1/ an (unofficial) historical observation/thread: every time there's one of these pivots ("inflection points") the Air Force Sci&Tech community is criticized for working on the wrong "stuff." This is scapegoating that ignores the real process. @AFResearchLab @AFRL_CC https://twitter.com/EsperDoD/status/1306330148665536512

2/Since #WWI @McCookField days, the Army (Air Force) has always pushed for techs with obvious application & for short-term problem solving. By "pushed" I mean "been willing to pay for." Long term R&D has been a constant low-priority undercurrent, but what about revolutionary S&T?

3/The truth is: no one wants to pay for that with tax dollars and a zero-sum defense budget. Supporting bird in hand has ALWAYS taken precedence over the 2 in the bush. This is history, so let's look at a few examples.

4/In 1918, @AFResearchLab predecessor @McCookField worked with @GEAviation Sanford Moss to make aircraft turbochargers practical, which made high altitude flight (& recon/photos) possible. They were almost the only ones in the world working on this. Note the components.

5/In 1924, the Engineering Division asked NACA/Bureau of Standards to study the idea of a gas turbine engine for aircraft, because they had no money to study it themselves, like most things. Conclusion: Nope. Not yet. (see pic)

6/Note that the turbo pic above has all the key parts of a turbine (aka jet) engine, except a combustor. For that, it used a piston engine. The Air Corps (now at Wright Field @WrightPattAFB) took it further by designing a "hybrid" engine that was essentially a piston-turboshaft

7/In 1939, Wright Field asked Navy/Natl Acad of Sci to study aero turbine engines. Again: Nope, not yet. Odd, since this guy, Hans Von Ohain, flew the world's first jet plane in Germany that same year.

8/The mid-1930s were the worst year for military aviation R&D budget. No money for anything, esp advanced propulsion. Everything was making piston/prop more efficient. That's what leadership wanted. Hap Arnold even told them to focus on exactly that when war broke out.

9/USAAF chief Hap Arnold went to England in April 1941. There he met this guy & was shown his invention: a turbojet engine. He immediately arranged to have it brought to US & developed by...Wright Field & GE, the same turbo people since 1918 who had been told no jets at least 2x.

10/after the war the big question was: why didn't US develop jets when UK & Germany did. We had it, almost, all the pieces, & know-how. But were actively discouraged in austere military investment context. Instead made best piston/props in the world... that were obsolete by 1945.

11/Fast forward to Oct 1957. Sputnik shocks the world. Why didn't we put a satellite in space first. Were the Soviets that much better? Was their system superior to ours? Why weren't we spending money in space?!? These were real questions, but the answers were complex.

12/This chart illustrates what was happening in USAF R&D world. Studies showed over Ike years that govt military labs suffered. S&Es left in droves, facilities were obsolete, projects were limited. Real money/work was in industry. Projects like Aerospaceplane died ugly deaths.

13/there were a few S&T visionaries. Space Medicine, Rocket research, airman in space, etc. But the scientists said the same thing: space was a "dirty word" in SAC/LeMay era nuclear-dominated Air Force, so nothing went anywhere. But NASA used those building blocks to get to moon

14/As a result of Sputnik, labs made independent of Systems Centers & 1960s became a "golden age" for visionary S&T work. X-15. Dyna-Soar. MOL. Hypersonics. Missiles. Space experiments. Then...Vietnam. Why weren't we working those techs? Why wasting money in space?!?

15/1957-67 was whipsaw for S&T budget. On eve of Sputnik, Wright Field was literally cutting programs across the board, all space gone. W/in 2 years, opposite: aero (aka conventional)goes & money shifts to space. By late 1960s, all space goes again, back to aero.

16/Vietnam was rude awakening as Century Series aircraft designed to support strategic nuke mission were ill-suited to conventional warfare. Labs step in: electronics, fire resistant fuels, better jets, engine-inlet comparability, fly by wire, precision munitions, & stealth.

17/the 1970s Teen & 80s 4th gen fighters used 1960s lab techs. This was "second offset" period of precision munitions (laser), battlefield awareness (Ground moving target indicator & Synthetic Aperture Radar), & stealth, all pioneered in part by @AFResearchLab predecessors.

18/1980s went high tech again with Strategic Defense Initiative, National Aerospace Plane, Advanced Technology Bomber (B-2), and Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) which required labs to build new facilities & invigorate those tech areas...until the Cold War ended.

19/That led all the AF labs to consolidate into single @AFResearchLab, but many missions were divested, consolidated, etc. Then...9/11. Why weren't they working techs like UAVs, persistence, battlefield airman, etc.? Now this gets a bit tricky for social media...

20/AFRL was criticized for not supporting quick needs in Afghan/Iraq type war, too much legacy Cold War. Ok, so switched gears for a while. Now...call to switch from that approach to...great power competition.

21/Hopefully you get my point. S&T research investment $$ are largely dictated by needs of today's warfighter, who isn't as much concerned with his successor 10 years down the road, leaving the labs holding an empty bag down the line.

22/thanks for sticking it out & indulging the simplifications necessary for twitter. @AFResearchLab @AFRL_CC @mikeheil @DrMikeGregg @AFOSR @AFRLNMHistory