U.S. ARMY FUTURES COMMAND
RESEARCH PROGRAM
REALIGNMENT
Committee on U.S. Army Futures Command
Research Program Realignment
Board on Army Research and Development
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
A Consensus Study Report of
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by Contract W911NF-18-D-0002/W911NF21F0006 with the U.S. Army. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-27443-2
International Standard Book Number-10: 978-0-309-27443-5
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26413
Limited copies of this publication may be available through the Board on Army Research and Development, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 334-3942.
Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. U.S. Army Futures Command Research Program Realignment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26413.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON U. S. ARMY FUTURES COMMAND RESEARCH PROGRAM REALIGNMENT
PAUL J. KERN, NAE,1 General U.S. Army (retired), Chair
JENNIFER A. HITCHCOCK, Defense Acquisition University, Vice Chair
JOAN M. BIENVENUE, University of Tennessee Oak Ridge Innovation Institute
LAWRENCE “LARRY” D. BURNS, NAE, General Motors (retired)
JOHN W. FISCHER, Energetics Technology Center
PAUL G. GAFFNEY II, NAE, Vice Admiral U.S. Navy (retired)
MERRI J. SANCHEZ, The Aerospace Corporation
JOHN F. WHARTON, Major General U.S. Army (retired)
Staff
WILLIAM “BRUNO” MILLONIG, Director, Board on Army Research and Development
STEVEN DARBES, Program Officer, Study Director
JAMES MYSKA, Senior Program Officer
CAMERON MALCOM, Research Associate
LINDA WALKER, Program Coordinator
TINA LATIMER, Program Coordinator
Consultant
NORMAN HALLER
___________________
NOTE: Opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the employing institutions of committee members.
1 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
BOARD ON ARMY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
KATHARINA McFARLAND, Retired Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, & Technology), Chair
MICHAEL BEAR, Booz Allen Hamilton, Vice Chair
ANDREW ALLEYNE, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
DAVID AUCSMITH, University of Washington
JAMES BAGIAN, NAE1/NAM,2 University of Michigan
JOAN BIENVENUE, University of Tennessee Oak Ridge Innovation Institute
LYNN DUGLE, Independent Consultant
JOHN FARR, United States Military Academy at West Point
GEORGE “RUSTY” GRAY III, NAE, Los Alamos National Laboratory
WILLIAM HIX, Major General U.S. Army (retired)
GREGORY JOHNSON, Lockheed Martin
DUNCAN McGILL, Mercyhurst University
CHRISTINA MURATA, Deloitte
ADITYA P. PADHA, Deloitte
ALBERT SCIARRETTA, CNS Technologies, Inc.
GEOFFREY THOME, SAIC
JAMES THOMSEN, Seaborne Defense, LLC
JOSEP TORRELLAS, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Staff
WILLIAM “BRUNO” MILLONIG, Director
STEVEN DARBES, Program Officer
SARAH JUCKETT, Program Officer
TINA LATIMER, Program Coordinator
CAMERON MALCOM, Research Associate
TRAVON JAMES, Senior Program Assistant
CLEMENT MULOCK, Program Assistant
CHRIS JONES, Senior Finance Business Partner
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
2 Member, National Academy of Medicine.
Preface
In the 1990s, the Army recognized the character of warfare was shifting and began to change the force for the 21st century. Rather than incrementally improving the “Big Five” that carried it through the Cold War, the Army embarked on a plan to modernize the entire force. Starting with the Army After Next program, the Army had some false starts in modernizing its force, including the cancellation of the Future Combat Systems and Comanche programs. Despite these challenges, the Army realized several successes including Stryker, unmanned aerial vehicles, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, and Digital Networks, which incrementally moved Army modernization forward. Through these challenges and successes, the Army recognized that connections between several Army communities were not as strong as they needed to be and that its incremental improvements were beginning to be outpaced by U.S. adversaries.
As the Army fought a 20-year war, U.S. adversaries did not sit idle. They took advantage of the U.S. focus on the war and moved ahead with technological developments. The Army realized it was losing its near-peer competitive advantage in many areas and was outranged, outgunned, and outdated. In fact, data from the 2015 Department of Defense Third Offset strategy reinforced these issues. The Army also saw that the requirements and capabilities development process was too long, with an average of 3-5 years to approve requirements and another 10 years to design, build, and test new weapons systems, and a couple more years to field systems. These challenges—along with the less than strong connections between the operational, acquisition, sustainment, and science and technology (S&T) communities—enabled Army leadership to
recognize it had a problem. This recognition prompted Senior Army leadership to realize change was needed, and they took action and began a transformation journey in order to truly modernize the force.
To jump-start this transformation, the Chief of Staff of Army set modernization priorities during the December 2016 budget reviews. These priorities matured into the current six modernization priorities plus two enabling capabilities that drive Army modernization priorities. The following year, the Army began to align its S&T budgets to these priorities. But they recognized this was not enough and saw that the personnel developing concepts and writing requirements were disconnected from the technical personnel. In addition, acquisition program managers would not make changes due to a lack of solid requirements to change.
Change is hard, and the Army had not made any institutional changes since 1973. Nevertheless, senior political and military leaders moved ahead on a fundamental organizational change and created the U.S. Army Futures Command (AFC). They quickly created a new headquarters, which addressed functional changes needed to begin to create stronger connections amongst the communities. This report of the Committee on U.S. Army Futures Command Research Program Realignment addresses part of those changes—the S&T budgets and their relationship to modernization.
As a committee, we observed the genuine motivation and desire to implement fundamental change to address long-standing problems. We witnessed, many of us first hand, Army Senior leadership becoming vitally involved from the onset of these changes. We applaud these changes and encourage current and future leaders to stay engaged. Our interviews and research discovered many positive changes such as the basic research community’s connection to Army concept development; budgets aligned with priorities; cross-functional teams established to lead priorities and ensure unity of effort of all the communities; experimentation being utilized as a future capability enabler; and the capability requirement and technical communities integrated into one organization. The Army has made great strides in setting priorities for modernization and aligning the Army team in one direction.
Organizational transformation is a journey and is complex. While functional changes are part of the equation, true and lasting transformation happens when there is a shift in organizational culture. The Army needs to not only focus on its functional changes but dig deep to shift its culture if it truly wants to change, which includes looking at all Army communities to transform. They have made a good start but have much more work to do to change all parts of a complex system. Like any new organization, AFC is encountering growing pains and areas for improvement. This report addresses some areas within AFC as they relate to the
impact of reorganization of the Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC or DEVCOM) and the establishment of AFC, that need attention, with the focus on making a new organization, and the people who operate it, better, and building the Army needed for the 21st century.
We would like to thank the committee members, who devoted an extraordinary amount of personal time and energy to this report. We are grateful for your dedication, professionalism, and expertise to this task. We wish to extend special thanks to the many individuals who spoke candidly and openly to us and answered our inquiries with honesty and professionalism. We thank AFC for providing an open door to its workforce to help us conduct this study and providing needed documentation needed. Finally, we would like to thank the committee staff members for all of their contributions and keeping us on track.
Paul Kern, Gen. U.S. Army, retired, Chair
Jennifer Hitchcock, Vice Chair
Committee on U.S. Army Futures Command Research Program Realignment
This page intentionally left blank.
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. Each reviewer serves in their individual capacity,
and his or her comments do not represent those of their home institution or organization. The review of this report was overseen by John Montgomery, Naval Research Laboratory (retired), and John Luginsland, Confluent Sciences. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.