(1) There was a trend toward procurement of systems and equipment through the airframe prime contractor, a trend that resulted from the increasing need for adaptation and integration with other equipment and with the airframe.

(2) Despite this trend, the airframe prime contractor continued to rely upon proprietary equipment development work done under Government sponsorship by specialized firms. As in the instance of the Airesearch refrigerative unit, we could not have achieved our design objectives within the prescribed time phasing without drawing upon this bank of experience and progress in many specialized fields.

As defense technology continued to advance in succeeding years, it has become increasingly necessary to have early integration of each piece of equipment with all related equipment and the entire system. Therefore, it became desirable to develop groups of items together as integrated subsystems, which together make up what we call a weapon system. This trend was recently described by Ralph Cordiner, chairman of the board of General Electric Co., in these words:

Where the need was once for a large number of general-purpose components and subsystems, the demand is increasingly for complete systems and even supersystems. The need for components of very high reliability and advanced design remains, but they must more and more be planned in context with the concept and design of the system of which they are to be a part.

Thus there emerged the present pattern of weapon system development contracting. Through experience on equipment for other weapon systems, or under Government-sponsored or independent research and development work, many firms have developed advanced capabilities in particular types of subsystems. After the prime contractor and subcontractors have been selected, these capabilities are applied in a coordinated way to achieve compatible solutions of all design problems.

Thus, gentlemen, weapon system contracting as we know it today has been evolved in order to make possible the development of optimum defense equipment at minimum cost and lead time, in a period of rapidly accelerating technological progress.

I propose next to outline what weapon system contracting consists of, because I believe that there may be considerable misunderstanding even in the fundamental matter of definition. In fact, engineers find it hard to explain to other engineers.

The term "weapon system" may refer to any unit of military power, such as an airplane or a missile, together with all its related equipment, supporting facilities, and skills required to maintain and operate it in combat. Use of the term encourages everyone involved to think of the total requirement instead of the individual tasks. That

is, when we refer to such and such a weapon system, we are more inclined to visualize the spare parts, the test and maintenance equipment, the ground and aircrew training, the hangars or stands, and all the other equipment and skills necessary to make any weapon selfsufficient and operational in its military environment. Of course, the services have always bought these supporting elements, and in that sense there is nothing new in this weapon system concept.

Going a little farther in this matter of definition, we find that use of the weapon system term by the services, and particularly the Air Force and Navy Bureau of Aeronautics, began in the early 1950's. At that time we began to hear the term "weapon system concept," which simply meant that all the elements going into a weapon system had to be developed according to an overall design and a carefully scheduled program.

Under this procedure each major system would be integrated earlier in the design stage, so that the entire weapon system would be optimized without later resorting to performance compromises and costly, time-consuming retrofit and modernization programs.

Starting in 1953 the Air Force took a major step toward earlier integration of the various elements of a new military weapon by announcing the idea of making a single prime contractor responsible for coordinating virtually all aspects of development. Weapon system contracting was not adopted overnight for all programs, but rather was approached cautiously and experimentally, gradually being utilized more and more fully in more and more programs.

Other techniques were tried on certain programs, such as the technical advisory and special weapon system management arrangement established by the Air Force for its ballistic missile programs.

It should be emphasized that the trend toward earlier integration of components was not a new thing at all. We had been moving in that direction for many years as a matter of necessity-with both the services and industry striving to improve the coordination, eliminate the bottlenecks, and reduce costs and lead time despite vastly more difficult technical problems.

Perhaps I might at this point, as a framework for further discussion of the weapon system technique, briefly summarize how it works.

The first step in procuring a weapon system, of course, stems from the defense mission that has been assigned to one of our services. Of course, that is the Air Defense Mission or the Strategic Bombardment Mission or the Limited War Mission, or Tactical Air Mission.

These things have been set up by the Defense Department and through statutory assignments of responsibility. From this stems an operating requirement for a distinct weapon system.

This is worked out as to technical analysis, time phasing analysis, and budgetary and logistics analysis work. The Air Force, the Navy, and the Army-in their consideration of these things-are assisted by many agencies in making such analyses their own staffs, special research groups, universities, and certain studies made by contractors and other people.

It is a very large job to evolve a satisfactory, stable, operating requirement. This is the job of the military services.

When an operating requirement has been established and various tests have been applied to it, the following procedure is generally engaged in.