Chapter 4

Managing Department of DefenseTechnology Base Programs

INTRODUCTION

The Department of Defense (DoD) appropri-ation for its technology base programs1 ex-ceeds $8.6 billion in fiscal year 1988, of whichalmost half (see table 2) is funding for the Stra-tegic Defense Initiative (SD I). This representsless than 4 percent of the entire DoD budget.Nevertheless, many inside and outside of thePentagon consider DoD’s technology base pro-grams a crucial investment in the Nation’soverall national security. The military’s tech-nology base programs consist of a broad spec-trum of ‘front-end” technology development,beginning with a broad base of basic researchsupport and extending through the demonstra-tion of technology that may make up futuredefense systems. The scope of interests withinDoD’s technology base programs rangesacross diverse technological concerns frommeteorology to autonomous guided missilescapable of differentiating among varioustargets.

‘For purposes of this study, technology base programs referto budget categories 6.1 (basic research), 6.2 (exploratory de-velopment), and 6.3A (advanced technology development). DoDusually considers 6.1 and 6.2 as its technology base programs,with 6.1 through 6.3A normally referred to as its “science andtechnology programs. ”

In fiscal year 1988, more than half of the Pen-tagon’s technology base program was per-formed by industry, another third by DoD’sown in-house laboratories, and the remainderby universities. According to DoD, each ofthese performers plays an important part inthe successful operation of its technology baseprogram, and extensive cooperative effortsamong the three groups yields a significant re-turn on DoD’s investment.

The universities perform over 50 percent ofDoD’s basic research activities. In addition,DoD contends that its in-house laboratoriesprovide the Armed Services with the abilityto meet special military needs that cannot bemet by the Nation’s industrial base. These lab-oratories focus attention on short- and long-term defense needs, and they enable the mili-tary to act as a smart buyer of technology andequipment. The primary role of private indus-try is to develop technology and apply it innew military systems. z

‘Martin, Dr. Edith W., “The DoD Science and TechnologyBase Programs: Some Management Perspectives, ” Army Re-search, Development, and Acquisition Magazine, Sept. -Oct.1983, p. 3. At the time this article was written the author wasDUSD(R&AT).

Table 2. —Department of Defense Fiscal Year 1988 Funding of Technology Base Programs(in millions of dollars)

Army Navy Air Force DARPA Total

Research (6.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $169 $342 $198 $ 8 3 $ 902’Exploratory development (6.2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $556 $408 $557 $512 $2,033Advanced exploratory development . . . . . . . . . $319 $227 $754 $202 $1,502Total services and DARPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,437Strategic Defense Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,604Other defense agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 564Total DoD technology base programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8,605‘Thl~ ~u~ ,nClud~~ $110 ~llllOn for the URI ~hl~h OSD has not yet allocated ‘fllOflg the three services and DARPA

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment. 1988, from data supplied by the Off Ice of the Secretary of Defense.

53

54—

Goals and

According to DoD,

Objectives

its diverse technologybase programs attempt to achieve six majorgoals:’

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Offset Soviet Numerical Superiority. TheU.S. does not attempt to match the So-viet Union and the Warsaw bloc on a per-son-for-person or weapon-for-weapon ba-sis. It relies instead on technology toachieve the desired military advantage.Keep Ahead of the Growing Soviet Threat.Although this is increasingly more diffi-cult, the United States must maintain itstechnological lead in order to offset theSoviet threat.Reduce Complexity and Costs. The tech-nology that is produced by the militarymust be designed to reduce the cost andcomplexity of future weapon systems.Improve Productivity of the IndustrialBase. Maintenance of a strong industrialbase, vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, is one ofthe most important advantages for theUnited States.Sponsor the Highest Quality of Scienceand Technology (S&T) Work. DoD mustmake sure that the S&T work performedby industry, universities, and its in-houselabs is of the highest quality and scien-tifically sound.Enhance Return on Investment. Finally,DoD always tries to receive the greateestpossible return on its S&T investment.

The Department of Defense contends thatthe military’s science and technology programshave played, and will continue to play, a cru-cial role in maintaining the military and civil-ian science and technology (S&T) base. Exam-ples of this include:

● early development of lasers and incorpo-ration of their unique capabilities intoweapon systems;

● early development of integrated circuitsand their application to mission-critical ca-pabilities;

‘Ibid., p. 4.

development of aircraft technology whichprovides substantially improved capabil-ities in maneuverability, flight, fire con-trol, and firepower; anddevelopment of the carbon-carbon com-posite material nosetip for the TRIDENTD-5 re-entry vehicle.

Funding Categories for DoD’sRDT&E Activities

The Department of Defense does not employthe National Science Foundation’s (NSF) fa-miliar categories of basic research, applied re-search, and development when reporting itsResearch, Development, Test, and Evaluation(RDT&E) activities.’ Instead the Pentagonuses a series of six RDT&E functional catego-ries numbered 6.1 to 6.6. They are defined byDoD as follows:5

●

●

6.1 Research. Includes scientific study andexperimentation directed toward increas-ing knowledge and understanding in thosefields of the physical, engineering, envi-ronmental, biological, medical, and behav-ioral-social sciences related to long-termnational security needs. It provides fun-damental knowledge for the solution ofmilitary problems. It also provides partof the base for subsequent exploratory andadvanced development in defense-relatedtechnologies and of new or improved mil-itary functional capabilities in various sci-entific fields.6.2 Exploratory Development. Includesall the efforts directed towards the solu-tion of specific military problems, shortof major development projects. This typeof effort may vary from fairly fundamen-tal applied research to quite sophisticated

‘Accordimz to NSF, when DoD rxovides NSF with its RDT&E.spending levels, DoD breaks it down into NSF’s three cor-responding categories in the following manner: 6.1 research isreported as “basic research’ 6.2 exploratory development isreported as “applied research”; and categories 6.3-6.6 are re-ported as “development.”

5U.S. Department of Defense, INST 7720.16 (OPNAV3910. 16). enclosure(3), p.2-7 and 2-8. Department of the Navy,Budget Guidance Manual, 7102.2. Quotations in the followingsection are from this source; the remaining material isparaphrased from this source.

breadboard hardware, study program-ming efforts.

. . . The dominant characteristic of thiscategory of effort is that it be pointedtoward specific military problem areaswith a view toward developing and eval-uating the feasibility and practicabilityof proposed solutions and determiningtheir parameters.

6.3 Advanced Development. Includes allprojects which have moved into the devel-opment of hardware for experimental oroperational test. It is characterized by lineitem projects, and program control is ex-ercised on a project basis. The focus of Ad-vanced Exploratory Development (6.3A)lies in the design of items being directedtoward hardware for testing of operationalfeasibility, as opposed to items designedand engineered for eventual Service use.6.4 Engineering Development. Includes allthose development programs being engi-neered for Service use but which have notyet been approved for procurement oroperation. This area is characterized bymajor line item projects and program con-trol by review of individual projects.6.5 Management Support. Includes re-search and development efforts directedtoward support of installations or opera-tions required for general research and de-velopment use. Included would be: testranges; military construction; mainte-nance support of laboratories, operationsand maintenance of test aircraft and ships;and studies and analysis in support of theR&D program. Cost of laboratory person-nel, either in-house or contract-operated,would be assigned to appropriate projectsor as a line item in the Research, Explora-tory Development, or Advanced Develop-ment Program areas, as appropriate. Mil-itary construction costs directly relatedto a major development program will beincluded in the appropriate element.6.6 Operational Systems Development.Includes research and development effortsdirected toward development, engineeringand test of systems, support programs,vehicles, and weapons that have been ap-

5 5

proved for production and Service employ-ment. 6.6 is not an official category as are6.1-6.5, but is a term used for conveniencein reference and discussion. Thus, no pro-gram element will exist numbered 6.6.

All items in this area are major lineitem elements in other programs. Pro-gram control will thus be exercised byreview of individual research and devel-opment effort in each Weapon SystemElement. Activities in categories 6.3-6.6receive the bulk of RDT&E funding (91.5percent in fiscal year 1987 estimated).

Funding for DoD’s technology base pro-grams is appropriated to the individual Serv-ices, SDIO, and the Defense agencies such asthe Defense Advanced Research ProjectsAgency (DARPA) and the Defense NuclearAgency (DNA). As table 2 indicates, in fiscalyear 1988, SDIO supported the largest tech-nology base program, followed by the Air ForceArmy, Navy, and DARPA.

An Overview of DefensePrograms (6.1)

Research

The Armed Forces have supported researchsince the early days of the Nation. The 1804expedition of Lewis and Clark, for example,was funded by the Army. With the establish-ment of the Office of Naval Research (ONR)in 1946, the military became the first Govern-ment organization to support a major programof university-based basic research. This com-mitment continued with the establishment ofthe Army Research Office (ARO) in 1951, andthe Air Force Office of Scientific Research in1952. The Advanced Research Projects Agency(ARPA, later DARPA) was established in 1958as part of the U.S. response to Sputnik.

DoD funded the bulk of federally sponsoredresearch prior to the establishment of suchFederal research agencies as the National Sci-ence Foundation and the National Aeronau-tics and Space Administration. In the 1950sand early 1960s, DoD sponsored about 80 per-cent of all federally funded basic research.However although DoD funds about 66 per-

56—

cent of all Federal R&D, it is the fourth largestsupporter of basic research, accounting for ap-proximately 13 percent of all federally spon-sored basic research.

In fiscal year 1988 DoD will spend about 2.1percent of its RDT&E budget ($902 million)on basic research. This is down from an aver-age of 4.6 percent in the 1960s and 3.6 percentin the 1970s. During fiscal year 1988, approx-imately 50 percent of DoD’s research will beperformed by universities, with another 30 per-cent by DoD’s in-house laboratories, and theremaining 20 percent by industry and non-profit organizations.

The Department of the Navy will supportthe largest research program in fiscal year1988, funding 37 percent of all DoD’s research.The Army and Air Force will support about19 and 23 percent respectively, with DARPAand the other Defense agencies supporting theremaining 21 percent.

The Pentagon views its research program asa crucial source of its future technology. How-ever, DoD research activities differ from othertechnology base activities because research isnot necessarily expected to result directly ina military product. The Services support re-search into the nature of basic processes andphenomena, and contend that they select re-search projects based on the quality of scienceand their potential relationship to the DoDmission.

The three Services and DARPA support re-search activities in such fields of science as:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

physicsastronomyelectronicsmathematicsmechanicsmaterialsoceanographyatmospheric sciencesbehavioral sciencesradiation sciencesastrophysicschemistrycomputer scienceenergy conversion

●

●

●

aeronautical sciencesterrestrial sciencemedical and biological sciences

Work in these fields is applied to space tech-nology, computer science, electronics, surveil-lance, command and control, communications,propulsion, aerodynamics, night vision, chem-ical and biological defense, structures, medi-cal and life sciences, and other areas of mili-tary importance.6

Most successful research programs lead tofurther efforts in exploratory development (cat-egory 6.2) which focus on more applied con-figurations with military relevance. This re-search and development process led, forexample, to the injection of laser technologyinto military systems. The laser was primar-ily supported by DoD soon after the time ofits invention, when its potential military rele-vance appeared quite remote.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)and the Services contend that research accom-plishments are transferred or quickly passedonto the military R&D community and poten-tial laboratory program managers.

Extramural contractors, primarily univer-sities and industry, are not expected to justifytheir (6.1) research proposals in terms of pos-sible DoD applications. However, in-house re-searchers, because of their laboratory associa-tion, are expected to demonstrate a closerassociation to specific military applications.The most important criterion for funding re-search is the quality of science, followed by itspotential relationship to the DoD mission.Other criteria include:

●

●

●

●

�

the potential of the proposed research tolead to 6.2 work;whether a civilian R&D agency shouldsupport the proposed research;the possibility that the research will leadto radically new scientific discoveries;the track record of the researcher(s) sub-mitting the proposal; and

8C01. Donald I. Carter, ‘‘The Department of Defense State-ment on Science in the Mission Agencies and Federal Labora-tories, ” before the Task Force on Science Policy of the HouseCommittee on Science and Technology, Oct. 2, 1985, p. 7.

5 7

● the extent to which a proposal fits intoa particular Service’s 6.1 funding pri-orities.

The basic research programs in the threeServices are comprised of three major programelements (PE):7 Defense Research Science; theIn-House Laboratory Independent ResearchProgram (ILIR); and the University ResearchInitiative (URI). The Defense Research Scienceprogram is the largest of the three programs,making up 90 percent of the 6.1 budget. At6 percent of the research budget, ILIR is de-signed to give laboratory directors flexibilityin order to take advantage of new technologi-cal opportunities and to help maintain a re-search base in the laboratories. (DARPA andthe Army do not support ILIR programs.) Theremaining 4 percent of the research budget isdevoted to the URI program.

Pursuant to the 1984 Competition in Con-tracting Act, all of the Services and DARPApublish an annual broad agency announcement(BAA). The BAA outlines the specific researchinterests of each Service and DARPA, and theprocedures for submitting research proposals.DoD contends that all proposals falling withinthe guidelines of each BAA are considered com-petitive and satisfy the Act.

DoD believes that supporting 6.1 work is im-portant for its in-house laboratories. By sup-porting the military’s research program, DoDfeels laboratory researchers are able to keepabreast of new discoveries and engage in im-portant interactions with the scientific com-munity. According to DoD, laboratory per-formance of research increases the technicalabilities of the laboratories and helps to attractimaginative scientists and engineers.

Technical Review of ResearchProposals and Programs

Each of the Services, and DARPA, conductsan extensive technical review of all research

‘The PE is the basic building block in DoD’s program, plan-ning, and budgeting system (PPBS). There are approximately180 PE’s in DoD’s entire technology base program, with eachPE consisting of all costs associated with a research activityor weapon system.

proposals. The Army Research Office subjectsproposals to a three-level technical review proc-ess: a peer review in the external scientific com-munity for technical excellence, an Army lab-oratory review both for excellence and militaryrelevance, and an ARO internal review to makea final funding decision. The Services en-courage researchers to discuss their proposalideas with the appropriate DoD technical per-son before submitting a formal proposal. Thoseresearchers who follow this suggestion havean approximate 50-percent success rate, com-pared to a lo-percent funding rate of proposalsreceived without prior contact.

The Navy’s technical review is completedprimarily in-house by their scientific officers.Of the three Services’ research programs, theOffice of Naval Research has the largest num-ber of staff scientific officers, about 80. Dueto a smaller professional staff, the Army Re-search Office (ARO) and the Air Force Officeof Scientific Research (AFOSR) rely primar-ily on outside review of their research proposalsalthough they also use in-house expertise toreview proposals. (Each has about 40 profes-sional people located at its research office.) TheNational Academy of Sciences (NAS) has a con-tract with the ARO and AFOSR to arrangeformal technical reviews of research proposals.DARPA relies primarily on the three Servicesand the external scientific community to re-view its research proposals.

In most cases, the Service laboratories formtechnical review panels, made up of the lab-oratory director and various technical programdirectors, to decide which research proposalswill be funded within the laboratory. The Na-val Research Laboratory, for example, uses aResearch Advisory Committee, consisting ofthe laboratory and program directors, that de-termines which in-house research proposalswill be supported.

An Overview of DoD’s TechnologyBase Activities in the Laboratories

The Department of Defense laboratories per-form research and development in diverseareas of science and technology in support ofmilitary and civil works programs of DoD.

8 3 - 2 0 7 - 0 - 88 - 3

58

There are currently 68 DoD RDT&E labora-tories (31 Army, 23 Navy, and 14 Air Force)that have a combined annual cash flow ofnearly $10 billion for technology base and otherdevelopment activities. The responsibilitiesand operations of the various laboratories dif-fer within the three Services in order to meettheir individual mission requirements. DoD’slaboratories actually perform only about one-third of the technology base activities, whileindustry performs over 50 percent and the Na-tion’s universities and nonprofit organizationsperform the remainder.

The Pentagon contends that its laboratoriesplay a crucial role in solving science and engi-neering problems, deficiencies, and needs thatare unique to the military. DoD states that theprimary purpose of its laboratories is to de-velop new technologies to support each of therespective Service’s missions. According toDoD, the role of the laboratories in the devel-opment and improvement of technology andweapons systems is fundamental to improvingnational security. DoD believes that the lab-oratories have a responsibility to maintain astrong continuity of scientific activities, freefrom commercial pressures, directed towardmeeting specific military needs. Further,according to DoD, the laboratories provide afast reaction capability to solve immediate crit-ical problems that may confront the Services.Other responsibilities include the following:

1.

2.

3.

4.

ensure the maintenance and improvementof national competence in technologyareas essential to military needs;avoid technological surprise and ensuretechnological innovation;pursue technology initiatives through theplanning, programming, and budgetingprocess; allocate work among privatesector organizations and governmentelements;act as a principal agent in maintaining thetechnology base of DoD;

Where is about an equal number of other centers that do notperform traditional RDT&E activities, but rather are specialfacilities with very specific missions, such as flight testing newor refurbished aircraft. The R&D activities of DoD’s labora-tories are discussed fin-ther in chapter 5.

5. provide material acquisition and operat-ing system support;

6. stimulate the use of technical demonstra-tions and prototypes to mature and ex-ploit U.S. and allied technologies; and

7. interface with the worldwide scientificcommunity; provide support to other gov-ernment agencies.9

The Pentagon asserts that its technologybase capabilities should serve as a strong com-plement to the civilian technology base, as em-phasized in a recent DoD report to the SenateArmed Services Committee:

A strong free enterprise economy and in-dustrial base–here and abroad–are the es-sential underpinning of our defense posture.Investment in our technology base and main-tenance of our technology strength are criti-cal to the long term security of the U.S. andour allies.l0

Over the past several years DoD officialshave been trying to resolve a number of diffi-cult laboratory issues. The Pentagon has beenstruggling with such concerns as improvingcommunications within and among the differ-ent laboratories, increasing the managementflexibility of the individual laboratory direc-tors, meeting scientific and technical person-nel needs, upgrading facilities, developingmechanisms for evaluating the performanceof the laboratories, and improving DoD’s over-all management of its laboratories.

Special Technology Base Initiatives

DoD has initiated a number of special pro-grams to help address specific technology baseproblems. Most of these initiatives centeraround such concerns as communication be-tween DoD and various research performers,scientific communications and technologytransfer, and support of the research infra-structure.

In 1982, DoD established the 5-year, $150million University Research Instrumentation

‘U.S. Department of Defense, “Report (for the Committee onArmed Services) on the Technology Base and Support of Univer-sity Research, ” Mar. 1, 1985, p. 42.

IOIbid., p. 53.

Program (URIP) to improve the capability ofuniversities to perform research in support ofthe national defense. This program providesfunding for large items of equipment ($50,000to $500,000) that would not be funded in a typi-cal research grant.11 This program was consid-ered a success by DoD. But judging by the re-sponse, it will not come close to meeting allthe instrumentation requests; in the first yearalone, it received 2,500 proposals seeking a to-tal of 646 million dollars’ worth of equipment.

In 1983, at the recommendation of the De-fense Science Board, DoD established the DoDUniversity Forum. The Forum consists of analmost equal number of DoD and universitymembers and was originally co-chaired by theUnder Secretary of Defense for Research andAdvanced Technology and the President ofStanford University. The Forum has issuedreports dealing with such subjects as scientificsecrecy and technology export control, engi-neering and science education needs, andDoD’s response to those needs. More recently,the forum’s working group on engineering andscience education issued a report which en-dorsed the major components of the Univer-sity Research Initiative (URI) to foster greaterDoD-University cooperation.

According to the Department of Defense, theURI would “address some of the concerns ex-pressed by Congress regarding DoD supportfor the infrastructure of science and technol-ogy in the United States, ” particularly at col-leges and universities.12 DoD proposed tospend $25 million in fiscal year 1986 and $50million in fiscal year 1987 for the UniversityResearch Initiative. Congress responded by ap-propriating $88.5 million in fiscal year 1986,$35 million in fiscal year 1987, and $110 mil-lion in fiscal year 1988.

DoD’s URI program consists of two majorprogram elements. The first element consists

1‘According to DoD, funding for a typical l-year single inves-tigator research contract would fall in the range of $50,000 to$100,000.

“CO]. Donald I. Carter., USAF Acting Deputy Under Secre-tary of Defense for Research and Advanced Technology, Testi-mony Before the Subcommi ttee on Research and Developmentof the House Armed Services Committee, Apr. 2, 1985.

59

of multidisciplinary research contracts de-signed to enhance interdisciplinary researchefforts between universities, industry, andDoD laboratories. Generally, these contractswill receive support for 3 to 5 years, with re-view and evaluation after 3 years. These re-search centers will conduct research in a rangeof disciplines (mathematics, engineering, andthe physical, biological, and social sciences) im-portant to the Pentagon. The centers will in-crease overall defense funding for high riskbasic research in support of critical defensetechnologies, as well as continue support (inplace of URIP) for equipment and instrumen-tation. 13

The second major URI program element isthe “Programs to Develop Human Resourcesin Science and Engineering. ” This program ele-ment is designed to increase DoD’s supportfor fellowships, postdoctoral, young investi-gators, and scientific exchange programs, inorder to promote interaction between scientificand engineering personnel in DoD laboratoriesand universities conducting DoD-sponsored re-search.

DoD asserts that its laboratories are in theforefront of the effort to transfer technologi-cal expertise from the Federal Government toState and local governments and private in-dustry. The Federal Laboratory Consortiumfor Technology Transfer was originally estab-lished by the Department of Defense in 1972.Further, in response to the Stevenson-WydlerTechnology Innovation Act, the Departmentof Defense established its domestic technol-ogy transfer program under the responsibil-ity of the Deputy Under Secretary for Researchand Advanced Technology. The primary goalof this effort is to accelerate the domestic trans-fer of unclassified technical and scientific ex-pertise to both the university community andthe private sector.

DoD sponsors a number of educational pro-grams to help ensure an adequate supply of

‘3U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretaryof Defense for Research and Engineering, fiscal year 1986University Research Initiative Program Overview, December1985, p. 2.

60

highly trained scientific and engineering per-sonnel. All three Services support a large num-ber of science and engineering graduate stu-dents as well. DoD’s direct funding for researchat universities provides the Pentagon with itslargest base of graduate student support. A1980 study, conducted by the Office of NavalResearch, estimated that on average a milliondollars of university research funding sup-ported 10 to 15 full-time or part-time gradu-ate students. Based on those figures, the Pen-tagon estimated that it supported between4,000 and 4,500 graduates students in fiscalyear 1987.

At the graduate level all three Services spon-sor activities to increase the supply of scien-tific personnel. The fellowship programs ofboth the Army and Navy support graduatestudents in such fields as computer sciences,electrical engineering, and life sciences. The AirForce fellowship program is aimed at moremission-specific activities, sponsoring studentsin such areas as advanced composite structuresand aircraft propulsion technology. Accordingto DoD, the Services supported about 200graduate fellowships in fiscal year 1987; of thistotal, the Navy supported about 145. The Serv-ices also provide opportunities for faculty andundergraduate and graduate students to con-duct research at various DoD laboratories dur-ing the summer months.

Planning

All of the Services conduct an extensive an-nual top-down, bottom-up planning exercisein order to develop a 5-year program objectivememorandum (POM) and annual technologybase investment strategy. From the top theServices receive the annual Defense GuidanceManual, prepared by the Office of the Secre-tary of Defense, which provides them withguidance on developing their entire RDT&Eprograms. Planning usually begins with a re-view and evaluation of the previous year’sresearch activities. When this review is com-pleted, the Services decide which activities tocontinue, which to transition (e.g., from 6.1 into6.2 programs), and which activities to stop.Each of the Services develops an annual tech-

nology base strategy, such as Army’s MissionArea Material Process, or utilizes special stud-ies—such as the Air Force Forecast II proj-ect—which serve as major guides for theirrespective research programs.

The laboratories attached to a particularArmed Service contribute to its technologybase plan. Outside advisory bodies such as theNational Academy of Sciences, the NationalScience Foundation, individuals in the scien-tific community, and in-house technical di-rectors and their respective staffs also makerecommendations. The Services also have sci-entific advisors or science boards that partici-pate in planning activities. The individual Serv-ices can also request that their science boardsconduct a review of some particular area of thetechnology base programs to assure its scien-tific merit and/or responsiveness to particu-lar Service needs. There are inter-Service co-operative groups, such as the Joint LogisticsCommanders and the Joint Directors of Lab-oratories, which meet and review past and fu-ture laboratory activities to reduce duplicationwhile increasing awareness of existing labora-tory activities.

Finally, DoD has an elaborate scientific andtechnical advisory mechanism, with ad hoc andpermanent scientific advisory committees atmany levels, to advise individual laboratories,military Service chiefs, and OSD. At the levelof the Office of the Secretary of Defense, theDefense Science Board deals with both specificand broad policies that address such issues asscientific manpower, defense industrial pre-paredness, the quality of the technology base,technology transfer, and standardization ofweapon systems in NATO. Each branch of themilitary also has a scientific advisory bodyanalogous to the DSB: the Army ScienceBoard, the Naval Research Advisory Commit-tee, and the Air Force Scientific AdvisoryBoard.14

“Science Policy Study Background Report No. 8, “ScienceSupport by the Department of Defense, ” prepared by the Con-gressional Research Service for the Task Force on Science Pol-icy, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Rep-resentatives, 99th Congress, p. 405. Hereafter referred to as“Science Support by the Department of Defense. ”

61— —

OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT IN THE OFFICE OFTHE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

The Office of the Secretary of Defense ex-erts oversight responsibility for all of DoDtechnology base programs. Oversight refersto the process of formulating and developingpolicy guidance for a particular program, inthis case DoD’s technology base programs. Itincludes: developing an investment strategyfor a particular program; assigning manage-ment responsibility for the program; coordi-nating research programs; establishing policy;developing program evaluation procedures;and recommending appropriate programm a t i cchanges.

OSD is primarily concerned with makingsure that DoD’s technology base programs arewell balanced and reflect the overall needs ofDoD. In addition, the Services and DARPAeach assign specific individuals within theirrespective organizations oversight responsibil-ities for technology base programs. At thislevel, individuals responsible for oversight areprimarily concerned with protecting and help-ing to manage and coordinate their organiza-tion’s technology base programs.

Programmatic management involves the di-rect day-to-day management of a certain tech-nology base activity. Programmatic manage-ment includes responsibility for the successfulcompletion of an R&D activity, including:timely completion of R&D tasks; meeting pro-jected costs; evaluation of R&D activities; andfacilitating the transitioning or phasing outof research activities. The Services, DARPA,and SDIO each assign specific individuals,within their respective organizations, day-to-day management responsibility of varioustechnology base activities.

As a result of the Military Reform Act of1986 (sometimes referred to as the Goldwater-Nichols Act), DoD has reorganized the man-agement of its RDT&E activities. The Actabolished the office of Under Secretary of De-fense for Research and Engineering andreplaced it with the Under Secretary of Defensefor Acquisition (USD(A)). The legislation also

re-created the Director of Defense Researchand Engineering (DDR&E), who reports to theUSD(A).

Until 1986, the Under Secretary of Defensefor Research and Engineering had responsibil-ity for the research and development activi-ties of DoD and chaired the Defense SystemAcquisition Review Council (DSARC), whichmade decisions about which major weapon sys-tems to purchase. In 1985 the functions of theOffice of the Under Secretary were trimmedwhen Secretary of Defense Weinberger re-moved from the office “primary responsibil-ity y for overall production policy and some keyproduction decisions. ” The effect of the reor-ganization, according to Science magazine, wasto drive a wedge between those responsible forresearch and development and those respon-sible for production, with the hope that fewerfaulty weapon systems would get from the lab-oratory to the factory.15 The President’s Pri-vate Sector Survey on Cost Control (known asthe Grace Report) and the Packard Commis-sion had criticized the combination of researchwith production. Consequently the Goldwater-Nichols Act created the Under Secretary forAcquisition (USD(A)) and the DDR&E tomaintain a separation between R&D and ac-quisition decisions. ’G

The USD(A) has oversight responsibility forDoD’s technology base program, with the ex-ception of SDIO (see figure 2). The DDR&Ehas oversight responsibilities for the Servicesand the DNA’s technology base programs.

According to the USD(A), the DDR&E hasfive primary responsibilities: 1) to oversee de-velopment and acquisition of weapon systemsthrough full scale engineering development; 2)to oversee force modernization; 3) to overseedesign and engineering; 4) to oversee develop-

‘5R. Jeffrey Smith, “DoD Reorganizes Management, ” Science,Feb. 8, 1985, p. 613.

“For further details see Science Support by the Departmentof Defense, ” p. 63.

83-207 - 0 - 88 - 4

62—

Figure 2.-Management of the Department of Defense Technology Base Program

Secretary ofDefense

Director,Strategic Defense

InitiativeOrganization

[, ‘

Under Secretaryof Defense,Acquisition

[USD(A)]

I 1

Director, DefenseResearch and Assistant Secretary of Defense,Engineering

[DDR&E]Research and Technology[ASD (R&T)]; and Director,

Defense Advanced ResearchProjects Agency

Deputy Under

Executive Director,Secretary of Defense,

Defense ScienceResearch and Director, Defense

BoardAdvanced Nuclear Agency

Technology[DUSD (R&AT)]

I

mental test and evaluation; and 5) to overseebasic research, exploratory development, andadvanced technology development. As figure2 indicates, the Director of the Defense Nu-clear Agency and the Executive Director of theDefense Science Board, which is the principaladvisory body within the OSD, also report tothe DDR&E.

As a “corporate guardian” of DoD’s entiretechnology base program (except for SDIO),the DDR&E is responsible for ensuring thatthe technology base programs of the three

Services, DARPA, and DNA are followingoverall technology base guidance developed bythe OSD. The DDR&E also acts to ensure thatdisagreements pertaining to technology baseresponsibilities and priorities are settled in away that best represents the science and tech-nology interests of the Department of Defense.

According to DoD, the Assistant Secretaryof Defense for Research and Technology—ASD(R&T)—will also serve as the Directorof the Defense Research Projects Agency(DARPA). The Director of DARPA reports to

the USD(A), but will work closely with theDDR&E to coordinate DARPA’s technologybase programs, which are contracted throughand managed primarily by the three Services.Prior to the recent reorganization, the DeputyUnder Secretary of Defense for Research andAdvanced Technology (DUSD(R&AT)) reporteddirectly to the Under Secretary of DefenseAcquisition (USD(A)). However, the DUSD(R&AT) now reports to the USD(A) throughthe DDR&E. The primary responsibility of theDUSD(R&AT) office is to provide oversightfor the three Services’ technology base pro-grams, and to serve as their DoD point of con-tact. The primary functions of R&AT are to:structure the technology base program acrossService lines, in order to eliminate overlaps andgaps; resolve technical differences; and en-hance return on investment.

The R&AT office also develops the planning,programming, and budgeting system (PPBS),writes the technology base portion of the De-fense Guidance Manual, and if required re-sponds to the Services’ Program ObjectiveMemoranda. The R&AT office must also re-view the 2-year budget proposals of the Serv-ices and assure that those expenditure planshave the appropriate balance among the vari-ous proposed programs. Finally, the DUSD(R&AT) is supposed to work continually withthe Services to help them achieve mutual sci-ence and technology interests.

With overall guidance from the Office of theSecretary of Defense and the R&AT office (pri-marily through the annual publication of theDefense Guidance Manual), the three Servicesand DARPA formulate their technology baseprograms. Determining the scope of technol-ogy base work involves an evaluation of theoperational needs of each participant and thetechnological opportunities for meeting thoseneeds. The needs are primarily derived througha comparison of the future projected militarythreat with planned U.S. military capabilityand doctrine. Finally, the R&AT office mustbe sure the Service technology base programsestablish new research initiatives in order tomeet the long-term science and technology re-quirements of the three Services.

63

The Research and Advanced Technology of-fice has itself recently been reorganized intofive major directorates, as shown in figure 2.There are approximately 30 professional sci-entists and engineers spread among the fivedirectorates. The Research and LaboratoryManagement Directorate is responsible for:oversight of the Service research (6.1) pro-grams; oversight of the DoD laboratories; re-lated research and development in the indus-trial sector, including Independent Researchand Development (IR&D);17 and the flow of sci-entific and technical information. The officemeets with representatives from the threeServices, DARPA, and SDIO to: coordinateresearch-related policymaking; help facilitateinter-Service cooperation; suggest solutions tomanagerial problems; and address urgent re-search needs. In addition to coordinating re-search in-house, the Research and LaboratoryManagement office also works with differentFederal R&D agencies, such as the NationalScience Foundation (NSF), and with the U.S.scientific community. The remaining four di-rectorates have oversight responsibilities-andin one instance management responsibility—for exploratory (6.2) and advanced technologydevelopment (6.3A) conducted in-house byDoD labs or extramurally by outside con-tractors.

The Electronic Systems Technology Direc-torate is responsible for oversight of programsin surveillance, communications, electronicwarfare, optical countermeasures and tacticaldirected energy weapons. In the area of searchand surveillance, concepts are being refinedto improve day/night/all-weather capabilities.This particular research complements thrustsin precision-guided weapons and activities todevelop automatic high-resolution target iden-tification, classification, and tracking tech-nology.

The Engineering Technology Directorate isoften referred to as the “firepower and mobil-ity” directorate, with oversight responsibilityfor four related areas: combat vehicles, propul-

‘7 See ch. 3 for a discussion of IR&D.

64

sion and fuels, conventional weapons, and ma-terials and structures. One of the major goalsof the directorate is to facilitate technologytransition through advanced technology dem-onstration to better match the technologicalneeds of the various Services. Consequently,this directorate has oversight responsibilitiesfor a large portion of DoD’s advanced technol-ogy development activities (6.3A). This direc-torate also has responsibility for spacecraftpropulsion and the National Aerospace Plane,for logistics R&D, and for the Army Corps ofEngineers laboratories.

The Environmental and Life Sciences Direc-torate deals with four supporting disciplines:training and personnel technology; medicineand life sciences; chemical warfare and chemi-cal/biological defense; and environmental fac-tors. In the area of training, work is being con-ducted in the area of computer-based trainingand performance aids for operations and main-tenance tasks. In the environmental sciences,major efforts involve modernizing data acqui-sition and processing capabilities and the up-grading of DoD’s radar technology, tacticalsensors, and tactical decision-aid capabilities.

The Computer and Electronics TechnologyDirectorate operates differently than the otherfour directorates. This directorate is what DoD

refers to as a “thrust directorate” becauseit manages considerable program funding. Inaddition to oversight responsibilities, its direc-tor has a direct management role in the plan-ning, execution, and evaluation of various pro-grams. The director has direct managementresponsibility for the SEMATECH program,l8

the Very High Speed Integrated Circuit (VHSIC)program, the Microwave/Millimeter Wave Mon-olithic Integrated Circuit (MIMIC) program, theSoftware Technology for Adaptable Reliable Sys-tems (STARS) program, and several others.

DoD contends that this directorate’s directmanagement responsibilities address three im-portant management needs: 1) to focus the mili-tary’s needs on computer and electronics-related technology, 2) to ensure that both thehardware and software receive appropriate at-tention, and 3) to place more emphasis on thetransition of computer and electronics technol-ogy to operational systems.

‘sThe SE MATECH program will attempt to rectify the prob-lem of U.S. competitiveness in worldwide semiconductor mar-kets by pooling the resources of the semiconductor industry,with assistance from the Federal Government. These resourceswill be used to create a central production facility from whichnew manufacturing processes would be made available to theU.S. semiconductor industry. Congress has agreed to begin fund-ing for this proposal and has provided $100 million in funding(to be managed by DoD) for fiscal year 1988.

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

The Office of Chief of Naval Research (seefigure 3) is responsible for the Department ofthe Navy’s basic research (6.1) and exploratorydevelopment (6.2) programs. The Chief of Na-val Research reports to the Assistant Secre-tary of the Navy for Research, Engineering,and Systems and to the Chief of Naval Opera-tions for policy guidance, planning, and exe-cution of the Navy’s basic research and ex-ploratory development programs. The Chiefof Naval Research serves as the scientific advi-sor to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) andthe Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC).Since 1985 he has also had oversight respon-sibility for all Navy’s laboratories.

Management of the Navy’s Research(6.1) Program

The Office of Naval Research (ONR, see fig-ure 4) is responsible for the daily activities ofthe Navy’s research programs. The directorof ONR reports to the Chief of Naval Research,who is ultimately responsible for planning, re-view, and approval of the Navy’s various re-search activities. ONR was established by Con-gress in 1946 as the first Federal organizationto support university-based basic research.ONR was responsible for developing a numberof mechanisms which are still in use today to

Figure 3. –Navy Organization for Science and Technology

Secretaryof theNavy

SOURCE: Office of the Chief of Naval Research

support research at the Nation’s universities.They include:

●

●

●

●

funding project grants for individual re-searchers at colleges and universities;establishing a peer review process toevaluate research proposals;purchasing of expensive specializedequipment;funding the construction of large facilities,operated by a consortium of universities;and

65

● funding for special-purpose research at in-stitutions such as Woods Hole Oceano-graphic Institute.l9

According to ONR, the primary goals of itsresearch programs are:

● to sustain U.S. scientific and technical su-periority for Naval power and security;

“U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Research,Federal Research and Development Programs Hearings, Nov.18., 1963, p. 33.

66—

Figure 4. -Office of Naval Research

Office ofNaval Research

Planning and.Assessment

SOURCE: Office of Naval Research

Naval ResearchLaboratory

(NRL)

Naval OceanResearch andDevelopment

Activity(NORDA)

● to provide a source of new concepts andtechnical options;

● to support theoretical and experimentalresearch in each directorate;

● to retain a vigorous scientific manpowerand laboratory base; and

● to apply the results of research to Navalwarfare and warfare support areas.

The research program of ONR supports abroad spectrum of scientific disciplines. ONRplans to fund 342 million dollars’ worth of re-search in fiscal year 1988. Sixty percent ofthose funds will go to universities. ONR’s fourlaboratories (the Naval Research Laboratory,

Institute forNaval

Oceanography(INO)

NavalEnvironmental

PredictionResearch Facility

(NEPRF)

the Naval Oceanographic Research and Devel-opment Activity, the Institute for NavalOceanography, and the Navy EnvironmentalPrediction Research Facility) will receive 21percent; other Navy laboratories will get 12percent; and for-profit and nonprofit organi-zations will receive the remaining 7 percent.

Founded in 1923, the Naval Research Lab-oratory (NRL) is the principal laboratory ofONR. It receives almost 90 percent of the 6.1funds that go to the ONR laboratories. Thisresearch funding is about 24 percent of thelaboratory’s total in-house funds, and it playsa major role in NRL's total in-house operation.

67

The NRL performs and supports research ina broad range of areas including computer sci-ence and artificial intelligence, directed energyweapons, electronic warfare, space science andtechnology, materials, radar, information man-agement, surveillance and sensor technology,environmental effects on Naval systems, andunderwater acoustics.

ONR relies on four major research direc-torates to carry out its contract research pro-grams: Mathematics and Physical Sciences,Environmental Sciences, Engineering, and LifeSciences. As might be expected, the directoratewhich receives the largest share of researchfunds is Environmental Sciences, with its fo-cus on oceanography activities. The Navy’sOcean Sciences Division covers the range ofdisciplines from physical oceanography of boththe open ocean and coastal zones, throughocean biology and ocean chemistry, to marinemeteorology.

A fifth ONR directorate, the Applied Re-search and Technology Directorate, has pri-mary responsibility for adapting and extend-ing generic basic research toward appliedresearch, thereby helping to transition researchresults into the Navy’s exploratory develop-ment program. This directorate is also respon-sible for working closely with the Navy’s ex-ploratory development program in order toidentify and implement high-leverage oppor-tunities for joint research and exploratory de-velopment funding. The Navy is the only Serv-ice that operates a research directorate withthis type of responsibility.

The Applied Research and Technology Di-rectorate is also an agent and a project man-ager for selected programs sponsored by theDeputy Chief of Naval Operations for Subma-rine Warfare, DARPA, the Strategic DefenseInitiative Organization (SDIO), and other de-fense organizations and industry. The ONR,with the assistance of this directorate, man-ages the largest SDIO basic research programof the three Services. ONR expects to managebetween $80 and $90 million, primarily in theresearch category, for SDIO in fiscal year 1988.

Forty percent of ONR’s research programconsists of Accelerated Research Initiatives(ARIs) designed to concentrate resources inspecific areas of research which offer a particu-larly attractive scientific or Naval opportunity.ARIs, which are normally funded for 5 years,are sprinkled throughout the four researchdirectorates and the laboratories of ONR.These initiatives represent an accelerated orenhanced program in a basic scientific areawhich is potentially attractive to future Navyneeds.

Some of the ARI research areas include: arc-tic oceanography, composites, interracial sci-ence, and electrochemical properties of mem-brane proteins as the basis of specializedcellular functions. ARIs are selected from re-search options developed by the scientific com-munity and by ONR’s scientific officers, andare reviewed and ranked as part of ONR’s an-nual research planning and budgeting process.ARI selection is based on how well the pro-posed activity meets the goals of the Navy’sresearch program and is done through an ex-pert panel-based peer review process.

Management of the Navy’sExploratory Development and

Advanced Technology DevelopmentPrograms (6.2 & 6.3A)

The Navy’s entire exploratory developmentprogram is managed by the Office of NavalTechnology (ONT) within the Office of Chiefof Naval Research. ONT (see figure 5) was cre-ated in 1980 by the Secretary of the Navy to“provide for a more clearly defined process ofplanning, execution and transition of programswithin the technology base and into advancedtechnology development . . .“ ONT currentlyhas a professional staff of 55 people to carryout its responsibilities.20

‘°From 1980 through 1985, ONT reported to the Deputy Chiefof Naval Material (Technology) [DCNM(T)]. In May 1985, whenthe Naval Material Command was abolished, the CNR was as-signed the additional responsibility of managing those NavalR&D Centers that had reported to the Chief of Naval Material.In 1986, management of the Navy’s R&D centers were placedunder the newly created Space and Naval Warfare Systems Com-mand (SPAWAR).

68

Antiair/AntisurfaceWarfare and

Surface/AerospaceTechnology Directorate

●

AntisubmarineWarfare and UnderseaTechnology Directorate

Support TechnologiesDirectorate(see below)

Low ObservableDirectorate

Support Technologies Include:

● Command, Control, and Communications

● Mission Support Technologies(Personnel and Training; Biomedical; Logistics; Chemical/Biological/Radiological Defense)

● Systems Support Technologies(Electronic Devices; Materials; Human Factors; Oceanography; Computer Hardware, Software, and Architecture;Artificial Intelligence)

SOURCE: Office of Naval Technology

ONT is primarily responsible for all program-matic oversight of the Navy’s exploratory de-velopment program, which includes such activ-ities as program planning, approval, funding,review, and evaluation. One of the most im-portant activities of the ONT is the develop-ment of the investment and mission area strat-egies, which are the heart of the 6.2 programmanagement system. These strategies are de-veloped in consultation with OSD, the Officeof the Secretary of the Navy, the CNO, theCommandant of the Marine Corps, ONR, theDirector of Navy Laboratories at the Space andNaval Warfare Systems Command(SPAWAR), and the other Naval SystemCommands.

The Director of Navy Laboratories (DNL)at SPAWAR, where about half of the ONT’s6.2 program is performed, is responsible forestablishing laboratory policy and manage-

ment procedures. This includes resolving dis-putes-between the laboratories involving re-search emphasis and responsibilities. However,the DNL does not have any responsibilities forthe development and selection of researchprojects that are supported by the variousSPAWAR laboratories.

Through its R&D Centers, the Navy per-forms much more of its 6.2 and 6.3A programin-house than do the other Services, for which6.3A work is primarily performed by industry.Navy R&D Centers have a much stronger em-phasis on development activities beyond thetech base than do the laboratories of the otherServices.

In fiscal year 1988, the Navy will supportthe smallest exploratory development programof the three Services, conducting 59 percentof its 6.2 activities in-house. Industry will con-

duct 31 percent, universities 7 percent, and theremainder will be conducted by other govern-ment agencies. Although the Navy has over20 laboratories, the majority of 6.2 and 6.3Aactivities are performed by the eight SPAWARR&D Centers and the three ONR laboratories.

As figure 5 indicates, ONT consists of sixmajor directorates. Three of them—the Anti-air/Antisurface Warfare and Surface/Aero-space Technology Directorate, the SupportTechnologies Directorate, and the Antisubma-rine Warfare and Undersea Technology Direc-torate—fund about 80 percent of the Navy’s6.2 program. The remaining three directorateshave specific responsibilities primarily withoversight and coordination of related explora-tory development programs.

The Industry IR&D Directorate is respon-sible for all oversight of the Navy’s IR&D pro-grams. The office is responsible for workingwith industry insetting IR&D priorities, evalu-ating IR&D activities, and maintaining yearlyrecords of what type of IR&D activities areactually conducted.

The entire 6.2 program is built around theNavy’s 13 mission area strategies. ONT con-ducts an extensive top-down, bottom-up proc-ess to define its key mission area strategies.Since the six different Navy systems com-mands (SYSCOMS) are the ultimate users ofthe technology, they play an important rolein the overall development of the Navy’s ex-ploratory development investment and mis-sion area strategies. Besides the SYSCOMSand the laboratory/center technical directors,other inputs are sought from the Navy Secre-tariat, from the maritime strategy developedby OPNAV, from the CMC, and from internaland external scientific advisory groups.

The Navy develops a strategy for each of its13 mission areas based on such concerns ascurrent mission deficiencies, near-and far-termtechnological opportunities, the needs associ-ated with DoD’s overall maritime strategy, andpotential military threats. According to ONT,a mission area strategy should be describedwhere possible in terms of objectives that re-late to a specific technology. For example, the

69

Navy has broad mission strategies for anti-surface ship warfare, anti-submarine warfare,and mine warfare. Because mission areas donot often change, the focus of this activity ison updating the strategy associated with eachmission area.

In developing each mission area strategy,ONT establishes what it calls technologythrusts (see figures 6 and 7). According to ONTeach technology thrust has a single opera-tional/performance objective or several veryclosely related ones supporting the warfight-ing objectives of its mission area. ONT utilizestwo definitions of technology to help identifya particular technological thrust:

● a science or engineering discipline specificto an application, such as:–laser communication technology,

Figure 6.–Navy 6.2 Program Structure

ResearchPerformer

}

cIai

mants

23)

—

ONT

ONT Directorates (3)

Program Elements (14)

Mission Areas (13)

Thrusts (95)

SOURCE: Office of Naval Technology

70

Figure 7.–Navy 6.2 Program Strategy

MissionArea ● Offensive Antiair Warfare

Objectives● Long-Range Missile

TechnologyThrust ● Wide Area Surveillance

Objectives ● Long-Range Target

● Propulsion TechnologyProjects ● Guidance and Control

SOURCE: Office of Naval Technology

–fiber optic sensor technology, and—optical signal processing; or

● a group of technologies applied to thesame or closely related warfare, weapons,or platform objectives, such as:—ocean surveillance technology,—airborne electronic warfare,—air launch weaponry, and—torpedo propulsion.

In fiscal year 1987, the Navy supported its95 technological thrust areas through theestablishment of 62 block programs. A blockprogram is an integrated group of technologyprojects with closely related applicationsand/or technical objectives; each block pro-gram is assigned to a given lead laboratory orSYSCOM program manager. For example, theNaval Air Development Center is responsiblefor a block program in airborne surveillance,while the SPAWAR SYSCOM is responsiblefor the block program in directed energy tech-nology. Usually a block program encompassesthe 6.2 program’s effort (with an average fund-ing level of $7 to 8 million) in a warfare tech-nology area, as identified above. It is most

often composed of a number of projects, eachof which may address a different technologythrust and/or mission area. Each project con-sists of a number of specific tasks performedby a particular researcher or group of re-searchers.

Beginning in the fall of each year, all blockprograms are reviewed by ONT and the vari-ous SYSCOMS. This review is followed by anevaluation of the current mission area strate-gies, which leads to the establishment of newtechnological thrusts as well as new block pro-grams for the following fiscal year.

ONT also sponsors an Independent Explora-tory Development program, which providesthe technical directors of the Navy R&DCenters with a small amount of funding (usu-ally about 5 percent of their 6.2 programs) tosupport activities aimed at achieving thecenters’ assigned missions. Through this mech-anism, the technical directors are allowed tosupport innovative programs without the for-mal approval process which could delay fund-ing of a new idea. Normally, a specific programcannot be supported with Independent Ex-ploratory Development funding for more than3 years.

The Navy’s advanced technology demon-stration (6.3A) program, with a proposed fis-cal year 1988 budget of about $30 million, isthe smallest of the Services’. The Navy is theonly Service that manages its 6.3A programseparately from its 6.1 and 6.2 activities.Within the office of the Assistant Secretary ofthe Navy (Research, Systems, and Engineer-ing), the Director of Research, Development,and Requirements (Test and Evaluation)—DRD&R(T&E)–has oversight responsibilitiesfor the 6.3A program. The 6.3A program ismanaged by the Technology Assessment Of-fice, which reports to the DRD&R(T&E). TheNavy is now in the process of rebuilding itsAdvanced Technology Demonstration (ATD)program. In fiscal year 1988, the ATD programwill sponsor three to five advanced technologydemonstrations. The technologies are selectedby the ATD director with the assistance ofOPNAV, the SYSCOMS, and ONT, and areperformed at the appropriate SYSCOM for upto 3 years.

71

THE DEPARTMENT

The Deputy Chief of Staff for Technologyand Plans- DCS(T&P)-of Air Force SystemsCommand (AFSC) is responsible for the dailyoperations and oversight of Air Force technol-ogy base programs (see figure 8). The DCS(T&P) reports to the Commander of the AirForce Systems Command, who reports to theAir Force Chief of Staff. The DCS(T&P) wascreated in October 1987 with the merger of theoffices of DCS for Science and Technology withthe DCS for Plans and Programs. The primarypurpose of the merger was to enhance commu-nication and coordination between the office

Aircraft

● Aircraft Programs

● AeromechanicsTechnology

● AvionicsTechnology

OF THE AIR FORCE

Figure 8.–Air Force Systems Command R&D Organization

responsible for evaluating and planning newweapon systems and the office that is respon-sible for conducting the research and advancedtechnology development for the new systems.

Within the office of the Secretary of the AirForce, the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition–ASAF(A)–is responsible for the entire AirForce’s RDT&E program. And within theASAF(A) office, the Director of Science andTechnology (DS&T) is responsible for over-sight of the Air Force technology base pro-grams. The DCS(T&P) (in the headquarters of

Deputy Chief of Staff,Technology and Plans

AdministrativeServices

● Offensive Systems● Defensive Systems

● Air Base Operability● Human Systems

Command, Control,Communications,

andIntelligence (C31)

● Plans and Programs . C3I Technology. Technology ● C3 I Programs

● Computer Technology

m

InternationalR&D

● Cooperation. Disclosure

Plans and Programs

● New Concepts andInitiatives

● Program Control● Investment Planning

SOURCE Air Force Systems Command

72

AFSC) works with the DS&T (in the Office ofthe Secretary of the Air Force) in developingboth an annual and a 5-year technology baseinvestment strategy for the Air Force. One ofthe primary responsibilities of the DS&T is toensure that the DCS(T&P) investment strat-egy is well balanced and capable of meetingthe short- and long-term needs of the diverseAir Force technology users.

To help raise the visibility of its science andtechnology programs, the Air Force now treatsits entire technology base program asa‘‘corp~rate investment. ” Consequently, when budgetsare being examined by the Air Force, the en-tire technology base program, rather than the44 individual program elements, is examinedfor proper balance and emphasis. The goal isto raise technology base funding to 2 percentof the Air Force’s total obligational authority.The technology base program is now classifiedas 1 of the 35 executive Air Force programs,equal in stature to such executive programsas the Advanced Tactical Fighter.

Management of the Air Force’sResearch (6.1) Program

The Air Force Office of Scientific Research(AFOSR) is responsible for the planning andmanagement of the Defense Research Scienceprogram and the University Research Initia-tive program of the Air Force. The In-HouseLaboratory Independent Research Program(ILIR) is managed directly by each individuallaboratory director. The Commander of theAFOSR reports to the Systems CommandDCS(T&P), who has oversight responsibilitiesfor AFOSR programs and for the integrationof 6.1 research with 6.2 and 6.3A programs.AFOSR supports research which has a “po-tential relationship to an Air Force functionor operation. ” It conducts a program of ex-tramural research contracts and grants (pri-marily grants); oversees the research programs(in-house and extramural) of the Air Force Lab-oratories; and manages three subordinate units.

The three subordinate units are the Euro-pean Office of Aerospace Research and Devel-

opment in London, AFOSR Far East in Tokyo,and the Frank J. Seiler Research Laboratoryin Colorado Springs. The London and Tokyooffices gather information about foreign re-search and act as liaisons between Air Forcescientists and engineers and their foreign coun-terparts. The Seiler Laboratory performs in-house research in such areas as optical physics,aerospace mechanics, fluid mechanics, andchemistry.

Of the $198 million the Air Force will spendon research in fiscal year 1988, about 60 per-cent will be given to colleges and universities.The Air Force in-house laboratories will receive15 percent, industry and nonprofits 20 percent,and the remaining 5 percent is for overhead.

As figure 9 indicates, the AFOSR scienceprograms are divided into six areas: AerospaceSciences, Chemical and Atmospheric Sciences,Electronic and Material Sciences, Life Sci-ences, Mathematical and Information Sci-ences, and Physical and Geophysical Sciences.Each of the program areas has a scientific di-rector, who is responsible (along with the Com-mander and Technical Director of AFOSR) forplanning, managing, and implementing thevarious research programs. As might be ex-pected, the majority of AFOSR research fundsare spent in aerospace sciences, chemical andatmospheric sciences, and electronic and ma-terial sciences.

The AFOSR supports a number of specialresearch programs to further strengthen theAir Force technology base program. They in-clude the Air Force Thermionic EngineeringResearch Program, the Research in AircraftPropulsion Technology Program, the Univer-sity Resident Research Program, the ResidentResearch Associateship Program, the Labora-tory Graduate Fellowship Program, the Ad-vanced Composite Structures Program, theGraduate Student Summer Support Program,and the Summer Faculty Research Program.

In conjunction with industry, the AFOSRsponsors university-based manufacturing re-search centers at Stanford University and atthe University of Michigan. Students perform

I

Figure 9.-Air Force Office of Scientific Research

Contracts

staffJudge

Advocate

I

AerospaceSciences

Electronic andMaterialsciences

I

European Officeof Aerospace Research

a n d

I Reserve I

73

Life sciences

SOURCE: Air Force Office of Scientific Research

LAir Force Officeof Scientific

Research, FarEast

1Physical andGeophysical

sciences

Mathematical andInformation

Sciences

research at the university centers or at par-ticipating companies. The Air Force providesthe assistantship funds for M.S. and Ph.D. can-didates, with Stanford and Michigan respon-sible for selecting the students. AFOSR fund-ing for the two centers is scheduled to bephased out at the end of fiscal year 1988 asindustry support increases.

Management of the Air Force’sExploratory and Advanced TechnologyDevelopment Programs (6.2 and 6.3A)

The DCS(T&P) serves as the “corporatemanager” of the Air Force’s technology baseprogram and is primarily responsible for devel-oping the overall investment strategy that

74

guides laboratory operations. The primaryresponsibility of the DCS(T&P) is to ensureproper integration and balance of these pro-grams, while meeting the needs of the variousoperational commands, in line with OSD andAir Force Headquarters guidance. While hav-ing traditional oversight responsibilities for the6.1 and 6.2 programs, the DS&T in the AirForce Secretariat exerts more active influenceand direction on the large advanced technol-ogy development (ATD) program.

The office of the DCS(T&P), with approxi-mately 70 professionals, consists of five ma-jor research directorates: Aircraft; Armamentand Weapons; Strategic and Space; C3I; andCombat Support. Each of the five Directoratesworks primarily with a particular AFSC prod-uct division and has oversight and coordina-tion responsibilities for that division’s lab(s).The Director of the Aircraft Directorate workswith the four laboratory directors assigned tothe Aeronautical Systems Division. The Ar-mament and Weapons Directorate coordinateswith the Armaments Laboratory of the Arma-ment Division and the Weapons Laboratoryof the Space Technology Center of Space Di-vision. The Strategic and Space Directorateoversees the activities of the other two SpaceDivision laboratories. The Director of C3I isresponsible for the research activities of theone laboratory assigned to Electronic SystemsDivision. Finally, the Combat Support Direc-torate works with the three laboratory direc-tors of the Human Systems Division and theAir Force Engineering and Services Center.

However, this laboratory oversight arrange-ment does not mean that the director of a par-ticular laboratory conducts research for onlyone of the five directorates. Obviously, the in-terdisciplinary nature of research requires thevarious laboratory directors to manage 6.2 and6.3A activities for a number of product divi-sions and applications that cut across the ma-jor air commands.

Within the office of the DCS(T&P), the di-rector of Plans and Programs works with thedirectors of the five research directorates to

ensure their broad technology base investmentstrategy considers both the near- and long-term technological needs of the various AirForce users. The Plans and Programs officealso works with the directorates to ensure thattheir respective technological thrusts are ca-pable of meeting current and future needs ofthe Air Force.

Since 1980, the laboratories of the Air Forcehave been aligned under the parent productdivisions: Electronics System Division (ESD),Armament Division (AD), Human Systems Di-vision (HSD), Space Division (SD), and Aero-nautical Systems Division (ASD). Each of theDivisions has responsibility for one or morelaboratories which perform research, explora-tory development, and advanced developmentin support of that division’s mission as wellas the missions of other divisions. For exam-ple, the Materials Laboratory, under ASD,meets the technology needs of Space Divisionas well. Unlike the other two Services, the AirForce laboratories are not full spectrum R&Dlaboratories. With the exception of the RomeAir Development center, which performs some6.4 work, the remaining laboratories primar-ily conduct 6.1-6.3A activities. The Air Forcesupports the smallest in-house technology baseprogram, actually conducting only 20 percentof its activities in its 14 laboratories. In con-trast, the Air Force supports the largest 6.3Aprogram, reflecting its interest in technologytransition.

The directors of the laboratories have a dualreporting responsibility. The directors reporttheir laboratory activities and accomplish-ments to both the DCS(T&P) as well as to thecommander of their respective product divi-sions. (The four laboratory directors at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base report through theCommander of the Wright Aeronautical Lab-oratories to the Commander of ASD.) As withthe other Services, each of the laboratory di-rectors is ultimately responsible for the ac-tivities in his laboratory. This includes deter-mining research priorities, developing newinitiatives, determining who will be responsi-ble for managing various research projects,

75

whether to use in-house or outside expertise,and when to transition or stop a researchactivity.

The Air Force contends that placing its lab-oratories within the product divisions increasesthe linkages between the developers and ulti-mate users of the various weapon systems. TheAir Force asserts that closer interaction be-tween the product divisions and their respec-tive laboratories will strengthen long-termtechnology base planning capabilities and thetransition of mature technologies into systemsapplications. Further, the Air Force believesthat this closer coupling will reduce the timeit takes to develop and deploy more reliableand less expensive weapon systems.

The Air Force’s advanced technology devel-opment (ATD) program has grown from $159million in fiscal year 1975 to almost $754 mil-lion in fiscal year 1988 (see table 2). The ATDprogram represents 50 percent of the entireAir Force technology base program. Almostall of the ATD program is conducted by de-fense industries under contract to the differ-ent product division laboratories. The AirForce believes that its contractors will incor-porate new technological advances more rap-idly if they actually participate in the suc-cessful development and testing of a newtechnology.

Like the other Services, the Air Force con-ducts an annual iterative planning activity.Much of the planning and programming a c t i v -ities at the Air Force laboratories are primar-ily driven by the future needs of the combatcommands. This process begins in the secondquarter of each fiscal year, when the DCS(T&P)develops an investment strategy to guide plan-

ning for the next 5 years. The results of thisinvestment strategy, along with other guid-ance from DS&T, OSD, and inside and outsidescientific advisory groups, are used to refineshort-term plans and develop long-term plansby the laboratories. As part of their overallplanning responsibilities, the product divisionsidentify a number of potential next generationsystem concepts to meet future warfightingneeds. These warfighting requirements, inturn, are defined by the users.

The Air Force’s Project Forecast II isanother key consideration for developing anoverall technology base strategy in the labora-tories. Completed in 1986, the primary goal ofForecast II was to identify potential techno-logical opportunities that could change thenature and design of future systems, while con-comitantly improving the Air Force’s warfight-ing capabilities. The Project was chartered bythe Secretary of the Air Force and directed bythe Commander of Air Force Systems Com-mand (AFSC). It was supported by a team of175 military and civilian experts drawn fromwithin AFSC, the operational commands, andvarious outside advisory panels. From theideas generated by the Air Force laboratories,industry, universities, and technology panels,40 technological initiatives were identified forfunding within the technology base. Researchprogress in these technological initiatives ismonitored, and appropriate changes of empha-sis are made as the technology matures. Thepurpose of this planning activity is to ensurethat the Air Force technology base programis sufficiently broad to prevent technologicalsurprise by potential adversaries, while at thesame time is in position to take advantage ofnew technological opportunities.

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

The newly created office of the Deputy for ASA(RD&A)–who replaced the Deputy ChiefTechnology and Assessment (DT&A) is re- of Staff for Research, Development, and Acqui-sponsible for the Department of Army’s en- sition—DCS(RD&A) —(see figure 10). Thetire technology base program. The DT&A Army has combined both military and civil-reports to the Assistant Secretary of the Army ian oversight responsibilities for its RDT&Efor Research, Development, and Acquisition— program in one office.

76

Figure 10. -Army Research andDevelopment Organization

Secretary of the Army

■

I IAssistant Secretary of the Army(Research, Development, and

Acquisition)

1Director,

Director,

InternationalProgram and

CooperationTechnologyAssessment

■

I

Director,Director,

Research andSpace and

Technology strategicSystems

SOURCE: Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research , Development, and Acquisition).

As a result of the Goldwater-Nichols Act,the Army has also designated the DT&A asits Program Executive Officer (PEO) for thetechnology base programs. The DT&A pro-vides programmatic planning guidance to theArmy’s 31 Research and Development orga-nizations. DOD’s planning guidance is usedby the Army to help develop its annual and5-year technology base Program ObjectiveMemorandum (POM).

Subordinate to the DT&A is the office of theDirector of Research and Technology (DR&T,see figure 10), which is responsible for plan-ning and coordinating the Army’s entire tech-nology base program. The remaining threeoffices under DT&A, the Director of Interna-

tional Cooperation, the Director of Programand Technology Assessment, and the Direc-tor of Space and Strategic Systems, work withthe DR&T on various special aspects of thetechnology base program. Since this is a com-pletely new organization, the exact responsi-bilities of these offices have yet to be de-termined.

The Army operates its technology base pro-grams differently from the other Services andtends to have a more complicated organiza-tional structure. The Army divides its tech-nology base programs among four major com-ponents: the Army Materiel Command (AMC),the Surgeon General of the Army (TSG), theCorps of Engineers (COE), and the DeputyChief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER). Foroversight purposes, the directors of all four ofthese organizations report to the Deputy forTechnology and Assessment at Army head-quarters.

AMC is responsible for the development andacquisition of all the Army’s combat and com-bat support systems (see figure 11). AMC re-ceives 75 percent of the Army’s technologybase funding and is programmatically r e s p o n -sible for eight research, development, and engi-neering (RDE) centers, seven army labora-tories, the technology base work of the project

Figure 11.-Army Materiel CommandR&D Organization

Army Materiel Command

I

I I

9 other Army LaboratoryCommands Command

I II

8 Research, Development 17 Labs and theand Engineering Centers Army Research Office

SOURCE: Army Materiel Command

77

manager for training devices, and the ArmyResearch Office. The Surgeon General man-ages 14 percent of the technology base pro-grams and is responsible for medical R&Dactivities at the Army’s nine medical labora-tories. The Corps of Engineers operates fourlaboratories and utilizes 6 percent of the tech-nology base funding to support research insuch areas as construction engineering, coldweather combat, and hydrology. The Army Re-search Institute for Behavioral and Social Sci-ences (ARI), which reports to the DCSPER,receives about 1 percent of the technology basefunding for research in personnel-related areas.The remaining 4 percent is for overhead andthe ILIR program. However, due to budget-ary constraints the Army did not propose anyfunding for ILIR in fiscal year 1988.

Management of the Army’s Research(6.1) Program

The Army is the only Service that managesits basic research program through more thanone office. The majority of the 6.1 program ismanaged by the Army Research Office (ARO),located at Research Triangle Park in NorthCarolina. ARO is under the Army’s Labora-tory Command (LABCOM) structure, with theDirector of ARO reporting to the DT&Athrough LABCOM and AMC. Compared toequivalent organizations in the other Services’research offices, ARO is lower in the chain ofcommand and appears to have less visibility.In fiscal year 1988, AMC will receive a littleover two-thirds of the Army’s 6.1 budget. Halfof AMC’s 6.1 funding will go to the ARO andthe other half will go to the AMC laboratoriesand RDE centers. Although ARO does notmanage the portion that goes to the Army lab-oratories and centers, it does make recommen-dations to the Director for Research and Tech-nology, Army Headquarters, regarding thein-house research program content and size.

The ARO program is a mix of short- andlong-term programs that are responsive to theneeds of the Army laboratories. Recently, AROhas worked closely with the Army Training

and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and itsschools to assist in shaping ARO’s researchprogram according to Army mission areaneeds. TRADOC, along with AMC, is respon-sible for evaluating the current and future tech-nological needs of the Army.

The ARO provides the major interface be-tween the Army and the university commu-nity. The university community receives 83percent of ARO’s 6.1 budget; industry gets 10percent and nonprofit organizations receive theremaining 7 percent. The ARO research pro-gram consists of seven divisions: Electronics,Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Engineering,Material Science, Mathematics, and Geo-sciences.

The laboratories’ in-house research programsare organized along the lines of the labora-tories’ mission responsibilities. For example,each laboratory research effort is supportedby a single project fund (SPF) more closely tiedto its mission, rather than to some specific sci-entific discipline. The content of each SPF isdetermined by each laboratory’s technical di-rector and his staff. Research in the laboratoryis really designed to be the first step in the de-velopment chain. ARO contends that researchtasks within an SPF are intended to lead even-tually into development programs. The tech-nical content of each SPF is reviewed annuallyby each Command headquarters and by the Dep-uty for Technology and Assessment (DT&A).

Since 1982, ARO has sponsored a “centersof excellence” program, supporting selectedcolleges and universities. ARO operatescenters in five research areas: electronics,mathematics, rotary wing aircraft technology,artificial intelligence, and optics. These centersare usually funded from 5 to 10 years. Eachcenter has a program advisory panel with mem-bers from the different universities, ARO, theappropriate laboratory within AMC, and in-dustry. For example, the Army Aviation Sys-tems Command Research Development andEngineering Center works with three univer-sities that are the Army’s rotocraft centers ofexcellence.

78

Army’s Management of Exploratoryand Advanced Technology

Development Programs (6.2 and 6.3A)

The Director for Research and Technology(DR&T) is also responsible for the exploratoryand advanced technology development pro-grams of the Army. There are four Deputy As-sistant Directors that have specific responsi-bilities for various aspects of the Army’sscience and technology programs. These fourareas are: 1) aviation—unmanned air vehiclesand missiles, etc.; 2) ballistics-sighting mech-anisms, armaments, munitions, chemical war-fare, etc.; 3) electronics-artificial intelligence,command, control, communications, and intel-ligence, robotics, etc.; and 4) soldier support–ground combat, troop support, and ground ve-hicles.

Within the office of the DR&T there are fivescience and technology professionals (the Di-rector and the four Deputy Assistant Direc-tors) responsible for planning, budgeting, andsetting priorities for the Army’s technologybase programs. Consequently, the Army uti-lizes a much more decentralized managementapproach in operating its laboratories than dothe other Services. Although the DT&A hasprimary oversight for planning, budgeting, andsetting priorities, many of these activities aredirected and performed by the Army MaterialCommand (AMC) office and the newly createdLaboratory Command (LABCOM) (see figure11).

The Army’s LABCOM has only been in ex-istence for a little over 2 years. According toArmy officials, the long-term goal of AMC isto have ARO and the seven laboratories un-der LABCOM primarily responsible for generictechnology base work, while the eight Re-search, Development, and Engineering Centerswould be primarily responsible for engineer-ing and development activities that are moresystems related. The goal is to have the lab-oratories “hand-off” certain technology baseprograms to the RD&E centers to initiateappropriate systems engineering and develop-ment activities.

In 1986 LABCOM published its first com-prehensive technology base investment strat-egy. According to the Army, the purpose ofthe investment strategy is to meet future userbattlefield requirements while preserving theArmy’s ability to exploit technological oppor-tunities. The investment strategy is also usedto determine resource allocation for technol-ogy base activities, and it provides a strate-gic vehicle for articulating the direction of theAMC technology base activities. The AMCbreaks its strategy into four basic elements(see figure 12): next generation and notionalsystems (NGNS); emerging technologies (ET);chronic problems; and supporting analyticalcapabilities.

Nearly half of the AMC’s technology baseresources are planned for next generation/no-tional systems. Next generation systems areusually defined as those beyond the systemscurrently in engineering development; theyrepresent relatively well-defined solutions tobattlefield problems of the next 5 years. No-tional systems, on the other hand, are moreconceptual solutions to problems anticipated10 to 15 years down the line. This distinctionprovides a range of targets for technology baseefforts, from mid-range to long term.

As figure 12 indicates, emerging technol-ogies support 25 percent of the technology basestrategy. These are technologies such as ro-botics, artificial intelligence, and biotechnol-ogy which may not yet have coalesced into specific systems applications. The Army admitsthat the difference between ETs and NGNSis “fuzzy;” nevertheless, ETs are judged to beso important that they deserve special empha-sis through visibility and funding emphasis.Most of the ET activities are focused on ex-ploring new technological concepts that couldbe used by the Army 15 to 30 years in thefuture.

Certain chronic problems, such as corrosionprevention and manufacturing problems, areendemic to the ability of the Army to performits mission but often do not receive technol-ogy base support. Although these may be less

79

Figure 12.-Army Technology Base Investment Strategy

●

●

●

Artificial Intelligence

Robotics

Directed Energy Weapons

Acoustic Devices

Advanced Materials/Material Processing

Advanced Signal Processingand Computing

Biotechnology

Power Generation/Storage/Conditioning

Space Technology

Low Observables

System Science

●

●

●

●

●

●

LReduction

CPrev/Contro

Physical/FunctionalSurvivability

Lightening the Force

Manufacturing Technology

Manprint/Human FactorsEngineering

Training

● Hardware in the LoopSimulators

● Modeling/Simulation

● Assesment Technology

● Test and Evaluation

● Special Purpose Equipment/Computers

SOURCE: Army Materiel Command/Laboratory Command

glamorous than developing new weapon sys-tems, 15 percent of the technology base sup-port is now devoted to these concerns.

Supporting analytical capabilities includemodeling, simulation, advanced demonstrationprojects (ADP), and other infrastructure activ-ities aimed at increasing the Army’s abilityto perform quality R&D and improve its ac-quisition across the entire spectrum of the ma-terial life-cycle. This category, representing theremaining 10 percent of technology base fund-ing, is devoted to future operational capabil-ities and improving the research infra-structure.

The Army asserts that the AMC laboratoriesand the RD&E centers, ARO, and to a lesserextent the Corps of Engineers’ laboratories are

required to formulate their technology basestrategies within this investment strategyframework. However, this does not necessarilymean that every lab or center must be work-ing on every element of the strategy, or thatits budget must reflect the exact percentageallocation for each element. Nevertheless itdoes mean that:

... each organization should plan their tech-nology base work to address (within their mis-sion area) the technological barriers repre-sented by the specific set of NGNS, and thatthey should give emphasis to the other ele-ments of the strategy before pursuing otherwork, which may nevertheless be importantin its own right. 2 1

“A LAl?COM White Paper “The AMC Technology Base In-vestment Strategy, ” June 7, 1987, p. 43.

80

The technology base investment strategy isdeveloped through an annual analysis of theArmy’s 13 major mission areas (e.g., close com-bat (light), close combat (heavy), air defense,mine/counter-mine, etc.). The mission area anal-yses, which are conducted by TRADOC withsupport from AMC, COE, TSG, and ARI, re-sult in the publication of a Battlefield Devel-opment Plan that outlines both near- and mid-term battlefield deficiencies and opportunities.Directed by AMC, the Army then conductswhat is called a mission area materials proc-ess (MAMP) to address the various deficien-cies and opportunities in the context of the fourelements of the mission area strategy.

The technology base investment strategyand the MAMP drive the technology baseactivities in several ways. They are used asstrategic planning tools, laying out the pro-jected development time schedules of the sys-tems planned for the future. Further, bothTRADOC and AMC review the 13 mission areastrategies for duplication and opportunities forcollaborative efforts among the labs andcenters to help meet deadlines and reduce tech-nology base costs.

Since the next generation and notional sys-tems are intended to focus on near- and long-term technological barriers, a large percent-age of the 6.2 and 6.3A budget is spent in thisarea. For example, almost all of the 6.3A bud-get is spent on approximately 60 specific tech-nology demonstrations. Each year the Armypublishes a document that describes the “Top-20’ demonstrations and identifies the labora-tory responsible for managing the demonstra-tion. Each demonstration can last from 3 to5 years.

Like the other Services, the Army performsan annual top-down, bottom-up guidance anddirection exercise. This evaluation beginsin the fall when each lab and center presentsa review of its accomplishments, along withplans for meeting next year’s technology basestrategy. The Army utilizes a Technology BaseAdvisory Group to set project priorities. Thisgroup works with representatives fromTRADOC and the Department of the Armyheadquarters in establishing the overall projectpriorities for the technology base investmentstrategy.

THE DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY(DARPA)

At just under $800 million in fiscal year 1988,the technology base program of the DefenseAdvanced Research Project Agency (DARPA)is larger than those of the other defense agen-cies combined. The other agencies are: the De-fense Nuclear Agency (DNA); the DefenseCommunications Agency (DCA); the NationalSecurity Agency (NSA); and the Defense Map-ping Agency (DMA). DARPA was establishedin 1958 partly due to the pressures forced bythe launching of the Sputnik satellites. ThePresident and Congress also recognized thatDoD needed an organization which could takethe “long view” regarding the development ofhigh-risk technology. DARPA was thus setupto be DoD’s “corporate” research organization,reporting to the highest level (currently theUSD(A)) and capable of working at the “cut-

ting edge” of technology. DARPA’s organiza-tion allows it to explore innovative applicationsof new technologies where the risk and pay-off are both high, but where success may pro-vide new military options or applications—orrevise traditional roles and missions. In the-ory, since DARPA has no operational militarymissions, it should be able to maintain objec-tivity in pursuit of research ideas which prom-ise quantum technology advancement.

DARPA executes its programs mainlythrough contracts with industry, universities,nonprofit organizations, and government lab-oratories. DARPA now has a limited in-house contracting capability. This means thatDARPA can contract directly with defensecontractors, rather than going through the

81

Services. However, the Services and other gov-ernment agencies usually provide this function.In these cases, technical monitoring and sup-port are often provided as well, thus establish-ing a “joint program atmosphere. Accordingto DARPA, close relationships with the Serv-ices facilitate subsequent technology transferwhen research projects reach a mature stageand are linked to operational requirements.

Organization

The DARPA organization is tailored for theagency’s role and is often “adjusted” to ac-commodate priorities. DARPA consists of theDirector’s office (including the new PrototypeOffice and two Special Assistants-one forStrategic Computing and one for the NationalAerospace Plane), two administrative supportoffices, and the following eight technicaloffices:

1.2.3.4.

5.6.7.8.

Tactical Technology Office,Strategic Technology Office,Defense Sciences Office,Information Science and TechnologyOffice,Aerospace Technology Office,Naval Technology Office,Directed Energy Office; andTechnical Assessment and Long-RangePlanning Office.

—

DARPA’s programs are divided into twobroad categories: Basic Technology Projectsand Major Demonstration Projects. The BasicTechnology Projects focus on long-term re-search in the areas that are related to a spe-cific technical office. As some of these tech-

THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE

Headed by a Director who reports directlyto the Secretary of Defense, the Strategic De-fense Initiative Organization (SDIO) is a cen-trally managed defense agency with both tech-nical and administrative offices. The officesaddress ongoing scientific research, broad pol-icy issues, and overall funding issues. Thereare five technical program directorates (Sur-

nology investigations begin to show promise,feasibility demonstrations are conducted, oftenin cooperation with the military Services, inan attempt to transfer the technology as rap-idly as possible into system development—thus matching technology with requirements.

The Prototyping Office was established thispast year in response to a recommendation ofthe Packard Commission on Defense Acquisi-tion. Prototype projects will consist of “brass-board” models, feasibility demonstrations, andexperimental vehicles. Some concerns havebeen expressed that this new responsibility,if improperly managed, could jeopardizeDARPA’s basic charter-that of examininghigh-risk technologies, proving feasibility, andquantifying risk without the pressures for dem-onstrating military applications. It is too earlyto tell if this concern is justified.

Programs and Priorities

DARPA’s scope of programs and responsi-bilities is broad and appears to be growing asmore joint programs are being added toDARPA’s overall responsibilities. Among thekey projects underway are the X-29 AdvancedTechnology Demonstrator, being conducted inconjunction with NASA Ames Research Cen-ter; the X-Wing Demonstrator; AdvancedCruise Missile Technology; Particle BeamTechnology; Strategic Computing; and a high-priority effort to examine technology for ar-mor/anti-armor. DARPA also has a growingmaterials program investigating advancedcomposites, other complex materials, and elec-tronic materials including gallium arsenide.

INITIATIVE ORGANIZATION

veillance, Acquisition, Tracking, and KillAssessment; Directed Energy Weapons; Ki-netic Energy Weapons; Systems Analysis andBattle Management; and Survivability, Le-thality and Key Technologies) and a programmanager for Innovative Science and Technol-ogy. Although the entire SDI program isfunded under the Advanced Technology De-

82

velopment category (6.3A), much of the work through the Services (Army, Navy, and Airsupported by the Innovative Science and Tech- Force), with some additional efforts throughnology office could be classed as generic re- other executive agents including DARPA,search or exploratory in nature. DNA, the Department of Energy, and the Na-

As with the “traditional” S&T program, spe tional Aeronautics and Space Administration.

cific SDI projects are executed primarily

SUMMARYThe Department of Defense will invest

almost $9 billion in technology base activitiesin fiscal year 1988. DOD’s complex technol-ogy base program is planned, organized, andimplemented by DARPA, SDIO, and the threeServices, with oversight and guidance providedby the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).The majority of the technology base programis conducted by industry (50 percent), withuniversities performing 20 percent and theDOD in-house laboratories conducting the re-maining 30 percent. The primary goal of thetechnology base program is to counter Sovietnumerical manpower and weapons superioritythrough the development of superior technol-ogy for future weapons systems. Thus, DODcontends a growing technology base programis critical to the successful execution of the Na-tion’s defense policies.

Within the last 3 years, each of the threeServices and the OSD have reorganized theirtechnology base programs. As a result of theGoldwater-Nichols Act, the USD(A) was estab-lished and given responsibility for all RDT&Eactivities except for those of the Director ofSDIO, who reports directly to the Secretary ofDefense. The Goldwater-Nichols Act also rees-tablished the Director of Defense Research andEngineering (DDR&E) as the primary spokes-man for DOD’s technology base activities.

Within OSD, the DDR&E is primarily re-sponsible for providing an overall corporateemphasis and balance for DOD’s entire tech-nology base program, except for SDI. Once theServices have formulated their technology baseprograms, the primary role of the DUSD(R&AT) is to ensure that their proposals haveresponded to OSD guidance. The Deputy for

R&AT must also be sure that the Services’ pro-grams are well balanced, do not duplicate ef-fort, and attempt to meet the current and fu-ture technological needs of DOD.

Each of the three Services operates and man-ages its technology base activities differently.The Army uses a more decentralized approachin managing its technology base programs; itrelies its major field commands-AMC head-quarters, the Corps of Engineers, the SurgeonGeneral, and the DCS for Personnel–to helpdevelop and implement its technology base in-vestment strategy. This is primarily due to thesmall size of the Army’s technology base head-quarters staff. The Deputy for Technology andAssessment (DT&A) is considered to be theArmy’s Program Executive Officer (PEO) forthe technology base programs. The DT&A isresponsible for coordinating technology baseprograms of AMC, the Surgeon General, theCorps of Engineers, and the DCS for Person-nel. AMC headquarters is responsible for over-sight and management of the Army’s eight lab-oratories, seven RD&E Centers, the projectmanagement training device, and the ArmyResearch Office.

Unlike the other Services, the Navy, whichrecently reorganized its laboratory organiza-tion, performs the majority (60 percent) of itstechnology base programs in-house. Many ofthe Navy laboratories are considered to be fullspectrum labs, capable of performing the en-tire range of RDT&E activities. The Navy’sbasic research program is the oldest andlargest of the Services, whereas its advancedtechnology demonstration program is thesmallest. The Navy contends it is in the proc-ess of rebuilding its advanced technology de-

83

velopment program, which, unlike the otherServices, is not managed in the same office asits 6.1 and 6.2 programs.

As of November 1, 1987, the Deputy Chiefof Staff for Technology and Plans was estab-lished to oversee the Air Force technology baseprograms. The DCS(T&P) is also the PEO for,and the single manager of, the Air Force tech-nology base program. The Air Force Chief ofStaff has recently designated the technologybase program as a “corporate investment” tohelp raise its visibility and to provide a long-term stable funding base. The Air Force oper-ates the largest extramural technology baseprogram. Its technology base activities aremore centralized than those of the other Serv-ices. The Air Force laboratories are moreclosely linked to product divisions than arethose of the other Services, and this linkageinfluences the types of 6.2 and 6.3A activitieseach laboratory performs.

The role of DARPA appears to be changingwith the recent establishment of the Prototyp-

ing Office. There is some concern that thismight compromise DARPA’s support of high-risk technologies (only 11 percent of DARPA’sbudget is for research), as well as its role ofproving feasibility and quantifying risk with-out the pressure for demonstrating militaryapplication. The majority of DARPA’s bud-get is contracted through the three Servicesto industry (75 to 80 percent) and universities(20 percent), with only a small fraction ofDARPA’s technology base activities actuallyconducted by the military.

The SD I program is centrally managed withits director reporting to the Secretary of De-fense. Less than 5 percent of the SDI budgetis spent on basic research, with the remainderdivided between exploratory development andadvanced technology development. The major-ity of SDI projects are executed through theServices, with some additional efforts throughother executive agents including DARPA,DNA, the Department of Energy, and the Na-tional Aeronautics and Space Administration.