[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 113-96]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES HEARING
ON
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FISCAL
YEAR 2015 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAMS: PURSUING TECHNOLOGY
SUPERIORITY IN A CHANGING
SECURITY ENVIRONMENT
__________
HEARING HELD
MARCH 26, 2014
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-859 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office, Phone
(202) 512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free), E-mail, [email protected]
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman
JEFF MILLER, Florida JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona ANDREE CARSON, Indiana
DUNCAN HUNTER, California DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York DEREK KILMER, Washington
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada SCOTT H. PETERS, California
Kevin Gates, Professional Staff Member
Mark Lewis, Professional Staff Member
Julie Herbert, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2014
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, March 26, 2014, Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2015
Science and Technology Programs: Pursuing Technology
Superiority in a Changing Security Environment................. 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, March 26, 2014........................................ 27
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2014
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FISCAL YEAR 2015 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS:
PURSUING TECHNOLOGY SUPERIORITY IN A CHANGING SECURITY ENVIRONMENT
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Langevin, Hon. James R., a Representative from Rhode Island,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats
and Capabilities............................................... 1
Thornberry, Hon. Mac, a Representative from Texas, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities 1
WITNESSES
Klunder, RADM Matthew L., USN, Chief of Naval Research, U.S. Navy 5
Miller, Mary J., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Research and Technology, U.S. Army............................. 3
Prabhakar, Dr. Arati, Director, Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, Department of Defense......................... 8
Shaffer, Alan R., Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering, Department of Defense................ 2
Walker, Dr. David E., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Science, Technology and Engineering, U.S. Air Force........ 7
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Klunder, RADM Matthew L...................................... 80
Miller, Mary J............................................... 55
Prabhakar, Dr. Arati......................................... 128
Shaffer, Alan R.............................................. 31
Walker, Dr. David E.......................................... 96
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Thornberry............................................... 151
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Peters................................................... 162
Mr. Thornberry............................................... 155
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FISCAL YEAR 2015 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS:
PURSUING TECHNOLOGY SUPERIORITY IN A CHANGING SECURITY ENVIRONMENT
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats and Capabilities,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 26, 2014.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:52 p.m., in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mac Thornberry
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAC THORNBERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS
AND CAPABILITIES
Mr. Thornberry. The hearing will come to order. Thank you
all for your patience. It is inevitable that whenever this
subcommittee has a hearing scheduled,that is when votes will be
on the floor. It happens every single time. But I do appreciate
y'all bearing with us. We will have votes again in roughly an
hour and a half or so, so we will need to move as expeditiously
as we can. And with that in mind, I am going to forego any
opening statement.
Yield to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island for
any comments he would like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
RHODE ISLAND, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,
EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
welcome our witnesses here today. And given the time concerns,
I will follow your lead, Mr. Chairman. I will forego my opening
statement.
I will submit it for the record.
Mr. Thornberry. I thank the gentleman. And without
objection, all of your written statements will be made part of
the record, and you will all have a chance to summarize your
comments, if you don't mind.
And, Mr. Shaffer, please lead off.
STATEMENT OF ALAN R. SHAFFER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Shaffer. Well, you know, it is always wonderful being
the chief technology officer of the Department and not knowing
how to operate these things.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shaffer. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Langevin,
members of the committee, I am pleased to come before you today
to testify about the fiscal year 2015 Department of Defense
[DOD] science and technology [S&T] program. I am also proud to
be here to represent the 100,000 scientists and engineers in
the Department, a workforce that has had remarkable
achievements in the past, but is now a workforce showing the
early stages of stress.
The collective impact of the 2013 civilian furlough and
program curtailment, the October 2013 government shutdown, and
the indirect impacts of the sequester--such as restrictions on
our young scientists and engineers attending technical
conferences and reductions in hiring new scientists and
engineers--has impacted the health of our workforce and the
programs they execute in ways that we are just beginning to
understand.
We have begun to address these challenges and know we will
defeat them, but they do remain a concern. The fiscal year 2015
budget request for science and technology is relatively stable.
The DOD S&T request is $11.5 billion, compared to a 2014
appropriation of $12 billion. The request represents a 4
percent decrease in the Department's S&T program compared to a
flat RDT&E [research, development, test and evaluation] budget
request.
While we continue to execute a balanced program, there are
factors that led Secretary Hagel to conclude, in his February
24 fiscal year 2015 budget rollout, that the development and
proliferation of more advanced military technologies by other
nations means that we are entering an era where American
dominance on the seas, in the skies, and in space can no longer
be taken for granted. The Department is in the third year of a
protracted and rapid top-line and RDT&E budget drawdown.
As highlighted by the Secretary, there are three major
areas that compromise the Department's budget: force size,
readiness, and modernization. The current budget is driving a
force-size reduction, but this reduction will take several
years to yield significant savings. In the fiscal year 2015
budget, readiness and/or modernization will pay a larger
percentage of this reduction bill. Our technological
superiority is challenged by increasingly sophisticated
military capabilities rapidly emerging around the globe.
Within a fiscally constrained environment, our
modernization efforts are focused on the enablers that keep our
military equipment technologically superior to the emerging
threat. Accordingly, we developed a strategy for the research
and engineering program whereby we invest in research and
engineering for three reasons. The first is to mitigate new and
emerging threat capabilities. We see significant need in
electronic warfare, cyber activities, counter-weapons of mass
destruction, and preserving space capabilities in a contested
space environment.
The second is to affordably enable new or extended
capabilities in existing and new military platforms. We see
significant need for systems engineers, modeling and
simulation, and an expansion in prototyping efforts across the
Department. The third reason we invest in research and
engineering is to develop technology surprise. We see
significant opportunities to advance our technologies in
autonomy, human systems, quantum sensing, and big data. We have
a balanced program that is yielding significant innovation
across the DOD. DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency] continues to deliver new capabilities that will allow
the DOD to stay technologically advanced, and Dr. Prabhakar
will detail some of these programs.
But we are also seeing groundbreaking capability
developments in the services and agencies. Whether it is the
first operational deployment of a laser system on the USS Ponce
or the development of the future helicopter in the Army's joint
multi-role helicopter demonstration, or the first-ever
demonstration of an air-breathing hypersonic system such as
accomplished by the Air Force's X-51 missile last year, the
Department's S&T program continues to deliver.
The last year has been challenging to the Department's S&T
program. The risk to our force is growing, and the need for the
science and technology community, and delivery, is likewise
increasing. While the challenges are increasing, the Department
as a whole recognizes the need to maintain technological
superiority as a cornerstone of the future force. We still have
the best military, defense industrial base, and laboratory and
university research systems.
However, instability and effects of the Budget Control Act
and the near-term lack of balance between force structure,
readiness, and modernization will increase the risk to our
future force.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaffer can be found in the
Appendix on page 31.]
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you.
Ms. Miller.
STATEMENT OF MARY J. MILLER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. ARMY
Ms. Miller. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Langevin,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for
this opportunity to discuss the Army's science and technology
program for fiscal year 2015. After 13 years of persistent
conflict, the United States finds itself in a familiar
situation, facing a declining defense budget and a strategic
landscape that continues to evolve. Given the budget downturn
within the Department of Defense, the Army has been compelled
to face some difficult choices.
As Mr. Shaffer noted, we must balance between force
structure, operational readiness, and modernization to maintain
a capable force able to prevent, shape, and win any engagement.
The Army will adapt, remaining an ever-present land force
unparalleled throughout the world. As a result of these
difficult budget decisions, however, we face a situation where
modernization will be slowed over the next 5 years. New
programs will not be initiated as originally envisioned, and
the Army's science and technology enterprise will be challenged
to better prepare for the programs and capabilities of the
future.
There is an old saying that my boss, Ms. Shyu, the Army
acquisition executive, likes to use when explaining the Army's
modernization strategy. ``The best time to plant a tree was 20
years ago. The second-best time is today.'' And as we draw down
forces from Afghanistan, today is the best time to plant seeds
for the Army of the future. This is not a new concept. At the
end of all major conflicts, we begin to focus on preparing for
what is next.
Perhaps the most successful example of planting future
seeds is found at the end of the Vietnam conflict, where the
Army focused on developing the big five--Abrams, Bradley, Black
Hawk, Apache, and Patriot--platforms that still dominate the
fight today. It is this mindset that led the Army leadership to
protect our S&T investment, their seed corn for the future.
Despite these great budget challenges, much trust has been
placed in our Army S&T community.
When I testified to this committee last year, I spoke about
an initiative to generate a comprehensive modernization
strategy that would facilitate informed strategic decisions,
based on long-term objectives, within a resource-constrained
environment. I am happy to report that this new process has
been extremely beneficial for the Army, and is a process we
have continued. The long-term look over the next 30 years was
exceptionally powerful in facilitating the strategic decisions
made within the Army as we built the fiscal year 2015
President's budget.
It allowed the Army leadership to make tough program
decisions based on providing the most capability to our
soldiers, knowing that in some cases that meant delaying
desired capabilities. Last year, I also discussed the need for
flexibility to balance across our investment portfolios. For
fiscal year 2015, we were allowed to do this. It made a
critical difference in the Army strategy, allowing us to make a
deliberate increase in our advance technology demonstration
funding--budget activity three--from previous years.
This is essential as the Army looks to its S&T community to
conduct more technology demonstration and prototyping
initiatives that will focus on maturing technology, reducing
program risk, defining realistic requirements, and conducting
experimentation with soldiers to both refine new capabilities
and develop new operational concepts. The S&T community will be
challenged to bring forward not only new capabilities, but
capabilities that are affordable for the Army of the future.
You will see that the Army S&T portfolio is increasing
emphasis on research areas that support the next generation of
combat vehicles; A2/AD [anti-access/area denial] technologies,
such as Assured Position, Navigation, and Timing; soldier
selection tools and training technologies; and long-range
fires. We are also increasing vulnerability assessment
investments, red-teaming our technologies, our systems, and
systems of systems to identify potential vulnerabilities,
including performance degradation in contested environments,
interoperability, adaptability, and training in ease of use.
None of this would be possible without the world-class
cadre of over 12,000 scientists and engineers that make up the
Army science and technology enterprise. Despite this current
environment of unease within the government civilian
workforce--exacerbated over this past year--we continue to have
an exceptional workforce. They are up to the challenge that the
Army has given to them.
This is an interesting, yet challenging, time to be in the
Army. Despite this, we remain an Army that is looking towards
the future while taking care of our soldiers today. I hope that
we can continue to count on your support as we move forward.
Thank you again for all that you do for our soldiers.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Miller can be found in the
Appendix on page 55.]
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you.
Admiral.
STATEMENT OF RADM MATTHEW L. KLUNDER, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL
RESEARCH, U.S. NAVY
Admiral Klunder. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member
Langevin, subcommittee members, it is an honor to be here today
to report on science and technology efforts in the Department
of the Navy and discuss how the President's 2015 budget request
supports the Navy and Marine Corps.
We use science and technology to enable our Navy and Marine
Corps team to maintain the technological edge necessary to
prevail in any environment where we are called to defend U.S.
interests. We work with the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of
Naval Operations [CNO], and the Commandant of the Marine Corps
to balance the allocation of resources between near-term
innovation and long-term leap-ahead research.
Our goal is to improve our warfighting capability to
counter increasingly complex threats in this uncertain
environment, while at the same time addressing affordability in
a serious way with our systems. Beginning with the evolution of
current systems, through incremental, spiral development of
current technology, we move toward exploiting yet-to-be-
discovered, disruptive, game-changing technologies. The Naval
S&T Strategic Plan guides our investments and is regularly
updated by Navy and Marine Corps leadership to validate
alignment of S&T with current and future missions, priorities,
and requirements, and ensures that S&T has long-term focus,
meets near-term objectives, and makes what we do clear to
decisionmakers, partners, customers, and performers.
The S&T plan that I just referred to is currently under
review and will be updated in the very near future. We fully
understand that anti-access/area denial threats continue to
increase. Cyberwar challenges will also increase and become
more complex. These problems are not easy to solve, but we are
making progress. And as I said last year, we want to get away
from using $3 million weapons to defeat $50,000 threats.
We have weapons in development and being fielded here
currently that will allow us to reverse that asymmetrical cost
advantage currently held by some of our adversaries. These are
not pie-in-the-sky science projects. These are being tested,
they work. I invite you and your staffs to get hands-on
experience and see them for yourselves. I know some of you have
been down there already, but certainly at the Naval Surface
Warfare Center at Dahlgren, the Naval Research Laboratory [NRL]
here in Anacostia, where our world-class scientists and
civilian employees are making those things happen.
The bottom line is, we are constantly transitioning the
results of Discovery and Invention applied research into
fielding prototype weapons, and acquisition programs of record.
We were commended for the way we do it by the 2013 Government
Accountability Office report cited in my testimony. But it is
not enough to build and transition effective systems. We need
to be extremely affordable.
An ongoing example of our success is the Laser Weapon
System, part of our solid state laser maturation effort. We
feel energy weapons, specifically directed energy weapons,
offer the Navy and the Marine Corps game-changing capabilities
in speed-of-light engagement, deep magazines, multi-mission
functionality, and affordable solutions. Laser weapons are very
low engagement costs--right now, we are literally under a U.S.
dollar per pulsed energy round--which is critical in our
current fiscal environment.
They are capable in defeating adversarial threats,
including fast boats, UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] and other
low-cost, widely available weapons. Now, our Laser Weapon
System--again, referred to as LaWS--leverages advances in
commercial technology for use in a rugged, robust prototype
weapon capable of identifying, illuminating, tracking, and
lasing enemy surface and air threats. The Navy is installing
this LaWS system on board the USS Ponce in the Arabian Gulf
this year; this summer, to be exact.
That harsh and operationally important environment will
provide an ideal opportunity to evaluate long-term system
performance. We believe that LaWS has every potential for
extraordinary success in field--terms of fielding an effective,
affordable weapon for our sailors and Marines.
An electromagnetic railgun is also similarly poised to
provide game-changing disruptive capability for our long-range
attack ballistic missile, cruise missile defense in anti-
surface warfare against ships and small boats.
Fired by electric pulse, railgun has the potential to
launch projectiles over 110 nautical miles. With this
projectile development underway, and barrel life on a path to
1,000 shots, we feel very strong about this capability. Current
research is focused on a rep rate, repetition rate, capability
of multiple rounds per minute, which entails development of a
tactical prototype barrel and pulse power system incorporating
advanced cooling techniques. Developmental tests right now are
ongoing at Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren and at NRL,
along with evaluation and integration of new and existing naval
platforms.
And this might be new news, but the railgun testing, we are
going to do that on board a JHSV, Joint High Speed Vessel, in
2016. We will continue to duplicate these kinds of successes in
other S&T areas with our innovative research and disruptive
thinking, always trying to make our existing systems more
effective and more affordable while improving transition to
acquisition programs.
Our research is exhilarating and unpredictable. We balance
a range of complementary but competing research initiatives by
supporting advances in established operational areas, while
sustaining far-reaching long-term efforts to provide disruptive
operational concepts.
Thank you again for your support, and I look forward to
answering any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Klunder can be found in
the Appendix on page 80.]
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you.
Dr. Walker.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID E. WALKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE AIR FORCE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING, U.S. AIR
FORCE
Dr. Walker. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Langevin,
members of the subcommittee and staff, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to provide the testimony on the fiscal year 2015
Air Force Science and Technology Program.
Globalization and the proliferation of technology mean we
face threats across a wide spectrum and competition across all
domains. As stated by our chief of staff, in the Global
Vigilance, Global Reach, Global Power Vision, quote: ``Despite
the best analysis and projections by the national security
experts, the time and the place of the next crisis are never
certain and are rarely what we expect,'' unquote.
Success and a guarantee of security in this dynamic
environment require that we take lessons learned from the last
decade of conflict, and creatively visualize future strategic
landscape. In this space between the learning from the past and
keeping an eye open on the future is where we find opportunity
in the S&T environment. Air Force scientists and engineers
continue to evolve and advance game-changing and enabling
technologies which will transform the landscape of how we fly,
fight, and win against high-end threats in the contested
environments.
In close coordination with the requirements, intelligence,
and acquisition communities, we have structured the Air Force
2015 Science and Technology Program to address the highest
priority needs of the Air Force across the near-, mid-, and
far-term, execute a balanced and integrated program that is
responsive to the Air Force core missions, and to advance
technical competencies needed to address future research
thrusts.
Our forthcoming update for the Air Force S&T strategy
focuses on investing in S&T for the future, as well as
leveraging our organic capacity, the capacity of our partners
both domestic and international, integrating existing
capabilities, and to mature technologies into innovative,
affordable, and sustained solutions. This flexible strategy
provides us the technological agility to adapt our S&T program
to the dynamic, strategic, budgetary, and technology
environments that will shape prioritized, actionable S&T plans
of the future.
It also guides our development of a strong STEM [science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics] workforce and
investment in our laboratory infrastructure to support the
future research. The Air Force as a whole had to make difficult
trades between force structure, readiness, and modernization in
the service's fiscal year 2015 President's budget submission to
recover from the budget uncertainties that we have had over the
past few years. The Air Force fiscal year 2015 budget request
for S&T is approximately $2.1 billion.
This year's S&T budget request represents a 6.2 percent
decrease from our fiscal year 2014 President's budget request.
However, when you compare this to the overall RDT&E decrease
the Air Force had to take in the balance, which was about 9
percent, the Air Force S&T actually fared very well in the Air
Force planning and programming process. Our budget request
rebalances basic research spending as part of the overall
portfolio to increase emphasis on conducting technology
demonstrations.
It also emphasizes our efforts in game-changing
technologies of hypersonics, autonomy, directed energy, and
fuel-efficient propulsion technologies, which can affordably
provide us necessary range, speed, and lethality for operations
in highly contested environments, as outlined in the 2014
Quadrennial Defense Review. More information about these
efforts and our investments in enabling technologies is
described in my written statement, provided for the record.
In closing, I firmly believe that maintaining and even
expanding our technological advantage is vital to ensuring the
assured access and freedom of action in the air, space, and
cyberspace. The focused and balanced investment in the Air
Force fiscal year 2015 S&T program are hedges against an
unpredictable future, and provide pathways to a flexible,
precise, and lethal force at a relatively low cost in relation
to the return on the investment.
On behalf of the dedicated scientists and engineers of the
Air Force Science and Technology enterprise, I want to thank
you again for the opportunity to testify today. And thank you
for your continued support of the Air Force S&T program.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Walker can be found in the
Appendix on page 96.]
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you.
Dr. Prabhakar.
STATEMENT OF DR. ARATI PRABHAKAR, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE ADVANCED
RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Dr. Prabhakar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Langevin. And
thanks to all of you for the chance to be here along with my
colleagues today.
DARPA is part of this DOD S&T community. We are also part
of the larger national R&D [research and development]
ecosystem. Within those communities, DARPA has a particular
role. And that role is to make the pivotal early investments
that change what is possible so that we can take big steps
forward in our national security capabilities. And that mission
has not changed over our five and a half decade history as an
agency.
But, of course, the world that we are living in has
changed, and changed in that period. So what is going on today,
as you well know, today we face a very wide variety of national
security threats. We are dealing with challenges from nation-
states, but also networked terrorism. All of those actors today
have access to very powerful technologies around the world.
And then here at home, we are watching the growing cost of
our operational military systems. And that, too, poses a threat
to our future security. So there is quite a lot on our plates.
I would like to just briefly mention work across three
different areas in our portfolio to give you a sense for some
of the things we are doing about these challenges.
First, today we see that the classic approach to these
complex military systems leads us to a place where these
systems are so costly and inflexible that they are really not
going to serve our needs for the next generation. So in the
DARPA portfolio today you will find work that we are doing to
come up with new techniques that are scalable approaches, for
example, to dynamically controlling the electromagnetic
spectrum. And you will see work in new distributed cooperative
effects that we think can be a powerful part of the next
generation of air dominance. Just two examples across a broad
set of things that we are doing in this big bin of rethinking
complex military systems.
In a second area, we can see the information revolution
unfolding across every aspect of military operations. And today
at DARPA, we are creating a new set of cyber security
capabilities that will allow us to trust the information that
we use. We are also inventing the new tools that let us get a
handle on this explosion that is happening with data so that
instead of drowning in the data we can actually get deep
insights out of all of that information out there.
And then in a third area, we look at what is bubbling in
research. And we see biology today starting to intersect with
engineering. And in that research, we are seeing the seeds of
technological surprise. So part of our work at DARPA today is
making the investments to create new capabilities in areas like
synthetic biology and neurotechnology. So just a few examples
of the things that we are doing today.
I also just want to take a minute to talk with you about
what it takes for us to do that work and to deliver on our
mission. Your support across the board here has been critical.
First, with respect to our people, we continue to use the 1101
flexible hiring authority that this committee has helped with
the legislation on that, starting a number of years ago. It has
actually become critically important to our ability today to
recruit the next set of people that have the potential to
become great DARPA program managers.
Secondly, let me turn to the budget. The President's budget
request for DARPA in fiscal 2015 is $2.9 billion. The backdrop
for that number is that our budget declined about 20 percent on
real terms between 2009 and 2013. That includes the 8 percent
sequestration hit in fiscal 2013. That downward slide stopped
in fiscal 2014 and we had a slight restoration. About half the
sequestration cut was restored in the 2014 appropriations.
I greatly appreciate the support from this committee that
was part of making that possible. It is making a real
difference this fiscal year. The President's budget continues
that very slight restoration process, bringing us almost back
to where we were before the sequestration. So, again, I will
ask for your support of that request.
Let me just end by saying that when I talk to our senior
leaders in the Pentagon and here on Capitol Hill, I can see the
weight of our national security challenges on them. I see that
on you, and we all feel it ourselves.
We do live in a volatile world. We all see the growth and
the proliferation of threats. We are dealing with constrained
resources. But I also know that American innovation has turned
the tide time and again. And I am confident that our efforts
today can do that for the years to come, as well. So thank you
again for your support. We can't do that work without it.
And I am very happy to answer questions, along with my
colleagues.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Prabhakar can be found in
the Appendix on page 128.]
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you. Innovation can turn the tide if
we let it. On the other hand, sometimes we have a way of
getting in the way of things.
Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all
of our witnesses for your testimony today, and the just
extraordinary and very important work that you all are doing. I
have had the opportunity to meet with most of you pretty
regularly, and I always appreciate the updates and the progress
that you are making.
So let me start with this. It is my understanding that the
High Energy Laser-Joint Technology Office budget was supposed
to be restored in fiscal year 2015, after a 2-year reduction
directed to assist the Air Force hypersonics program. The
fiscal year 2015 budget does not reflect the restoration to
approximately $68 million. Can you explain the rationale for
this decision?
Mr. Shaffer. Yes, sir. I will start, and I will let Dr.
Walker finish. A lot of it got caught up in the overall budget
reductions in 2015 that we had to deal with. But I don't look
at the funding for high energy lasers in a vacuum of one
particular program at the Joint Technology Office, but rather
in the totality. And we have had remarkable progress, led not
by the Joint Technology Office's money, but by their leadership
in bringing together and knitting together the science and
technology high energy laser programs of the Department.
And I think it is significant that this office, working
with each of our S&T execs and with DARPA, have knitted
together an integrated science and technology program that has
led to--as you heard from Admiral Klunder--the deployment of a
30 kilowatt laser on the USS Ponce this summer. It has led to
the development of what will eventually be a 100 kilowatt--
currently, I think it is 10 kilowatt, Mary?--high energy laser
mobile demonstrator for the Army that had a very, very
successful demonstration at White Sands last December. I think
it acquired somewhere around 88 out of 92 targets, something
along that lines.
The Air Force is working on developing packaging and sizing
of high energy lasers to go on their future fighter force to
defend against incoming missiles. All of that was enabled by
the Joint Technology Office. Not the money that they had, but
rather the leadership that they showed. And I am very familiar
with the people in that office.
Whether it is $68 million or $50 million, they are going to
continue to show the leadership. And our overall investment in
science and technology and high energy lasers across the
Department is relatively stable. We can get the numbers for you
and provide those to you. But high energy laser research is
funded out of a number of programs in the Army, in the Navy, in
the Air Force, and in DARPA. DARPA is doing remarkable things
to drive up the efficiency of the electric lasers.
Dave, do you want to add anything else to that?
Dr. Walker. No, what Mr. Shaffer says is exactly right. The
program was funded to the level that we felt was necessary to
continue the technology and support the joint services in
developing lasers. However, the Air Force had budgetary
pressures on it that didn't allow us to bring it back up to the
full level that we wanted to. So everything took about a 6
percent reduction as we went through this fiscal year 2015,
with things returning as we move into 2016 and beyond.
Mr. Langevin. Well, let me ask the question a different
way. Then are we right-sized with our budget with respect to
directed energy right now? Or are we experiencing shortfalls
that are hindering progress going forward on directed energy
development weapons?
Dr. Walker. Given the funding available, I believe the
program is right-size given the year that we are in right now.
Mr. Langevin. Well, let me turn to, so, another area then.
And I am going to obviously follow this very closely. But I
note that there were many mentions made in today's testimony on
the need about--for robust STEM pipeline and the need to ensure
that today's youth bring their talents to the national security
arena. I find this hard to square with the proposed reduction
in the National Defense Education Program [NDEP] to roughly
half of its fiscal year 2014 level.
Can you elaborate on this decision, and can you provide an
update on other relevant programs within the Department's
purview, particularly those that reach K through 12 students?
Mr. Shaffer. Yes, sir. Regrettably, that program is mine.
So let me first address your first question in the reduction in
the National Defense Education Program. First, that program
previously had been made up of three separate projects, the
first funding K through 12 education across the Department. And
that was, order of magnitude, $12 million to $15 million. It
floated up and down.
The second part of that program was a project called the
National Science and Engineering Security Fellows Program. I
made the decision to move that project from the office that it
had been operated out of to our basic sciences office. The
funding is still there, the project is still there, it is still
doing the very same things. I just moved it from one program to
another.
The third part of NDEP is the Science, Mathematics and
Research for Transformation, or SMART, program. That is our
program for service for scholarship. Effectively, we pay for
undergraduate and graduate degrees, and then hire those people
into our laboratories on a one year for one year scholarship-
paid basis. In fiscal year 2015, we expect to have the same
number of SMART scholars as we have in previous years.
So we have had no reduction in that part of the program. I
moved another part of the program to another program element.
And now you asked about the K through 12. The administration
made the decision to streamline Federal education in certain
areas. And part of that decision and part of that action was to
move K through 12 funded efforts, with very few minor
exceptions, to Department of Education.
So the funding that had been allocated for the K through 12
part in the National Defense Education Program was reallocated
in the fiscal year 2014--or 2015 budget to Department of
Education. And that is the simple part of the story. We are
still trying to go out and use our scientists and engineers to
stay contacted to K through 12. We are supporting the America
First science event at the Washington Convention Center in
April. So we are still outreached on K through 12, but the bulk
of the funding was moved to Department of Education, sir.
And now I will turn it over to my colleagues to talk about
their parts.
Ms. Miller. So the Army was one of the exceptions. We did
not lose our K through 12 Army Educational Outreach Program
when they collected up the STEM programs and moved them out of
the Department of Defense. And we find that it has been a very
great value to the Army. It is doing outreach, and preparing
children to understand the needs and importance of STEM. We
interact with our laboratories, give them mentors and help
bring them through that pipeline.
We bring them into the laboratories, where we can, to give
them opportunities to understand technology as it applies to
the Army. But we know that even if they don't choose to ever
work for the Army, they certainly are informed and help the
Army when they go to industry itself. One of the things that we
have done in our program--and, we believe, helped to forestall
it being taken away from the Department of Defense, too--is, we
put in a process to have the quality of our program be assessed
independently.
And we do have a contract in place with Virginia Tech that
does look at our program and establishes how well we are
effectively reaching these younger students. So we are
certainly a proponent of this. We believe it is important for
the workforce of the future.
Mr. Langevin. Well, why was it okay for the Army to keep
its program, but other areas of DOD you have moved it out and--
to the Department of Education? My concern is that--and I am
way over my time, and I will yield back after this. But my
concern is that DOD loses its focus on preparing the next
generation. And also leveraging the scientists and the
capabilities that we have to really encourage our young people
to go in this field and see that they are properly getting
exposed to, and educated in the sciences.
I do think that DOD has a role to play. I guess, you know,
this is certainly a policy decision. But I am concerned by the
move the Department has made.
And I will stop there now.
Mr. Shaffer. Sir, I would just like to say that it was an
administration decision. It came down to us, we saluted, we
executed. But I believe the Nation is well served by a
Department of Defense that is in contact with our K through 12
students.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Dr. Shaffer.
Mr. Thornberry. Mr. Nugent.
Mr. Nugent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really want to
echo some of the statements that Mr. Langevin made, particular
in regards to--and I wasn't to go in this area, but on the STEM
issue, I really do believe that we are better served. Not that
Department of Education, I think it gets diluted. I think it is
much more focused and much more directed in regards to what we
are looking for for the future, whether it is DARPA or any of
the services as it relates to innovation.
And I worry about innovation. I have three sons that serve
this country. So our sons and daughters need you, need all the
things that you can design, develop to make it--the battlefield
safer for them, give them the opportunity to come home. And,
Admiral, I am really interested in--and I am interested in all
of you as it relates to directed energy. Mr. Langevin and I, I
think, are pretty big proponents of directed energy because of
what you mentioned in regards to--on the Ponce, in regards to
actually testing, and the ability to test and what it costs to
test versus shooting a missile off at a million dollars a copy
versus a dollar.
Can you--we see programs in development stage. But then
they tend to never make it to production, never make it to, you
know, deployment. Where do we stand as it relates to that
system on the Ponce in regards to the future?
Admiral Klunder. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. And
I will offer that there is--it is really a conviction by our
senior leadership in the Department of the Navy. And what I
mean by that is that we want those new innovative systems to be
in the hands of sailors and Marines. We want them to tell us
did we develop it right, did we develop and it needs to be
tweaked a little bit? Or did we develop and we just didn't do
it right? And we will bring it back.
But the point there is, you need to get a sailor or a
Marine's hands on that thing, and tell them is it going to be
effective in warfighting environment, and will it be
affordable. So the point I would like to make, and thank you
for your comments about innovation, we truly think that is the
way this Nation was built and is the way we get in front of our
adversaries. We don't want to run with them. I don't want a
sailor or a Marine to ever go into a fair fight. I want them to
always have the technological advantage so we always win and
defend our Nation.
What we have done this time on the Ponce, I think is very
credible, is I don't have a bunch of--my scientists and my
colleagues, we developed it. But I have got real sailors right
down there at Dahlgren, right now, on the system. And it is not
a singular laptop over in the corner somewhere. It is a fully
integrated console with our fully integrated combat information
system on that ship.
So those young men and women on that--detachment of sailors
are going to go out there. They are going to test it. And,
indeed, we feel very comfortable because we have never missed
so far. And that is one of the reasons why CNO Greenert said,
``Matt, get it out there.'' We have never missed. We feel
confident, though, that we would like to test it in that tough
environment and see where it goes.
And the follow-on to the last bit of your question, I think
regardless of the High Energy Laser-Joint Technology Office, I
can assure you that we have got all the resources positioned in
the Navy and Marine Corps to put us in a good place when this
test is done. And I am not sure if you are familiar, but we
also have a solid state laser technology maturation program
that takes it to a much higher power level, and that is in
2016.
So when we finish this test on Ponce, this demo with real
sailors, and we finish up the prototyping in 2016, we think we
will be very well positioned for follow-on, long-term, enduring
efforts.
Mr. Nugent. And I just don't want us to--we can be in a
testing mode forever.
Admiral Klunder. Yes, sir.
Mr. Nugent. I mean, I think you might agree with that. And
I would like to see us have at least a timeline as to when we
want to have it operational. It goes back to CHAMP [Counter-
Electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project]. Mr.
Langevin and I have talked about that. It goes back to programs
as it relates to the Army, and I know there is some
collaboration between the Army and the Navy on those issues.
And from my standpoint, I think that is great when you can get
bright minds across the lines, across those services, to
utilize that same information and make us all safer.
So my question back to you then is, if, after this test on
the Ponce, if it meets the expectations, what would stand in
your way of, if it is successful, in deploying that on other
ships?
Admiral Klunder. I would say, nothing. Right now, we have
already started the AOA [analysis of alternatives] on that
process, that we are very familiar with the acquisition
programs. We have already done all the blueprinting for the
different classes of ships. So in many cases, if we are
successful we see this as a possible weapons system for a
number of classes of our ships. And I think it is important,
too, if I could just give my colleagues to my right here a
great shout out. Because we are doing a test down in your great
State here in just a few months here to do some joint Army-Navy
testing down at Eglin. And so I think that, again, shows the
collaborative effort we do on directed energy.
Mr. Nugent. And I think that is commendable, and it saves
the taxpayers money, and it makes all of us safer in the long
run.
So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. And thank you so very much
for all of your help.
Mr. Thornberry. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for
being here.
I wonder--and certainly, Director Prabhakar, if you could
perhaps address this. What other governmental institutions of
science, technology really support your efforts? And you talked
about the intersection of biology and science. I am thinking of
the NIH [National Institutes of Health], but I am wondering, as
well, of what else does that, or to what extent does the NIH?
Dr. Prabhakar. I am very happy to try to answer that
question because there is an answer for every aspect of our
work. And let me start a little bit closer to home with much of
what we do that goes directly into military systems. The folks
at this table are the people that we work directly with. Our
people are working together on a daily basis. Because for a lot
of those advanced technologies we need to understand
operational needs, we need to understand what is going on with
R&D and S&T activities across the services.
And then we--these are the people we end up working with to
execute our programs and then to transition them. So that is
one set of extremely important relationships.
But you are absolutely right that all of us rely on this
larger national ecosystem. In the biology area, which, to me,
that is much more of a research field, where we are just
starting to find these new opportunities to build the kinds of
technology capabilities that we need for national security. So
we are--you know, it is a very different stage of maturity.
But absolutely, there, over and over again--whether it is
work that we are doing on brain function research or on
infectious disease--we find that we are building on top of the
basic research that is almost always funded by the National
Institutes of Health, sometimes by the National Science
Foundation. You know, there are many billions of research
dollars that have laid that foundation. We want to come along
and find the places where we can build national security
capabilities on top of it.
Mrs. Davis. Are there real differences about the way the
labs produce in terms of the quality, the quantity of the
research, as well? How do the defense labs compare to other
industrial--other labs that we have?
Dr. Prabhakar. Yes. You know, to me, the starting point is
to recognize that it is an ecosystem. And all these different
entities--the performers of the research, and then the funders
of the research--each have their own role. So, you know, just a
simple example. I was visiting AFRL [Air Force Research
Laboratory] last September and, you know, our folks have been
working together on a couple of hypersonics programs. But I got
to see, first-hand, some of the unique capabilities in that
laboratory.
And that is exactly what you would expect, right? Where
else would you expect to see fantastic hypersonics, leading
edge understanding of this incredibly important, but very
specialized technology? It should be at AFRL, and that is where
you find it. But, you know, our work sometimes puts us in
places where we want to be working directly with people in
universities that are thinking about new ways to think about
big data or some of these biology areas.
Frequently, we need to tap into the small entrepreneurial
community. For example, in cyber it is pretty hard to think you
are going to make--turn the corner on cyber issues without
tapping into what is happening in this vibrant ecosystem of
entrepreneurship. Some of--you know, a lot of those people
don't even think they are in the national security business,
but they are important to us.
Mrs. Davis. Absolutely. I am going to----
Dr. Prabhakar. We try to tap all of those.
Mrs. Davis [continuing]. Just shut you up a little bit
because I don't have very much time.
Dr. Prabhakar. All right.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. I appreciate your response. But I
think, you know, it is true. I mean, there is all this
interaction. And I guess sometimes we tend to be less than
supportive of some of those other efforts. And when it comes to
the NIH, I think, again, as we are facing decisions, budget
decisions, we know that there is a tremendous--I think there is
a tremendous interaction. And you have spoken to that.
Even in San Diego, they just formed the Cyber Center of
Excellence. And I think that--I would hope that we could look
to those innovative--the energies, really, in communities that
are doing great work. I want to mention just very briefly--
because I think we talked a little bit about innovation. And
the importance of that, obviously, is very critical. And the
shift to the Department of Education.
I guess our job here, too--there is the America Competes
Act. Something that should be reauthorized. It is sitting in
the Science Committee and not going anywhere. So I think--I
mean, Mr. Chairman, I would--I think this is a committee that
really could have an opportunity to have a sense of what role
can we play, how can we have some input into that so that
perhaps we can take a look and get something in that area
moving that really does exactly what we are trying to do here.
And I hear, I think, from the response that nobody was
probably, you know, jumping for joy that some of that came out
of the military. And yet, on the other hand, I think we have to
make it, I guess, understandable and usable, as well,
throughout the school districts of our country. And how we can
create that intersection, I think, is going to be important.
And the America Competes Act is certainly one way to do that,
where we improve and really do the best practices in terms of
STEM education.
So thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you.
Mr. Shaffer, let me ask you. David Berteau with CSIS
[Center for Strategic and International Studies] has made a
point, and I want to see if you agree with it. His point is
that in previous--all previous military buildups the R&D
funding has gone up at least at the rate of the buildup, if not
faster. So that when there is the inevitable decline after
that, you have got this reservoir of R&D projects to draw upon.
But he says since 9/11 we really didn't do that.
The buildup went for intelligence and in operational
things. We didn't have the big S&T, R&D buildup. And so this
drawdown is even tougher because we don't have a reservoir from
which to draw. Do you think that is true?
Mr. Shaffer. To a partial extent, yes. I would have to go
back and check the numbers. I think historically, when we have
been a nation at war, actually the operations and maintenance
accounts have risen faster than R&D. But S&T has come up a
little bit. This last war we came up a little bit, and then
went flat. I think there is a more important point, and we are
trying to make this across the Department. And I think actually
the best person who speaks about it is my boss, Under Secretary
Kendall. And that is, R&D is not a variable cost.
So you--it takes the same amount of money to develop a new
capability or a new weapons system irregardless of the force
size. So we have to start thinking, as a Department, that
stability in the long-term and funding for S&T is more
important than the wild fluctuations.
And the 4 percent decline we had in fiscal year 2015, I
can't tell you I like it. But I understand why we got there.
Our job now is to protect against the out-years, and how do we
make sure that there is enough money to maintain a viable S&T
program that delivers new capabilities for the future force.
Mr. Thornberry. Well, I think that is true. I just think it
is interesting that, you know, I guess we are all glad that
these accounts are not cut more than they are. But we shouldn't
overestimate, at the same time, what comes of that.
Let me back up kind of to what Mrs. Davis was talking
about, and ask you all to respond briefly to this. As we have
been talking about acquisition reform, obviously the swift pace
of technology change is an enormous challenge. And actually,
Dr. Prabhakar, you mentioned it earlier, too, how quickly
things change.
I guess one of the things I would like to know, just--and
within our limited time, just briefly, how do you--and I will
start with you and go backwards. How do you and your
organization keep track of the technology change in research
universities and in the private sector? Y'all were talking
about cyber for example. To make sure that it is--that you are
aware of those broader technology changes, and then can pick
and choose where DOD interests may benefit?
Dr. Prabhakar. I don't have a magic answer for you on that,
except to say that I view that as integral to the job of each
of our technical program managers. And, you know, when they
come on board, as you know, they only are with us for typically
about 3-5 years. My deputy, Steve Walker, and I have a custom
of doing a brown bag lunch with the newest batch of program
managers. And sit down and we talk with them, and one of the
things we almost always talk about is how important it is to
get out of your office in Arlington, Virginia, and go find what
is happening in the technical arena.
Because there are people that know about us and they will
bring us their ideas, but that is not enough for us. We have to
be getting out and seeing what else is happening. And it is
usually either in universities, sometimes it is in the startup
community. Sometimes there will be a ``skunkworks'' tucked in
the corner of a big established company. But you have to get
out and visit people and see what they are thinking about in
their labs and in their offices.
And I don't really know how to do it other than retail, but
I find it essential to what we do.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you.
Dr. Walker.
Dr. Walker. The AFOSR [Air Force Office of Scientific
Research] really has a mission in the Air Force of trying to
reach out and find the best new ideas not only in the U.S., but
internationally, as well. So having our offices spread across
South America, Europe, and Asia allows us to reach out and find
what are those good ideas and bring them into the U.S. to--for
applications in the Air Force. In addition, within the U.S.,
the OSR program managers use their 6.1 dollars to go out and
try to find innovative technologies and new basic research that
they are able to apply, then, to Air Force problems.
So to use that as a seedling to move technology along. And
as Dr. Prabhakar says, it has got to be an engagement. It is
not a sit at home and hope people come to you. It is you have
got to be out there visiting the people, seeing what the new
ideas are, and bringing those forward. In addition, as we move
into the more traditional directorates, they all maintain a
basic research and early applied research capability, where
they are reaching out to academia and industry trying to
identify where are the best new ideas.
In addition to that, looking at the small business and
where--through Small Business Innovative Research [SBIR] and
other small business interactions that we have in the
laboratory, really looking for those fresh new ideas. Putting
out the calls. You know, a good example of this in our--both in
our SBIR calls and in our RIF [Rapid Innovation Fund] calls. We
have had 700, 800 people responding to these calls with new
ideas that we are able to then pick the best of them and try to
bring them forward for technologies for the Air Force.
So we have had great success, and we are trying to continue
to keep that aperture open as possible to find the new
innovative research that is going on out there.
Mr. Thornberry. Okay.
Admiral, do you all ever, as an addendum, do you all ever
go out to venture capital community and see that they are
investing?
Admiral Klunder. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I like to
call myself the venture capitalist of the Navy and Marine
Corps. But to that point, Mr. Chairman, I won't repeat what
Dave said, my colleague Arati, about the global look to--our
eyes and ears are always open around America. That is academia,
that is industry, that is laboratories. We are always looking.
As a matter of fact, I will offer to you, the small grants,
lots of seed corn, lots of petri dishes.
The kind of things a young man or woman in academia can do
for literally soda pop and pizza is unbelievable. Specifically
in the cyber domain that I know you are concerned about. Very
small grants can be very, very beneficial for the team.
And I also offer--so America, we look globally, and we
collaborate across all streams on these different offices. But
something we have a distinct advantage, too, and it is
specifically on cyber. Because I know, sir, you know. You wait
a year or two, you have missed it.
They are already--they have already flipped that technology
on you, and you are beat. So our point is that in the world
that we can live in for Mr. Kendall--even in the 5,000 series
acquisition document, we know it is pretty thick--we have the
advantage that we can do user operational evaluation systems.
What does that really mean? It means prototypes, specifically
in cyber, on a defensive or offensive side if it is in an
operational context.
But specifically defense and can we, indeed, bring that
tool quickly, develop it quickly, get it out in prototype and
see if it is going to be worthwhile. And then, if we have to,
we go back and buy a number of them through Mr. Kendall in that
acquisition process. The point I am trying to make is, we can't
wait that traditional timeline to do cyber work. We need to be
able to get that technology developed, out there, in a year or
two.
And that is something, I think, we have been able to do in
my world, specifically, when I am able to control my 6.1, .2,
and .3 dollars, sir.
Mr. Thornberry. How often do you do that?
Admiral Klunder. I do that a lot. And I do it for the Navy
and Marine Corps. And we also work across agencies and other
ones involved, sir.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you.
Ms. Miller. Sir, like my colleagues we have the Army
Research Office that does our outreach to academia. They are
always looking for those bright ideas that they can fund
through our grants to our Single Investigator Program. We also
have the Army Research Lab, which has a considerable amount of
basic research. They are people that work within the Army,
understand how to leverage that technology that we find in
academia, and make it work on behalf of the Army.
As my colleagues, we also have our international technology
centers. Most of the time we are colocated. And we do that
global outreach to watch what is out there. The Army has
established a capability that--they call it global tips online,
where we see things that are international, good ideas from a
technology perspective, and we put it on our Web site so that
our Army researchers and our program managers can have access
to that and figure out how to leverage it in the program.
And I can't underestimate the value of our subject matter
experts being able to go to scientific conferences to exchange
and--good ideas, and talk about where we are going in research.
And incite people to want to do that research on behalf of the
military needs. And finally, I would say--and Mr. Shaffer may
choose to talk about this--we also have the Defense
[Innovation] Marketplace, which is a Web site that we allow
industry to identify IRAD opportunities, individual--or
independent research and development activities that they have
ongoing that we can then leverage.
And, in fact, from a service perspective we put out, for
industry, what we are looking for, what capabilities we want
for the future. All of this helps us to be able to leverage and
find that research out there that we believe will be
essentially important to the Army.
Mr. Shaffer. Sir, my colleagues have all, I think, covered
most of the points. We do have the Defense Marketplace.
Seventeen percent of our budget actually goes out to
universities, and we are in contact with universities. But I am
not going to sit here and tell you that the picture is all
rosy. As we went through the last year's budget, and we had
travel restrictions placed upon our people and we did not allow
our people, because of funding limitations, to go to technical
conferences, we lost some contact.
And we are just starting to understand the impact of that.
We have to watch that. I have to watch that very closely, and
work every day to tell the story of why our people have to go
out and be engaged because that is a good business decision.
But I will tell you, as we go through a budget drawdown things
like travel are always watched very closely, and my colleagues
have to go ahead and justify virtually every trip our young
people want to make. That limits us.
Mr. Thornberry. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Langevin, you had a question?
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So to our witnesses,
I just want to just circle back to something I was going to
raise in my opening statement, which I will now submit for the
record. But there has been a steady crescendo of speculation
about the coming wave of industry mergers and acquisitions. Are
you confident in the Department's ability to maintain a
competitive R&D environment, even through a potential
contraction? And how would R&D concerns be addressed with any--
within any larger oversight process?
Mr. Shaffer. I guess I will start. But I will look for help
from anybody at the table. I am actually fairly comfortable
that even if we have some contractions and mergers that there
will be industry to take up the effort. Now, I think that we
may see a change. We may have to go more of a mix of big
company and small companies. But, you know, one thing that is
wonderful about America--and we are all sitting here bemoaning
the fact that budgets are tight--at the end of the day we are
spending $11.5 billion in science and technology, and $63
billion in research and development to develop new systems.
That is a lot of money, and that will create a lot of
inducement for companies to stay in the game. And if there are
mergers, for someone else to come in from outside. You know,
the Federal statutes are very, very clear that we have to
compete whenever possible. We encourage competition: $63
billion will buy a lot of competition. So I am not terribly
worried yet. I haven't seen us get to the point, with very,
very limited exceptions, of places where there isn't sufficient
competition.
We monitor it. One of my colleagues, Elana Broitman, who is
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Industrial
Base Policy, monitors that on a daily basis. Concerned, but I
don't see anything breaking yet. Would anybody like to add
something?
Ms. Miller. So I will just jump in there real briefly
because I saw everybody put their hand up. But what I was going
to say is, one of the things that we are looking at, trying to
implement, is more of an open architecture design on most of
our new systems coming up. That open architecture itself allows
for more competition. So instead of having a one industry
taking--or one industrial contract taking place, with one
person being the primary performer, we now have competition at
the subsystem levels and we maintain that competition. And that
is something that we believe will help us in the future.
Mr. Langevin. I am going to stop there and go to my next
question, if I could. Thank you for those answers. But in a
recent Defense Science Board [DSB] report from October of last
year, titled ``Technology and Innovation Enablers for
Superiority in 2030,'' the board concluded that the opportunity
for technological surprise is greatest for WMDs [weapons of
mass destruction], and expressed concern about the ability to
detect signatures associated with weapons of mass destruction,
given the advancement of technologies that would reduce or even
eliminate some of the signatures that we depend on today.
The impacts of such a technological shift would be
extremely grave in many regards. And the board proposed a
particular course of action, focusing on so-called ``big data
techniques,'' expressing the need for the Department to both
work with, and head, commercial capabilities, but acknowledges
the legal and privacy concerns associated with such an
approach. Can you respond to that suggestion, as well as the
underlying concern?
Dr. Prabhakar. Thank you. I think that DSB report put its
finger on something that is, in fact, an important concern: the
access that terrorist organizations, for example, have to all
kinds of globally available technology; certainly including
weapons of mass destruction, or the tools to create weapons of
mass destruction. We recently started a program at DARPA that
is specifically aiming to see what we can do with new
technologies to try to counter those kinds of threats. I think
they are very, very challenging threats.
And I agree with the DSB's report that--their comment about
big data. I think that is a piece of the solution. The program
that we have just launched is called SIGMA, and it is
attempting to change the detector technology, but also figure
out the networking and the big data approaches that it is going
to take to really put a complete solution together to try to
get us to a somewhat more safe environment.
Mr. Langevin. Mr. Chairman, that is something we could
follow up on a briefing that--if we could.
Thank you for that answer. Does anybody else have anything
on that? Okay, then I will--let me move to Dr. Walker and Dr.
Shaffer. Last year, the Department of Defense completed a
successful joint concept technology demonstration for the
Counter-Electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile
Project, or CHAMP. What plans are underway to continue this
effort? What are the limitations of the current technology? And
what issues might prevent wider fielding of these sorts of high
powered microwave weapons?
Dr. Walker. So the demonstration was really the first
opportunity to go out and use a high powered microwave from a
cruise missile-size vehicle and to show that it actually
worked. However, it is still a large form factor for an
aircraft. Really like to get down to a smaller missile size. So
the S&T side of the world is continuing to fund work on
reducing the size of the device, as well as to increase the
power to the device to give you better penetration, longer
distance to standoff, as well as multiple shots out of a single
cruise missile.
Really trying to get it down to a tactical missile form
factor. In the meantime, in this year's budget request, the Air
Force is requesting $5 million to initiate the analysis of
alternatives on a non-kinetic weapon which would be--look at
the CHAMP technology. The high powered microwave technology is
one of the alternatives for how we go forward with a non-
kinetic weapon in the future.
The Air Force has got, you know, severe constrictions on
its modernization dollars, given all the things we have in our
bucket right now. However, this is important enough that they
were going to continue to moving forward, looking somewhere in
the early 2020s as an opportunity to transition this type
technology. The lab will continue developing the technology to
ensure that when the Air Force is ready to move forward with
the program that we have the smaller size system ready to go
forward and the technology up to a level that it is really
ready to enter an acquisition program.
Mr. Langevin. Some of this, though, is policy-related, as I
understand it. Because some of the high powered microwave
technology is deployable right now, as I understand it. And
there has been some resistance, particularly in the Army as I
understand it, to deploying some of that technology.
Dr. Walker. I can just say from the Air Force side, since
we developed the antipersonnel high powered microwave
technology that has been developed, it is available to go. It
has been a policy decision not to deploy it so far.
And I will hand that over to my colleagues.
Mr. Shaffer. So I will start, and then let Ms. Miller talk.
But I think it is very important to recognize that not all
pulsed microwave or high powered microwave are the same types
of systems. CHAMP was an incredible success. The program that
the Army is looking at was a tremendous success, but they are
totally different technologies. One is very, very short pulse,
the other is continuous wave. There are policy implications
about the deploying the ground-based high powered microwave and
we are working through those.
The CHAMP, I think, or the pulse microwave, we will have a
weapons system sometime in the 2020s that will be exquisite.
And no one else in the world will have it. But we do have to
work the size and the thermal management of that system.
But I think the really--and, you know, this--I shouldn't
sound--I am going to sound like a geek. I think it is really
cool that we finally got to the point where we demonstrated a
capability and are on the pathway to deliver what we all grew
up with as kids watching Buck Rogers employ.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you. I just hope--and I will yield
back, Mr. Chairman, in just a second. But I just want to say I
hope that the policy decisions will be worked through
aggressively so that it is not the policy that is holding back
the deployment of the technology. Especially when it comes to
keeping our troops safe, helping them be more effective. And,
again, keeping the--ultimately, our country safer. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Thornberry. Well, I agree completely. And let me follow
up. Who makes the policy decisions in this case? Is it the
Department's policy shop, or someplace else? I mean, we have a
technology, it is ready to be deployed. Policy decision says
no, don't deployment--don't deploy it. Who makes that decision?
Where do these issues get worked out?
Mr. Shaffer. Sir, most of the time these things are led by
our under secretary in policy, and we negotiate. We have a
number of types of technology areas where we have to think
about the policy implications. Autonomous platforms.
Mr. Thornberry. Yes. I am just focused on this one, as an
example.
Mr. Shaffer. You know, can I take it for the record and get
back to you?
Mr. Thornberry. Yes.
Mr. Shaffer. Because I don't have the exact----
Mr. Thornberry. If you don't mind.
Mr. Shaffer. Absolutely.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 151.]
Mr. Thornberry. Because I would--it is an issue in and of
itself. If we have a technology that there is a decision not to
deploy it, it is--kind of hard to get our arms around exactly
who--how that decision was made. But then, it is also an
example of some others that we may want to pursue.
Let me see if I can get in two more things right quick
before we go vote, and y'all get to leave. All of this is about
how much direct money investment we put into S&T. Obviously, we
want the private sector to invest some of their own money in
S&T along the way. Recently, the point was made to me that as
long as we rely on lowest-cost technically acceptable contracts
there is zero incentive for the private sector to put any of
their own research into it.
They don't want to have any discriminators. All you want to
do is be good enough, and then just cut, cut, cut, cut on the
cost so that you win the contract. And so what that does, in
effect, is discourage innovation and discourage the private
sector from using their money to make improvements. Do you
think that is true?
Mr. Shaffer. Sir, not only do I think it is true, it is one
of the key principles and tenets under Mr. Kendall's Better
Buying Power 2.0. And that is, to better define the use of
LPTA, low price technically accepted--or technically acceptable
contracts. He believes it is okay to let those types of
contracts for activities like mowing the base grass. It is not
okay when you are going out and trying to compete a technically
acceptable--or a technology contract.
He is aware of that. We are driving that out to the
services. It will take time for people to recognize that. But I
believe we have already made the change to move away from LPTA
for technology--high-technology programs.
Mr. Thornberry. Anybody else have a brief comment on----
Admiral Klunder. I will just quickly say, Mr. Chairman,
that if we are going to stay innovative, if we are truly going
to leap ahead of our threats and our adversaries, you have got
to get the performance. So I don't--we look for, obviously,
game-changing affordability pieces when we bring that
technology in. But I absolutely will not corrupt a contract to
go low cost if I can't achieve the performance you and I need
to defend this country.
So at the end of the day, that is what we got to have, and
we do. So I promise you that, our contracts, we look for the
performance of the system first. Then we will look at how the
affordability can come out and play in terms of our--I am not
talking about contracts. I am talking about the cost-effect of
the system, sir.
Mr. Thornberry. I hear you. Okay.
Dr. Walker. Yes. In the Air Force, one of the things we
really focus on is that T-A-P, so that ``technically
acceptable'' is a critical portion of that contracting
mechanism. We have been working hard on trying to reenergize
our engineering enterprise so we bring that technical
confidence back so we can make that judgment. So that we really
make the right decision and get the technology that we want,
not just the lowest cost. So it is--the two pieces have to go
together, but it is not necessarily the best contracting
vehicle for technology.
Mr. Thornberry. Yes, that word ``acceptable'' means you
just kind of get good enough. I mean, that is what I hear.
Rather than, oh, maybe with a little bit more you can--but
something we may want to pursue. All right.
Let me ask this. If you could invest in only one technology
program, one area of technology, one issue area, and--within
your service, or y'all have broader leeway, obviously, what
would it be? You have to narrow it down, and right now you can
only invest in one. Ma'am?
Ms. Miller. I would invest in materials.
Mr. Thornberry. Really?
Ms. Miller. I would. I would tell you that the need to have
new lightweight materials, affordable materials that can help
us both in getting our power and energy uses down, getting our
armor weights down, bringing down the soldier load, I mean it
is kind of full spectrum. It covers, and is the underpinning of
a lot of what we do. So I would say, for me, that is a big
investment area.
Mr. Thornberry. That is interesting. Thank you.
Admiral Klunder. Well, Mr. Chairman, since I have already
invested heavily in directed energy and railgun and undersea
domain, I will tell you that the electromagnetic spectrum is
the new one that we are working very hard on, sir, to make sure
we understand, with my colleagues at DARPA, on how--and my
other colleagues, how we can absolutely optimize that.
Mr. Thornberry. Okay.
Dr. Walker. Since the Army is investing in materials, and
we have got the electromagnetic spectrum covered----
[Laughter.]
Dr. Walker. I would keep the investment in hypersonics as a
key game-changer technology that we really need to move
forward.
Mr. Thornberry. Really? Some people think that is not going
to go anywhere. But you--if you had--the Air Force had one area
of--to invest in for S&T, that is what it would be.
Dr. Walker. For given, right now, where we are, we are on
the cusp of a breakthrough.
Mr. Thornberry. Okay.
Dr. Walker. Following X-51, I think there is a real
opportunity to change warfighting with hypersonic capabilities.
Mr. Thornberry. Interesting.
Dr. Prabhakar.
Dr. Prabhakar. Mr. Chairman, I am going to give you a DARPA
answer.
Mr. Thornberry. Ahh.
Dr. Prabhakar. Which is that if we only invest in one we
are just not going to get there. Because the problems that we
are dealing with are actually too complex for any one silver
bullet. And I think rethinking the entire systems approach is
actually going to be central to this next generation of
advanced military capabilities.
Mr. Thornberry. Which may be an area in and of itself in
which to invest. I mean, I--you know, we talk about--for
example, with terrorism we talk about a--fighting a network
with a network. We have to understand networks better in order
to do that, and that--it--you know, it is not what we
traditionally think of as investment in S&T. But maybe that is,
you know, one----
Dr. Prabhakar. You are completely right. And you are going
to need all of these other pieces so that you got the pieces--
--
Mr. Thornberry. Yes. No. I know you are right about that.
But it is interesting.
So, Mr. Shaffer, you got one?
Mr. Shaffer. I actually do. I agree with Arati, I agree
with all my colleagues. But I am a simple guy. At the end of
the day our business is in defense of the homeland. I am more
concerned about what can happen to the homeland through a cyber
attack launched against the U.S. I would defend--or invest in
cyber above all else just because of the potential gravity of
that attack.
Mr. Thornberry. Yes, yes. Fair point. All good answers.
Thank you all very much for being here, for what you and
your folks do for the country.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 26, 2014
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 26, 2014
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
March 26, 2014
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. THORNBERRY
Mr. Shaffer. In response to a December 2010 request by then-Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Cartwright for a
comprehensive review of directed energy (DE) policy, then-Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy, James Miller, issued an interim policy
memorandum on February 14, 2012. That memorandum recognized the
operational benefits associated with currently fielded DE technologies
and expressed support for continued development in accordance with our
laws, treaty commitments, and policies. The policy requires OSD-level
review and approval prior to the operational use of new directed energy
weapons. The review and approval process (RAP) is now detailed in
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual (CJCSM) 3230.01,
``Directed Energy Weapon Initial Operational Employment Review and
Approval Process.'' The DE RAP requires and takes into account legal
reviews, concepts of employment, rules of engagement, tactics,
potential collateral damage and human effects, proposed public affairs
guidance, and other relevant information. DE RAP requests are submitted
by the combatant command; RAP-endorsed requests are to be forwarded to
the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) for consideration and SecDef approval
or forwarding to the President for approval as appropriate. [See page
23.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
March 26, 2014
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. THORNBERRY
Mr. Thornberry. Recent media reports suggest we may lose more
domestic microelectronics foundries. How will the Department ensure we
have access to an assured trusted foundry?
Mr. Shaffer. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) relies upon
microelectronics for enabling components in our military systems. The
Department depends upon access to a vibrant and innovative
semiconductor industry and an assured supply of legacy components
through a trusted supply chain. The Department is actively engaged in
working with industry on initiatives that include the Trusted Supplier
Accreditation Program and the Trusted Foundry Program, which combined
are commonly labeled the Trusted Supply Program.
The Trusted Supply Program, administered by the Defense
Microelectronics Activity (DMEA), is a process of accreditation that
ensures that developers of defense systems have access to trusted
microelectronics components across a wide range of technologies, from
state-of-the-art to state-of-the-practice to legacy. To satisfy the
state-of-the-art semiconductor requirements, DOD worked with NSA's
Trusted Access Program Office, in funding a contract with IBM to
provide leading edge access to IBM's foundries. Trusted state-of-the-
practice (SOTP) technology suppliers are accredited for Trust by DMEA,
according to established Trust criteria.
Legacy components are transitioned out of production when the
commercial market declines. DMEA has put in place a process to acquire
intellectual property for technologies and processes when their
commercial markets drop off. This allows the Department to provide a
source of last resort capability at DMEA to produce small quantities of
microelectronics parts when no commercial source is available.
The DOD has a strategy to provide trusted and assured
microelectronic parts throughout the chain of supply. Using the
commercial industrial base, the DOD has in place the ability to access
SOTA parts from the Trusted Foundry Program, SOTP parts from the
trusted suppliers program, and legacy parts from DMEA when no longer
available from industry.
Mr. Thornberry. In your testimony, you mention an effort through
the Defense Technical Information Center to improve our understanding
of global technology development. Could you please describe that effort
in a bit more detail?
Mr. Shaffer. We are developing semi-automated Technology Watch and
Horizon Scanning (TW/HS) capabilities to forecast the evolution of
known science and technologies and their applications as well as the
emergence of new concepts and technologies with disruptive potential.
Thousands of companies are using business analytics methods to forecast
events in their domains, including science and technology (S&T).
Forecasting S&T is also of interest to many groups within the USG. In
the TW/HS program, we are evaluating and leveraging existing
approaches, tools, and data to detect the initiation of disruptive S&T
advances as early as possible. Many existing approaches use only one
type of data or use a purely data-driven approach and big data
analytics to detect predictive trends. We are working to find, test,
and implement theory-based models that use data in a meaningful way to
forecast S&T trends and disruptions. We are working with the Defense
Technical Information Center (DTIC) to deploy and test a system that
provides an automated capability to identify signals that may be
associated with disruptive S&T advances that have potential defense
implications. The system can be used to monitor the evolution of known
technologies, including the maturation of emerging technologies and new
applications of existing technologies (technology watch), and the
emergence of new scientific concepts and technologies with disruptive
potential (horizon scanning). The TW/HS prototype comprises a computing
architecture that supports multiple algorithmic analyses of varied
types of input data, an illustrative end-user interface, and an initial
method for system test and evaluation. The system analyzes indicators
and predictors of technology breakthroughs and allows for the sharing
of analysis results between multiple users. Feedback from users of the
system may guide the development of a next-generation system. The
current system is a prototype, whose development, test, and evaluation
are expected to inform the development of a next-generation approach
that will incorporate additional analytics methods and will be informed
by a theory-based approach to technology forecasting.
Mr. Thornberry. Part of our Defense Reform Initiative is to look at
acquisition reform, and as part of that, we are interested in
understanding how S&T supports the Department's goal of improving
acquisition outcomes and meeting the guidance of the Better Buying
Power 2.0 initiatives. Could each of you give us an example in each of
your organizations of how you are applying S&T to these problems?
Mr. Shaffer. Acquiring the weapon systems we need to outpace our
adversaries requires not only a highly competent Science and Technology
(S&T) community, but methods to effectively tap the community. The
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research & Engineering) (ASD (R&E)) has
many programs and initiatives that reach out to the R&E enterprise and
beyond to find and develop affordable weapon systems. These programs
align well with several tenants of Better Buying Power (BBP) 2.0. BBP
2.0 stresses the importance of seeking cost reductions throughout a
product's lifecycle. ASD (R&E)'s Foreign Comparative Test (FCT) program
searches the globe to find suitable and cost-effective solutions to
warfighter needs. A primary focus of that search is for replacements to
legacy systems and components that can no longer be affordably
manufactured in the United States. For example, the FCT program
uncovered an H-53 helicopter generator control unit used on a German
version of the H-53 that was less expensive and more reliable than the
legacy version. During the FCT's 33 year history, the DOD's $1.23
billion investment has resulted in $10.9 billion in weapons systems
procurements and an estimated cost avoidance of $7.6 billion. Several
ASD (R&E) programs achieve affordability aims by reducing barriers to
entry for innovative companies. The Innovation Outreach initiative
provides a vehicle to identify sources of novel solutions. One such
solution is the iTClamp, which provides medical first responders with
an alternative to the tourniquet. iTClamp is a low cost (less than a
$100) medical device able to constrain blood flow to the wound while
rerouting blood to the far end of the wounded extremity, increasing the
chance of saving the limb. Instant Eye is another solution uncovered by
an ASD (R&E) program. Instant Eye is a small quad-copter, unmanned
system that costs less than a $1,000, is field repairable, and can
deliver real-time surveillance video to a tactical unit. BBP 2.0's
emphasis on eliminating redundancy within warfighter portfolios
inspired the CLOUDBREAK initiative. CLOUDBREAK's vision is to provide
an easily accessible ``app store'' the combatant commands (CCMD) can
use to acquire Command and Control (C2) solutions. Rather than each
CCMD purchasing a custom solution, CLOUDBREAK provides a suite of
solutions that can be inexpensively tailored to meet the needs of each
user.
Mr. Thornberry. Do the provisions contained within the SBIR
Reauthorization Act contained within the FY 12 NDAA give you sufficient
authority to ensure that SBIR funded technologies have an opportunity
to transition to acquisition programs of record? Describe the DOD's
plan to implement those provisions.
Mr. Shaffer. Yes. As one initiative, we have added to DODI 5000.02,
page 57, Table 2. Milestone and Phase Information Requirements the
following: ``Program managers will establish goals for applying SBIR
and STTR technologies in programs of record. For contracts with a value
at or above $100 million, program managers will establish a goal for
the transition of Phase III technologies in subcontracting plans, and
report the number and dollar amount of contracts entered into for Phase
III SBIR or STTR projects.''
In addition, each major DOD acquisition program designates an
individual who is (a) knowledgeable about the technology needs of the
acquisition program and (b) responsible for technology infusion into
the program, to serve as the program's SBIR Liaison. These Liaisons
undertake to ensure that appropriate SBIR technologies are considered
for acquisition programs.
Mr. Thornberry. Each of the Services has described prototyping and
requirements maturation processes to help support future acquisition
programs. Why are those tools important? How do ensure technology
transition for successful S&T initiatives to get them to acquisition
program managers and program executive offices?
Ms. Miller. Targeted technology maturation and prototyping has
emerged as an overall area of emphasis within the Army's laboratories
and research, development and engineering centers (RDECs). These
activities help to better inform requirements for new systems, as well
as drive down the risk of integrating new technologies, by
demonstrating mature solutions that are technically achievable and
affordable. In conducting maturation and prototyping earlier in the
acquisition lifecycle, we can identify and address areas of risk before
the government commits more significant levels of funding to a Program
of Record (PoR). Ultimately, it is much more cost-effective to prove
out innovative concepts and capabilities in Science and Technology
(S&T) than it is under formal program acquisition.
One example is the Army's Technology Maturation Initiative (TMI)
(Program Element 0604115A) which aligns S&T and acquisition partners
under a coordinated effort to prove out emerging, but needed,
technology components and facilitate their transition to PoRs. It
matures high-payoff S&T products beyond traditional S&T technology
readiness levels in order to drive down acquisition costs and risks,
and increase transition success.
These efforts have become especially important as the Army heads
into a funding downturn. We are planning to invest in technology
maturation and prototyping efforts to prepare the Army to capitalize on
S&T investments as we come out of the acquisition funding ``bathtub''
near the end of the decade. For Budget Activity 4 authorities, we are
using these resources to target areas where acquisition programs
intended to provide necessary capabilities have been delayed, such as
assured Position, Navigation and Timing, the Future Infantry Fighting
Vehicle, and Active Protection Systems.
By engaging key stakeholders from the requirements, technology,
acquisition and resourcing communities to select and oversee the
Technology Maturation Initiative and other prototyping efforts, we are
able to prioritize and coordinate efforts that will best enable the
integration of innovative capabilities in to planned acquisition
programs. In this way, these efforts directly support and apply the
Army's 30-year acquisition planning construct.
Mr. Thornberry. Part of our Defense Reform Initiative is to look at
acquisition reform, and as part of that, we are interested in
understanding how S&T supports the Department's goal of improving
acquisition outcomes and meeting the guidance of the Better Buying
Power 2.0 initiatives. Could each of you give us an example in each of
your organizations of how you are applying S&T to these problems?
Ms. Miller. One example is Army S&T's Technology Maturation
Initiative (TMI) (Program Element 0604115A). Created in FY12, TMI
developed a strategic partnership between S&T and the acquisition
community to facilitate the transition of key technologies to Programs
of Record and enables the Army to fulfill the risk-reduction goals laid
out by the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) and DODI
5000.02. By engaging program managers early in the technology
development process and collaboratively defining technology,
performance goals and acceptance testing, we facilitate a more
successful insertion of mature technology for emerging capabilities.
Reaching technical maturity prior to integration reduces program risk
and eliminates excess costs.
Controlling costs throughout the product lifecycle is another area
Army S&T is placing additional focus. By designing technologies with
reliability and manufacturability in mind, we can reduce the cost and
time associated with redesign when these technologies transition from
the S&T domain into formal Programs of Record, resulting in lower
developmental costs and potentially faster acquisition. The Army
ManTech (Program Element 0708045A) investment develops and demonstrates
manufacturing processes to enable producibility and affordability for
emerging technologies and subsystems. For example, the Manufacturing of
Flexible Electronics for Large Area Sensors project will develop the
U.S. manufacturing base for large area flexible electronic sensor
technology fabricated on plastic substrates. This will provide
capability through the integration of light weight, rugged sensors into
digital radiography panels for Soldier portable Explosive Ordinance
Disposal inspection and forensics applications.
Mr. Thornberry. Do the provisions contained within the SBIR
Reauthorization Act contained within the FY 12 NDAA give you sufficient
authority to ensure that SBIR funded technologies have an opportunity
to transition to acquisition programs of record? Describe the DOD's
plan to implement those provisions.
Ms. Miller. The SBIR Reauthorization Act gives the Army sufficient
authority to ensure that our SBIR funded technologies have the
opportunity to transition. There are over 20 changes resulting from
reauthorization. The key statutory language relevant to this discussion
are:
1) All acquisition programs must report where they are
incorporating SBIR technologies as part of their subcontracting plan,
2) DOD must set goals for SBIR inclusion in acquisition programs,
3) DOD is authorized to incentivize Program Executive Offices and
prime contractors for all awards greater than $100M to include SBIR
technologies.
While none of these changes have been fully implemented yet, the
Army is participating in a SBIR Commercialization Working Group with
the Department, and all DOD SBIR program managers create a model that
sets the standard for transitioning SBIR developed technology. The
reporting in item 1) above should be relatively straight-forward once
incorporated into contract requirements. Setting goals is more
challenging because in partnership with our sister Services we must
first establish a baseline and then determine reasonable and meaningful
metrics to measure transition performance for evaluation of
effectiveness of the incentives. Item 3) is currently being evaluated
by the Department for feasibility and approach.
Mr. Thornberry. The Army recently completed successful testing of a
High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL-MD). What is the Army's plan
for developing and fielding directed energy weapons? What additional
testing do you have planned for the HEL-MD system, and how will all of
that testing fit into the Army's plans for a directed energy program of
record?
Ms. Miller. The recent demonstration was an interim demonstration
of a High Energy Laser mobile platform capability against light mortars
and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs). Additional development of the
laser, beam control, power, thermal management, and fire control
subsystems is planned along with additional incremental demonstrations
using the laser-integrated mobile platform through FY22. The
incremental demonstrations will validate 50kW Counter-Rockets Artillery
and Mortars (C-RAM) and Counter-UAS (C-UAS) performance in FY17, 100kW
C-RAM, C-UAS and Cruise Missile Defense performance in FY20, and a
culminating demonstration of Integrated Force Protection Capability--
Increment 2 Intercept (IFPC-2I) level performance in FY22. These
demonstrations will validate required performance and facilitate
transition to a future increment of IFPC-2I with a planned technology
insertion in the 2028-2032 timeframe.
Mr. Thornberry. Each of the Services has described prototyping and
requirements maturation processes to help support future acquisition
programs. Why are those tools important? How do ensure technology
transition for successful S&T initiatives to get them to acquisition
program managers and program executive offices?
Admiral Klunder. The Department of Navy (DoN) has a well-defined
process for developing and transitioning new capabilities to future
acquisition program called the Future Naval Capabilities (FNC) program.
This process, initiated by the Navy and Marine Corps in 2002, continues
to be refined in order to maintain alignment with DoN guidance and
priorities. The FNC program uses a number of management tools and best
practices that have a demonstrated record of success as confirmed by a
recent GAO report (GAO-13-286, March 2013). These tools are important
because they ensure DoN financial resources being expended on the
development of demonstration prototypes and new innovative warfighting
capabilities are fully aligned with senior Navy and Marine Corps
leadership priorities. The selection of specific FNC S&T initiatives
(Enabling Capabilities) follows a formal requirements-driven process
that is governed by a set of signed business rules which are reviewed
an updated roughly every two years to maintain currency. This
documented process ensures that Navy & Marine Corps leadership are
directly involved in the oversight, management and execution of the
program during all phases of development. All funded S&T initiatives
are competitively selected by a 3-star Technology Oversight Group
(TOG), chartered by a (4-star level) DoN RDT&TE Corporate Board. TOG
members represent the Requirements, Acquisition, S&T and Fleet/Forces
communities of the Navy and Marine Corps. Each year the TOG releases an
updated set of Technology Gaps that establish mission capability
shortfall areas that can be traced back to the warfighting needs that
have been independently assessed by the appropriate CNO and CMC
assessment organizations. All FNC S&T initiatives link to an
appropriate TOG Technology Gap and are managed by 1 of 9 Integrated
Product Teams (IPTs). These IPTs are 2-star oversight boards that
consist of Flag Officers/Senior Executive Service members representing
the S&T, Acquisition, Navy and Marine Corps Resource/Requirements and
Fleet Force Communities. The roles and responsibilities for each IPT
member are defined in the FNC Business Rules, which are promulgated by
the TOG. IPT Resource Sponsors, for example, have the responsibility to
ensure that RDT&E resources are programmed to receive and integrate the
FNC technology Products approved by the TOG. The IPT Acquisition
Sponsor is responsible to ensure that Program of Record technology
insertion windows are tracked and that S&T technology deliverables can
be incorporated into their acquisition PORs as planned. By design, the
process strengthens transition coordination between the fleet/force,
S&T, acquisition and resources/requirements communities. The DoN
process ensures successful FNC S&T initiatives transition to program
executive offices and acquisition program mangers by focusing on the
use of negotiated Technology Transition Agreements (TTAs). Each funded
FNC S&T initiative is backed by a TTA that has been negotiated, agreed
upon, and signed by appropriate managers within the Resources and
Requirements community, establishing the requirements and providing
funds for the acquisition PORs), the S&T community, (developing the
technology solution and demonstration prototypes) and Acquisition
community (transitioning the capability into an existing or emerging
Program of Record). A critical aspect of this process is that DoN S&T
funding is not released without an approved, signed TTA for each of
these initiatives. Each of the TTAs are reviewed, updated and
reaffirmed annually. This process ensures all parties involved in
establishing the requirements, developing the solution, and
transitioning that capability to the warfighter remain engaged
throughout the development cycle. This process has proven to be highly
successful.
Mr. Thornberry. Part of our Defense Reform Initiative is to look at
acquisition reform, and as part of that, we are interested in
understanding how S&T supports the Department's goal of improving
acquisition outcomes and meeting the guidance of the Better Buying
Power 2.0 initiatives. Could each of you give us an example in each of
your organizations of how you are applying S&T to these problems?
Admiral Klunder. The Department of Navy (DoN) has a well-defined
process which supports Better Buying Power 2.0 initiative. It is the
Department's Manufacturing Technology (MANTECH) program which
aggressively targets cost savings efforts in several major acquisition
programs.
One success story is the VIRGINIA Class Submarine (VCS)
Affordability Initiative. Initiated in FY06 with a focus on acquisition
cost savings, ManTech was a key contributor to the VIRGINIA Class cost
reduction effort. ManTech, to date, has facilitated $27.75M per hull of
realized cost savings.
Navy ManTech is also making a significant impact on the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF) acquisition. Program Executive Office for JSF has
credited Navy ManTech with over $700 million in savings for the
Department of Defense purchase of F-35 aircraft for the current project
portfolio. Example projects contributing to this savings include
automated fiber placement for advanced F-35 materials projected to save
$100 million and JSF canopy thermoforming automation projected to save
between $75 and $125M depending on the number of spares produced over
the life cycle.
Mr. Thornberry. Do the provisions contained within the SBIR
Reauthorization Act contained within the FY 12 NDAA give you sufficient
authority to ensure that SBIR funded technologies have an opportunity
to transition to acquisition programs of record? Describe the DOD's
plan to implement those provisions.
Admiral Klunder. Yes. Two sections in the Reauthorization Act
increase our Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business
Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) programs' authority regarding
technology transition. Section 5121 increases the technical assistance
we can provide to small businesses through commercialization experts in
Phases I and II for both SBIR and STTR. Section 5141 dedicates an
administrative funding pool to increased transition management support
by government sources--in Department of the Navy's case, SBIR/STTR
transition managers at program executive offices and acquisition
program offices. A third provision--Section 5122--which mandates
reporting on SBIR/STTR transition goals and performance metrics, is
expected to further enhance our technology transition authority.
Execution of Section 5122 awaits action by the Secretary of Defense's
Office of Small Business Programs.
Mr. Thornberry. What is the Air Force's plan for developing and
fielding directed energy weapons? Is there currently a marquee Air
Force directed energy program?
Dr. Walker. The Air Force Science and Technology (S&T) Program has
a well-defined plan for developing and demonstrating a wide range of
technologies necessary to transition DEWs to the warfighter. The DEW
technologies are expected to support various Air Force missions, such
as counter electronics, aircraft self-protection, and air-to-air and
air-to-ground engagements.
For example, the Air Force is collaborating with DARPA and the
Missile Defense Agency to develop laser and beam control technologies
for a potential aircraft self-protection laser pod demonstration in the
FY19 timeframe and an air-to-air defensive pod demonstration in the
FY21 time frame. The Air Force is also working with the High Energy
Laser Joint Technology Office and others to address the needs for a
future air dominance demonstration. Key to this effort is our major
activity addressing the aero-effects issues that have hampered previous
airborne laser demonstrations.
In the area of high power microwaves, the Air Force marquee S&T
program, Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile
Project (CHAMP), was a very successful Joint Capability Technology
Demonstration (JCTD). Within S&T, the Air Force is addressing
technologies for a more advanced version that will fit in smaller
platforms.
The Air Force is using results from this successful JCTD to inform
an effort known as Non-Kinetic Counter Electronics (NKCE), which is
currently in pre-Materiel Development Decision phase, and seeks to have
a procured and operational weapon system to support requirements of
Combatant Commanders in the mid-2020 time frame.
Mr. Thornberry. Each of the Services has described prototyping and
requirements maturation processes to help support future acquisition
programs. Why are those tools important? How do ensure technology
transition for successful S&T initiatives to get them to acquisition
program managers and program executive offices?
Dr. Walker. The Air Force's S&T investments develop technology-
based options and reduce the technical risks of current and future
acquisition programs. To efficiently and effectively accomplish this,
it is essential the requirements and acquisition communities
collaboratively develop potential solutions to operational capability
needs, and ensure that objective technical assessments of the viability
and risks associated with these concepts are made available to inform
requirements and acquisition decision points and milestones.
An example of an initiative the Air Force is undertaking to achieve
greater levels of early interaction between the operational users,
acquisition centers, and technologists are Capability Collaboration
Teams (CCT). CCTs are established by the Air Force Major Commands
(MAJCOM) that have responsibility to organize, train, and equip the
current and future Air Force. CCTs provide a method for the MAJCOMs
[warfighters], the acquisition centers [acquirers], and the Air Force
Research Laboratory [technologists] to integrate operational capability
needs and requirements with acquisition priorities and technology
options. CCTs work collaboratively to understand MAJCOM-documented
capability needs that may require a materiel solution and determine if
S&T is required for associated technology needs and then formulate
potential S&T solutions (e.g., technology development, risk reduction,
demonstration, or maturation projects) to address the identified S&T
needs. In some cases, prototyping is useful to demonstrate potential
capabilities in an operationally relevant environment to the
warfighter. Prototyping supports risk reduction and maturation of
technology by minimizing programmatic risks and reducing development
cycle time. The result is that our S&T efforts will be scoped and
structured to prove out high risk technologies necessary for a follow-
on acquisition program thereby reducing cost, schedule, and performance
risks.
Mr. Thornberry. Part of our Defense Reform Initiative is to look at
acquisition reform, and as part of that, we are interested in
understanding how S&T supports the Department's goal of improving
acquisition outcomes and meeting the guidance of the Better Buying
Power 2.0 initiatives. Could each of you give us an example in each of
your organizations of how you are applying S&T to these problems?
Dr. Walker. The Air Force's S&T investments develop technology-
based options and reduce the technical risks of current and future
acquisition programs. As identified in the Better Buying Power 2.0
initiative to control costs throughout the product lifecycle, it is
essential the requirements and acquisition communities collaboratively
develop potential solutions to operational capability needs, and ensure
that objective technical assessments of the viability and risks
associated with these concepts are made available to inform
requirements and acquisition decision points and milestones. The Air
Force continues to improve its S&T planning processes to build and
solidify these effective and efficient relationships between our
requirements and acquisition communities.
An example of an initiative the Air Force is undertaking to achieve
greater levels of early interaction between the operational users,
acquisition centers, and technologists are Capability Collaboration
Teams (CCT). CCTs are established by the Air Force Major Commands
(MAJCOM) that have responsibility to organize, train, and equip the
current and future Air Force. CCTs provide a method for the MAJCOMs
[warfighters], the acquisition centers [acquirers], and the Air Force
Research Laboratory [technologists] to integrate operational capability
needs and requirements with acquisition priorities and technology
options. CCTs work collaboratively to understand MAJCOM-documented
capability needs that may require a materiel solution. CCTs determine
if S&T is required and then formulate potential S&T solutions (e.g.,
technology development, risk reduction, demonstration, or maturation
projects) to address the identified needs. Air Force S&T efforts are
scoped and structured to prove out high risk technologies, which reduce
the cost, schedule, and performance risks associated with follow-on
acquisition programs.
Mr. Thornberry. Do the provisions contained within the SBIR
Reauthorization Act contained within the FY 12 NDAA give you sufficient
authority to ensure that SBIR funded technologies have an opportunity
to transition to acquisition programs of record? Describe the DOD's
plan to implement those provisions.
Dr. Walker. Yes. The provisions contained within the SBIR
Reauthorization Act in the FY 12 NDAA give sufficient authority to
transition SBIR funded technologies into acquisition programs of
record. However, the availability of funds within most programs to
support SBIR transitions are generally non-existent. A separate Program
Element to focus exclusively on SBIR transition efforts would be
difficult to justify, since efforts are often not selected until the
year-of-execution. Obtaining authorities to use a portion of existing
SBIR funds as a set-aside to support SBIR transitions would ensure the
availability of monies to help the Air Force transition SBIR developed
technologies into programs of record. The Air Force recommends
obtaining the authority to use all or a portion of the increase in
RDT&E SBIR assessments (2.5%-3.2%) on ``Phase III'' transition
contracts. Current constraints only allow the use of SBIR funds to
mature technology; this leaves the full burden of transition on the
budgets of programs of record. Using a portion of the increased RDT&E
SBIR expenditure assessment on Phase III contracts would enable a cost-
sharing environment and open the door for a dramatic increase in the
transition of SBIR developed technologies.
The Air Force continues to work with the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and the other Services to implement the provisions of the SBIR/
STTR Reauthorization. For example, the Air Force has been updating and
institutionalizing internal training programs to better educate
existing and new small business contractors in order to increase their
awareness and to solicit their early involvement. The Air Force has
also been working with Defense Acquisition University to update
defense-wide certifications and continuous learning opportunities. Both
of these support an education goal to help change the culture by
showing the added value of small business participation.
Mr. Thornberry. Part of our Defense Reform Initiative is to look at
acquisition reform, and as part of that, we are interested in
understanding how S&T supports the Department's goal of improving
acquisition outcomes and meeting the guidance of the Better Buying
Power 2.0 initiatives. Could each of you give us an example in each of
your organizations of how you are applying S&T to these problems?
Dr. Prabhakar. Our role at the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) is to make the pivotal early investments that change
what is possible for breakthrough national security capabilities. Two
examples include the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) and the
Systems of Systems Integration Technology and Experimentation (SoSITE)
programs.
Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM):
The LRASM program began in response to an urgent capability need
identified by the Navy in 2008. The program objectives were to
demonstrate a fully integrated tactically representative weapon system
to address this capability gap as early as possible. Decomposing the
urgent need in to technologies objectives, the LRASM program focused on
reducing the dependence on intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance (ISR) platforms, network links, and Global Positioning
System (GPS) navigation in electronic warfare environments. Autonomous
guidance algorithms will allow the LRASM to use less-precise target
cueing data to pinpoint specific targets in the contested domain. The
program also focuses on innovative terminal survivability approaches
and precision lethality in the face of advanced counter measures.
To accomplish this, the program office created a small, dedicated
team that maintained a single focus of program execution comprised of
government, Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA)
contractors, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, and
Industry. A ``skunkworks'' mentality was adopted by all parties in
order to maintain cost and schedule while attacking many high risk
items. The program office met the rapid development objectives by
conducting two flight demonstrations, each with resounding success. The
LRASM successfully separated from the aircraft, navigated through a
series of preplanned waypoints, and then transitioned to an autonomous
mode while seeking the target it had been instructed to attack. The
missile detected, identified, and tracked the mobile ship target at
extended range; transitioned to guidance on the terminal sensor; and
impacted the target with a miss distance well within acceptable error
probabilities.
With an empowered and unencumbered program manager and support
staff, the DARPA team was able to streamline the decision making
process by including the appropriate stakeholders as part of the effort
rather than as external ``decision boards.'' By eliminating redundant
processes and reviews, the Agency was able to reach out to the Services
and inject synergy at the technical base level: LRASM was able to
leverage the essential capabilities inherent in each Service to effect
a dynamic demonstration. As a forcing element, the LRASM program was
able to build a strong and lasting partnership with the Service
requirements community, as well as the warfighting organizations at the
initiation of the program. This provided a base capability that
seamlessly flowed into the working requirements for the Offensive Anti-
Surface Warfare mission area. By providing a full-time requirements/
concept of operations SETA to work closely with the warfighter and the
requirements community, there was a consolidated perspective during the
definition and generation of requirements. This interaction at the
initiating stages of the program (during the true Science and
Technology phase) allowed early flow down of warfighter needs and
system designs at inception and refinement of technological
applicability. This allowed the LRASM program to better balance user
needs within technology and cost constraints, as well as informing the
warfighter of future capability and timeline availability.
In light of the successful demonstrations and technical maturity of
the system, the Office of the Secretary of Defense issued a Resource
Management Directive to fully fund a rapid acquisition effort to field
the LRASM on the B-1B in fiscal year 2018 and on the F/A-18 Hornet in
fiscal year 2019. DARPA's early investment in requisite technologies
enabled the Department of Defense to rapidly field a next generation
capability to support the warfighter. In addition, these investments
have significantly increased the state of the art, better positioning
the accelerated acquisition effort to deliver on cost and schedule.
System of Systems Integration Technology and Experimentation
(SoSITE):
DARPA has initiated the SoSITE program to develop the capability to
operate low-cost, simpler platforms in cooperation with more capable
platforms as integrated force structures. This approach enables the
U.S. military to acquire the capabilities to maintain dominance over
potential peer adversaries, who are investing in technologies to
produce high-end systems in large quantities.
DARPA is also developing supporting mission system technologies to
make distributed architectures possible. These technologies include
investments in adaptive communications and networking, autonomy, and
command and control that contribute to interoperability. They promote
rapid fielding of new systems and integration into the force structure,
and control operational cost and complexity.
DARPA is partnering closely with Service and Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) open architecture initiatives. Integration
tools developed by SoSITE and other programs will facilitate
streamlined application of open architectures to future acquisition
programs and enable the expansion and adaptation of open architecture
standards with a minimum of additional bureaucratic burden.
The DARPA System of Systems strategy contributes directly to the
goals of the Better Buying Power 2.0 initiative by:
Enabling highly affordable weapon systems to achieve
military effectiveness as part of an integrated architecture
Providing the means to manage requirements across an
architecture to help control costs of more capable platforms
Providing tools to deploy complex architectures more
efficiently, helping to control life-cycle operational costs
Creating opportunities and competition at all tiers of
the industrial base to encourage productivity and innovation
Promoting wider adoption of open architecture standards
and practices while minimizing bureaucratic burden.
Mr. Thornberry. Do the provisions contained within the SBIR
Reauthorization Act contained within the FY 12 NDAA give you sufficient
authority to ensure that SBIR funded technologies have an opportunity
to transition to acquisition programs of record? Describe the DOD's
plan to implement those provisions.
Dr. Prabhakar. DARPA defers to ASD(R&E), which is the lead for SBIR
implementation.
The ASD(R&E), Mr. Shaffer, states: Yes. As one initiative, we have
added to DODI 5000.02, page 57, Table 2. Milestone and Phase
Information Requirements the following: ``Program managers will
establish goals for applying SBIR and STTR technologies in programs of
record. For contracts with a value at or above $100 million, program
managers will establish a goal for the transition of Phase III
technologies in subcontracting plans, and report the number and dollar
amount of contracts entered into for Phase III SBIR or STTR projects.''
In addition, each major DOD acquisition program designates an
individual who is (a) knowledgeable about the technology needs of the
acquisition program and (b) responsible for technology infusion into
the program, to serve as the program's SBIR Liaison. These Liaisons
undertake to ensure that appropriate SBIR technologies are considered
for acquisition programs.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. PETERS
Mr. Peters. Earlier this year, a number of leading research
universities, including UC San Diego, UCLA, Stanford, and Cal Tech sent
a letter to Secretary James and Under Secretary Kendall, expressing
several significant concerns regarding the potential move of the Air
Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) from its current
headquarters in Arlington, VA to the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
[Letter available upon request.]
I am concerned that a move to Wright-Patterson could lead to a
change in the thrust of AFOSR's funding from basic research at
universities to applied research at Air Force laboratories. This would
jeopardize the many opportunities for innovation that are unique to the
AFOSR-university partnership.
Has the Air Force studied other circumstances where basic research
program managers and operational personnel are located in the same
facility? If so, what are the lessons from those experiences? If not,
does the Air Force intend to undertake such studies prior to a final
decision? Has the Air Force conducted an analysis to determine what, if
any, safeguards should be put in place to ensure that AFOSR program
managers will continue to address long-range, basic research and not be
influenced by the immediate needs of lab personnel? Has the Air Force
analyzed the benefits of having AFOSR in close proximity to the
Pentagon, DARPA, the DNI, NSF and other research agencies, and how
those benefits would be impacted by separating AFOSR geographically
from these other agencies?
Dr. Walker. The Air Force has decided not to relocate AFOSR to
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB). This decision was reached
after a deliberative process that included assessments of the cost of
operation, risks to the basic research mission, and benefits to the
basic research mission based on two potential courses of action (1.
AFOSR remains in Ballston, VA and 2. AFOSR moves to WPAFB).
The Commander of Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) directed
headquarters AFMC staff to complete a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) prior
to taking any action. The Air Force determined the majority of savings
identified in the CBA were the result of reduced support manpower and
that some of these savings may be obtained in place. Additionally,
preliminary findings identified risk to personnel skills and access to
collaborators, such as NSF, DARPA, the Office of Naval Research,
Department of Energy, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
and NASA.
The Air Force also developed a public Request for Information (RFI)
to assess the impact of the location of AFOSR as perceived by the wider
academic community. Based on these assessments, the Air Force decided
to maintain AFOSR in its current Ballston, VA location.
[all]