E

Speaker Abstracts

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND INNOVATION FOR AMERICA’S
NATIONAL SECURITY : ENHANCING PROTOTYPING
COMPETENCY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Patricia Falcone, Associate Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy

A set of policy actions are being developed to enable a more cost-effective and agile national security science and technology enterprise. This enterprise includes universities, private research institutions, small and large businesses, and federal laboratories. Actions are needed to enable our nation to meet rapidly evolving threats, employ swiftly changing technologies, cope with diminishing resources, and benefit from accelerating globalization. The success of the United States’ defense, intelligence, and national- and homeland-security missions has long been enabled by a range of capabilities in space, sensors, energetics, new materials, and other key domains. Investments in national security science and technology have contributed to civilian advancements in the Internet, global positioning systems, jet engine technologies, weather forecasting, voice recognition, and translation software, as well as more recently to wideband networks, solid state radar, and advanced robotics. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and partner agencies are prioritizing actions that improve recruitment and retention of the best and brightest scientists and engineers to work on hard national-security problems; increase investment in modern labs and facilities; and streamline rules and regulations that stifle innovation and performance.



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 31
E Speaker Abstracts Science, Technology, and Innovation for America’s National Security: Enhancing Prototyping Competency in the Department of Defense Patricia Falcone, Associate Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy A set of policy actions are being developed to enable a more cost-effective and agile national security science and technology enterprise. This enterprise includes universities, private research institutions, small and large businesses, and federal laboratories. Actions are needed to enable our nation to meet rapidly evolving threats, employ swiftly changing technologies, cope with diminishing resources, and benefit from accelerating globalization. The success of the United States’ de- fense, intelligence, and national- and homeland-security missions has long been enabled by a range of capabilities in space, sensors, energetics, new materials, and other key domains. Investments in national security science and technology have contributed to civilian advancements in the Internet, global positioning systems, jet engine technologies, weather forecasting, voice recognition, and translation software, as well as more recently to wideband networks, solid state radar, and ad- vanced robotics. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and partner agencies are prioritizing actions that improve recruitment and retention of the best and brightest scientists and engineers to work on hard national-security problems; increase investment in modern labs and facilities; and streamline rules and regula- tions that stifle innovation and performance. 31

OCR for page 31
32 Enhancing Air Force and D e pa rt m e n t of D efe n s e P r o t o t y p i n g OSTP seeks to develop a specific pilot action for enhancing prototyping com- petency in the DOD. Creating a prototyping competency, at this difficult time to attract and connect innovators from among the primary performers of U.S. na- tional security science and technology as well as from non-traditional disciplines will: stimulate innovation; reduce technical risk in acquisition programs; decrease product delivery time; support technology maturation; and with rotational assign- ments, enhance the workforce with a flow of people and ideas. Draper Laboratory Perspectives on Prototyping James Shields, President and Chief Executive Officer The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory This presentation discussed the role of not-for-profit R&D laboratories in prototyping. Specifically, it identified five different objectives for prototyping, namely: reducing risks in the early stages of development programs, demon- strating technology to create alternative development program options, raising technology readiness levels to put capability on the shelf for rapid adoption when future needs demand it, transferring technology from the not-for-profit labora- tory to industry to ensure that it is widely adopted and creating new capabilities that explore concepts of operations for how technology may be used effectively. Each role for prototyping was illustrated with specific projects at Draper Labora- tory. Finally, the presentation presented some observations related to improving the DoD and the Air Force’s approaches to prototyping. The key observations were that prototyping should be a strategy rather than a program and that the current focus on requirements-based acquisition is often too reactive to embrace the benefits of prototyping. It also was observed that the ending of the urgency of war and the impact of diminished budgets should create an environment that can be exploited to effect changes that can increase the role of prototyping. A specific recommendation was to set an expectation that prototyping strategies be created for all key capability areas and that, even in a declining budget environment, the percentage of funds allocated to advanced development projects be increased as a hedge against breakout threats, with the focus of these resources being directed for prototyping efforts.

OCR for page 31
Appendix E 33 Prototyping for the New Defense Strategy Sonya Sepahban, Senior Vice President, Engineering and Technology General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) Prototyping has been used throughout history to reduce uncertainty. Given the New Defense Strategy of a smaller more agile force, and the hybrid threat environment that requires agility to maintain asymmetric advantage, the value of prototyping is increasing. Other key factors, such as requirements stability and technology maturity, however, may outweigh benefits of prototyping. Since early program decisions drive majority of costs, prototyping can be more important in these phases. Specifically, key technologies should be matured and requirements need to be stabilized in an agreed upon operational context prior to the Materiel Development Decision (MDD). In the Systems Acquisition Phase, key System architecture decisions, cost estimates, and programs risk management will benefit from prototyping. A comprehensive study is recommended to develop lessons learned regarding recent prototyping programs. Examples of GDLS success with prototyping, and the institutional capability GDLS has recently developed for “Collaborative Prototyping on Demand” point to three key success factors: Focus on challenges driven by priorities and program phase, broad collaboration, and agility. Prototyping: Lockheed Martin Perspectives Brian Hershberger, Senior Aeronautical Engineer Advanced Development Programs As a single word, prototyping conveys multiple different meanings. Produc- tion contract competition (YF-22, YF-23), technology exploration demonstrators (X-1, X-15) and rapid fielding (Gnat750/MQ-1, Tier II+/MQ-4) are all forms of prototypes. Independent of naming, successful prototypes exhibit common key elements: a clear understanding of the problem, a minimum number of clear objec- tives and an acceptance of risk combined with a tolerance for failure. The Air Force has a distinguished history of successful flight demonstrator projects capturing these elements and expanding the boundary of the known. Future prototypes will likely depart from an aircraft centric approach into adjacent domains addressing a range of challenges. The targeted application of prototypes, in their appropriate form, within a relevant environment is a necessary tool for innovation and the development of affordable solutions meeting DoD capability needs.

OCR for page 31
34 Enhancing Air Force and D e pa rt m e n t of D efe n s e P r o t o t y p i n g Prototyping: A Boeing Perspective Daryl Pelc, Vice President for Engineering, Phantom Works In an environment of tight budgets that drive difficult funding decisions, prototyping offers customers the opportunity to see technologies tested before committing to new programs. Boeing boasts a long history of developing proto- types, and continues that legacy today with such current products as Phantom Eye, Phantom Badger, Phantom Fusion and more.  By engaging with our customers to identify needs, innovating ways to address those needs, and building prototypes to prove proposed solutions, Boeing is successfully demonstrating solutions to a host of challenges faced by today’s warfighter.  Despite the difficult environment the defense faces, Boeing has held steady its research & development funding to ensure continued responsiveness to and collaboration with customers. 40 Years of Development to Production Program(s) Observations Robert Whalen, President and Chief Executive Officer International Systems, LLC Prototyping questions are addressed by examining the history, lessons learned, and recommendations of 40 years of the speaker’s development-to-production experience. The 8 programs discussed—i.e, space launch vehicles, tactical missiles, helicopter and fixed wing target acquisition systems, ship vertical launch system, nuclear missile, and high speed ship—are diverse as to size, technology, contracting type, policies, and procedures. Lessons learned and recommendations are made based on this experience. Finally, a “prototyping program” is recommended. MIT Lincoln Laboratory Overview and Technology Directions Eric D. Evans, Director, MIT Lincoln Laboratory MIT Lincoln Lincoln Laboratory is a Federally Funded Research and Develop- ment Center (FFRDC), developing new technology in support of national security. The core areas of research include advanced sensors, information extraction (signal processing and embedded computing), and communications. Laboratory programs focus on high-risk, high-payoff technology and prototypes which, if successful, transition to industry for production. Nearly all of the Lincoln Laboratory facilities are located in Lexington, Massachusetts. This talk will describe some of Lincoln

OCR for page 31
Appendix E 35 Laboratory’s current research, development and prototyping programs. Technology challenges for some future defense systems will be highlighted. Perspectives on Prototyping William L. Melvin, Director Sensors and Electromagnetics Applications Laboratory Georgia Tech Research Institute Regent’s Researcher, University System of Georgia Prototyping is a critical element of technology development, application, and fielding. There are three common prototype classes of interest to the US Air Force: conceptual; developmental; and, operational. The conceptual prototype is used to validate an idea and collect experimental data in support of further development. Developmental prototypes provide a mechanism to mature the technology readi- ness level (TRL) of systems or subsystems. An operational prototype is a deployed system under scrutiny for sustained mission suitability. From the perspective of a not-for-profit, university-affiliated research institute, prototyping is both a tool and a strategy. As a tool, prototyping provides a means to validate ideas and col- lect essential data; to refine a system or subsystem concept; or, to put into service a unique, one-of-a-kind system. As a strategy, prototyping is used to further cus- tomer objectives, oftentimes supporting the creation of a program of record; to save time and money; to reduce system risk; to build technical credibility; to create a culture of excellence in applied R&D; to generate new research opportunities based on observations, lessons, and a firm grasp on the problem at hand; and, to recruit like-minded researchers and engineers. This presentation reviews several prototyping examples at the Georgia Tech Re- search Institute (GTRI), including the design and development of a real-time radar signal processing system leading to new capabilities in air-to-ground surveillance (conceptual, developmental, and operational prototypes); the design, fabrication, and testing of a low probability of intercept MASINT radar (conceptual, develop- mental, and operational prototypes); the enhancement of a commercially-available radar system modified to meet specific performance objectives (operational proto- type); the design and development of a specialized weapons location radar in sup- port of a program new start (developmental prototype); and, the development of a cognitively controlled digital RF memory jammer tied to an advanced electronic support capability and cognitive decision support (conceptual prototype). Some perspectives on prototyping best practices are given: strong top-down design work is critical; building and validating modeling and simulation capability is essential; being rigorous and benchmarking performance supports “high/low” trades; scru-

OCR for page 31
36 Enhancing Air Force and D e pa rt m e n t of D efe n s e P r o t o t y p i n g tinizing design choices with respect to potential requirements creep can lead to a more robust design; the use of open, modular designs from the onset is necessary; working closely with Government and industry partners maximizes transition probability; leveraging COTS hardware wherever possible keeps cost down; and, being smart about software reduces development timeline. Perspectives on Prototyping: The Role of Prototyping in Fostering Innovation Richard Van Atta, Institute for Defense Analyses My perspective on prototyping aims to provide a broader perspective to view the prototyping issue—that of innovation within and for DOD. I focus on some clear examples of what prototyping did in different circumstances—i.e., Stealth: Have Blue and the F-117A; Assault Breaker and Stand-off precision strike; and UAVs, such as Predator and Global Hawk. I note that these were highly exceptional and focused on breakthrough concepts. However I think they illustrate what might be considered the “good, bad, and ugly” of prototyping, recognizing that there is a range of other possible prototyping uses that this perspective may address. I place this in a broader “innovation strategy” context raising some issues regarding risk and cycle time and prospect of a more “adaptive” innovation system that uses a combination of approaches including modeling & simulation and iterative proto- types as part of way of doing real Analyses of Alternatives. My message is that just doing prototypes is not enough. The question is how to conceive and implement an innovation strategy aimed at responsiveness, adaptability and flexibility and what is the role of different types of prototyping in this? In this context prototyp- ing is not the same as being able to start serial production of a prototype that gets products out the door. The rate at which we are building things of consequence today suggests that actually manufacturing a product may be as perishable a skill as the design/development piece. My basic entreaty is not to treat prototyping in isolation or as a “cure-all”. Prototyping must be seen in the context of an overall innovation strategy that links concept and technology development to assessment of alternatives to effective implementation through production. In today’s world, that’s a big challenge.