NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-07608-0
Copies are available from:
National Academy Press
Box 285 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20418 800–624–6242 or 202–334–3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area)
Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm.A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I.Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M.Alberts and Dr. Wm.A.Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON REVIEW OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AIR AND SPACE SYSTEMS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
EUGENE E.COVERT, Chair,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
AARON COHEN,
Texas A&M University, College Station
ROBERT S.COOPER,
Atlantic Aerospace Electronics Corporation, Greenbelt, Maryland
RUTH M.DAVIS,
Pymatuning Group, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia
ELIEZER G.GAI,
Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
GEORGE J.GLEGHORN, Consultant,
Rancho Palos Verdes, California
DAROLD GRIFFIN,
Engineering and Management Executives, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia
ROBERT W.LUCKY,
Telcordia Technologies, Red Bank, New Jersey
MILTON A.MARGOLIS,
Logistics Management Institute, McLean, Virginia
MALCOLM R.O’NEILL,
Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland
ALBERT A.SCIARRETTA,
CNS Technologies, Inc., Springfield, Virginia
National Research Council Staff
BRUCE A.BRAUN, Director,
Department of Military Science and Technology
JAMES C.GARCIA, Study Director
ALAN INOUYE, Program Officer,
Computer Science and Telecommunications Board
JAMES MYSKA, Research Associate
Liaisons
Board on Army Science and Technology
ROBERT HEASTON, Consultant,
Naperville, Illinois
Air Force Science and Technology Board
ROBERT LOEWY,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Preface
Since the mid-1940s, when Vannevar Bush and Theodore von Karman wrote Science, the Endless Frontier and Toward New Horizons, respectively, there has been a consensus that strong Department of Defense support of science and technology (S&T) is important to the security of the United States. During the Cold War, as it faced technologically capable adversaries whose forces potentially outnumbered U.S. forces, the United States relied on a strong defense S&T program to support the development of technologically superior weapons and systems that would enable it to prevail in the event of conflict. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has relied on its technological superiority to maintain a military advantage while at the same time reducing the size of its forces. Over the past half-century, creating and maintaining a technologically superior military capability have become fundamental to U.S. national security strategy, and investment in S&T has become a basic component of the defense budget.
In late 1998, Congress asked the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study, in cooperation with the National Research Council (NRC), on the S&T base of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Congress was particularly concerned about areas of the S&T program related to air systems, space systems, and supporting information systems. Its concern was based on the Air Force’s reduction of its S&T program from the largest of the three military service programs to the smallest. Congress also wanted to ensure that the Air Force maintained an appropriately sized S&T workforce. In late 1999, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology asked the NRC to conduct a study to explore these issues.
The committee thanks the congressional staff members, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, her staff, and representatives of the military services and defense research agencies who met with the committee and provided their support for its effort. The committee is also grateful to Robert Heaston, the committee liaison from the NRC Board on Army Science and Technology, who contributed greatly to the study and report. Finally, the committee thanks the NRC staff for its assistance in conducting the study and preparing this report.
Eugene E. Covert, Chair
Committee on Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air and Space Systems Science and Technology Program
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the NRC in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The contents of the review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report:
Curt Carlson, SRI International, Menlo Park, California
Edward M.Greitzer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
Norman Hackerman, Robert A.Welch Foundation, Houston, Texas
John McElroy, University of Texas, Arlington
John D.Warner, Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington
Leo Young, Consultant, Baltimore, Maryland
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Alexander Flax, National Academy of Engineering, and Gilbert F.Decker, Walt Disney Imagineering Research and Development, Inc. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Tables, Figures, and Boxes
TABLES
2–1 |
DoD S&T Funding, Total Obligational Authority, FY89 to FY01, |
|||
2–2 |
DoD S&T Funding, Total Obligational Authority, FY89 to FY01, |
|||
2–3 |
DoD Funding by Major Budget Category, FY89 to FY01, |
|||
2–4 |
Air Force Funding by Major Budget Category, FY89 to FY01, |
|||
2–5 |
Percentage Changes in Funding for DoD Budget Categories, |
|||
2–6 |
Percentage Changes in Funding for Air Force Budget Categories, |
|||
2–7 |
Percentage Changes in Funding for DoD S&T Categories, |
FIGURES
2–1 |
Percentage change in total DoD budget and service S&T funding since 1989, |
|||
2–2 |
Service investments in S&T (6.1, 6.2, and 6.3), |
|||
3–1 |
DARPA air and space systems S&T funding, |
|||
3–2 |
DoD total S&T funding and space S&T funding as a percentage of DoD total obligational authority (TOA), |
|||
4–1 |
Decline in Air Force Research Laboratory Information Systems Directorate S&T budget, FY96 to FY00, compared with President’s budget (PB) request, |
|||
4–2 |
Notional S-curve depicting shrinking military warfighting advantage as technology matures and commercial development catches up to DoD development, |
|||
4–3 |
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) briefing chart contrasting DARPA’s approach to R&D with its view of the approach taken by the services, |
|||
4–4 |
Service funding for information systems technology-related basic research, FY95 to FY01, |
|||
4–5 |
FY00 budget for Air Force Research Laboratory Information Systems Directorate (AFRL/IF), |
|||
5–1 |
Number (in thousands) of service in-house RDT&E personnel, FY90 to FY98, |
|||
5–2 |
Percentage change in total Department of Defense, Air Force, and Air Force Research Laboratory personnel from FY96 to FY00, |
|||
5–3 |
Cash compensation for Department of Defense RDT&E personnel versus industry RDT&E personnel as of 1998, |
|||
D-1 |
RDT&E budget categories, |
BOXES
4–1 |
Definitions of Technology Areas, |
|||
4–2 |
Key Requirements Driving Future Information Systems S&T, |
|||
D-1 |
Summary of von Karman’s Recommendations, |
|||
D-2 |
Current S&T Budget Activities, |
|||
D-3 |
Rationale for 1971 Prototype Initiative, |
|||
D-4 |
1990 DoD Critical Technologies, |
|||
D-5 |
Current TARA Technology Areas, |
|||
D-6 |
Transitioning Technology, |
|||
D-7 |
Selected Results of 1988 OTA Study, |
|||
D-8 |
Funding Level for S&T, |
Acronyms
ACTD
advanced concept technology demonstration
AFA
Air Force Association
AFIT
Air Force Institute of Technology
AFMC
Air Force Materiel Command
AFRL
Air Force Research Laboratory
AFRL/IF
Air Force Research Laboratory/Information Directorate
ATTD
advanced technology transition demonstration
BMDO
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
C4ISR
command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
DARPA
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DoD
U.S. Department of Defense
DUSD (S&T)
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology
FY
fiscal year
GOCA
government-owned, collaborator-assisted
GOCO
government-owned, contractor-operated
GPS
Global Positioning System
IPA
Intergovernmental Personnel Act
ISR
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
IST
information systems technology
MS&C
modeling, simulation, and collaboration
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NRC
National Research Council
O&M
operations and maintenance
ORD
operational requirements document
OSD
Office of the Secretary of Defense
RDT&E
research, development, test, and evaluation
RIF
reduction in force