comprise one-third of AFSC's total engineer force; worse yet, by 1985 they will comprise one-half. These new officers, as welcome

as they are, have not reduced our shortage--only stopped it from

getting worse.

Although they are bright and eager, lieutenants fresh out of college are inexperienced and obviously do not compensate onefor-one for the experience we have lost in recent years. The combination of lost experience and new officers has created real problems in our already technically shorthanded organizations.

These problems directly affect the efficient defense of the country. Let me explain. AFSC and Air Force Logistics Command (AFLC), the Air Force command responsible for logistical support of all weapons systems in our operating commands, must rely increasingly on contractors to perform work we used to do inhouse and even have had to reduce Air Force monitoring of those contractors. We also have had to delay or defer work. This is having a direct adverse impact on both the modernization and readiness of our forces. For example:

The Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories at
Wright Patterson Air Force Base now contract out
86 percent of all new projects.

12 percent in just three years.

This is an increase of

In one program, the Intelligence Data Handling System, the labs have a validated requirement for 46 technical people--we can only assign 26.

The reduced Air Force monitoring of our ongoing activities leads

inevitably to problems going undetected longer and more costly

ixes and bigger schedule slips when problems are detected. Some

examples:

One of our satellite programs recently suffered a technical problem which we believe could have been detected and corrected sooner and less expensively if only an experienced engineer had been available-estimated cost is seven million dollars.

An inexperienced officer allowed a conflict between associate contractors to linger longer than prudent. Impact--the delivery schedule slipped and the cost increased two million dollars.

My

I believe these problems are just the "tip of the iceberg." system program office directors are reluctant to tell me they cannot do the job, but the fact is that people are increasingly becoming the limiting resource. This has led to delays or deferred work in promising technology areas. For example:

In our labs, we started the Aviation Turbine Fuel Tech-
nology Advanced Development Program which we hope will
develop advanced fuels to reduce our dependence on high
cost foreign petroleum. We have had to slow the
program down because of lack of people. Ultimately,
this slow down will cost us in additional petroleum
costs and cause us to continue to rely on foreign
supply.

We have started technology programs in the space
countermeasures arena which require 15 additional tech-
nical people--we have only been able to assign one.

AFLC has not been able to develop new, non-destructive
inspection procedures for detection of fatigue damage
in B-52 and A-7D aircraft. This has adversely affected
the operational readiness of these aircraft.

AFLC attempted to contract out 264 Minuteman Missile
circuit boards--no bids were received. The work had to
be scheduled in-house, but, because of engineer
shortages, the work will take three years versus the
originally scheduled two years.

In another instance, AFLC lacked the engineering
manpower to promptly identify the need to correct

damage left after pylon hole rework. Wings on three aircraft had to be reskinned--at a cost of $600,000.

I can continue to cite the growing list of examples, however, my fear is that we will not see the full impact of the current shortage for several years when we quite possibly find weapons systems failing to perform to expectations. In the future we may very well find design failures, cost overruns, and missed opportunities that potentially could cost the nation dearly. In other words, even though the primary mission is currently being accomplished, required work is not being performed and it is already costing us both dollars and operational readiness, and the situation is likely to worsen.

The problems I have been discussing are not new to the DOD community, nor are they easily solved. Let me assure you we are not just sitting on our hands waiting for a magic solution. We have been exploring new ways to build up our manpower pool, and, more importantly, keeping the good people in whom we have invested so much time, training and money. We have been pushing hard, and with the support of Congress, we have made improvements in compensation for all DOD personnel. These improvements have brought our pay and benefits closer to comparability with the civilian sector, although in the scientific and engineering fields there is still much to be done.

Additional improvements are being considered right now including the proposed 1 October pay raise, initiatives to reduce the

49

financial impact of moving, and a new version of the G-I Bill Education Program one benefit for military people that has proven to be a major positive force in attracting people to th military services.

Let me shift gears now and address some of the specific progra we have come up with to help solve our engineering shortages i the Air Force.

We have assigned some of our best engineers and scientists to recruiting service to help search for talent. We are sending young scientists and engineers on extended visits to universit to try to sell the Air Force as a career--1 when they can elbow their way through the industrial recruiting teams. They tell like it is, the good and the not so good. They also tell why they made the decision to stay with the Air Force as a career.

The more than 30 separate initiatives being implemented to attract, retain, and improve the productivity of engineers in Air Force include the following:

Increases in ROTC scholarships from 6500 in FY 81 to 7000 in FY 82 with proposed increases of 500 per yea through FY 85 (pending Congressional approval)

Increases in the Airman Education Commissioning Prog from 309 in 1980 to 450 in 1983. Through this progr airmen with some college education in science and ma are sent to college full-time to earn an engineering scientific degree.

The College Senior Engineering Program. This exciti program offers college engineering students the oppo tunity to enlist in the Air Force at the beginning o

their senior year. The students receive full senior
airman pay and allowances/benefits while they go to
school. Upon graduation, we send them through Officer
Training School, commission them, and place in an
engineering job. Our FY 82 recruiting quota is 150
versus 85 for FY 81.

The co-op student program which is designed to attract
students into our civilian engineering work force. We
have approximately 500 people in the program and enjoy
an 80 percent retention rate.

Increase in the Air Force Institute of Technology
programs, both at the undergraduate and graduate
level. This year, 160 newly commissioned officers and
60 from active duty with technical degrees were sent to
AFIT for a BS in electrical or aeronautical engineering
--an increase of 100 over last year. On the graduate
side, approximately 570 highly qualified officers were
sent back to universities to receive advanced engineer-
ing and scientific degrees--a 12 percent increase.

There are many other worthwhile initiatives, but these examples indicate to you how we are trying to work the problem

ourselves.

initiatives.

Unfortunately, these are "nickel and dime"

They do not--and will not--solve the problem

alone. In fact, we in the Air Force cannot work the problem very well because it is national in scope and solutions are vested

with institutions not under our control. But let me provide some

suggestions:

If this nation is to retain its position as first and foremost in
world technological leadership, the nation must pursue a compre-
hensive, decisive and far-reaching national educational policy
for the coming decade which includes the following:

(1) We must set a national goal to be first in the world in

the scientific and technological fields.