortages: There's an "alarming" lack of missile expertise in the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency, where severe shortages of civilian experts exist in
124 of 163 critical skills areas.

.Incentives: Defense contractors and the Pentagon need to increase pay and
incentives to attract "the best and brightest students" to missile programs
they have avoided in favor of better-paying jobs.

http://www.marinetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1641407.php

Unmentioned is that drug arrests of college students may disqualify them for a 
security clearance, especially if they don't put it on their application for a 
clearance.  Alcohol abuse may cause similar problems.

In article <p2iVf.8600$JZ1.316464@news.xtra.co.nz>, "HelpmaBoab" 
<FU2@yahoo.co.zpc> wrote:
>By Matt Kelley
>USA Today
>
>The Pentagon risks running out of scientists to operate and upgrade the
>nation's arsenal of intercontinental nuclear and conventional missiles,
>according to a report released this week by the Defense Science Board.
>
>As the nation's veteran engineers and scientists retire, the military will
>lose much of its expertise in long-range missile technology, the report
>says. That means the Air Force and Navy, which operate most of the
>1960s-vintage missiles, will be unable to cope with system failures or
>develop improved weapons, the report says.
>
>Not only are fewer American engineers and scientists choosing to work on
>missile technology, there are fewer of them altogether, the report says.
>Each year, about 70,000 Americans receive undergraduate and graduate science
>and engineering degrees that are defense related, compared with a combined
>200,000 in China and India, the report says.
>
>The government should pay higher salaries and offer other incentives to
>attract more experts into the strategic missile field, the report says.
>
>A task force of five outside missile experts spent two years preparing the
>report at the Pentagon's request.
>
>Although the board lacks the power to force the Pentagon to act, Lt. Gen.
>Frank Klotz, acting head of the Air Force Space Command, told a Senate
>committee this month that the Pentagon is trying to improve its recruiting
>and retention of missile experts. Space Command runs the intercontinental
>ballistic missile system.
>
>The report does not give specifics on the number of experts who are retiring
>or the numbers needed to replace them, but it says about 20,000 research and
>development scientists and engineers work in the aerospace industry as a
>whole, down from more than 140,000 in the mid-1980s.
>
>John Steinbruner, head of the Center for International and Security Studies
>at the University of Maryland, says few scientists want to work on
>long-range missiles because "it's not too hard to figure out that American
>security doesn't depend on this any more."
>
>Instead, Steinbruner says, the Pentagon's priorities have shifted toward
>fighting terrorism and "low-intensity conflicts," such as the insurgency in
>Iraq.
>
>The report, he says, sounds like the Pentagon advisory board is "just trying
>to keep the money flowing" and may be biased toward Cold War-era ballistic
>missile systems.
>
>The report also questions a Pentagon plan to seek more than $500 million to
>replace nuclear warheads on some submarine-launched Trident ballistic
>missiles with conventional warheads. The Pentagon says those missiles could
>be used to strike fortified targets such as nuclear weapons facilities in
>rogue nations.
>
>Converting the warheads on these missiles will be difficult, the report
>says, because the Pentagon lacks the necessary engineering skills. It adds
>that technical requirements for non-nuclear warheads are much different for
>long-range missiles from those for shorter-range missiles or nuclear
>weapons.
>
>Panel cites weaknesses in strike force
>
>A two-year study by a panel of the Defense Science Board found several flaws
>in the nation's strategic missile system. They include:
>
>..Expertise: There's a lack of industry and government expertise in
>long-range missile systems, and what exists may not be available for future
>systems.
>
>..Rebuilding costs: It would take five to seven years to rebuild a skilled
>workforce, and even then there would be mistakes and cost overruns because
>of inexperience.
>
>..Failure to cope: The Pentagon "may not be able to cope with unanticipated
>failures" in intercontinental nuclear missiles.
>
>..Inexperience: It's been 25 years since the last long-range missile was
>designed, and few in the Air Force have helped design a missile system.
>
>..Shortages: There's an "alarming" lack of missile expertise in the Defense
>Threat Reduction Agency, where severe shortages of civilian experts exist in
>124 of 163 critical skills areas.
>
>..Incentives: Defense contractors and the Pentagon need to increase pay and
>incentives to attract "the best and brightest students" to missile programs
>they have avoided in favor of better-paying jobs.
>
>http://www.marinetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1641407.php
>
>

"John Herman" <John_W_Herman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XtjVf.12005$w86.5228@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Unmentioned is that drug arrests of college students may disqualify them
for a
> security clearance, especially if they don't put it on their application
for a
> clearance.  Alcohol abuse may cause similar problems.
>
>
It's a surprise they got anybody at all in the past in that case!

Tam

Hello Tam,


> By Matt Kelley
> USA Today
> 
> The Pentagon risks running out of scientists to operate and upgrade the
> nation's arsenal of intercontinental nuclear and conventional missiles,
> according to a report released this week by the Defense Science Board.
> 


That is because they want somebody with a clearance, for almost every 
job. This, plus inevitable backlogs, creates an artificial shortage.

Ease the clearance process, make applicants agree to whatever background 
investigation the respective job requires, make them sign that lying on 
the application or breaching confidentiality can land them in the 
slammer, and then get them to work. That's the recipe to solve such 
problems. Besides, a formal clearance is no guarantee that the cleared 
person won't leak secrets as has been evidenced by many high-level cases.


> Not only are fewer American engineers and scientists choosing to work on
> missile technology, there are fewer of them altogether, the report says.
> Each year, about 70,000 Americans receive undergraduate and graduate science
> and engineering degrees that are defense related, compared with a combined
> 200,000 in China and India, the report says.
> 
> The government should pay higher salaries and offer other incentives to
> attract more experts into the strategic missile field, the report says.
> 

No, they need to open their eyes to engineers who haven't worked in 
defense yet but would be perfectly capable and willing. There are tons 
out there.

IMHO there is no shortage of engineers in the US and there won't be for 
a long time. No matter what some fancy reports say.

> 
> The report does not give specifics on the number of experts who are retiring
> or the numbers needed to replace them, but it says about 20,000 research and
> development scientists and engineers work in the aerospace industry as a
> whole, down from more than 140,000 in the mid-1980s.
> 

Guilty. I hired an aerospace engineer into a medical company. And then 
another. We need to say good-bye to in-breeding. It does not make much 
sense to insist on hiring insiders and then lament about a shortage that 
this creates. When I was in need of engineers (for medical electronics) 
I purposely looked outside that field for talent. Found a whole lot and 
not just in aerospace.


> John Steinbruner, head of the Center for International and Security Studies
> at the University of Maryland, says few scientists want to work on
> long-range missiles because "it's not too hard to figure out that American
> security doesn't depend on this any more."
> 

ROFL! Anybody knows: Once you have a clearance you will always have a 
well-paying job. So people will do whatever it takes to get one.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Joerg wrote:

   ...

> ROFL! Anybody knows: Once you have a clearance you will always have a 
> well-paying job. So people will do whatever it takes to get one.

I has secret clearance for about five years. All I ever used it for was 
getting into the building where my office was, and to get into some tech 
meetings with CIA or NIH. I never found out which.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Hello Jerry,

> 
> I has secret clearance for about five years. All I ever used it for was 
> getting into the building where my office was, and to get into some tech 
> meetings with CIA or NIH. I never found out which.
> 

NIH? They never required that with me. Well, maybe for security-related 
stuff they would have.

For an engineer a clearance is usually a gold mine these days. Every 
other decent job requires one. But you can only get it via your employer 
which creates a two-class society among engineers and hence leads to the 
very problems mentioned in that paper. IOW a very predictable problem. I 
cannot believe nobody in the upper echelon saw it coming.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

For Christ's sake, just stop reading those articles in "USA Today" !

Especially the ones related to science and high-tech.
I suspect that some of those "journalists" are paid to distort the
picture of reality as much as possible...
Kevin Money comes to mind first with his BS articles on technology...

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in 
message 
news:Q9lVf.42518$_S7.38017@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Hello Tam,
>
>
>> By Matt Kelley
>> USA Today
>>
>> The Pentagon risks running out of scientists to operate 
>> and upgrade the
>> nation's arsenal of intercontinental nuclear and 
>> conventional missiles,
>> according to a report released this week by the Defense 
>> Science Board.
>>
>
> That is because they want somebody with a clearance, for 
> almost every job. This, plus inevitable backlogs, creates 
> an artificial shortage.
>
> Ease the clearance process, make applicants agree to 
> whatever background investigation the respective job 
> requires, make them sign that lying on the application or 
> breaching confidentiality can land them in the slammer, 
> and then get them to work. That's the recipe to solve such 
> problems.

That's exactly how the system works today for civilian 
contractors of the DoD.  In particular, after getting a 
GENSER Secret clearance, one can get an "Interim GENSER Top 
Secret" clearance in a matter of days.  It may take months 
for the interim clearance to become final but, for most 
purposes, the candidate is treated as if he/she had the T/S 
clearance in the meantime.

> Besides, a formal clearance is no guarantee that the 
> cleared person won't leak secrets as has been evidenced by 
> many high-level cases.
>

Is this not like a self-fulfilling prophesy?  Few without a 
clearance will gain access to interesting information and, 
of those, even fewer will realize that they know anything 
worth leaking.  Only those with a clearance will learn 
anything of potential value to an adversary.  What you 
really mean is that the clearance process doesn't do a 
perfect job of identifying those who are likely to leak, 
particularly since the motivation to leak may vary with 
time.

One defense is based on "compartmentalization" and 
"need-to-know" access to critical information.  Another 
defense that works well is to develop products in an 
unclassified FOUO environment, leaving the actual 
classification to happen after the product is deployed. 
This works particularly well in things like GENSER messaging 
systems where it's primarily the data that's classified, not 
the system that processes it.

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Joerg wrote:
> 
>   ...
> 
>> ROFL! Anybody knows: Once you have a clearance you will always have a 
>> well-paying job. So people will do whatever it takes to get one.
> 
> 
> I has secret clearance for about five years. All I ever used it for was 
> getting into the building where my office was, and to get into some tech 
> meetings with CIA or NIH. I never found out which.
> 
> Jerry


NIH = National Institutes of Health.  Don't think you need one there.

Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
>> Joerg wrote:
>>
>>   ...
>>
>>> ROFL! Anybody knows: Once you have a clearance you will always have a 
>>> well-paying job. So people will do whatever it takes to get one.
>>
>>
>>
>> I has secret clearance for about five years. All I ever used it for 
>> was getting into the building where my office was, and to get into 
>> some tech meetings with CIA or NIH. I never found out which.
>>
>> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> NIH = National Institutes of Health.  Don't think you need one there.

Not normally, but you'd be surprised. (Don't get the wrong idea; no 
weaponry by any stretch.)

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������