National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10720.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10720.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10720.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10720.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10720.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10720.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10720.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10720.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10720.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10720.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10720.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10720.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10720.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10720.
×
Page R14

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

EFFECTIVENESS OF AIR FORGE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM eHANGES Committee on Review of the Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes Air Force Science and Technology Boa rcl Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 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. This study was supported by Grant No. F49620-01-1-0269, Modification No. 2, between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Air Force. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this pub- lication are those of the authoress and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-08895-X (book) International Standard Book Number 0-309-50715-4 (PDF) Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine 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. Harvey V. Fineberg 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 chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

COMMITTEE ON REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AIR FORCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM CHANGES ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Chair, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge GEORGE K. MUELLNER, Vice Chair, Boeing Company, Seal Beach, California MINORU S. ARAKI, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space (retired), Saratoga, California LYNN A. CONWAY, University of Michigan (professor emerita), Ann Arbor WILLIAM H. CRABTREE, BC Associates, Cincinnati, Ohio NATALIE W. CRAWFORD, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California IRWIN DORROS, Telcordia Technologies, Inc. (retired), Morris Township, New Jersey DELORES M. ETTER, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland ILAN KROO, Stanford University, California ROBERT G. LOEWY, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta R. NOEL LONGUEMARE, NAE, Consultant, Ellicott City, Maryland ROBERT J. PATTON, LTV Aerospace Products Group (retired), Fort Worth, Texas RICHARD R. PAUL, Boeing Company Phantom Works, Seattle, Washington GEORGE A. PAULIKAS, The Aerospace Corporation (retired), Los Angeles, California ROBERT F. RAGGIO, Dayton Aerospace, Inc., Ohio ELI RESHOTKO, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio ALTON D. ROMIG, JR., NAE, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico Air Force Science and Technology Board Liaisons ROBERT A. FUHRMAN, Lockheed Corporation (retired), Pebble Beach, California LAWRENCE J. DELANEY, Titan Corporation, Arlington, Virginia Staff JAMES C. GARCIA, Study Director DEANNA P. SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Research Associate NORM HAILER, Consultant

AIR FORCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD ROBERT A. FUHRMAN, Chair, Lockheed Corporation (retired), Pebble Beach, California R. NOEL LONGUEMARE, Vice Chair, Consultant, Ellicott City, Maryland LYNN A. CONWAY, University of Michigan (professor emerita), Ann Arbor WILLIAM H. CRABTREE, BC Associates, Cincinnati, Ohio LAWRENCE J. DELANEY, Titan Corporation, Arlington, Virginia STEVEN D. DORFMAN, Hughes Electronics (retired), Los Angeles, California EARL H. DOWELL, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge DELORES M. ETTER, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland ALFRED B. GSCHWENDTNER, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lexington BRADFORD W. PARKINSON, Stanford University, California RICHARD R. PAUL, Boeing Company Phantom Works, Seattle, Washington ROBERT F. RAGGIO, Dayton Aerospace, Inc., Ohio ELI RESHOTKO, Case Western Reserve University (professor emeritus), Cleveland, Ohio LOURDES SALAMANCA-RIBA, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland EUGENE L. TATTINI, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California Staff BRUCE A. BRAWN, Director MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Associate Director WILLIAM E. CAMPBELL, Administrative Officer CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate DEANNA P. SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Research Associate vim

Preface The scope, content, and conduct of science and tech- nology (S&T) activities in the Department of Defense (DoD) are subject to virtually continuous review by internal and external advisory groups. In the U.S. Air Force, S&T is the purview of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), which both contracts to industry and academia and conducts research in-house for current and future Air Force needs. The management of a government S&T endeavor has always been challenging and is certainly no less so today. The challenges facing AFRL are similar to those facing other DoD laboratories. They include renewing the technical staff (an aging cadre not necessarily matched to tomorrow's problems); balancing invest- ment in traditional threats and technical areas with that in emerging and future ones; and serious budget pres- sures from competition with near-term service needs such as readiness and modernization. Numerous advi- sory committees have studied these issues in depth over the years, each voicing concerns and suggesting pos- sible improvements. In response to such concerns, the Air Force instituted a number of changes in the struc- ture and management of its S&T program starting in about 1999. The Committee on Review of the Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes was formed by the National Research Council (NRC) under a U.S. Air Force contract in response to legisla- tion mandating the study. Its overall charter was to review the effectiveness of the Air Force S&T program, vim in particular actions the Air Force has taken to improve management of the program over the last 3 years. Given the short time since the Air Force instigated these changes and for their effects to have become manifest, this review should be considered a work in progress. The approach taken by the committee was to build on the work of previous studies. Since the legislation required a relatively rapid response, the scope of the work was necessarily limited. Specifically, the tech- nical content of the S&T program was beyond the committee' s purview. To gather data, the committee reviewed the previ- ous studies and heard from congressional staff, the Air Force and its Scientific Advisory Board, the Army, the Navy, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency during open meetings. The prior studies and congressional concerns centered on four issues central to S&T: advocacy and visibility, planning, the work- force, and the level of investment. This report and its recommendations are organized around these general topics. The committee greatly appreciates the support and assistance of NRC staff members James C. Garcia, Deanna Sparger, and Daniel E.J. Talmage, Jr., and con- sultant Norm Haller, in the preparation of this report. Alan H. Epstein, Chair Committee on Review of the Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes

Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by indi- viduals chosen for their diverse perspectives and tech- nical expertise, in accordance with procedures ap- proved 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 institution in making its 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 review com- ments and draft manuscript remain confidential to pro- tect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Frederick T. Andrews, Bell Communications Research, Inc., Joseph F. Janni, Air Force Maui Optical and Supercomputing Site, Hans M. Mark, University of Texas, . . . vail Robert F. Naka, CERA, Inc., Malcolm R. O'Neill, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Sheila E. Widnall, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and George O. Winer, Georgia Institute of Technology. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recom- mendations, nor did they see the final draft of the re- port before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Alexander H. Flax, consultant. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institu- tional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final con- tent of this report rests entirely with the authoring com- mittee and the institution.

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION Background, 7 Air Force Response to Concerns, 8 Statement of Task, 8 Study Approach, 9 Organization of the Report, 10 AIR FORCE S&T INVESTMENT LEVEL AND BALANCE Introduction, 11 Air Force S&T Program Description, 11 Air Force S&T Investment Level, 12 Air Force S&T Funding History, 12 Need for Increased S&T Investment, 15 Balancing the S&T Top Line with Other Requirements, 16 Importance of S&T Funding Stability, 20 Air Force S&T Program Internal Balance, 20 Basic Research (6.1), 22 Applied Research (6.2), 23 Advanced Technology Development (6.3), 23 ATDs and Transition to 6.4 and Following Budget Activities, 24 Comparing Balance Among the Services, 24 Setting the Proper S&T Investment Level, 24 Findings and Recommendations, 26 3 WORKFORCE, PLANNING, AND ADVOCACY AND VISIBILITY Introduction, 28 Scientific and Engineering Workforce, 28 Planning, 31 Compliance with Section 252, 31 S&T Planning Options, 32 Six 7 28

XDevelopment (Capability) Planning, 34 Advocacy and Visibility, 35 S&T Summits, 35 Applied Technology Councils, 36 Air Force Organizational Structure and S&T Advocate, 37 Findings and Recommendations, 39 Scientific and Engineering Workforce, 39 Planning, 39 Advocacy and Visibility, 40 REFERENCES APPENDIXES A Section 253, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) B Section 252, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) C Biographical Sketches of Committee Members D Guest Speakers' Presentations to the Committee E Summary of Concerns About the Air Force S&T Program F Biennial Iterative Review of the 6.2 and 6.3 Programs at the Margin CONTENTS 42 47 48 50 55 57 63

List of Figures, Tables, and Boxes FIGURES Air Force TOA for S&T and the Air Force as a whole, 12 Air Force S&T TOA compared with the PER, 13 Comparison of service and Defense-wide S&T TOA, 14 Sources of total funding for AFRL in FY 2002, 14 President's budget requests for NASA aeronautical technology, 15 Air Force TOA, 16 Air Force TOA by category, 17 Proposed Air Force S&T FY 2003 budget, 21 2-9 Air Force S&T by budget activity, 22 2-10 Air Force S&T funding trends by budget activity, 23 2-11 Percentage split of Air Force S&T TOA between 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3, 24 F-1 Process for biennial iterative review of 6.2 and 6.3 programs at the margin, 64 TABLES 1-1 Synthesis of Concerns and Recommendations, 7 2-1 Funding Increases in Real Terms, 18 2-2 Allocation of Procurement Increases from FY 1999 to FY 2003, 19 Allocation of RDT&E Increases from FY 2002 to FY 2003, 19 2-4 Percentage of Service S&T TOA, Average over FY 1989 to FY 2003, 25 2-3 ES-1 Statement of Task, 2 E- 1 Defense Science Board, 58 E-2 Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, 59 E-3 Air Force Association, 61 BOXES Xt

Acronyms ACC ACTD AFA AFIT AFMC AFOSR AF RAP AFRL AF SAB AFSOC AFSPC ALC AMC APPG ATC ATD AWACS CC CFC CFG ConOps CSAF DARPA DAWIA DDR&E DMSP DoD DoDI DoE DPG DSB DSP EHF EMD FMR Air Combat Command advanced concept technology demonstration Air Force Association Air Force Institute of Technology Air Force Materiel Command Air Force Office of Scientific Research Air Force Resource Allocation Process Air Force Research Laboratory Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Air Force Special Operations Command Air Force Space Command Air Logistics Center Air Mobility Command annual planning and programming guidance applied technology council advanced technology demonstration airborne warning and control system commander critical future capability critical future goal concept of operations Chief of Staff of the Air Force Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 1990 Director Defense Research and Engineering Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Department of Defense Department of Defense instruction Department of Energy defense planning guidance Defense Science Board Defense Support Program extremely high frequency engineering and manufacturing development financial management regulation . . . x~

xtv ACRONYMS FY fiscal year FYDP Future Years Defense Program GAO General Accounting Office GPS Global Positioning System HQ headquarters IPT integrated product team JDAM Joint Direct Attack Munition MAJCOM major command MDA Missile Defense Agency MILCON military construction MILSATCOM Military Satellite Communications NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NDAA National Defense Authorization Act NPOESS National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System NRAC Naval Research Advisory Committee NRC National Research Council OMB Office of Management and Budget OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense O&M operations and maintenance PER President' s budget request PE program element P.L. Public Law POM Program Objectives Memorandum PPBS Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System R&D research and development RDT&E research, development, test, and evaluation SAB Scientific Advisory Board SAE service acquisition executive SAF/AQ Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition SAF/AQR Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering SAF/AQRT Science and Technology Division SBIR Small Business Innovation Research SBIRS Space Based Infrared System SECAF Secretary of the Air Force SECDEF Secretary of Defense SES senior executive service SPO system program office STO short-term objective S&E scientist and engineer S&T science and technology TEO technology executive officer TOA total obligational authority TRL technology readiness level TUT targets under trees USAF United States Air Force USD/AT&L Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics WCMD Wind Corrected Munition Dispenser WMD weapons of mass destruction WSCP Weapon System Capability Plan WTA Warfighter Technology Area

Next: Executive Summary »
Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $29.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Under mandate of Section 253, Study and Report on Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes, of the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, the U.S. Air Force contracted with the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct the present study. In response, the NRC established the Committee on Review of the Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes—composed of academics, active and retired industry executives, former Air Force and Department of Defense (DoD) civilian executives, and retired general officers with acquisition and science and technology (S&T) backgrounds. The committee was to review the effectiveness of the Air Force S&T program and, in particular, the actions that the Air Force has taken to improve the management of the program in recent years in response to concerns voiced in numerous study reports and by Congress. The committee's principal charter was to assess whether, as a whole, the changes put in place by the Air Force since 1999 are sufficient to assure that adequate technology will be available to ensure U.S. military superiority. The committee conducted four open meetings to collect information from the Air Force and its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), the U.S Navy, the U.S. Army, and DoD. A great many factors influence any judgment of the S&T program's sufficiency in supporting future warfighter needs; these factors include threat assessment, budget constraints, technology opportunities, workforce, and program content. Given the relatively short time available for this study and considering the detailed reviews conducted annually by the SAB, the technical content of the S&T program was necessarily beyond the committee's purview. Rather, the committee focused on S&T management, including areas that have been studied many times, in depth, by previous advisory groups. Besides addressing technical content, those prior studies and congressional concerns highlighted four overarching S&T issues: advocacy and visibility, planning, workforce, and investment levels. In response, the Air Force instituted changes in S&T management.

The NRC is requested to conduct a study to determine how changes to the Air Force science and technology program implemented during the past two years affect the future capabilities of the Air Force. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes reviews and assess whether such changes as a whole are sufficient to ensure the following:

A. That concerns about the management of the science and technology program that have been raised by the Congress, the Defense Science Board, the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, and the Air Force Association have been adequately addressed.

B. That appropriate and sufficient technology is available to ensure the military superiority of the United States and counter future high-risk threats.

C. That the science and technology investments are balanced to meet near-, mid-, and long-term needs of the Air Force.

D. That the Air Force organizational structure provides for a sufficiently senior level advocate of science and technology to ensure an ongoing, effective presence of the science and technology community during the budget and planning process.

This report also assess the specific changes to the Air Force science and technology program as whether the biannual science and technology summits provide sufficient visibility into, and understanding and appreciation of, the value of the science and technology program to the senior level of Air Force budget and policy decision makers.

  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. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    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!