Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program

Committee on Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air and Space Systems Science and Technology Program

Department of Military Science and Technology

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Review of the U.S. Department of Defence Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program Committee on Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air and Space Systems Science and Technology Program Department of Military Science and Technology Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
Review of the U.S. Department of Defence Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program 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

OCR for page R1
Review of the U.S. Department of Defence Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program 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.

OCR for page R1
Review of the U.S. Department of Defence Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program 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

OCR for page R1
Review of the U.S. Department of Defence Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program 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

OCR for page R1
Review of the U.S. Department of Defence Air, Space, and Supporting Information 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.

OCR for page R1
Review of the U.S. Department of Defence Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION   7     Background,   7     Section 214,   7     Congressional Concerns,   7     Statement of Task,   8     Study Approach,   8     Content of This Report,   9     References,   9 2   INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   10     Congressional Concerns,   10     Trends in Funding for DoD S&T,   10     Value of Defense S&T Investments—Countering a Range of Threats,   16     Impetus for Ongoing Investment in Defense S&T,   17     Nondefense Payoffs,   18     Level of Air Force Representation and Advocacy for S&T,   18     Conclusions,   19     Decline in Air Force S&T,   19     Impact of S&T,   19     New Threats,   19     Nondefense Spin-offs,   19     S&T Representation and Advocacy,   19     Recommendations,   20     Restore S&T Dollars,   20     Redirect S&T for Evolving Threats,   20     Promote Technology Transfer to Nondefense Sectors,   20     Strengthen S&T Advocacy Within the Air Force,   20     References,   20

OCR for page R1
Review of the U.S. Department of Defence Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program 3   AIR AND SPACE SYSTEMS   21     Air Systems,   21     Scope of Air Force Air Systems S&T,   21     Level of Funding,   22     Space Systems,   22     Emphasis on Strategic Value of Space,   22     Transfer of Funds,   24     Quality in Air and Space Systems S&T,   24     Quality of Research,   24     Relationship to Industry and Academia,   25     Peer Review,   25     Conclusions,   25     Recommendations,   25     References,   26 4   INFORMATION SYSTEMS   27     Overview,   27     Definitions,   28     Trends and Future Visions,   29     Current and Planned Program,   30     Impact of Commercial Technologies,   31     Current DoD Efforts,   32     Basic Research,   32     Applied Research and Technology Development,   33     The Need for Investment Priority,   33     Adequacy of Funding,   34     Basic Research (6.1) Funding,   34     Applied Research (6.2) and Technology Development (6.3) Funding,   35     High-Level Advocacy,   35     Conclusions,   36     Funding Incommensurate with Vision,   36     Need for Joint-Agency Development,   36     Taking Advantage of Commercial IST,   36     Dependence on DARPA,   36     Need for IST Advocate,   36     Recommendations,   36     IST Budget,   36     DoD Joint Vision,   36     Commercial Leveraging,   36     Investment Strategy,   37     IST Advocate,   37     References,   37 5   SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WORKFORCE   38     Declining Number of DoD S&T Personnel,   38     Declining Air Force Military S&T Personnel,   39     Results of Two Recent Reports,   41     Section 246,   42

OCR for page R1
Review of the U.S. Department of Defence Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program     Conclusions,   42     Factors Inhibiting Hiring,   42     Analyses Undertaken,   42     Recommendations,   42     Take Opportunities to Strengthen S&T Staff Under the Law,   42     Change Civil Service Regulations,   42     Extend Section 246, P.L. 105–261,   42     Make World-Class Research the Goal,   43     Encourage Career Opportunities Through R&D,   43     Promote S&T Career Officers,   43     References,   43 6   OVERARCHING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS   44     Air Force Investment in S&T,   45     S&T Representation and Advocacy Within the Air Force,   45     S&T Workforce,   45     APPENDIXES         A Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999: Public Law 105–261—Oct. 17, 1998   49     B Biographical Sketches of Committee Members   51     C Guest Speakers   54     D Milestones in the Management of DoD Science and Technology   55     E Air Force Evolutionary Concepts and Associated Information Systems Technologies   63     F Leveraging Commercial Developments in Information Technologies   65

OCR for page R1
Review of the U.S. Department of Defence Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Review of the U.S. Department of Defence Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program Tables, Figures, and Boxes TABLES 2–1   DoD S&T Funding, Total Obligational Authority, FY89 to FY01,   12 2–2   DoD S&T Funding, Total Obligational Authority, FY89 to FY01,   13 2–3   DoD Funding by Major Budget Category, FY89 to FY01,   14 2–4   Air Force Funding by Major Budget Category, FY89 to FY01,   15 2–5   Percentage Changes in Funding for DoD Budget Categories,   16 2–6   Percentage Changes in Funding for Air Force Budget Categories,   16 2–7   Percentage Changes in Funding for DoD S&T Categories,   17 FIGURES 2–1   Percentage change in total DoD budget and service S&T funding since 1989,   10 2–2   Service investments in S&T (6.1, 6.2, and 6.3),   11 3–1   DARPA air and space systems S&T funding,   23 3–2   DoD total S&T funding and space S&T funding as a percentage of DoD total obligational authority (TOA),   24 4–1   Decline in Air Force Research Laboratory Information Systems Directorate S&T budget, FY96 to FY00, compared with President’s budget (PB) request,   28 4–2   Notional S-curve depicting shrinking military warfighting advantage as technology matures and commercial development catches up to DoD development,   32 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,   33 4–4   Service funding for information systems technology-related basic research, FY95 to FY01,   34 4–5   FY00 budget for Air Force Research Laboratory Information Systems Directorate (AFRL/IF),   35 5–1   Number (in thousands) of service in-house RDT&E personnel, FY90 to FY98,   39 5–2   Percentage change in total Department of Defense, Air Force, and Air Force Research Laboratory personnel from FY96 to FY00,   40 5–3   Cash compensation for Department of Defense RDT&E personnel versus industry RDT&E personnel as of 1998,   40 D-1   RDT&E budget categories,   59

OCR for page R1
Review of the U.S. Department of Defence Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program BOXES 4–1   Definitions of Technology Areas,   29 4–2   Key Requirements Driving Future Information Systems S&T,   30 D-1   Summary of von Karman’s Recommendations,   55 D-2   Current S&T Budget Activities,   56 D-3   Rationale for 1971 Prototype Initiative,   57 D-4   1990 DoD Critical Technologies,   57 D-5   Current TARA Technology Areas,   58 D-6   Transitioning Technology,   60 D-7   Selected Results of 1988 OTA Study,   60 D-8   Funding Level for S&T,   61

OCR for page R1
Review of the U.S. Department of Defence Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program 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

OCR for page R1
Review of the U.S. Department of Defence Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program S&E science and engineering S&T science and technology TARA technology area review and assessment TCT time-critical target TEO technology executive officer TOA total obligational authority UAV unmanned air vehicle UCAV unmanned combat air vehicle