Engineering Aerospace Engineering job roles?

[xJJx]

Hi guys, I'm looking to study aerospace engineering at university but I'm concerned with how defence orientated the industry is - so I've heard. I read that even if I work in the civil sector, the tech I design for that can be used in defence tech, which I REALLY don't want. I know companies like Pratt and Whitney design components that companies like Boeing buy for both civil and defence purposes. But can anyone list any aerospace engineering job roles that cannot involve defence in any way? I'm conducting my own research on this but I thought i'd also ask people in the field.

 

[Choppy]

I'm not in the aerospace industry, but if you really think about it, just about anything that is engineered for a civilian purpose can be used in the defence industry eventually. Once you develop something and make it available to the general population, it's out there for the general population to do with as general populations will do. For better or for worse. (One could argue that the defence industry itself perhaps has the tightest control over what technology developed within the field gets used for, but even in the long term, eventually even that technology can leak out into the rest of the world.)

What you can do though, is to make sure that you thoroughly research any potential employers and make sure that they have (and abide by) policies that you agree with. It's one thing to develop a more efficient missile. It's another to develop a more efficient water bomber for fighting forest fires.

 

[xJJx]

I'm not in the aerospace industry, but if you really think about it, just about anything that is engineered for a civilian purpose can be used in the defence industry eventually. Once you develop something and make it available to the general population, it's out there for the general population to do with as general populations will do. For better or for worse. (One could argue that the defence industry itself perhaps has the tightest control over what technology developed within the field gets used for, but even in the long term, eventually even that technology can leak out into the rest of the world.)

What you can do though, is to make sure that you thoroughly research any potential employers and make sure that they have (and abide by) policies that you agree with. It's one thing to develop a more efficient missile. It's another to develop a more efficient water bomber for fighting forest fires.

Thanks so much for your reply. You're completely right. the military find use for tech a lot of the times which is frustrating. The thing is, if I pursue aerospace eng as a career, I'd want to eventually work for the big aerospace companies like Boeing, Rolls Royce, NASA etc, but almost all of these companies have a defence sector, meaning any tech I design for civil purposes can be used in defence regardless of whether I'm okay with that or not. So I thought I'd try and see if there are any aerospace design engineering jobs that cannot require defence input in the first place.

 

[FactChecker]

As @Choppy suggested, the military work will certainly consider making use of technologies developed for non-military applications. But there is almost always a lot of modification and new technology added. There can also be a lot of delay because of design and testing in the harsh environment of the military application. For instance, there are many computer processors and operating systems that can not be used in the flight control of a military plane. The requirements are so different. Military engines, airframe designs, computers, avionics, software, stealth requirements, hardening, etc. are not the same as non-military.

 

[Tracey3]

There is a whole book written on the topic of Civil technologies being turned 'milspec' and they come from the most bizarre things.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YWoyBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=civil+technology+in+defence&source=bl&ots=cbaNrE9Msy&sig=ucCermp8_K1Qg6gFvtdW62EELxo&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqzfTH3YvWAhWPKFAKHR9lARgQ6AEITTAJ#v=onepage&q=civil technology in defence&f=false

Its hard to not design something that can be slapped on a tank or a submarine. There were scientists studying the glide angle of birds and their wings curvature. Next thing you know, they made a B2 stealth bomber from those studies and 'few' other things. Do you want to design a new high capacity plane for long economic flights?
No problem, let's design the 747 they said, next thing you know. The army slapped a huge laser beam on the front, I bet you can dish out some great 1 way tickets from that thing What about launching satellites into a high orbit. Sounds innocent? Well let's put some warheads instead and make it into an ICBM.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Its just more economically viable and quicker to retrofit and tweak an existing design rather than make something from scratch.

 

[Vanadium 50]

lets design the 747

Air Force One is a 747. And it's part of the Air Force. No laser beams required. And it's also used to transport soldiers overseas.

I think the OP wants something that simply does not exist.

 

[Tracey3]

Air Force One is a 747. And it's part of the Air Force. No laser beams required. And it's also used to transport soldiers overseas.

I think the OP wants something that simply does not exist.

The only thing I can think of at the moment is working on the aerodynamics of F1 cars because I don't think we will see Lewis Hamilton driving around with a rotary auto cannon any time soon I am sorry but there honestly is too much money in this industry. Why design something for commercial airlines which they will take care of it for 20+ years when you can make a military version and hope it gets shot down so you can sell more.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Civilian aircraft get shot down too. Korean Air 007 is an example.

 

[FactChecker]

I think that people are underestimating the differences between military and non-military airplanes. Requirements for stealth, speed, weapons, weapon delivery, attack sensors, air refueling, carrier landings, etc. It's a whole different ballgame. Almost all military planes are new design efforts. The only ones that I know that are taken nearly directly from commercial airplanes are ones that are used in essentially routine peacetime situations.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I dunno. The P8 Poseidon looks a lot like a 737-800 crammed full of avionics.

But I think you're answering the opposite question - sure there are military applications without a dual-use civilian counterpart. But is there the reverse?

 

[Tracey3]

Ok I might have over exaggerated but over the years Boeing for example has produced a substantial amount of commercial planes that had been military spec'd:

Boeing C-97 Stratotfreighter (Approx. 1000 milspec)
Boeing 747
Boeing KC10/MD11
Boeing 737

Thats only of top of my head. @FactChecker Yes I can agree that most planes including fighters will be built from ground up for the military but we still slap torpedoes and bombs on things like the 737 and more.

Edit: Iraqi forces got themselves a Cessna Caravan that fires Hellfire missiles

 

[FactChecker]

I dunno. The P8 Poseidon looks a lot like a 737-800 crammed full of avionics.

Well, you are right. The 737-800 was the basis for the P8. And any commercial design or technology is unclassified and so available for use in military aircraft if it meets the requirements.

But I think you're answering the opposite question - sure there are military applications without a dual-use civilian counterpart. But is there the reverse?

Sure. There are many non-military planes that will never be used in any major military program. Virtually all major fighter, bomber, reconnaissance programs were new designs.

 

[FactChecker]

Ok, @Tracey3 and @Vanadium 50 , I'll concede your point that a lot of commercial aircraft are used, as-is or modified, by the military. But as @Choppy said, it's hard to avoid. It would be like avoiding work on the telephone because the military might use it. And the large military programs are probably going to end up with an airplane that is very different from any commercial plane.

 

[xJJx]

Hi guys, thank-you all so much for your replies, they were very helpful. I'm asking because I want to do an aerospace engineering degree, as opposed to a mech eng degree cause I find it more interesting (even though they're very similar to each other). But if the aerospace industry is that defence oriented then I don't think I should do the degree. The only way i'd consider doing it is if there's a lot of job roles available which can't possibly have any defence application. Has anyone here studied aerospace engineering? It's just so niched that I'm thinking non-aerospace companies might be reluctant to hire me.

 

[Tracey3]

Hi guys, thank-you all so much for your replies, they were very helpful. I'm asking because I want to do an aerospace engineering degree, as opposed to a mech eng degree cause I find it more interesting (even though they're very similar to each other). But if the aerospace industry is that defence oriented then I don't think I should do the degree. The only way i'd consider doing it is if there's a lot of job roles available which can't possibly have any defence application. Has anyone here studied aerospace engineering? It's just so niched that I'm thinking non-aerospace companies might be reluctant to hire me.

Do what excites you rather than something that gets you a job. If you really pursue something and apply yourself to that area, employers will bang on doors and windows for you. You would be surprised how many job postings will accept any of CS,EE,ME for the same job because it involves all 3 fields. BUT, if you really want to be a good asset, there is a rise in Mechatronic Engineers which are essentially jack of all trades (CS,ME,EE).
Link to a video to find out more about Mechatronics Engineering:


I for example I love Aerospace and even though I am currently studying very basic level of engineering EE/ME at a college, I already am working on laser guided missiles and I have interest from few companies like Thales and I will try to scrounge from them a paid Masters at Cambridge

If you really want to be as far away from Defence industry but still work in Aerospace, consider: ESA,NASA,RosCosmos. For them military application is the last thing on their agenda. Regardless of were you honestly will work, it will probably find a military application (Wheel is an important invention yet its found also on tanks). You will have to outweigh the ratio of 'How much good will an invention do for the world vs how much pain it will cause'. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, we have missiles and we have Iron domes, we have viruses and antivirus, you can't expect a dog not to bark.

 

[Dr.D]

I suspect the OP is not likely to find a aerospace manufacturer that meets his requirements. I worked for an aerospace components company some years ago (not complete aircraft, just subsystems), and they served both commercial and military markets, as well as space oriented projects. Companies are in business to make money, and a company with a certain capability is unlikely to leave money lying on the table simply on principle.

 

[FactChecker]

With your expressed feelings, I think you should look into biomedical engineering. You might find many satisfying possibilities there. I looked hard at it once and was impressed. Where aero engineering had aerodynamics, biomedical engineering had flow of fluids that included lumpy, squishy, sticky, gooey things. So the theory can get very complicated. I believe that it will have a lot of growth and major breakthroughs in your lifetime that will make it exciting. And there won't be the same level of concerns about military applications.

 

[xJJx]

Do what excites you rather than something that gets you a job. If you really pursue something and apply yourself to that area, employers will bang on doors and windows for you. You would be surprised how many job postings will accept any of CS,EE,ME for the same job because it involves all 3 fields. BUT, if you really want to be a good asset, there is a rise in Mechatronic Engineers which are essentially jack of all trades (CS,ME,EE).
Link to a video to find out more about Mechatronics Engineering:


I for example I love Aerospace and even though I am currently studying very basic level of engineering EE/ME at a college, I already am working on laser guided missiles and I have interest from few companies like Thales and I will try to scrounge from them a paid Masters at Cambridge

If you really want to be as far away from Defence industry but still work in Aerospace, consider: ESA,NASA,RosCosmos. For them military application is the last thing on their agenda. Regardless of were you honestly will work, it will probably find a military application (Wheel is an important invention yet its found also on tanks). You will have to outweigh the ratio of 'How much good will an invention do for the world vs how much pain it will cause'. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, we have missiles and we have Iron domes, we have viruses and antivirus, you can't expect a dog not to bark.

Mechatronics sounds good but I'm not thatttt into electrical engineering; I like the amount of EE that they teach in ME or AE (which is not a lot). Its classical mechanics that I'm interested in most and it seems ME and AE are the degrees which are comprised of a huge majority of that. & that sounds amazing! Cambridge is a great university :). Are there any more companies other than NASA, ESA and RosCosmos that are also far away from the defence industry? & yeah I agree, but I feel like the aerospace industry is where it happens most. That's life though ay

 

[xJJx]

I suspect the OP is not likely to find a aerospace manufacturer that meets his requirements. I worked for an aerospace components company some years ago (not complete aircraft, just subsystems), and they served both commercial and military markets, as well as space oriented projects. Companies are in business to make money, and a company with a certain capability is unlikely to leave money lying on the table simply on principle.

Agreed. I think I should just stick to ME or something. But I don't know which area of it i'd like to go into, its so frustrating lol

 

[xJJx]

With your expressed feelings, I think you should look into biomedical engineering. You might find many satisfying possibilities there. I looked hard at it once and was impressed. Where aero engineering had aerodynamics, biomedical engineering had flow of fluids that included lumpy, squishy, sticky, gooey things. So the theory can get very complicated. I believe that it will have a lot of growth and major breakthroughs in your lifetime that will make it exciting. And there won't be the same level of concerns about military applications.

Haha I actually agree! but I really don't like biology though

 

[Dr Transport]

Ok I might have over exaggerated but over the years Boeing for example has produced a substantial amount of commercial planes that had been military spec'd:

Boeing C-97 Stratotfreighter (Approx. 1000 milspec)
Boeing 747
Boeing KC10/MD11
Boeing 737

Thats only of top of my head. @FactChecker Yes I can agree that most planes including fighters will be built from ground up for the military but we still slap torpedoes and bombs on things like the 737 and more.

Edit: Iraqi forces got themselves a Cessna Caravan that fires Hellfire missiles

Almost every Boeing air-frame can be converted from civilian to military use. That is part of the reason that they are still in the military aircraft business,. Let's lay out the three air framers in the US, we already talked about Boeing. Lockheed is the fighter house along with some transport (C-130 which isn't being produced now). Northrup Grumman is the bomber supplier along with drones, that is not to say they have a lock on the market, both Boeing and Lockheed have a foot in the door, maybe not as much. You can say that Boeing builds the F-18, but in reality, that was awarded prior to Boeing purchasing McDonnell-Douglas.

Air Force One is a 747. And it's part of the Air Force. No laser beams required. And it's also used to transport soldiers overseas.

I think the OP wants something that simply does not exist.

Yes he does...

Well, you are right. The 737-800 was the basis for the P8. And any commercial design or technology is unclassified and so available for use in military aircraft if it meets the requirements.

Look above. The fact of the matter is that any civilian aircraft can be upgraded for military use, the converse isn't usually true.

 

[FactChecker]

Look above. The fact of the matter is that any civilian aircraft can be upgraded for military use, the converse isn't usually true.

Yes, and every telephone can be also used by the military. That doesn't say so much. Most modern US bombers, fighters, attack planes, gunships, cargo planes, tankers, and reconnaissance planes have been new developments. Several of the planes converted from commercial designs have primarily been used by other (not US) countries.

 

[Dr Transport]

Yes, and every telephone can be also used by the military. That doesn't say so much. Most modern US bombers, fighters, attack planes, gunships, cargo planes, tankers, and reconnaissance planes have been new developments. Several of the planes converted from commercial designs have primarily been used by other (not US) countries.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two Boeing products that were converted for military use, the 737 for the P8 already mentioned and the 767 for the air force tanker. Both existed prior to the conversion, that is why they were picked, a major part of the non-recurring engineering was already done and written off. Clean sheeting an aircraft is very expensive, that is why civilian versions are converted. The P8 wasn't sold outside the US until it had been fielded, the tanker was initially sold to other countries and those sales counted for risk reduction for the US market.

 

[FactChecker]

The 767 was picked because of fraud and the US contract was cancelled. It was developed largely from Boeing funds and is being operated by some foreign air forces. The P8 is one example that I will admit. But those are the exceptions rather than the rule.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Both existed prior to the conversion

And there is the problem. The OP works on the 737, happily knowing it's a civilian airplane, and he's not doing defense work. Then one day the Navy buys a bunch.

The 767 was picked because of fraud

Perhaps so. Boeing certainly has paid a lot of fines. But the KC-46 is in production, and will be delivered next year.

There are also small USAF-operated transports based on Gulfstream and Learjet aircraft.

 

[Dr Transport]

And there is the problem. The OP works on the 737, happily knowing it's a civilian airplane, and he's not doing defense work. Then one day the Navy buys a bunch.

If the OP works for Boeing, the chances that anything they work on will be used for military purposes is pretty high. If they don't like the paycheck, they are more than welcome to leave and find another employer.

Working in aerospace in the US has nearly a 100% chance it will be converted or used in some way shape or form for military use.

 

[FactChecker]

I can see modifications of commercial planes for cargo and tanker use, but I can't imagine it for anything that has very demanding military-only requirements. The tanker requirements will probably begin to include stealth that will not allow conversions of commercial planes. Not sure about cargo. There is too much requirement these days for speed, stealth, maneuverability, survivability, carrier operations, short runways, etc. that would force a new design.

If the OP wants his efforts to not be usable by the military, then he has a problem with almost anything he does. Because of the unique military airplane requirements, airplanes may be one of the better choices.

 

[xJJx]

Thanks for all your replies. Do you's think its a bad idea to do an aero eng undergrad degree in uni even though I prob won't be an aerospace engineer? because here in the UK the aero and mech eng programmes have exactly the same core modules as each other and the 'applied' modules for aero are based on air & spacecraft , and for mech they're just applied to machinery in general. So the two programmes are very similar so some employers don't see a distinction. I know learning aerodynamics, propulsion etc can be useful in areas other than aero, so what do you guys think?

 

[FactChecker]

I would recommend getting the degree that best matches your job goal.

 

[Tracey3]

I am aware of only one case were an aerospace engineer got put into a different field (There is bound to be plenty more). He focused his consecration around heat dissipation surfaces and thermodynamics. He now works on cooling systems for Caterpillar. Yeah, there is a fair bit of overlapping between ME and AE but as @FactChecker said, get a degree in what you want to do. Even if you end up not doing AE you can still study it out of interest, no one is going to come to your house and take all you books from you.

Only other option is to start your own AE company and keep all your IP private.

 

[Tracey3]

Are there any more companies other than NASA, ESA and RosCosmos that are also far away from the defence industry? & yeah I agree, but I feel like the aerospace industry is where it happens most. That's life though ay

The only other organisation I can think of that is not government funded and has not sold any of its IP to the Defence sector is Bigelow Aerospace, but that doesn't mean they won't. Then again its an American company so getting an ITAR certification is very hard and even then you might be restricted, so companies don't bother with it unless you're an expert in some critical field.

Edit: I think they are also heavily affiliated with NASA so I am sceptical of how there projects are actually funded.