National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 1. Introduction
Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×

2
Investment in Science and Technology

CONGRESSIONAL CONCERNS

Congressional concerns arose during the 1990s about reductions in the DoD S&T program, particularly in the Air Force S&T program. Figure 2–1 shows the relative changes in the total DoD budget since 1989. The decline in the total DoD budget by about 25 percent in real terms from FY89 to FY01 reflects attempts by Congress to realize a post-Cold War peace dividend and to deal with growing federal budget deficits in the 1980s and 1990s.

Figure 2–1 also shows that over the same period, the Air Force reduced its S&T program by about 50 percent—about twice the reduction in the overall DoD budget. In 1989, the Air Force S&T program was almost as large as the Army’s and the Navy’s S&T pro

FIGURE 2–1 Percentage change in total DoD budget and service S&T funding since 1989. Data from Tables 2–2 and 2–3, constant dollars.

grams combined; by 2000, it was the smallest program of the three (see Figure 2–2) (Tuohy, 1999), whereas the Navy’s S&T program had actually increased.

According to congressional staff members who met with the committee, the Air Force had proposed even deeper reductions but had been prevented from making them by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. In addition, in 1999 the Air Force moved two relatively large programs, the Discoverer II space-based radar demonstration and the Space-Based Laser Program, which had previously been funded outside S&T, into its S&T funding line. But because total S&T funding was not increased, these two programs were funded at the expense of ongoing and new S&T programs (Gessel, 2000).

From FY89 to FY98, the Air Force reduced its S&T investment to about 46 percent of its FY89 level in real terms. From FY98 to FY01, the Air Force increased its S&T investment. By FY01 it had been increased to 54 percent of its FY89 level. Despite the turnaround, congressional concerns remained.

TRENDS IN FUNDING FOR DoD S&T

The committee examined overall DoD S&T funding trends during the 1990s to provide a context for evaluating the Air Force’s funding reductions. Tables 2–1 and 2–2 show the breakdown of DoD S&T funding in current and FY01 constant dollars, respectively, for FY89 to FY01. Table 2–3 shows DoD funding by major budget category in both current and FY01 constant dollars for the same time period; Table 2–4 gives the same information for the Air Force. Table 2–5 shows changes in

Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×

FIGURE 2–2 Service investments in S&T (6.1, 6.2, and 6.3). FY89 to FY00, appropriated; FY01 to FY05, President’s budget request. SOURCE: Tuohy, 1999.

funding for DoD budget categories (1) as the average annual percentage change since FY89, (2) in terms of the largest annual percentage reduction in each budget category, and (3) as the annual percentage change between FY97 and FY01 for each budget category; Table 2–6 shows the same data for the Air Force. Table 2–7 uses the same three indicators to show the percentage changes in funding for each defense S&T category.

The tables show reductions, in real terms, in almost all categories of defense and Air Force funding since 1989: The total DoD budget is down approximately 25 percent in real terms (Table 2–5). The total Air Force budget is down 32 percent (Table 2–6). Total DoD research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) funding, of which S&T is a part, is down about 21 percent (Table 2–5). Air Force RDT&E funding is down 26 percent (Table 2–6).

From FY97 to FY01, there was a significant turnaround. The total Air Force budget, driven by a strong increase in procurement funding (39 percent) and operations and maintenance funding (10 percent), increased about 7 percent overall (Table 2–6). Even in those five years, however, Air Force RDT&E declined another 8 percent (contributing to an 18 percent cut since FY90). Air Force S&T investment declined from FY97 to FY99 (in real terms) but rose in FY00 and FY01, resulting in a 9 percent increase for the five-year period (Table 2–7).

If DoD S&T funding is examined by agency, some differences are evident (Table 2–7). The Army shows an overall real increase in S&T funding of about 20 percent over the entire 12-year, post-Cold War period, with a 29 percent increase in the last five years. The Air Force shows an overall reduction of 46 percent for the entire period. The Navy shows a 47 percent increase in S&T funding over the 12-year period. The positive shifts in Navy funding are mainly the result of increases in advanced technology development (6.3), which increased more than 212 percent from FY89 to FY01. All three services experienced reductions in basic research over the 12 years. Army and Navy applied research grew during the period. Air Force applied research declined. Defense-wide S&T funding, which includes S&T funding directed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and funding by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×

TABLE 2–1 DoD S&T Funding, Total Obligational Authority, FY89 to FY01 (current dollars, millions)

Component

Science and Technology Category

Dollar Type

FY89

FY90

FY91

FY92

FY93

FY94

FY95

FY96

FY97

FY98

FY99

FY00

FY01

Army

Basic Research

Current

172

178

180

197

214

202

214

182

175

177

176

202

210

Army

Applied Research

Current

573

549

639

680

729

618

595

451

542

663

613

793

832

Army

Advanced Technology Development

Current

461

608

604

470

863

516

738

580

651

678

635

721

815

Total

 

1,207

1,335

1,423

1,347

1,806

1,336

1,547

1,213

1,368

1,518

1,425

1,716

1,857

Navy

Basic Research

Current

352

363

390

392

426

412

408

369

346

332

354

367

394

Navy

Applied Research

Current

430

444

485

488

578

438

502

536

514

463

551

610

662

Navy

Advanced Technology Development

Current

197

230

244

238

440

417

481

466

462

521

570

739

786

Total

 

979

1,037

1,119

1,118

1,443

1,267

1,391

1,371

1,322

1,316

1,474

1,717

1,843

Air Force

Basic Research

Current

197

193

205

206

239

225

225

216

182

188

197

208

213

Air Force

Applied Research

Current

587

570

578

618

617

601

643

627

631

546

584

587

657

Air Force

Advanced Technology Development

Current

1,343

936

926

677

694

468

538

517

446

441

462

564

587

Total

 

2,127

1,699

1,709

1,501

1,549

1,295

1,406

1,361

1,260

1,176

1,243

1,359

1,456

DoD-wide

Basic Research

Current

228

197

380

345

434

340

328

331

330

317

336

359

498

DoD-wide

Applied Research

Current

955

849

1,016

1,188

1,300

1,093

1,189

1,217

1,130

1,239

1,311

1,426

1,534

DoD-wide

Advanced Technology Development

Current

1,366

1,121

1,669

1,673

2,187

2,477

2,054

2,028

2,061

2,110

1,820

1,754

1,785

Total

 

2,549

2,167

3,065

3,206

3,920

3,910

3,572

3,576

3,521

3,666

3,467

3,539

3,816

Grand Total

 

6,861

6,238

7,316

7,172

8,719

7,807

7,916

7,520

7,470

7,676

7,610

8,332

8,973

NOTE: Rounded amounts may not add to the correct totals shown.

SOURCE: Personal communication, Stanley Trice, staff member, ODUSD (S&T), February 23, 2001.

Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×

TABLE 2–2 DoD S&T Funding, Total Obligational Authority, FY89 to FY01 (FY01 constant dollars, millions)

Component

Science and Technology Category

Dollar Type

FY89

FY90

FY91

FY92

FY93

FY94

FY95

FY96

FY97

FY98

FY99

FY00

FY01

Army

Basic Research

Constant

221

219

214

227

243

225

233

195

184

185

182

206

210

Army

Applied Research

Constant

733

676

758

786

828

688

650

483

572

692

634

807

832

Army

Advanced Technology Development

Constant

590

748

718

543

980

574

806

621

687

708

656

734

815

Total

 

1,544

1,643

1,691

1,557

2,051

1,487

1,689

1,229

1,444

1,585

1,472

1,746

1,857

Navy

Basic Research

Constant

451

447

463

453

483

459

446

396

365

347

366

374

394

Navy

Applied Research

Constant

550

546

576

564

656

488

548

574

543

483

569

621

662

Navy

Advanced Technology Development

Constant

252

284

290

275

499

464

525

499

488

544

589

752

786

Total

 

1,252

1,276

1,329

1,292

1,639

1,411

1,518

1,469

1,395

1,374

1,524

1,747

1,843

Air Force

Basic Research

Constant

251

237

243

239

271

251

246

232

192

196

204

212

213

Air Force

Applied Research

Constant

751

702

687

715

701

669

702

672

666

571

604

597

657

Air Force

Advanced Technology Development

Constant

1,718

1,152

1,099

782

788

521

588

554

471

461

477

574

587

Total

 

2,721

2,091

2,029

1,735

1,760

1,441

1,535

1,458

1,330

1,228

1,285

1,383

1,456

DoD-wide

Basic Research

Constant

292

243

451

399

492

378

358

355

349

331

347

366

498

DoD-wide

Applied Research

Constant

1,221

1,045

1,207

1,373

1,477

1,216

1,298

1,304

1,192

1,294

1,355

1,451

1,534

DoD-wide

Advanced Technology Development

Constant

1,747

1,380

1,982

1,933

2,483

2,758

2,242

2,173

2,175

2,204

1,881

1,785

1,785

Total

 

3,260

2,668

3,640

3,705

4,452

4,352

3,899

3,831

3,716

3,829

3,582

3,601

3,816

Grand Total

 

8,776

7,687

8,689

8,288

9,902

8,691

8,641

8,056

7,885

8,016

7,863

8,477

8,973

NOTE: Rounded amounts may not add to the correct totals shown.

SOURCE: Personal communication, Stanley Trice, staff member, ODUSD (S&T), February 23, 2001.

Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×

TABLE 2–3 DoD Funding by Major Budget Category, FY89 to FY01 (current and FY01 constant dollars, millions)

Budget Category

FY89

FY90

FY91

FY92

FY93

FY94

FY95

FY96

FY97

FY98

FY99

FY00

FY01

Current Dollars, Millions

 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

37,306

35,793

34,714

37,879

37,677

34,508

34,422

35,115

36,481

37,184

38,104

38,582

37,862

Procurement

79,412

79,709

71,416

61,919

53,621

43,761

43,084

43,432

43,149

44,884

50,770

54,998

60,270

Military Construction

5,680

5,158

5,496

4,988

3,905

6,477

5,874

7,358

6,003

5,469

5,148

4,993

4,568

Operations and Maintenance

86,623

88,431

109,764

92,145

90,767

89,091

93,989

93,233

91,834

95,856

102,661

106,564

109,044

Military Personnel

78,448

78,864

83,974

81,055

75,983

71,293

71,473

69,699

70,187

69,686

70,731

73,690

75,802

Family Housing

3,350

3,165

3,385

3,705

3,822

3,566

3,728

4,312

4,122

3,931

3,553

3,583

3,480

Revolving and Management Funds

772

237

1,871

3,504

3,881

2,643

1,645

1,903

2,411

2,114

1,764

1,800

1,304

DoD Total

291,540

291,356

310,620

285,195

269,655

251,339

254,215

255,052

254,186

259,123

272,729

284,210

292,332

FY01 Constant Dollars, Millions

 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

47,715

44,056

41,229

43,774

42,790

38,414

37,576

37,615

38,508

38,831

39,372

39,254

37,862

Procurement

98,667

95,721

83,331

70,631

59,973

48,066

46,552

46,250

45,432

46,825

52,317

55,877

60,270

Military Construction

7,156

6,270

6,486

5,754

4,429

7,171

6,401

7,880

6,364

5,740

5,329

5,082

4,568

Operations and Maintenance

119,994

118,453

135,530

113,859

109,173

104,396

108,069

104,836

101,137

102,962

108,326

110,450

109,044

Military Personnel

112,997

111,868

113,502

106,701

95,810

87,724

85,841

81,859

80,096

77,076

75,931

76,068

75,802

Family Housing

4,263

3,889

3,985

4,263

4,304

3,931

4,041

4,590

4,329

4,089

3,659

3,648

3,480

Revolving and Management Funds

929

292

2,216

4,128

4,448

3,034

1,894

2,128

2,615

2,266

1,811

1,828

1,304

DoD Total

391,722

380,548

386,280

349,111

320,927

292,736

290,374

285,150

278,481

277,790

286,744

292,206

292,332

NOTE: Rounded amounts may not add to the correct totals shown.

SOURCE: DoD, 2000.

Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×

TABLE 2–4 Air Force Funding by Major Budget Category, FY89 to FY01 (current and FY01 constant dollars, millions)

Budget Category

FY89

FY90

FY91

FY92

FY93

FY94

FY95

FY96

FY97

FY98

FY99

FY00

FY01

Current Dollars, Millions

 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

14,551

13,553

11,890

13,051

12,789

12,178

11,605

12,518

14,090

14,278

13,732

14,580

13,686

Procurement

30,611

30,104

24,514

23,539

21,505

17,501

15,829

16,619

14,388

15,328

18,209

18,612

20,939

Military Construction

1,408

1,334

1,142

1,217

1,036

1,587

1,081

1,282

1,576

1,570

1,399

1,471

968

Operations and Maintenance

25,157

25,493

29,020

22,829

22,870

24,542

24,537

23,405

22,795

25,131

27,068

26,025

28,056

Military Personnel

21,854

21,773

22,717

21,306

20,201

18,133

19,593

19,276

19,171

19,099

19,366

20,235

20,892

Family Housing

946

876

962

1,106

1,164

985

1,123

1,130

1,119

1,103

1,058

1,162

1,050

Revolving and Management Funds

187

111

945

0

0

12

5

0

31

33

31

28

0

Air Force Total

94,713

93,244

91,189

83,048

79,566

74,938

73,773

74,230

73,170

76,543

80,862

82,113

85,590

FY01 Constant Dollars, Millions

 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

18,593

16,664

14,085

15,603

14,441

13,503

12,626

13,361

14,809

14,869

14,146

14,819

13,686

Procurement

38,240

36,290

28,674

26,875

24,054

19,219

17,076

17,651

15,103

15,948

18,742

18,901

20,939

Military Construction

1,751

1,600

1,331

1,387

1,158

1,740

1,165

1,361

1,658

1,636

1,441

1,494

968

Operations and Maintenance

34,751

34,331

34,940

28,478

27,617

29,048

28,749

26,800

25,431

27,104

28,704

27,357

28,056

Military Personnel

31,587

30,954

30,809

28,081

25,473

22,331

23,554

22,655

21,915

21,146

20,805

20,890

20,892

Family Housing

1,202

1,073

1,127

1,270

1,308

1,084

1,215

1,202

1,175

1,146

1,089

1,184

1,050

Revolving and Management Funds

240

137

1,119

0

0

13

6

0

32

35

32

29

0

Air Force Total

126,365

121,049

112,085

101,154

94,051

86,939

84,390

83,030

80,123

81,884

84,959

84,674

85,590

NOTE: Rounded amounts may not add to the correct totals shown.

SOURCE: DoD, 2000.

Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×

TABLE 2–5 Percentage Changes in Funding for DoD Budget Categories (FY01 constant dollars)

 

Since FY89

Deepest Annual Cut

FY97 to FY01

Total Budget

−25

−10

+5

Procurement

−39

−20

+33

O&M

−9

−16

+8

Military Personnel

−33

−10

−5

RDT&E

−21

−10

−2

S&T

+2

−12

+14

Basic Research

+8

−12

+21

Applied Research

+13

−16

+24

Advanced Technology Development

−8

−17

+4

(DARPA), the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, and other defense research agencies, grew 17 percent (in real terms) following the end of the Cold War.

Table 2.2 shows that defense S&T funding fluctuated over the past 12 years. Overall, however, defense S&T funding was higher by FY01, including total DoD, Army, Navy, and DoD-wide S&T funding. The sole exception was Air Force S&T funding, which by FY01 was 46 percent lower.

VALUE OF DEFENSE S&T INVESTMENTSCOUNTERING A RANGE OF THREATS

To address the question of the level of investment necessary to maintain an adequate technology base in the areas of air, space, and supporting information systems, the committee examined how the value, or utility, of the defense S&T investment has changed since the end of the Cold War. The most striking characteristic of defense S&T resources, which represent only 2 to 3 percent of total expenditures for national security, is their astonishing impact on the shape of DoD. Since World War II, for example, investments in S&T have led to the introduction of intercontinental ballistic missiles, stealthy aircraft, and reconnaissance satellites. One could legitimately ask whether the war against Japan would have ended by August 1945, the Cold War in 1989, or the Gulf War only 100 hours after the allied ground campaign started if key S&T investments had not been made. Today, however, the national security situation has changed radically, requiring a reconsideration of both the level of national security expenditures and the proportion that should be devoted to S&T.

TABLE 2–6 Percentage Changes in Funding for Air Force Budget Categories (FY01 constant dollars)

 

Since FY89

Deepest Annual Cut

FY97 to FY01

Total Budget

−32

−10

+7

Procurement

−45

−21

+39

O&M

−19

−18

+10

Military Personnel

−34

−12

−5

RDT&E

−26

−15

−8

S&T

−46

−23

+9

Basic Research

−15

−17

+11

Applied Research

−13

−14

−1

Advanced Technology Development

−66

−34

+25

By their very nature, S&T resources entail management problems. Significantly useful S&T programs are almost always unique. The nature of the personnel and other resources involved make it particularly difficult to establish schedules and to predict financial requirements. The military payoffs of S&T programs cannot always be specified with certainty at their initiation and, in fact, are usually difficult to quantify even in retrospect because they gain utility in “system of systems” applications. Despite these difficulties, management must estimate the magnitude and direction of the defense S&T investment to provide a basis for determining the best mix of weapon systems to meet current and future security threats. Those threats have changed since the Cold War.

The Soviet Union had military systems and capabilities competitive with those of the United States, as well as potentially superior numbers of forces. Although there were other potential adversaries around the world, the overwhelming focus of U.S. military strategy, forces, and systems was countering the single adversary that could conceivably match the United States blow for blow in a full-scale nuclear or conventional conflict.

The symmetry of capabilities, combined with potentially superior numbers of forces, drove the United States to pursue weapons and systems development programs, as fast as possible and at almost any cost, to create and maintain a technologically superior military capability. In keeping with this single-adversary orientation, defense S&T programs were oriented toward developing technologies that pushed the limits of weapon system performance, range, lethality, precision, and survivability.

Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×

TABLE 2–7 Percentage Changes in Funding for DoD S&T Categories (FY01 constant dollars)

 

Since FY89

Deepest Annual Cut

FY97 to FY01

S&T

 

Total

+2

−12

+14

Army

+20

−27

+29

Navy

+47

−14

+32

Air Force

−46

−23

+9

DoD-wide

+17

−18

+3

Basic Research

 

Total

+8

−12

+21

Army

−5

−13

−16

Navy

−11

+14

+8

Air Force

−15

−17

+11

DoD-wide

+71

−23

+43

Applied Research

 

Total

+13

−16

+24

Army

+14

−26

+45

Navy

+20

−26

+22

Air Force

−13

−14

−1

DoD-wide

+26

−18

+29

Advanced Technology Development

 

Total

−8

−17

+4

Army

+38

−41

+19

Navy

+212

−7

+61

Air Force

−66

−34

+25

DoD-wide

+2

−21

−18

With the fall of the Soviet Union, however, some of the impetus for the development of advanced systems has diminished. Despite Russia’s formidable conventional and nuclear forces and the improving military capabilities of other countries, the U.S. military, for the time being, is the predominant military force in the world. This does not mean, however, that the threats faced by the United States are simpler or less dangerous. In fact, the opposite is true.

Instead of a monolithic adversary whose capabilities and strategies are similar to those of the U.S. military, the United States now faces a growing number of threats. First, other nations continue to improve and increase their military capabilities in many areas such as intercontinental ballistic missiles and chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Although these nations could not yet prevail against the United States in a full-scale conflict, they can threaten and significantly harm the vital interests of the United States and its allies. In addition, international terrorism is increasing, and the U.S. military and U.S. allies are favored targets.

The asymmetry between these threats and U.S. military capabilities compounds the problem. The worldwide availability of advanced technologies has enabled relatively small forces or groups to wield great destructive power for striking at nonmilitary populations as well as military forces. As the U.S. military and the world are learning, a large, technologically superior military designed to fight a similar enemy is not necessarily well prepared to deal with these asymmetrical threats. The attack on the USS Cole illustrates how an asymmetric threat can seriously damage an opponent that was once considered overwhelming and invulnerable. Civilian societies are also vulnerable. For example, attacks on the electrical power, financial, or transportation systems through their supporting information systems could cause great damage. Concerns about whether the United States is prepared to defend itself against such attacks are now widespread.

No one knows which of these potential threats will become real, which terrorist group will be the first to possess a weapon of mass destruction, when and where it will strike, and what constraints will be imposed on a defense against them. The growing number of threats, their asymmetric nature, and their uncertainty have increased the complexity and difficulty of defending against them—and, as a consequence, the potential utility of S&T in helping to meet these challenges.

IMPETUS FOR ONGOING INVESTMENT IN DEFENSE S&T

Given the demonstrated value of DoD S&T programs over more than the past half-century and the need for strong capabilities to meet a changing global threat, the committee concluded that the post-Cold War trend toward reductions in S&T spending should be reexamined in light of the need to deal with the threats that have arisen since the Cold War. First, if current defense systems cannot defend against the new threats, new systems must be developed, which will require reoriented and increased investment in defense S&T. Because the nature and scope of these threats are uncertain, the S&T investment should be broad and flexible.

Second, increased S&T investments are needed to support aging military systems, many of which are decades old but are expected to last many more years

Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×

until new systems can replace them. All of the services, including the Air Force, have already discovered that S&T programs will be necessary to extend the lifetimes of these systems.

Third, rapid deployment and reduced dependence on overseas bases in force projection will require capabilities beyond those provided by current operational technologies. The Air Force’s Expeditionary Aerospace Force concept is a case in point. The S&T requirements to support new operational concepts are just beginning to be understood.

Fourth, although the impetus for the development of some advanced systems has diminished, continued investment in S&T supporting advanced systems is still necessary. Russia and other developed nations possess technologically competitive systems and, just as important, the capability to improve them. Other countries could buy these systems, thus increasing both their military capabilities and their own technology bases. The United States still relies on technological superiority to reduce casualties and provide a military advantage in the event of conflict. Therefore, maintaining the defense S&T base to ensure these advantages is prudent and necessary.

DoD and Air Force S&T programs are as important as ever, perhaps more important. In light of the current threats faced by the United States, the prospective utility of the U.S. investment in defense S&T has actually increased.

NONDEFENSE PAYOFFS

Although nondefense applications are not a primary criterion in the allocation of DoD resources, these payoffs have been, and can continue to be, extensive. Among the many recent nondefense economic and social benefits that have accrued as a result of military technologies being transferred to the nondefense public and private sectors are the Global Positioning System, the ARPANET (the forerunner of today’s Internet), communication satellites, fiber optics, laser technology for medical and manufacturing uses, and composite materials for sports equipment and automotive vehicles, to name only a few. Defense S&T programs have contributed directly to a stronger economy, safer automobiles and aircraft, and more cost-efficient logistics. Such nondefense payoffs are directly related to the investment in defense S&T.

Unique aspects of the public welfare such as national security require that the government make high-risk, sometimes long-term, investments that industry cannot or will not make. Most defense S&T programs are high-risk capital investments with a high potential for failure. Even large firms accustomed to taking risks can find it difficult to justify such programs on a commercial profit-and-loss basis.

Accounting in advance for the incremental economic benefits to be gained from defense S&T spending is problematic. The modeling of projected economic and social benefits is extremely complex and difficult to do. However, Congress should remain aware of the nondefense benefits that frequently accrue from defense S&T programs.

LEVEL OF AIR FORCE REPRESENTATION AND ADVOCACY FOR S&T

Currently, the highest S&T-dedicated military position in the Air Force is the 2-star AFRL commander position at Wright-Patterson AFB near Dayton, Ohio. The AFRL commander reports directly to a general (4-star), the commander of the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), of which AFRL is a part. AFMC headquarters is also located at Wright-Patterson. The AFRL commander is also dual-hatted as the Air Force technology executive officer and as such also reports to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, whose office is in the Pentagon.

The strength of S&T representation in the Air Force is weakened by the relatively small size of the S&T program compared with the Air Force’s total program and compared with the broad scope of responsibilities held by the assistant secretary for acquisition and the AFMC commander. In FY01, the Air Force total obligational authority (TOA) was approximately $85.6 billion. The TOA for RDT&E was approximately $13.7 billion, or about 16 percent. Of this amount, S&T TOA was approximately $1.2 billion, about 9 percent of RDT&E, or slightly more than 1 percent of Air Force TOA for FY01. The relatively small size of the S&T investment affects perceptions of its value and the amount of attention paid to it. The assistant secretary is a member of the Air Force Council, which is the Air Force corporate policy and decision-making body just beneath the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and is responsible for representing this S&T investment as the council makes its investment decisions.

Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×

However, he is also responsible for representing all Air Force acquisition programs, which comprise the “D” part of the RDT&E investment and are much larger combined than the S&T program.

The AFMC commander also has broad responsibilities. The commander is responsible for about 120,000 people, including approximately 5,700 people in AFRL, and the programs at four product centers, five air-logistics centers, three test centers, and two major specialized centers. In addition, until very recently, AFMC was not responsible for formulating the Air Force S&T program and budget or for including and representing them during the annual budget cycle. Instead, the S&T budget was formulated and represented by the assistant secretary’s office.

The broad scope of responsibilities of the AFMC commander and the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, combined with the relatively small size of the S&T program, can prevent them from effectively advocating for Air Force S&T at the corporate policy and decision-making level of the Air Force. The AFRL commander is focused and dedicated to S&T; however, his position is several levels below the Air Force Council and he is located in Ohio instead of the Pentagon. His ability to effectively represent and advocate S&T during corporate decision-making is, therefore, limited.

The Air Force itself has recognized this problem and recently acted to increase the level of S&T advocacy within the Air Force. It announced plans to make the AFMC commander the advocate for S&T in the Air Force. In addition, starting in the FY03 budget, AFMC plans to include Air Force S&T in its budget formulation. These changes reflect efforts to increase the level at which S&T is advocated in the Air Force. However, the breadth of the AFMC commander’s responsibilities will not be diminished, and S&T will continue to represent a relatively small part of his overall responsibilities. Moreover, moving the responsibility for S&T budget formulation and advocacy from the assistant secretary’s office in the Pentagon to AFMC at Wright-Patterson also will distance the S&T voice from the locus of Air Force policy and decision making. Including the Air Force S&T budget in the AFMC budget also increases the possibility that S&T funding will be tapped to help pay AFMC’s bills, in addition to bills from Air Force headquarters. This would compound the effects of reductions that have already been made in S&T funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Decline in Air Force S&T

Conclusion 2–1. Although the DoD investment in S&T has fluctuated since the end of the Cold War, it was higher by FY01, except for Air Force S&T, which accounted for the bulk of DoD S&T support for air and space systems. Air Force investment in S&T declined disproportionately during the period, exceeding the rate of the overall DoD budget decline and the rate of the overall Air Force budget decline.

Impact of S&T

Conclusion 2–2. Despite the relatively small share of total defense resources allocated for S&T, that investment has had major impacts on defense. The United States relies on its defense S&T base for the technological superiority that provides a military advantage and reduces casualties in the event of conflict.

New Threats

Conclusion 2–3. Since the end of the Cold War, threats facing the United States have changed considerably. New threats are diverse, asymmetric, and fraught with uncertainty. Cold War-era forces were not designed to meet these threats, and countering them will require broad capabilities that can best be provided by a broad program of defense S&T.

Nondefense Spin-offs

Conclusion 2–4. Defense S&T often has important nondefense benefits, especially in high-risk areas where industry cannot prudently invest on its own.

S&T Representation and Advocacy

Conclusion 2–5. The committee strongly believes that the Air Force needs authoritative, S&T-focused and -dedicated representation and advocacy at the corporate policy and decision-making level of the Air Force to help make informed trade-offs and budget decisions. Without corporate-level understanding and consideration of the effects its S&T investment can have on the Air Force’s future, the committee believes that the Air Force S&T investment faces undue risk that it will not provide the technologies and systems needed to meet

Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×

future threats. The committee is encouraged by the actions that the Air Force has recently taken to increase the level of S&T advocacy in the Air Force and believes these actions can result in a stronger S&T program. Additional actions could make Air Force S&T even stronger.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Restore S&T Dollars

Recommendation 2–1. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force should continue to increase the Air Force investment in science and technology (S&T) to reach one-and-a-half to two times its current (FY01) level. Investments in S&T for air, space, and information systems should all be increased. Increasing one by decreasing the others will not satisfy current S&T program shortcomings and may create new ones.

Redirect S&T for Evolving Threats

Recommendation 2–2. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Air Force should continue to reorient their science and technology (S&T) programs toward discovery and development of technologies to meet evolving threats, enable evolving operational concepts, and support the aging military systems that are expected to last over many more years. In addition, DoD and the Air Force should ensure that their S&T programs remain broad and flexible to deal with the uncertainties of current threats. At the same time, DoD and the Air Force need to maintain an adequate S&T base to ensure the technological superiority of U.S. forces over potential adversaries with advanced systems.

Promote Technology Transfer to Nondefense Sectors

Recommendation 2–3. The U.S. Department of Defense and the Air Force should remain aware of the nondefense benefits that could accrue from defense investments in science and technology and should actively promote the transfer of research results and technologies to the nondefense public and private sectors.

Strengthen S&T Advocacy Within the Air Force

Recommendation 2–4. In addition to the actions they have already taken, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force should continue to look for ways and take actions to further strengthen S&T representation and advocacy at the corporate policy and decision-making level of the Air Force. There are a number of options they can consider, including (1) formally designating the Air Force science and technology (S&T) program as a corporate program, (2) having the current AFRL commander/TEO position report directly to the Chief of Staff or be a member of the Air Force Council, and (3) establishing an Air Force Council member position (normally an assistant secretary or a 3-star deputy chief of staff), to be filled by a person in the Pentagon who is focused on, dedicated to, responsible for, and authorized to represent and advocate S&T within the Air Force, formulate Air Force S&T budgets, and participate in Air Force corporate policy and decision-making activities. The Air Force can also benefit from carefully examining the special roles accorded the Chief of Naval Research and the Office of Naval Research in the Department of the Navy to consider how these roles could be adapted to the AFRL commander/TEO and AFRL to strengthen Air Force S&T. These options or others the Air Force identifies can address remaining weaknesses in Air Force S&T representation and advocacy and build upon the recent successes of the Air Force.

REFERENCES

DoD (U.S. Department of Defense). 2000. National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2001 (Green Book). Washington, D.C.: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).


Gessel, M. 2000. Congressional Perspectives, presentation by Michael Gessel, executive assistant to Congressman Tony Hall, to the Committee on Review of Department of Defense Air and Space Systems Science and Technology Program, Holiday Inn, Georgetown, Washington, D.C., January 24, 2000.


Tuohy, R. 1999. Review of Department of Defense Air and Space Science and Technology Program, presentation by Robert Tuohy, director, DoD Science and Technology Plans and Programs, to the Committee on Review of Department of Defense Air and Space Systems Science and Technology Program, Wyndham Bristol Hotel, Washington, D.C., December 16, 1999.

Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"2. Investment in Science and Technology." National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10179.
×
Page 20
Next: 3. Air and Space Systems »
Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $47.00 Buy Ebook | $37.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

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.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!