Experimentation and Rapid Prototyping in Support of Counterterrorism

Committee on Experimentation and Rapid Prototyping in Support of Counterterrorism

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 | 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
Committee on Experimentation and Rapid Prototyping in Support of Counterterrorism Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

OCR for page R1
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 Contract No. N00014-05-G-0288, DO #20 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Defense. 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 13: 978-0-309-13668-6 International Standard Book Number 10: 0-309-13668-7 Copies of this report are available from: Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, The Keck Center of the National Acad - emies, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room WS904, Washington, DC 20001; and 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 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
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 man - date that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone 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. Charles M. Vest 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 examina - tion 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. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON ExPERIMENTATION AND RAPID PROTOTyPINg IN SuPPORT OF COuNTERTERRORISM PAUL G. KAMINSKI, Technovation, Inc., Chair CHARLES E. (PETE) ADOLPH, Independent Consultant, Albuquerque, New Mexico ALFRED O. AWANI, The Boeing Company W. PETER CHERRy, Science Applications International Corporation JOHN D. CHRISTIE, LMI LEE M. HAMMARSTROM, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University HARRy W. JENKINS, Independent Consultant, Gainesville, Virginia ANNETTE J. KRyGIEL, Independent Consultant, Great Falls, Virginia VERNE L. (LARRy) LyNN, Independent Consultant, Williamsburg, Virginia STEPHEN D. MILLIGAN, BBN Technologies ARTHUR A. MORRISH, L-3 Communications STEPHEN M. ROBINSON, University of Wisconsin-Madison ANN E. SPEED, Sandia National Laboratories H. EUGENE STANLEy, Boston University Staff CHARLES F. DRAPER, Director MARTA V. HERNANDEZ, Study Director BILLy M. WILLIAMS, Acting Study Director (March 23, 2009, to June 15, 2009) RAyMOND S. WIDMAyER, Senior Program Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator MARy G. GORDON, Information Officer SEKOU O. JACKSON, Senior Program Assistant 

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface The Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) 2006 Quadrennial Defense Reiew highlights the need for U.S. military forces to adapt and reorient “to produce a truly integrated joint force that is more agile, more rapidly deployable, and more capable against the wider range of threats,” particularly the nontraditional, asymmetric challenges of this new century.1 For example, in Iraq and Afghani- stan, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have become the weapon most often employed against U.S. (and coalition) forces by insurgents and terrorists, who have shown an ability to exploit available and advanced technologies to carry out such attacks. Furthermore, with access to a wide range of commercially available technologies, insurgents and terrorists have shown a “cycle of adaptation” of less than 12 months to responses by U.S. forces to counter IED attacks. This constantly evolving threat requires U.S. military forces to adapt and respond more rapidly with modified tactics, technologies, and/or equipment than traditional DOD doctrinal, requirements, and acquisition processes provide for. In particular, experimentation and rapid prototyping have played key roles in the DOD’s efforts to develop these new technologies, equipment, and corresponding tactics. In response to this need for new technologies, the Rapid Reaction Technol - ogy Office (RRTO) was established in 2006 under the Director, Defense Research 1 Department of Defense. 2006. 2006 Quadrennial Defense Reiew, Washington, D.C., February 6. ii

OCR for page R1
iii pRefaCe and Engineering, within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.2 It is focused on developing technologies that can mature in 6 to 18 months for purposes of counterterrorism.3 In short, the RRTO provides a diverse set of quick-response capabilities for counterterrorism while also attempting to stimulate interagency coordination and cooperation. While the RRTO has enjoyed what appears to be strong program success according to the committee’s review of the projects sponsored and supported by the RRTO, the agency seeks to understand and address barriers to and opportuni - ties for meeting future counterterrorism needs—including the need to accelerate the transition of technologies for counterterrorism with an eye to countering emerging and anticipated threats. This report responds to a request for a review of RRTO approaches and provides a set of recommendations for potential improve- ments to help meet these needs for rapid technology development. TERMS OF REFERENCE At the request of the director of the Rapid Reaction Technology Office, the National Research Council established the Committee on Experimentation and Rapid Prototyping in Support of Counterterrorism.4 Specifically, the committee was tasked with the following: • Review the current experimentation and rapid prototyping approaches utilized by RRTO for counterterrorism; • Identify potential barriers, both within RRTO and outside RRTO, that inhibit accelerating the transition of developments in science and technology to support counterterrorism applications; and • Recommend potential improvements to RRTO approaches, including areas for future focus that can further accelerate the fielding of affordable, sustainable capabilities and concepts to counter emerging threats. THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH The committee was first convened in October 2008. It held additional meet - ings and site visits over a period of 4 months, both to gather input from the rel - evant communities and to discuss its findings and recommendations. The agendas of the meetings are summarized below. 2 Effective August 21, 2009, the Rapid Reaction Technology Office was subsumed under the new Office of the Director, Rapid Fielding, which will report to the Director, Defense Research and Engineering. 3 In this report, counterterrorism includes efforts to counter insurgency and irregular warfare and to conduct all other associated efforts, but not conventional warfare. 4 Biographies of its members are provided in Appendix A.

OCR for page R1
ix pRefaCe • October 16-17, 2008, in Washington, D.C. Inaugural meeting. Briefings on experimentation and rapid prototyping test cases and perspectives: Rapid Reaction Technology Office, Defense Research and Engineering, Office of the Secretary of Defense; Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization; Department of Home- land Security; and Federal Bureau of Investigation. • Noember 18, 2008, in Yuma, arizona. Site visit to the Joint Experimenta- tion Range Complex, yuma Proving Ground. • Noember 20, 2008, in Washington, D.C. Site visit to the Rapid Reaction Technology Office. • December 15-16, 2008, in Washington, D.C. Briefings on experimenta- tion and rapid prototyping perspectives: Under Secretary of Defense for Acqui- sition, Technology and Logistics; Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; Special Operations Command; U.S. Army’s Rapid Equipping Force; Air Force Research Laboratory; Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Joint Capa - bility Technology Demonstrations Office; Defense Threat Reduction Agency; and Office of Director of National Intelligence. • January 7-8, 2009, in Washington, D.C. Committee deliberations and report drafting. The months between the committee’s last meeting and the publication of the report were spent preparing the draft manuscript, gathering additional infor- mation, reviewing and responding to the external review comments, editing the report, and conducting the security review needed to produce an unclassified and unrestricted report.

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form 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 institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evi - dence, and responsiveness to the study charge. 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 review of this report: Paul M. Bevilaqua, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Gerald G. Brown, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Marion R. Bryson, Mililani, Hawaii, Ruth A. David, Analytical Services (ANSER), Inc., William J. Hurley, Institute for Defense Analyses, Larry G. Lehowicz, MG, USA (retired), Quantum Research International, Ronald Sega, Colorado State University Research Foundation, and Cindy Williams, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommenda - tions, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by John F. Ahearne, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research xi

OCR for page R1
xii aCKNOWLeDGMeNT Of ReVIeWeRS Society. 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 institutional procedures and that all review comments were care- fully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARy 1 1 INTRODUCTION 9 Experimentation and Rapid Prototyping, 10 Organization of This Report, 10 2 RAPID REACTION TECHNOLOGy OFFICE 12 What Is the Rapid Reaction Technology Office? 12 What Does the Rapid Reaction Technology Office Do? 18 How Does the Rapid Reaction Technology Office Work? 25 Differences Between the Rapid Reaction Technology Office and Other Acquisition Organizations, 26 Keys to the Success of the Organization, 29 3 ANALySIS OF CURRENT APPROACHES AND SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS 30 Strengths of the Rapid Reaction Technology Office, 30 Perceived Weaknesses, 34 Potential Issues That Could Impact the Organization’s Future Effectiveness, 35 Potential Improvements, 41 Additional Suggested Initiatives, 46 Why Is the Rapid Reaction Technology Office Needed? 48 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51 xiii

OCR for page R1
xi CONTeNTS APPENDIXES A Committee and Staff Biographies 57 B Acronyms and Abbreviations 63 C Rapid Reaction Technology Office Test Planning, Conduct, Analysis, and Reporting 67 D Representative Projects of the Rapid Reaction Technology Office 72 E Disruptive Threats and Department of Defense Acquisition 87