[Senate Hearing 107-340]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-340
``LEAP AHEAD'' TECHNOLOGIES AND TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVES WITHIN THE
DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 5, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-260 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN WARNER, Virginia, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina CARL LEVIN, Michigan
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania MAX CLELAND, Georgia
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado JACK REED, Rhode Island
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BILL NELSON, Florida
SUSAN COLLINS, Maine E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
Les Brownlee, Staff Director
David S. Lyles, Staff Director for the Minority
______
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
SUSAN COLLINS, Maine BILL NELSON, Florida
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
__________
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
``Leap Ahead'' Technologies and Transformation Initiatives Within the
Defense Science and Technology Program
June 5, 2001
Page
Aldridge, Hon. Edward C., Jr., Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics......................... 3
Etter, Dr. Delores M., Acting Director, Defense Research and
Engineering; Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and
Technology..................................................... 4
Andrews, Dr. A. Michael, II, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Research and Technology and Chief Scientist........... 34
Daniel, Dr. Donald C., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Science, Technology and Engineering.................. 43
Cohen, Rear Adm. Jay M., USN, Chief of Naval Research;
Accompanied by Brig. Gen. Bill Catto, USMC, Vice Chief of Naval
Research....................................................... 54
Alexander, Dr. Jane A., Acting Director, Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency....................................... 62
Sherwood, Dr. Peter M.A., University Distinguished Professor and
Head, Department of Chemistry, Kansas State University......... 104
Gabriel, Dr. Kaigham J., Professor, Electrical and Computer
Engineering, the Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University 109
Kuper, Dr. Cynthia A., President, Versilant Nanotechnologies..... 112
(iii)
``LEAP AHEAD'' TECHNOLOGIES AND TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVES WITHIN THE
DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats
and Capabilities,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Pat
Roberts (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Santorum, Roberts,
Allard, Landrieu, and Bill Nelson.
Committee staff member present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff
director.
Professional staff members present: Edward H. Edens IV,
William C. Greenwalt, Carolyn M. Hanna, Ambrose R. Hock, Thomas
L. MacKenzie, and Joseph T. Sixeas.
Minority staff members present: Peter K. Levine, minority
counsel; Daniel J. Cox, Jr., professional staff member;
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; and Mary Louise
Wagner, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Jennifer L. Naccari and Suzanne
K.L. Ross.
Committee members' assistants present: George M. Bernier
III, assistant to Senator Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry,
assistant to Senator Roberts; Charles Cogar, assistant to
Senator Allard; Kristine Fauser, assistant to Senator Collins;
Menda S. Fife, assistant to Senator Kennedy; Frederick M.
Downey, assistant to Senator Lieberman; and William K. Sutey,
assistant to Senator Bill Nelson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAT ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
Senator Roberts. By golly, on the last day of my
chairmanship, we are going to start this thing on time.
[Laughter.]
Welcome to this subcommittee hearing.
Ladies and gentleman, this afternoon the Subcommittee on
Emerging Threats and Capabilities meets to receive testimony
from representatives of the Department of Defense and
nationally recognized researchers on the ``leap ahead''
technologies and transformation initiatives within the Defense
Science and Technology Program.
The testimony that is provided today will help the
subcommittee prepare its recommendation for the Fiscal Year
2002 National Defense Authorization Act. ``Leap ahead'' and
revolutionary technologies have received a lot of press over
these past years. The new administration has discussed
investing in these ``leap ahead'' technologies and skipping a
generation of weapons. These are intriguing propositions, to
say the least, and we look forward to learning more details.
However, the subcommittee remains concerned that the base
investment in science and technology must be strengthened, and
revolutionary technologies must be refined and quickly be given
to the warfighter.
Today we will hear from three panels on the efforts
currently underway in the Department of Defense, in the
services, Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), our
Nation's universities, and also, the small businesses to
provide what we call innovative research into the most
challenging problems facing our national defense.
I would like to welcome Pete Aldridge and Delores Etter.
Mr. Aldridge, I would like to extend my congratulations to
you on your new position as Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The subcommittee looks
forward to working with you in this new capacity.
Dr. Etter, I want to especially thank you for your
continuing hard work on behalf of our Nation's Defense Science
and Technology Program.
I think all members of the subcommittee, all members of the
full committee, all members who are even familiar or remotely
familiar with Dr. Etter and her efforts wish to extend our
sincere appreciation and recognition of her dedication and
commitment as a true advocate for science and technology.
I know you are going to be moving on to new opportunities.
The U.S. Naval Academy gains a great deal in this regard. I
will not mention our loss in this regard, and with regard to
institutional memory, expertise, and commitment, but they are
considerable.
Please know your professionalism, energy, dedication, and
expertise will be missed. I think you deserve an appreciative
hand. Thank you very much for your service. [Applause.]
Now these two witnesses do not have a time limit on their
testimony. However, when we get to the two other panels, they
have time limits. It is my suggestion that your opening
statements be held to 10 minutes or less.
I would be delighted to recognize the distinguished Senator
from Florida for any statement that he might make at this time.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL NELSON
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure
to serve with you on this subcommittee on a subject that is
most important to the future of this country; it is a
privilege, also, to welcome to this subcommittee our old
friend, Pete Aldridge, who years ago we were collaborating on
scramjets and hypersonics, and all that. He brings to his new
job in the Defense Department extraordinary experience and
background. So I am delighted to be here. Dr. Etter, it is a
pleasure.
Senator Roberts. Let me say at the outset that this has
been a personal honor and privilege to be chairman of this
subcommittee. This is not the last roundup.
We will proceed under the direction of Chairman Landrieu in
the bipartisan fashion that we have achieved so far, but it has
been a personal privilege.
This is a subcommittee that was originally suggested by
Senators Coats and Lieberman, and followed up in fine fashion
by the distinguished chairman of the full committee. It is a
relatively new subcommittee, but I think we have done a great
deal of good, especially in regards to science and technology.
I thank the Senator from Florida who brings considerable
expertise in this area from the House of Representatives.
Mr. Aldridge, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD C. ALDRIDGE, JR., UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and
members of the subcommittee, for allowing me to come and join
you today to speak on what I would say is a very important part
of the defensive effort, and that's the Science and Technology
Program.
As you have already mentioned, with me today is Dr. Delores
Etter, the Deputy Director of Defense Research and Engineering,
and overseer of the Science and Technology Program and budget.
I share your views about the role and the contributions of Dr.
Etter. I wish I could have talked her into staying. But she is
on to bigger and better things, and we wish her well.
We have a joint statement that we prepared, that we will
supply for the record. We will just summarize very briefly, and
give you back some time for these very important topics and
projects that have been occurring in the rest of the Department
of Defense.
Senator Roberts. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Please proceed.
Mr. Aldridge. I have been on the job, as you mentioned, for
15 days and, therefore, my knowledge of the details of some of
these programs is somewhat limited, although I hope to change
that very rapidly.
However, I would like to summarize how our science and
technology activities fit into the broader context of our
acquisition efforts. Just after I entered this office, I
established a new theme for how the acquisition function should
operate. You have heard about acquisition reform, but I wanted
to move to a new era.
Many studies have given us ideas on how to improve
acquisition. We know we now need to implement these ideas.
Therefore, the theme for the operation of my office will be
``Acquisition Excellence,'' and science and technology will
certainly fit into that ``Acquisition Excellence'' role.
I also established five goals for myself and the office
about which I plan to run. Goal number one was to establish the
credibility and the effectiveness of the acquisition and
logistics support process. We need to focus on reducing cycle
times, and to introduce program stability, introduce the
evolutionary development, to reestablish our ability to
convince Congress that we are operating these programs
correctly. Credibility is one of those key elements that I plan
to pursue.
Goal number two is to revitalize the quality and morale of
the acquisition and logistics work force. We have seen
significant reductions in the work force over the past several
years, and we have basically told the work force that perhaps
they are not as appreciated as they should be. I intend to
focus my efforts on improving the quality and the morale of
that work force.
Goal number three is to improve the health of the
industrial base. We cannot have the finest weapons systems in
the world unless they are produced by very healthy and
productive and innovative corporations. So we want to be taking
actions to improve the health so that there is an incentive to
invest in our industry, there is an incentive for people to
come into the industry, and that they can be as competitive, as
strong and competitive as they can be.
Goal number four is to rationalize the weapons systems and
infrastructure with a new defense strategy. Once the strategy
has been completed by the Secretary of Defense, we plan to
review the weapons system to see what weapon systems fit the
strategy and maybe find and see some of those which do not.
That includes the infrastructure necessary to support our force
structures and end weapons.
Goal number five, and mostly related to the Science and
Technology (S&T) Program, is to initiate those high leverage
technologies that will give us the warfighting capabilities and
strategies for the future. I agree with the notion of this
subcommittee that we need to reinvest in our Science and
Technology Program, and that will be one of my goals, to
convince the Department and Congress that we need to do that.
As you can see, these efforts that we have in the S&T
Program directly contribute to my fifth goal. As a result, the
S&T Program will receive my attention and my commitment.
Mr. Chairman, that summarizes my statement. I would like to
turn it over to Dr. Etter, please.
STATEMENT OF DR. DELORES M. ETTER, ACTING DIRECTOR, DEFENSE
RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING; DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Etter. Mr. Chairman, I share Mr. Aldridge's
appreciation for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My office has responsibility for the Department's Science
and Technology Program. The Nation relies on the technological
superiority of its Armed Forces. Our program's mission is to
ensure that warfighters today and tomorrow have superior and
affordable technology to support their missions, and to provide
the revolutionary war winning capabilities.
I would like to make a few comments on five priorities of
our S&T Program from a corporate perspective.
First, basic research is a long-term investment in our
military's future. Previous investments have led to radio
detection and ranging (RADAR), Stealth, night vision, and
guidance for precision strike. We must ensure that we invest
today in appropriate broad areas of research to be prepared for
the future.
Second, strategic technology areas are priority areas we
recently identified in a collaborative effort with the services
and defense agencies to address emerging national security
threats. These technology areas are divided into three
categories.
The first is hard problems, areas where there are
particularly difficult technical challenges. Examples include
chem-bio defense modeling and standoff detection, and the
defeat of hardened and deeply buried targets.
The second category is revolutionary warfighting concepts.
These are the technologies that will lead to next generation
capabilities, dramatically new ways of addressing military
problems. This category includes network centric warfare,
fuller dominance of space, and autonomous systems.
The final category is militarily significant research
areas. These are technologies that will also be revolutionary,
but still have a large component of basic research. Examples
include nanoscience, directed energy, and advanced power.
A third priority is enabling capabilities, areas that have
the potential to improve a broad range of existing and future
system. Three such areas of significance to the Department of
Defense are propulsion, software, and electronics.
Propulsion research includes high performance turbine
engines, rocket propulsion, and hypersonics. In this work, we
look at new capabilities as well as increasing fuel efficiency
and noise mitigation in existing systems.
Software continues to grow in importance in our weapons
systems as developments and upgrades increase reliance on
software. However, problems attributed to software remain a
significant contributor to the program cost, schedule, and
performance shortfalls. To address these issues, we have
established a Directorate for Software Intensive Systems within
our S&T Program.
The Department cannot rely on the commercial market to
fully address the electronics needs of the military,
particularly in the areas of electro optics, infrared, mixed
signal, radio frequency, and radiation hardening. Hence, it is
important that we maintain robust programs in these areas.
A fourth priority is rapidly transitioning technology from
S&T to an operational capability. The Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstrations Program is one way to successfully
take matured technology into the field in prototype systems.
Recent successes include Predator and Global Hawk unmanned
aerial vehicles.
Finally, a strong S&T workforce is a critical priority. The
number of scientists and engineers we have is down 42 percent
from the 1990 level. It is an aging force. The average age of
the laboratory technologist is about 45 years, and over half of
that workforce will be able to retire in the next 3 years.
There have been numerous studies to look at these and related
issues, and new efforts are now underway to address them.
In conclusion, the strength of the Department of Defense
Science and Technology Program depends directly on the health
of its partners. These include universities that provide new
ideas and knowledge; service laboratories that provide
stability and ties to the operational forces; DARPA with its
commitment to high risk, high payoff programs; industry which
provides innovation and transition of technology; other
agencies that allow us to leverage their efforts; and our
international allies which allow us to address interoperability
from the beginning.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee for this opportunity
to share with you the corporate priorities of our Defense
Science and Technology Program.
Thank you.
Senator Roberts. We thank both of you.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter
follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. Edward C. Aldridge and Dr. Delores M. Etter
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss ``leap ahead''
technologies and transformation technologies.
TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
The Nation relies on the technological superiority of its armed
forces. As a result, the mission of the Defense Science and Technology
(S&T) program is to ensure the warfighters today and tomorrow have
superior and affordable technology to support their missions, and
provide revolutionary war-winning capabilities. To do this we must
understand the warfighters' needs. Fundamental to understanding those
needs is an understanding of the strategic environment in which the
warfighter operates, now and in the future.
The global spread of advanced technology is transforming the
military threats faced by the United States. In order to carry out our
defense strategy, the U.S. military must be prepared to conduct
operations in any environment, including one in which an adversary uses
asymmetric means such as nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons;
information operations; ballistic missiles; and terrorism. Future
adversaries will increasingly rely on unconventional strategies and
tactics to offset the superiority of U.S. forces. Our combat forces
must be organized, trained, equipped, and managed with multiple
missions in mind. We must be conscious of these threats as we foster
technology breakthroughs that will lead to new capabilities to cope
with that environment.
Our vision for the 21st century is a warfighter who is fast, lean,
mobile, and prepared for battle with total battlespace situation
awareness and information assurance. Our Defense S&T program is focused
on providing technologies enabling the weapons and equipment our combat
forces will need to meet our strategic objectives in the future. The
dawn of the information age has given rise to new revolutionary
capabilities sparked by leap-ahead advances. For example, our Nation
has led, and maintains a significant advantage in the development of
information-based technologies. The Department has been actively
pursuing improvements such as precision-guided munitions, the Global
Positioning System, and satellite communications for decades. We are
now only beginning to understand how significantly these information-
based revolutionary capabilities will transform the essential elements
of U.S. Forces. To succeed across the full spectrum of operations, the
Department will develop innovative new concepts for conducting
operations, test them through demonstrations, rigorous experimentation,
and rapidly transition the enabling technologies into revolutionary
war-winning capabilities.
The strength of the Defense S&T program depends directly on the
health of its partners. These partners together provide the environment
that supports the needs of the warfighter--from the universities that
provide new ideas and knowledge; to Service laboratories that provide
stability and ties to the operational forces; to DARPA for its
commitment to high-risk, high-payoff programs; to other agencies that
allow us to leverage our combined resources; to industry which provides
innovation and transition of technology; and to our international
allies for joint research programs that address interoperability from
the beginning.
This statement summarizes the priorities of our S&T program from a
corporate perspective. These priorities include:
basic research, which provides the Department long-
range research into areas likely to lead to advances in
national security;
technology transition programs that move S&T into the
warfighter's hands;
S&T which focuses the current and anticipated future
high-leverage S&T efforts;
enabling capabilities which benefit a broad-range of
emerging weapons and human systems; and
the health of the S&T workforce, which is one of our
biggest non-technical challenges.
BASIC RESEARCH
New military capability and operational concepts emerge from many
different sources. Historically, the Defense S&T program has responded
to both the known needs for military capability and enabled the
development of totally new operational concepts and capabilities. This
has allowed us to keep the technological edge on which our forces have
relied. It follows that the way to address future warfighting needs is
to invest in broad areas of basic research that have high potential of
yielding revolutionary advances as well as pursuing solutions to known
operational problems. The basic research program provides support for
research in the following twelve areas: physics, chemistry,
mathematics, computer science, electronics, materials science,
mechanics, terrestrial science, ocean science, atmospheric and space
sciences, biological sciences, and cognitive and neural sciences.
Basic research is a long-term investment with emphasis on
opportunities for military application far in the future and
contributes to our national academic and scientific knowledge base by
providing approximately 40 percent of the Federal support for all
engineering research in universities. The Department sustains its
investment in basic research because of proven, significant, long-term
benefits to the military, which in turn enhances our national economic
security. Basic research provided the foundation for technological
superiority in each of our recent conflicts. Radar made a significant
contribution to winning World War II. Stealth, lasers, infrared night
vision, and electronics for precision strike played a major role in the
Gulf War. Our Nation's defense advantage is founded on a wide scope of
scientific and engineering knowledge. The Department must continue to
invest broadly in defense-relevant scientific fields because it is not
possible to predict precisely in which areas the next breakthroughs
will occur.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
Rapidly transitioning technology from S&T to an operational
capability is crucial. Key mechanisms that have been established to
improve the technology transition process include Joint Experiments,
which are managed by Joint Forces Command, and Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs), which are managed within the Office
of the Secretary of Defense. These programs help to ensure the
transition of innovative concepts and superior technology to the
warfighter and acquisition customer faster and less expensively. The
Joint Experiments program provides a venue to develop and
experimentally test new concepts and technologies for the military. The
ACTD program is used to determine the military utility of proven
technologies, expedite technology transition, provide a sound basis for
acquisition decisions, and to develop the concept of operations that
will optimize effectiveness. Using this process, it has proven
successful in taking matured technologies into the field in prototype
systems. Recent successes included the Predator and Global Hawk
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
Most ACTDs address warfighting needs addressed by the commanders in
chief, hence they have strong representation in the process. The
program also has strong ties with DARPA. Of the 84 ACTDs that have been
initiated since the program's beginning in 1994, 33 of these were based
on technology developed by DARPA. The ACTD program also works closely
with the Joint Experiments program, which assists in improving and
demonstrating ACTD products. To date, 37 of the ACTDs have produced 59
transitional products, 22 of which have proceeded to full-scale
hardware acquisition. Transitional products include software
developments that have already been deployed with warfighters. Ten ACTD
transitional products, including hyperspectral scanners, unattended
ground sensors and the Predator, were made available for Operation
Allied Force in Kosovo. Using the aforementioned programs, we have
greatly enhanced the mechanism to transition prototypes to the
acquisition cycle.
KEY TECHNOLOGY AREAS
Over the past decade, the national security strategic environment
has changed dramatically. This change in national security threats, and
how we should respond to these changes is currently under review
throughout the Department. The DUSD (S&T) and OSD recently led a
collaborative effort, involving the key S&T leaders from the services,
agencies, and OSD to closely examine the impact of the new security
threats on what the Department needs from the S&T community. This
process led to the identification of some areas we believe we must
focus on in order to be effective in our mission in the future.
The needs have been divided into three categories: hard problems,
revolutionary warfighting concepts, and militarily significant research
areas. ``Hard problems'' are those areas where there are particularly
significant technical challenges, which, if solved, would counter a
significant operational or strategic threat. Examples include modeling
the dispersion of chemical and biological warfare agents, and detecting
and neutralizing hardened and deeply buried targets. Hard problems
identify ``technology needs'' to overcome some particularly difficult
security challenges we currently face.
Revolutionary warfighting concepts allow us to develop dramatically
new ways of addressing military problems. These are the technologies
that will lead to the next generation capabilities. Just like stealth,
global positioning system, and night vision devices provided our forces
a decisive advantage during Operation Desert Storm, these revolutionary
warfighting concepts could lead to the novel capabilities for military
forces in 2015.
Finally, are enabling technologies that will improve broad classes
of weapon and human systems. Again, these capabilities can be
revolutionary, but are broader based than revolutionary warfighting
concepts, and include areas like advanced materials and advanced power.
Hard Problems
In recent years there has been an increasing proliferation of
chemical and biological agents available to a wider number of
adversaries. Technology developments are needed in chem-bio defense
modeling and stand-off detection to provide an operational capability
to remotely detect and identify potentially toxic chemical and
biological agents and to forecast their dispersion through a defined
battlespace. We need to focus on developing capabilities in four major
areas: detection of biological and chemical agents and toxic industrial
chemicals and materials; diffusion and dispersion modeling for
predicting hazards; improved understanding of agent toxicity; and
increased comprehension of genetic and chemical compositions.
Increasingly, potential adversaries are using buried facilities to
protect their delivery systems, weapons of mass destruction, command
and control systems and other military capabilities. This is an
asymmetric measure to offset U.S. capabilities in intelligence
collection and precision strike. Technology developments in time
critical, standoff, and concealed target defeat are needed to provide
an operational capability to safely identify and strike intended
targets. Of specific interest is hardened and deeply buried targets,
but the list also includes slowly moving targets (such as mobile
missile launchers) and concealed targets (such as tanks hidden under
trees). This area can be broken down into the following sub-areas where
work needs to be focused: finding and characterizing targets through
the use of novel sensing technologies, systems and munitions to defeat
these ``special'' targets, and capabilities to assess damage to targets
following strike.
The U.S. is faced with an increasing array of asymmetrical threats
as potential adversaries learn of our capabilities and weaknesses.
Preparing for and countering these asymmetric threats requires us to
understand the mind of the adversary and then to dissuade threatening
actions or to counter them. Technology developments are needed in
counters to asymmetrical threats to provide an operational capability
to respond to asymmetric threats by improved use of information
operations, computational models and group-dynamics/social science
theory to achieve ``advantageous'' shaping of the security environment.
Focused areas where technology development is needed include: dynamic
indicator databases, social modeling including group dynamics and
decision support, and tools for information visualization.
With the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and capable
delivery systems worldwide, it is becoming increasingly important to
defend against potential missile defense deep into an adversary's
territory. Technology developments in cruise and ballistic missile
defense are needed to provide the capability to remotely detect, track,
and negate cruise and ballistic missile threats, providing a multi-
layered defense and reporting capability. We need to work in the areas
of: detecting and tracking strategic and tactical missiles through the
use of enhanced sensing systems and novel signal processing techniques,
advanced systems and warheads to negate enemy missiles, and providing
affordable protection, including radiation hardening, for our defense
assets.
As threats have evolved worldwide, we are fighting fewer large-
scale battles in open areas and more small-scale conflicts in cities.
Hence, we are in need of developing new techniques that are suitable
for the complexities of urban areas. Technology developments in
military operations in urban terrain are needed to provide a capability
to locate, surveil, discern, engage, and neutralize threat forces
within the close confines of an urban environment. We need to work on:
enhanced situational understanding of the urban battlefield; improved
training and mission rehearsal capabilities appropriate for the new
environment; and faster, safer breaching technologies to allow our
forces to move more effectively in urban terrain.
Revolutionary Warfighting Concepts
Technology developments in network centric warfare are needed to
provide the operational capability to increase combat power by
networking sensors, decision makers, and mission executors to achieve a
shared awareness, increased speed of command, higher tempo of
operations, greater lethality, and a degree of self-synchronization.
The technology areas that require capability developments include:
robust connectivity and interoperability of network systems; assurance
that our information systems are secure against attack; operationally
responsive and reliable networks; and tools for information
understanding and decision support.
Space operations are becoming increasingly important to military
operations. Technology developments aimed at fuller dominance of space
are needed to provide technologies necessary to capitalize on the space
mission and provide the United States dominant access to the military
high ground that space provides. Nearly all other operational military
concepts are aided by dominant access to space, which allows a decisive
advantage in command and control of our own forces, coupled with
enhanced reconnaissance of enemy position and intent. The technology
areas include: affordable space transportation including advanced
propulsion and long-lasting power systems; sensing technologies for
enhanced space surveillance; space control, including on-orbit
servicing; and protection of our assets in space.
Technology developments in unmanned systems for land, air, space,
sea, and underwater are needed to provide systems that can execute an
expanded range of missions in high-risk environments while keeping the
warfighter safe. Autonomous systems range from sophisticated unmanned
aerial vehicles--such as the Predator which deployed to Kosovo for
reconnaissance missions--to miniaturized, inexpensive autonomous
systems which can be deployed and operate together in a ``swarm'' to
provide intelligence at ``low risk.'' Capabilities that need to be
developed for future unmanned systems can be divided into the following
focus areas: enhanced unmanned system control; miniaturization of
components; and integration and collective behavior of multiple
autonomous systems.
Militarily Significant Research Areas
Speed-of-light directed-energy weapons--high energy lasers and high
power microwaves--have the potential to perform a wide variety of
military missions, including some that are impossible, or nearly so,
for conventional weapons. These include interception of ballistic
missiles in boost phase, defeat of high-speed, maneuvering anti-ship
and anti-aircraft missiles, and the ultra-precision negation of targets
in urban environments with no collateral damage. Technology
developments are needed in directed energy to revolutionize military
operations by exploiting the capabilities of directed energy weapons.
Novel S&T to increase efficiency, decrease size and logistics, and
improve maintainability of lasers and high powered microwave systems is
needed.
A continuing challenge to military operations is to generate,
store, use, and project electrical and other forms of power throughout
the battlespace. Technology developments in advanced power are needed
to improve the U.S. capability to focus power and energy, in a
logistically supportable way. As these capabilities are developed, we
will aid transformation of the force into a more maneuverable force
that can precisely project power when and where needed. Our work in
this area includes the Navy's development of technologies supporting an
electric ship, and the Army's development of electric drive vehicles.
Some areas where technology development is needed includes: energy
storage and release, including novel battery systems and fuel cells;
power generation and distribution; and new and refined applications of
power technology.
The future military force will be involved in rapid and dispersed
operations requiring individuals to work as a cohesive team, yet be
capable of operating independently. The implications of this stressful,
dynamic environment must be fully understood in order to improve
decision-making processes, the training of decision-makers at all
levels, and organizational patterns and procedures. Technology
developments in the area of human dimension and psychological factors
are needed to provide the capability to fully prepare all warfighters
and support personnel cognitively and physically to conduct assigned
missions and operations. The technology developments needed can be
broken down into: training--including simulation based, virtual reality
and augmented reality tools; decision making support, cognitive
engineering to optimize human-information interfaces, and enhancement
of performance under conditions of conflict.
Maneuver and self-protection are two enduring principles of
military operations that remain true today. The Department remains
committed to the development of smaller, lighter, and stronger
materials and components that will enable enhanced maneuverability and
self-protection by allowing these lighter and stronger systems.
Technology developments in nanoscience and advanced materials are
needed to provide revolutionary opportunities for the warfighter to
develop totally new operational concepts and capabilities, based such
developments. In a broad sense, the work in this area can be separated
into two areas: nanotechnology, which enables very small mechanical
systems; and advanced materials which are designed for specific
applications, such as embedded computing, novel composities, and
nonlinear, nonisotropic ``smart'' materials.
ENABLING CAPABILITIES
In addition to work in these areas, the Department continues to
invest in longer term enabling capabilities that improve a myriad of
systems. In each case, the enabling technology research leverages
efforts going on in industry. We now describe three major long-term
areas of focused R&D.
Propulsion
Military fuel consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and
facilities makes the DOD the single largest consumer of petroleum in
the U.S. Existing and emerging technologies are now available at
various stages of maturity that could improve warfighting effectiveness
through fuel efficiency. These technologies are applicable to the
turbofan/turbojet, turboprop/turboshaft, and expendable engine
applications, as well rocket propulsion programs. In addition, the
rocket propulsion program addresses technologies to support space
launch and orbit transfer propulsion (both liquid and solid),
spacecraft propulsion (chemical, electrical, and solar), strategic
systems sustainment (post-boost control systems, missile propulsion and
life issues), and tactical propulsion (solids and hybrids). A working
group has been established to formulate a National Hypersonics
Technology Plan to spearhead a much more focused government/industry
effort to develop hypersonic technologies, which could enable a whole
new range of hypersonic air-breathing engines, weapons, and aircraft.
All these propulsion programs are joint efforts with the Services,
NASA, industry, and defense agencies.
Software
Software continues to grow in importance in our weapons systems as
developments and upgrades increase reliance on software to provide the
flexibility to meet existing and future unknown requirements. However,
problems attributed to software remain a significant contributor to
program cost, schedule and performance shortfalls. To address these
problems we established a Directorate for Software Intensive Systems
(SIS) that promotes and coordinates software related activities within
DOD; we convened a Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Software;
and we chartered an SIS Steering Group of senior Service executives
chaired by the DUSD(S&T) to articulate a Department software vision and
guidance to the SIS Directorate.
The SIS Directorate established a coordinated approach to improving
software acquisition in four areas: DOD acquisition policy,
collaboration among DOD and Service software experts, education and
training of the acquisition workforce, and science and technology
transition. The initial actions of the Directorate are focused on
responding to the DSB Task Force recommendations. The Directorate has
absorbed the Software Program Manager's Network and is integrating its
products and activities. We are implementing independent expert reviews
throughout DOD to help Program Managers identify and manage software
risk, and have completed 24 assessments. We are establishing guidelines
for software acquisition management education and training of our
workforce. We are sponsoring the Capability Maturity Model integration
effort for enterprise wide process improvement. Finally, our Defense
Software Collaborators provide a forum for communicating software
issues and leveraging our scarce resources to address them. The SIS
Directorate is a critical focal point for initiatives that reduce
software acquisition risk.
Electronics
While the commercial market can be used to meet many of the
electronics needs of the military, the Department has unique needs that
are beyond the performance specifications needed for industrial
applications. The Department has identified those areas where industry
is not investing, but where advancement of technology is of key
importance to the Department.
Four major thrust areas have been identified. Advances in electro
optics and infrared technologies are expected to enable improved
countermeasures capabilities, and counter-countermeasures capabilities
such as the ability to detect camouflaged targets. Investment in mixed
signal technologies would lead to enhanced performance and versatility
through combinations of electronics, photonics, and micro electro
mechanical systems (MEMS) technologies. Advances in radio frequency
technologies (including vacuum electronics and wide band gap
technologies) are expected to enable new communication, detection, and
other applications with greater range and the ability to discern small
targets. Finally, the goal of investment in radiation hardened
technologies is to enhance protection of DOD's space systems.
WORKFORCE
A challenge facing the DOD today is that of enhancing and
maintaining its S&T workforce. The intellectual capital behind DOD
technology is the professional workforce in our 84 laboratories and
research and development centers, which includes 28,500 Department
scientists and engineers. This workforce is down 42 percent from 1990
end strength of 43,800. The workforce is also aging--the average age of
the laboratory technologist is approximately 45 years and over half of
the workforce will be able to retire in the next 3 years. The S&T
workforce has been the subject of multiple Defense Science Board
studies and independent analyses over the past decade with a common
conclusion that this essential and aging workforce must be sustained
and modernized--through creative recruitment and retention options--to
provide future warfighting superiority within an aggressive commercial
market for these skills.
We are working to implement new authorities recently enacted by
Congress, including those that give laboratory directors many of the
authorities that commercial lab directors have--such as the ability to
hire on the spot when an outstanding candidate is identified and the
ability to significantly reward employees who have made critical
contributions to important programs, and the ability to offer
competitive salaries. There are also efforts to look at providing
opportunities for outside scientists and engineers to temporarily work
in the DOD labs, and for DOD employees to spend time in industry.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, we wish to thank the subcommittee for this
opportunity to share with you the priorities of our Defense Science and
Technology Program.
In peace, technological superiority is a key element of deterrence.
In crisis, it provides a wide spectrum of options to the national
command authorities and commanders in chief (CINCs), while providing
confidence to our allies. In war, it provides an edge that enhances
combat effectiveness, reduces casualties, and minimizes equipment loss.
Advancing affordable military technology and ensuring that it undergoes
rapid transition to the warfighter are critical national security
obligations.
Thank you very much.
Senator Roberts. Let me just start out here with a
clarification in regards to the definition of ``leap ahead''
technology. As I have indicated, that has received a lot of
press attention.
So, Secretary Aldridge and Dr. Etter, with that term,
``leap ahead'' technologies, define for the subcommittee what
you think ``leap ahead'' technologies are.
Mr. Aldridge. Let me start--it can be somewhat ambiguous. I
try to use the term ``war winning'' technologies. People who
would look at our stealth program in the 1970s and 1980s would
perhaps define that as a ``leap ahead'' technology, something
completely unusual, and would provide tremendous leverage of
our military forces against any adversary.
It can be defined in that way. It could be defined as war
winning. It could be defined as asymmetrical advantage, things
which are unique that we have which provide us unique
capabilities over an adversary. Any of those could be used to
define ``leap ahead'' technologies.
Senator Roberts. Let us see. I'm writing this down. In the
world of acronyms, we have the asymmetrical advantage
technology. That is AAT. [Laughter.]
We have a war winning technology. I am not going to try
that one. We have the ``leap ahead'' technology, which is LAT.
We have got AAT, LAT, and WWT. [Laughter.]
You have to think in terms of acronyms, Pete.
Mr. Aldridge. I did not--sir, I did not use a single
acronym. I used whole words.
Senator Roberts. Bless your heart. [Laughter.]
We used to have a fish bowl in this subcommittee and for
everybody that would use an acronym prior to saying the full
name, or the agency, or the program, they had to put a dollar
in. We could probably fund a great many things if we kept that
up.
Now, Dr. Etter, in your view, what are we talking about
when we say ``leap ahead'' technologies?
Dr. Etter. I think of two categories when I think of ``leap
ahead'' technologies. The first would be areas that do give us
revolutionary new capabilities. An example of that, I think, is
high energy lasers.
The second category that I think falls within that are
designs of our systems that allow us to insert new technology
that will give us dramatically new capabilities. So, this is
looking at doing designs with the plan that we want to design
them with; architectures that allow us to insert new
technologies. That also will allow us to take very significant
new increases and capabilities as we see new developments,
particularly from commercial areas.
Senator Roberts. I think that is very helpful.
We have been joined by our next chairman, Senator Landrieu,
who will be providing bipartisan leadership to this
subcommittee.
We have just heard testimony from Secretary Aldridge and
Dr. Etter. Dr. Etter almost received a standing ovation for her
contribution.
We could do that, if you would like. [Laughter.]
So I would now like to turn to my distinguished ranking
member, soon to be chairman, for any comments that she might
like to make.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. I would like to say, Mr.
Chairman, what a wonderful job you have done in starting us
off, and how much I have enjoyed working with you on this
arrangement and how much I look forward to working with you,
Senator, as we go through this change.
But although the chairs may change, our general philosophy
that we have is really not going to change. I think we are very
much in agreement about the things that need to be done, and to
try to shed some more light on this particularly important
subcommittee.
I want to thank you, Senator, for your leadership all of
these years on the full committee as well as the subcommittee.
Let me just give this brief statement for the record, and
then I have a few questions to follow up.
I want to acknowledge that the subject of this hearing,
which is technology, is one of the most crucial aspects of our
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. As we seek to
transform our military and meet the challenges of the 21st
century, we must continue to implement new technologies to keep
our forces on the cutting edge, and ensure that they are
prepared to deal with any threat that those who are hostile to
us may be developing.
I also appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your commitment to the
Department of Defense Science and Technology budget which is
the foundation of this transformation which I think is going to
be a challenge to us in this particular Congress.
Too often in the past, we have robbed this budget, cutting
our investments in technology, to pay for current readiness.
This approach may serve our needs today, but it will most
certainly undermine our forces in the long run. That is going
to be a great challenge of our subcommittee, to make sure that
the budget supports the words and the directives and the
suggestions that this particular committee will make.
We face a number of challenges in this area in light of
tight budgets. It requires vision to invest in programs that
may not have any immediate payoff, but in years to come will
have substantial payoff.
Second, we must ensure that the Department of Defense can
keep up with the ever quickening pace of technological
development in the commercial world.
Third, we must be competitive with the private sector in
attracting our Nation's best and brightest young scientists and
engineers. These issues are of vital importance to this
subcommittee I look forward to continuing some of the work that
has been laid out, and even adding to it, as I assume the
chairmanship, and look forward to working with all of you. I
reserve my questions until the appropriate time.
Thank you for appearing here today.
Senator Roberts. We thank you for your statement.
Secretary Aldridge, as we know, the Department is
undergoing a strategic review. The Secretary was here just last
week giving members of the full committee an update. One of the
studies with regard to this review is the future of defense
research and development, and in particular science and
technology.
Let me ask the first obvious question. Have you been
consulted to date on the strategic review as it relates to
changes in the research and development accounts?
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir. I have been involved in the
decisionmaking process that the Secretary has. He has
incorporated into this process many members of the Department
of Defense, the Service Chiefs, the Commanders in Chiefs of the
various theater forces, theater commands. He has been involved
with getting their views on various topics. Science and
technology, and research and development is one of those.
Senator Roberts. As I understand it, one of the defense
strategy new objectives is to provide recommendations for
allocation of acquisition and R&D resources. So could you
comment on what your recommendation for the R&D resources would
be?
Mr. Aldridge. I have made a series of recommendations and
suggestions to the Secretary. He is considering them. He has
not made any decisions regarding how he wants to proceed.
I have discussed it with him, the necessity of increasing
research and development, and specifically the science and
technology budget, to bring the budget back up to a level that
supports our future capabilities against a very unknown and
volatile world in the future.
I have made that recommendation. He has not shared with me
his decision on how to proceed on that. I cannot say exactly
how he plans to formulate the final decision in getting ready
for the fiscal year 2002 budget amendment that is in
preparation.
Senator Roberts. I have one other related question, and
then I want to recognize Senator Allard if he has an opening
statement. Then I am going to yield to my colleagues, but then
I am going to come back with additional questions.
There are several aspects of the R&D enterprise that are
what I would call new approaches. I understand that last week
we had been briefed about that in regards to the Defense
Strategy Review. I am talking about staff. These new approaches
have been discussed and in review process.
Let me just mention a few that you might want to comment
on: Moving from the chronically under-investment in R&D to a
sustained, healthy level of R&D with a percentage of it
earmarked in the Department of Defense and the service budgets
for something called ``Over the Horizon Research''; second,
moving from a zero defect mentality to an acceptance of risk
and failure in programs, obviously necessary for a successful
overall R&D effort; third, moving away from an inflexible
acquisition process to a spiral acquisition process, allowing
various program development paths.
I am particularly interested in any explanation you might
want to give the subcommittee about the spiral acquisition
process and the philosophy behind what we call spiral
technology insertion. If you would like to comment on any of
the three, especially the last, I would like to hear it.
Mr. Aldridge. I am not sure if I can define that term
either, sir. Let me talk about spiral development. That is
clearly one of the items of interest for the Department. In
fact, we are in preparation for a new DOD regulation that calls
for the spiral or evolutionary development of systems. It has
some very favorable advantages in the sense that you can get
weapons into the fields sooner. You can reduce the risk, you
can reduce the uncertainty of costs, and you can get rid of
older weapon systems which tend to operate at a higher cost
than the newer ones.
Spiral development is a positive direction that we need to
go to get our cycle times down, and to get the systems into the
field as quickly as possible. We support that. It is something
we ought to be doing.
We have to recognize that the first system in the field is
not going to be the ultimate system. We have to have it
adaptive to changes in technology with time, and improvements
with time that will eventually get to the ultimate
configuration.
One might describe the difference between an F-22 which is
a system which has gone to the ultimate capability off the bat,
versus the Joint Strike Fighter, which is, in fact, an
evolutionary program. Global Hawk is another example of an
evolutionary type of a program. That is one piece.
The other comments that you made about ``Over the Horizon
Capabilities,'' and the introduction of that was a suggestion
that we have some fixed level of--I would call science and
technology should be fixed. The research and development which
carries forth other types of more or closer to weapon systems
development, probably it would be variable with time.
But the science and technology being something that should
be set at some percentage of the defense budget, and held to
that, I would certainly support. It is something we need to do.
It has tended to be in the past a bill payer, and I think that
is the wrong attitude for the science and technology budget to
be pursued.
Senator Roberts. This subcommittee certainly shares that
view in spades.
Dr. Etter, do you have any commentary on that from the
standpoint of your experience?
Dr. Etter. Yes, I would like to add two things. One, you
mentioned the problems when we have a zero defect mentality as
we think about science and technology. I would add that it
really is important that we move away from that because
particularly when we are working with new concepts and new
innovations, we learn as much from our mistakes as we do from
things that work right.
We need to have an environment where people are comfortable
with trying new things without having to feel that they have to
work in order for the project to move ahead.
The other thing I would add has to do with the spiral
development. I would add there that this is particularly
important in the software arena. When you look at our systems
with software codes of many million lines of codes to do all of
the capabilities we would like to get, one of the ways we are
going to be able to get our hands on the kinds of problems that
we are experiencing here is to try to deal with smaller systems
that have only part of the capabilities, and then continue to
upgrade.
So, I think spiral development will help us all around, not
only just in the hardware developments, but also in the
software developments that supports that.
Mr. Aldridge. There is another piece of it, just to add. It
is stability to a program. When you do the evolutionary spiral
development, you tend to have a better understanding of what
the program is capable of doing. You are not taking as much
risk as you would if you went to the ultimate configuration.
Therefore, when you come over and explain what a program is
going to cost, its schedule, and performance, we are closer to
being correct as opposed to having a program that has a little
more risk, and we have a tendency to be wrong, and have to ask
for more money, and have to ask for slippages in the program.
I think as we go through the evolutionary process, our
credibility and being able to explain what a program is going
to do, what it is going to cost, when it is going to be, what
schedule it is going to be on, we have a much better ability to
do that than we would have otherwise.
Senator Roberts. Let me just say that, your point in
regards to shortening the time for delivery of the warfighter,
that really strikes home with me. I am aware of our services in
test with DARPA and other folks.
I know that DARPA's main function--and I am paraphrasing
here--is on the crest of the wave. So many times, our service
members indicate, ``Hey, it is not the crest so much; I need
more of the wave, and I need it now.''
It does not have to be, so many times it is, ``Well, that
is not scientific enough.''
I hate to use the word ``sexy,'' but that--well, I will
not. Strike that. [Laughter.]
Is that all right? If you say it is all right, it is all
right. [Laughter.]
That reminds me of the Ed Sullivan Show. [Laughter.]
Let me say that in terms of the helmet that I had hoped
would be available to the Marine Corps 4 years ago--now I have
to admit I am old corps, and the current helmet, you cannot sit
on it. You cannot cook in it. You cannot shave in it, and it
weighs too much, and it certainly hinders your view, and it
looks like a German helmet to begin with. [Laughter.]
Senator Landrieu. But other than that, he likes it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. Yes, but other than that, I like it a lot.
[Laughter.]
But it is just that I cannot understand why we cannot get
that kind of equipment that we really need faster. You are
saying that this new kind of process might be able to be of
help, is that correct?
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir.
Senator Roberts. OK. I appreciate that.
Senator Allard, do you have an opening statement, sir? We
can follow the regular order for questions. We thank you for
coming.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would make
just some brief comments. I appreciate your holding this
hearing. I think it is important, and perhaps even just a
little bit theoretical, with the fact that we do not even have
our defense budget numbers right now to deal with it.
But I think it is important that we maintain our emphasis
on research and development. We have technologies out there
that are reaching out a long ways. Certainly this is one member
who does not expect them to work all the time. We have to
continue to push the envelope.
I know you are committed to that effort, and I know that
the witnesses that we have here today are committed to that
effort. I just look forward to hearing what has to be said
here, and that is all I have, Mr. President--Mr. Chairman, soon
to be ranking member. [Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. Yes. If I cannot be chairman, there is
always president. [Laughter.]
I did not say president of what. [Laughter.]
If I might ask one other question and then move on to
Senator Landrieu, Senator Nelson, and Senator Allard.
I am going to ask you the ``bigger than a bread box''
question. What percent of the defense budget should be the S&T
account, or what should that amount to? I know you are not
going to answer that. You can if you would like.
Now, Dr. Etter, you can say anything you want to now.
[Laughter.]
Is there a range? Is there some kind of a range here?
Because as you have indicated, Secretary Aldridge, this has
been a bill payer account. That is most unfortunate. It is
something we want to change. Do you have any comments?
Mr. Aldridge. Sir, again, it is a part of the process that
we are going through. I do not mind saying this: It should be
somewhere in the range of 2\1/2\ to 3 percent of our budget. It
has not been that in the past several years.
Some time in the past, it was at that type of level, but in
that range is something that we need to focus on. I think it
ought to be constant. We ought to be planning that this is what
is going to be as a percentage of the DOD budget. If Congress
agrees that the budget should go up, then the percentage and
the amount of money going into the S&T program should go up
accordingly.
Senator Roberts. Bless your heart. I am so happy to hear
you say that. It mirrors what Senator Landrieu said in her
opening statement, and I applaud that statement.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Let me just follow up on that point and
that figure. The record was 2\1/2\ to 3 percent. But try and
help think for a minute of a large company that does comparable
work.
What do you think the comparison would be to the private
sector for their R&D piece, if that would be a fair question? I
guess my question would really be: How did you arrive at your
2\1/2\ to 3 percent? Walk us through that.
Mr. Aldridge. That is an excellent question, and it is very
difficult to compare an industry and what they would be
spending in research and development. You would find in some
industries it is around 5 percent. In some of the software
industries, it could be 10 to 15 percent.
But in comparing it to the Department of Defense, it is
different because there is a science and technology budget
which is not that directly related to weapons systems. Then
there is a research and development activity that is, in fact,
related to developing a weapons system of a particular kind.
The contractors are paid for that type of research. So it
is not counted in their independent research and development
(IR&D) program, so to speak. So it is hard to measure how much
that ought to be.
If you look at the past history of what we have been able
to do with our Research and Development and S&T Program, one
could say that that range of number makes you comfortable that
we can do the things we need to do to stay ahead with that type
of a level of effort.
If you got below that, something has to give, and it is
usually the basic research that goes. The ``leap ahead''
technologies go. People are not as willing to take as much risk
with the money they have left and so, therefore, they are not
pushing the state-of-the-art.
When the numbers are in that range, we believe we have
enough resources to really push out and do the innovation that
is necessary and take a little more risk than we would have
otherwise.
Dr. Etter. Could I add something to that? A recent Defense
Science Board study looked at this issue because it is a very
difficult one. They looked across many different industries at
the percent that they spent on science and technology or
research and development.
One of the things they found that relates here was that,
first of all, in industry, often their research is fairly
short-term research, 3 to 5 years, where a large part of our
research really has to be much longer-term, 10, 15, or 20
years.
If you look at companies that have a longer-term research,
you are looking at companies like pharmaceutical companies
which do have to have this very long reach. They tended to
spend around 3 percent on their research activity. So, I think
that gives one a sense that Mr. Aldridge's percentages are in
the right kind of ballpark for a company that is looking
further out.
I would like to add one other thing on percentages. When
you come up with a percent--and I do think this is actually a
very good way to think about what kind of investment we should
have in S&T--you can look at the overall number, the 3 percent
for the overall budget. But it is extremely important that you
go down to the individual services, also, because that also is
a very critical part.
We really should be looking at services getting to
something like close to 3 percent of their budget. There is
quite a range today among the services, and I think that you do
not get the right picture unless you look at what percent is
being spent of each service in their overall obligation
authority.
Senator Landrieu. I appreciate that because I hope that the
members of our subcommittee can really embrace this goal and
help our full committee, and Congress, to stay disciplined in
order to do this because there are always things right now,
tomorrow, next week, that need to get funded. This is a
constant debate that goes on.
But I hope that our subcommittee will really rally and
advocate and work in a bipartisan way to really press ahead
because it just makes such common sense. Being able to explain
this to our constituents and to measure it in ways that the
public can understand gives us that political attitude, if you
will, to press our case.
Let me ask another question about some of the problems.
This immature technologies problem, we have been often
criticized--and I think in some ways it is justifiable--that
private industry can field a product so much more quickly and
faster in terms of cycles than we can. They make sure that
their technologies are proven in a laboratory before they try
to incorporate them into new products.
Do you agree that our immature technologies are, in fact, a
problem? If not, why not? If so, what steps are being taken
that we should be aware of that can help make sure those
technologies really work, and get that quickly decided and then
move them into the field? Either one of you can start off.
Mr. Aldridge. Let me start off in a broader sense of the
problem of getting our technology in the field faster. It is
unfortunate that we are in the process of a budget that when we
have an idea, that we want to do something, it takes 2 to 3
years to get that program funded because of the budget process.
I do not have an answer to this, but there could be some
kind of a line item that where we find the technology, we have
a budget already established to go fund it immediately. I do
not know exactly how to do that, but the budget problem that I
am aware of does create this lag in time of idea to actually
getting started.
Dr. Etter. I would agree with that, and then go a little
bit further on the maturity levels. One of the things that is
in our new 5,000 series which describes the new acquisition
process is a requirement to do technology readiness levels.
This is a requirement that is now put upon the science and
technology community to give essentially a number rating to
technology as it is ready to move into acquisition.
I think this is going to be extremely helpful. It allows us
to communicate between the science and technology community and
the acquisition community.
What I hope it does not become is a way to say,
``technology should not move into acquisition unless it reaches
a certain level.''
What we really should use this for is to make sure that the
program managers understand the risk that they are accepting so
that it really allows the communication to say if this is an
extremely important technology for you to put into your system,
by giving it a technology readiness level that indicates that
it is not as mature as you would normally like, the program
manager then knows that he is going to have to put, for
example, more dollars into risk reduction efforts and things
like that. So it helps you to avoid surprises.
That is one of the most important things you want to do, is
not to have surprises in the maturity of the different
technologies that are going into our systems.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have other questions, but there are other
members so I will reserve to ask them later.
Senator Roberts. We can come back if we have time.
Let me recognize the distinguished Senator from
Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, for opening comments he would
like to make.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICK SANTORUM
Senator Santorum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an
opening statement that I would like to put in the record. I
just want to make a few comments.
Senator Roberts. Without objection.
Senator Santorum. First, let me just thank you for holding
this hearing. This is a hearing that I requested. You supported
an amendment that I offered to the budget resolution which
dramatically increased the amount of funding for S&T research.
Senator Lieberman and I did work on the subcommittee having
to do with air/land procurement. We have had many discussions
about our concern for looking at our procurement tail that we
have, and the huge amount of commitments that we are about to
make for the long-term, on major acquisition projects, as well
as others that are in the offer, and looking at that commitment
that we have to make and the impact of that in the out-years
for our budget.
We are just wanting--and certainly we are thinking out
loud, what is happening here in the next 5 to 10 years that may
make these decisions either good decisions or bad decisions?
Should we be at least integrating or at least be knowledgeable
about what is on the horizon to either effect the decision that
we make or make sure that we are capable of integrating that
into the platforms that we decide to make, or basically
fundamentally either scrap it or go to a different platform?
That is the reason that I asked for this subcommittee to do
this. I have some concerns that go beyond that, obviously, with
particularly the research that is based in our academic
centers, and the impact that we are having, not just on the
amount of research being done there, but the training of
engineers and scientists.
I have been very supportive and am a very strong supporter
of putting more money into NIH. I am all for putting more money
in health research. But we are consistently lowering the amount
of money in real terms that we are spending on S&T in our
budgets in the military.
The impact of that on our scientific community and our
basic science research is profound, in our ability to have
trained scientists and engineers who are going to be developing
that next generation of warfighting capability. So I do think
it is important for us to renew that commitment now that we are
looking at a new vision for the military, that we re-energize
and redouble our efforts to put more resources in the area of
basic research and in our university communities, not just for
the research value, but for the education and training
component that comes with that.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for taking so much
time, but I appreciate it.
Senator Roberts. The godfather of the hearing is entitled
to take whatever time that he might wish. [Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Senator Santorum follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Rick Santorum
Chairman Roberts, thank you for convening this important hearing
today. In l999, then-Governor George W. Bush addressed an audience at
The Citadel in South Carolina and raised the notion of skipping a
generation of weapons systems and of making ``leap ahead'' advances in
American military capabilities. Governor Bush recognized that 21st
century threats facing the United States are qualitatively different
than the threats that occupied our military and our industrial base
during the Cold War and the decade that followed the downfall of the
Soviet Union.
Since that speech, many others have articulated a need to transform
our Nation's military to better respond to these threat trends. They
note that our current military is ill-equipped to meet threats such as
incidents of terrorism, information warfare, biological warfare, and
urban conflict. The only way to meet these challenges is to redouble
our energies on meeting these challenges. While procuring updated or
evolutionary weapons systems might seem like the most expeditious way
to meet these new threats, I believe that we need to work our way back
and look first at the basic sciences and basic research efforts that
will support the development of new weapons systems.
For advances to occur in these capabilities, we will first need to
make wise investments in key enabling technologies. I believe that
Department of Defense basic research can provide the stimulus to make
this possible. For this reason, during the Senate's consideration of
the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution, I offered an amendment that
provided an additional $353.5 million in Department of Defense basic
research funding spent in American universities.
Earlier this year, Senator Lieberman and I discussed potential
hearing topics for the subcommittee on Airland. During our discussion,
we shared our concern that Congress may not have a full or accurate
picture of many of the ongoing advances that are happening in the areas
of warfighting technologies. Senator Lieberman and I concurred in
thinking that this imperfect or inaccurate information may lead
Congress to make serious investment errors with respect to our limited
military resources. Our greatest fear is that Congress will authorize
and appropriate funds for programs and/or technologies with little or
no applicability to 21st century threats.
With this background in mind, I contacted you with the hope that
you would conduct a hearing focusing on current advances in warfighting
technologies taking place within our Nation's science and technology
programs--in academia, Federal Government, and within industry. I
encouraged you to invite witnesses from these three communities so that
they might address and illustrate many of the technological
breakthroughs that are occurring in our science and technology
programs. I am glad to see that representatives from these three
communities will be appearing today before this subcommittee.
I would also like to thank you for honoring my request to include
two witnesses who have first-hand knowledge in two ``over-the-horizon''
technologies--nanotechnology and micro-electromechanical systems
(MEMS). I believe that members of the subcommittee will benefit from
the testimony of Dr. Cynthia A. Kuper, President, Versilant
Nanotechnologies, and Dr. Kaigham J. Gabriel, Professor, Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, and their insights on
these two important technologies.
It is important to focus on ``over-the-horizon'' or ``leap ahead''
technologies because of the revolutionary powers of change these
technologies can produce. As author Raymond Kurzweil notes, ``our
forebearers expected the future to be pretty much like their present,
which had been pretty much like their past . . . [yet] few have truly
internalized the implications of the fact that the rate of change
itself is accelerating.'' The author argues that technological change
is exponential and that ``most technology forecasters ignore altogether
this historical exponential view of technological progress. That is why
people tend to overestimate what can be achieved in the short-term but
underestimate what can be achieved in the long-term.'' It is for this
very reason that the subcommittee should pay particular attention to
these ``leap ahead'' technologies.
Again, thank you for your willingness to schedule such an important
hearing and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
Senator Roberts. Let me refer then to Senator Lieberman as
the goduncle, I believe.
Senator Santorum. Not the godmother, I know.
Senator Roberts. No, no. [Laughter.]
We may have to have a bipartisan amendment along with
Senator Santorum, too, on the funding level if we maintain the
S&T budget to the degree that we remain competitive.
If we do not maintain our technological advantage in our
military capability, our national security capability, I can
assure you that the red carpets that are usually out in Europe
for all of us who go there from time to time will turn to
standard gray, or maybe French--or whatever.
Senator Landrieu. Do not give the French anything to be--
[Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. Well, that is another whole story.
[Laughter.]
But at any rate, also the respect of our adversaries. I
cannot tell you how important this is from a national security
standpoint.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Some of our most productive ``leap ahead'' technologies
have often been associated with space. So I am curious, Pete,
how does DOD's S&T strategy fit in with the national space
strategy?
Mr. Aldridge. As you well know, I am delighted to answer
that question based on my space background. There are several
things that we are doing in the space arena in relating--in
fact, I was thinking as you challenged me in ``What were ``leap
ahead'' technologies,'' Mr. Chairman, I started to think about
some of them.
Some of them were, in fact, from space, the real time
capability of our reconnaissance capability. Space shuttle, I
would said was a ``leap ahead,'' and space-related things like
SR-71. The airborne laser is clearly a ``leap ahead''
technology, and even the UAVs are in some cases ``leap ahead''
technology.
I guess you know it when you see one is the best I can
describe it. It is hard to put a definition of what one is
until you actually see it.
Space phase radar is one, Senator Nelson, that we are
working on very hard that is in the S&T program both from the
standpoint of putting an AWACS in space that would detect the
airborne targets to putting JSTARs in space that would detect
moving targets on the ground. There are some significant
technologies moving in that direction.
Certainly, the reusable launch vehicle technologies, while
that has been a NASA directed program, the Department of
Defense is very interested in looking over the shoulder to make
sure that when that comes to the point of fruition, the
Department of Defense can use that technology when it is
available.
We are also looking at new things in the space
surveillance, being able to understand the situation awareness
in space. We are looking at technologies to protect our own
satellites from hostile action in space. We are looking at
technologies that would deny the adversary the use of space
when it is detrimental to our interests.
It is just a whole range of capabilities that we are
looking at that would give us the continued asymmetric
advantage. I will use that term again. There is no country in
the world that can match us in our capabilities in space, and
no one will for a very long time.
However, there are things that people can do with the new
technologies that exist in space by acquiring them from the
commercial sector, and can use them detrimental to our
interests. We want to be able to make sure our systems operate
as they are planned; and in cases where an adversary is using
space detrimental to our interest, we can deny him that
capability. All those things, I believe, we need to work on.
All of those are covered in our S&T program.
Senator Roberts. Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. We have a lot of technology that is moving
forward in the private sector as well as in the Defense
Department. In some cases, one wonders if we are able to stay
ahead of the private sector with some of the research. Would
you comment about some of the competition you feel from the
private sector?
Mr. Aldridge. Let me start, and I will have Dr. Etter
continue. Yes, sir, we have a problem in our ability to use the
technology from the private sector because we make our rules
and regulations so burdensome for the commercial companies to
do business with the Department of Defense. I think we have to
address that problem first so that we have companies like
Hewlett Packard who have tremendous technologies that can bring
to bear to the Department of Defense, that it is commercially
attractive for them to do business with us.
That is one area that we can then get access to that
capability which has, like you said, turned around very
quickly.
But the other side is that in many cases where there are
unique military requirements, that in some cases, we are, in
fact, ahead of the commercial sector. In some of these cases we
just talked about, space phase radar, for example, there is at
this point no really unique commercial requirement for such a
thing. In some of the very high data rate capabilities that we
have need for in the military, the commercial sector has not
yet caught up with us.
But there are many other things which the commercial sector
is providing with respect to information technology that we
should be taking advantage of because--but we do not make it
friendly for them to do so, we need to go work on that.
Dr. Etter. I would add from another perspective, one of the
real challenges we have is just knowing what is available in
commercial industry. That is a growing challenge because it is
something that we need to be aware of, not only with what is
going on in our country, but really what is going on globally.
There are a number of efforts that try to look at that.
Each of the services has their own efforts to look at
technology. We have some international technology watch
programs where not only do we participate, but some of our
closest allies work with us to try to help us all stay aware of
what is going on in technology.
But I think that is going to continue to be a growing
challenge, to know what is going on. But it is very important,
and I think it is a real responsibility of the Department
because we want to be sure that the dollars we spend on science
and technology are not dollars doing something that commercial
industry is doing; or if there are some very common interests,
perhaps leveraging. But I think it is something it is a
responsibility, but is going to be a growing difficulty to
really stay on top of.
Senator Santorum. Would you comment a little bit further on
the cryptological challenges that you have?
Mr. Aldridge. I am not sure I can, like I said, I have been
on the job for only 15 days. I have not gotten into that part
as of yet. I know we do have some challenges and, of course,
working with the National Security Agency to work those things
out. But I am afraid I cannot answer at this point.
Dr. Etter. If I could add from one perspective, we have
worked closely with NSA on some issues that relate to
supporting their cryptography needs. These have fallen in the
areas of high performance computing because there are certain
kinds of capabilities from high performance computers that they
really require for some of their needs. We have worked closely
with them.
This has involved looking at some additional support for
commercial companies doing this, but also putting in place some
initiatives for research to try to help do the kinds of initial
research to help our companies within the U.S. be more
competitive in some of these very high end areas and
architectures.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
Senator Roberts. Senator Santorum.
Senator Santorum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple of comments: First off, if we were successful
in doubling your basic research budget, what would you do with
the money?
Mr. Aldridge. Double it? [Laughter.]
Well, let us see. I have a few areas that I think are
important for us to delve into. They are consistent with the
strategies that are laid out in our formal statement for the
record.
But I think information technology comes to the top of my
list of things that we ought to be working on, both information
assurance that we can operate in ways that an adversary cannot
disrupt; our growing dependence upon information for our
capabilities; as well as our information warfare. We need to be
able to deny the use of that capability to an adversary.
But information technology, to me, would be high on my list
because in a conflict, the ability to deny information I think
is something that adds more to deterrence that anything we can
do. So that would be high on my list.
The second would be space systems. Space is a very
important part of our capabilities to conduct military
operations. There is nothing we can do in the military in terms
of targeting that space is not an essential part of
understanding where the targets are, the communication systems,
the navigation systems, the bomb damage assessment, the weather
predicting. Everything we do is essential to space, and we need
to continue to develop our dominance in that particular area.
Directed energy is an important future war winning
capability. Unmanned systems are important, both unmanned
reconnaissance and unmanned combat vehicles. Nano and micro
technologies are something that we could continue to spend
money on. Ballistic and cruise missile defense are very
important issues for the future. These are the areas that I
would focus on with the additional resources.
Senator Santorum. I would like to talk a little bit about
nano and MEMS, if you will. My understanding is that your
nanotechnology initiative is called the Defense University
Research Initiative on Nanotechnology. Can you explain that and
what is going on in that program?
Dr. Etter. Yes. This is a program that we work on with a
number of other agencies. I think the area of nanoscience and
nanotechnology is one that people recognize is a very critical
one.
Over the last few years, there have been interagency groups
that have worked together to look at this area and to also
divide up areas of emphasis so that we can get the most out of
the dollars that we are putting into this.
For example, NSF is one of the key players in it. DOD is
also a key player, and the program that you described is the
one that we have used to try to focus our efforts in this area.
But it is looking at nanoscience and nanotechnology,
particularly with a look at applications that we think will be
important to DOD.
For example, one of these is new energetics, new materials.
We are also very interested in things that may allow us to come
up with new power sources that would allow us to have smaller,
lighter weight systems. We think nanoscience is going to be
another part of that.
But this program is one that is focused entirely on
universities, and it is built around a multi-disciplinary
university research initiative. So it is encouraging
collaborative efforts among universities.
We think this is a very important program, and have planned
in that to make sure that we have a continuing support, not
only for the programs that are currently being funded, but for
bringing in new programs each year.
Senator Santorum. When you are doing that kind of research
whether it is that or others, how does that research that is
going on intersect with the development of weapons systems that
are ongoing at the various stages of procurement?
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir. Let me address that. It so happened
in my previous job--I was a CEO of a corporation in California
that launched the smallest satellites ever put into orbit. They
are called Pico Sats. They are one pound satellites that are a
little larger than a cigarette package.
But we were looking for technologies that--what could
demonstrate technologies that then the program managers who
have weapons systems to deploy feel confident that can take the
technology, we can show that it works, and that they would be
more comfortable then to apply it to their program. They are
very prone--not prone to risk, until they have demonstrative
capabilities.
There are several activities underway to develop micro
technology for weapons systems such as artillery shells. There
is some work going on at Draper. We have had some work going on
with NASA to put nano MEMS technologies on shuttle flights, for
demonstration of technologies; looking at technologies that
also would be applied to very small satellites like Pico Sats;
looking at communication systems, reconnaissance systems, and
things of that nature.
What is from the university and the laboratory, we have to
take a step to demonstrate that those capabilities are valid so
that the program managers who have a need for these smaller,
more capable systems will apply it. I think there is a history
or trail that has to be provided there.
Senator Santorum. Do we have existing a pretty good funding
of that trail? I mean, is it--do we have enough resources--
first off, I guess the basic question is: Are we doing enough
basic research? I think, at least from my perspective, I do not
think we are, but I would like your answer.
The second is, once that basic research is--how are we
bringing that through to where it becomes relevant to the guy
who is the program manager who is looking at the project?
Mr. Aldridge. In the past, we probably have not done or
funded sufficiently. We could do a better job. If we can get
our S&T budget up to some of the percentages that were
discussed earlier, 2\1/2\ to 3 percent, more funding would be
available to have application for that type of technology that
may accelerate it for use in the future.
Dr. Etter. If I could add to that a little bit: When we
have our basic research programs like the nanoscience one that
you just mentioned, the dollars come out of an OSD account, but
when the programs actually get funded, it is done through a
service. So the services really do the execution.
One of the things that this provides is a very close tie to
one of the services and the research that is being done. That
is often where the first steps are made in terms of working
closely with the researchers to see what is coming out, and
then try to identify that into applications that then are
applications that tie into operational systems.
Mr. Aldridge. Senator, one point, I was aware of some work
going on at Draper Laboratories in this area, and one of the
strongest motivations for the MEMS technology is commercial
application.
The commercial people who will be looking at these kinds of
devices to put in automobiles, and millions and millions of
devices were the ones that were the most interested, and were
driving the research program to the point of accelerating the
MEMS technology for commercial. It so happened that the
military was riding on that commercial bandwagon, so to speak.
Senator Santorum. My final question, I know my time is up,
but if you would indulge me in one thing.
My opening comments, to tie into those, are there things
going on out there in the basic research world that you see
that fundamentally affects the decisions that Congress has to
make in the next year or 2 with respect to weapons platform or
other types of acquisitions that we are going to make that
should cause us to rethink about the commitment to those kinds
of platforms?
Mr. Aldridge. The answer to that is yes. If you look at the
trend of the basic research budget over the last 5 or 6 years,
that trend has been downward. That is not a healthy sign. It
should be reversed.
Senator Santorum. I do not think you understood my
question.
Mr. Aldridge. OK. I am sorry.
Senator Santorum. We are making commitments to a variety of
different platforms that we are going to eventually deploy,
acquisition programs. Are there things going on within the
research community that, in looking at the prospects for this
research, in light of the decisions that we are going to make
on acquisitions, that would cause you to say, ``Hey, wait a
minute. Maybe there are things coming down the line that would
make this investment at this time and this commitment''--
because you know these things have long tails--``an unwise
decision''?
Does that kind of analysis go on within the Department, or
are we so stovepiped that that kind of interaction really does
not occur to the degree that is necessary in this incredibly
fast-paced evolution of technology that is going on in our
society?
Mr. Aldridge. I--that is a----
Senator Santorum. I thought I would give you an easy
question to answer. [Laughter.]
Mr. Aldridge. Very tough question to answer. I would hope
that that type of analysis does exist. I believe it does.
I know there are--I have seen personally in the short
history that I have been on this job, and certainly in the past
history, where people are looking at technology working that
says, ``Well, this technology is going to make this either
obsolete''--if this is what you are getting to--``or it is
going to change the direction we ought to be going now.''
I believe that that type of analysis goes on in the
Department of Defense. I hope it does--that is about as much as
I can say about that topic.
Senator Santorum. That is not particularly reassuring to
me.
Mr. Aldridge. I did not think that I wanted it to be
because I am not sure that----
Senator Santorum. I understand. You are new here. I am not
going to hold you to that. [Laughter.]
But I am not exactly--I was not emboldened by your
response.
Mr. Aldridge. OK.
Dr. Etter. I would add that one of the things about basic
research that is important to remember is most of the time it
is not obvious what the applications are going to be. So I
think that is the point at which you begin to see how something
is going to be useful, is when you can see the applications.
Sometimes that occurs in basic research, but often it is not
the case. It is after it moves further into more applied
research.
I think the way that we try to make sure that we are
positioned to take advantage of things that we do see is by
looking at the designs of our systems and trying to use things
like open standards, architectures that allow us to do
insertion of new technologies.
I think there are things that we can do to our systems
today that not only allow us to plan to use technologies we see
that are perhaps 3 to 5 years off, but to position them for
things from basic research. But most of the benefits from basic
research really are things that are further off than the
current decisions we have to make today, but it is looking at
the environment of systems and the ease with which we can
upgrade that may be one of the ways we are going to be able to
allow ourselves to take advantage of that.
Senator Roberts. Let me say that was a very helpful and
provocative series of questions, Senator, very helpful.
Our distinguished ranking member has a time problem. Would
you like to add anything at this point?
Senator Landrieu. I just want to say that I am going to
submit some additional questions for the record, but again, I
just think this is a very important hearing. I really believe
that the panelists from Kansas, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and
from other states and many of our universities have been part
of this research.
I have to slip out, but I am going to submit my questions
for the record, Mr. Chairman, and will be reading the
transcript of this because we will use this as a foundation to
build on the future. I thank you all very much.
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Senator.
Secretary Aldridge, I got a lawyer problem. [Laughter.]
You mentioned in your testimony last year that Congress did
provide lab directors the direct hire authority of personnel,
and the usual process of hiring could take anywhere from 3 to
18 months. It has taken more than that to get the authority to
shorten that up.
This authority has not been utilized because apparently
there is a disagreement between the acquisition folks and the
personnel lawyers at the Department. Could you address this
issue? How do we tap the lawyers so gently on the shoulder and
say, ``Move''? [Laughter.]
Mr. Aldridge. I had a discussion just yesterday with the
new Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, Dr. David Chu.
I discussed this problem with him, and we will resolve it
within the next few days. I think it will be resolved in a very
favorable way.
We do want to implement this authority. We think it is
necessary for our laboratories to get the very best talent. It
is something that is short-sighted for us to have not exercised
this sooner.
Senator Roberts. Mr. Secretary, you can certainly tell
those folks that you had a very helpful discussion with the
Chairman, soon to be ranking member of the subcommittee.
[Laughter.]
If necessary, we can certainly stipulate anything that you
suggest in legislation, and we want to get the damn thing done.
Is that pretty clear?
Mr. Aldridge. You are not very wishy-washy on that issue,
sir, very straightforward. [Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. Mr. Secretary and Dr. Etter, last year
Congress required the Department to report on possible
innovative approaches which you might take to address the
technology transition issue. We suggested in language that the
Department review such processes as the budget and acquisition
process in order to accelerate the transition, along the lines
Senator Santorum has suggested.
We encouraged the Department to think of new approaches for
providing what we call the timely transition of technology into
the hands of the warfighter, such as a transition opportunity
fund. Could you comment on what stage the report is in, and
what sort of innovations the Department might undertake to deal
with this issue?
Dr. Etter. This is a report that is currently underway. It
is not completed at this point, but we have tried to take into
account the suggestions that you have given us.
As we look at technology transition, one of the things that
I think is clear is that there is no silver bullet here. It is
something that you have to look at from a lot of different
perspectives and have a lot of programs that work this.
We do think having some kind of funds available to help
transition programs that become very successful that are not in
the palm process is going to be an important way to do that. We
also think that there are ways of changing the funding process
for our advance concept technology demonstrators that will also
allow us to transition things that come out of that. So----
Senator Roberts. Well, that is the peanut that I am
interested in. We will name it after Senator Santorum. It is a
transition opportunity issue, in order to get it in the hands
of the warfighter. That is the one I really think has a lot of
possibilities. Any comments? All of us feel that if we do not
have a fixed amount, as you get into what the vagaries of the
budgeting are, that the fixed amount the 3 percent should stay.
But if you had a transition opportunity fund, and you could
say to members who may be somewhat critical, if we are trying
to establish priorities, say, ``Look, we have a transition
opportunity fund,'' this actually puts it in the hands of the
warfighter.
I think that is justifiable. I think we could make that
case. I think we could make it on the floor of the Senate if
anybody wants. I do not know about the appropriators but----
Dr. Etter. We agree. We are working to try to come up with
a plan to do that. Thank you.
Senator Roberts. OK. Dr. Etter, the Department embraced the
utilization of technology readiness levels. You referred to
that earlier in your testimony. The theory, as I understand is,
everybody involved in the development of the system will know
the level of risk they are taking on when adopting a technology
at a certain readiness level.
Now, here is the peanut again. The GAO reported last year
that the Department usually--or the typical transitions
technology at about technology readiness level three or four--
in other words, that is when you transition it--the industrial
transitions as I understand it from the GAO report is at
approximately seven.
Now, my concern is primarily one of resources. The
investment in the less expensive S&T phase of the process to
mature it in technology and development, would appear to save
money in the acquisition process. But does the S&T community
have the adequate resources to develop the technologies to the
later stages?
One of the things is if you are at three or four, then it
goes to industry and the damn thing breaks, or something
happens, or it did not work out quite, why can you not have it
in seven so you have a more robust product, and you can see
where you are headed? Then in the long run, you are not going
to have such a scattered approach. You use more of a rifle
shot, and it pays off. Am I right in that? You see where I am
headed in this?
Dr. Etter. Yes, I do, and I think your point is well made,
that if we are going to do more of the risk reduction within
the S&T Program, that there will have to be funds to look at
how we are going to support that, whether it is actually still
S&T funds or funds as you move into six/four, but it is going
to require additional funding to make sure that we have mature
technologies as we go to acquisition.
I think that there is another thing that will be involved
in implementing this, and we are looking very closely in a task
group at how we are going to implement this because this is a
new requirement now that we are working on. There is also just
a lot of time and effort spent in trying to do the evaluations
of the TRLs themselves.
One of the things that will be important if this process is
going to work in terms of helping project managers understand
the risk of technologies that they want to use, is that we have
to be able to assign these technology readiness levels
consistently across the services. It also means that we have
got to be able to assign them for not just hardware, but also
for software. So we do see a number of challenges with this.
The funding issue that you brought up will be one of the
challenges, and being able to consistently define the levels
for technologies will also be important for us to look at.
Senator Roberts. Mr. Secretary, in the recent Defense news
article, it was reported that you sent a memorandum to
Department's research directors and the procurement chiefs to
stop the practice of requiring or asking our defense companies
to ``supplement the Department of Defense appropriations by
bearing a portion of the Defense contract costs.'' Why did you
do that?
Mr. Aldridge. Well, for the first time that I ever read a
newspaper, it was correct. I did send a memo. We have found
that through the years that there has been, as a result of
underfunding some of our research and development activities,
there was pressure placed on contractors to use their IR&D
funds or even profits to help us through a transition period in
the Department of Defense.
My view is: That is an unhealthy practice. We need a
defense industry which is strong. If we are going to expect the
best weapons systems in the world, we need to have a strong
defense industry to produce those systems. I believe it was
inappropriate for us to encourage the industry to fund programs
that we had underfunded through the normal budget process.
I thought that the practice ought to stop, that if the
Department of Defense could not afford to pay for a development
program within its own budget and to rationalize it through the
process of the Department of Defense and Congress, then it was
not appropriate that we approached that program in that way.
The idea of co-funding or using the IR&D funds of the industry
to help us, I thought, was inappropriate.
As a result, they can now use their IR&D funds in ways that
can help the Department by innovating things that we may not be
thinking about. They can use their own talent to help the
Department of Defense in ways that we perhaps may not have
anticipated. That is the reason for IR&D, and that is the way
it should be used.
Senator Roberts. That is a very strong statement. If you
are going to force Peter to pay for the R&D Paul, or that that
is what we used to do, and that is not going to be the fact
anymore, basically you are saying that we should to fund it.
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir.
Senator Roberts. All right. Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have any
more questions.
Senator Roberts. Senator Santorum.
Senator Santorum. Just a followup to that: Do you see that
as creating an incentive for the private sector to do more
research funding? I mean, more funding--you gave me the sense
that they are sort of going to be off doing their own thing. Is
there any coordination that you envision now that you have
freed up this pot of money?
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir. We watch what they do with their
IR&D. In fact, in some cases, contractors come and ask us how
they should spend their money in the best way for long term. We
are not blind to how they spend their resources, but in some
cases they have some better ideas of how to spend the money
than we do perhaps.
Senator Santorum. Do you expect that to maybe result in
even more leveraging of funds? In other words, them putting
even some more money in as a result of that?
Mr. Aldridge. That is their choice at this point in time.
If they see--the one exception to this rule is that if there is
a very strong commercial application for the product, we might
think about allowing co-funding.
A good example is the expendable launch vehicle where, in
fact, the Department of Defense saw that there was a valuable
commercial variant of that, and so we did co-fund. There may be
those cases that would be quite appropriate, but not in every
case.
Yes, I believe that if the industry saw that this IR&D,
they found a great product, and it may make them very
competitive in the future, they maybe would invest their own
money into making them more competitive. So we win all around.
We have a stronger industry which is better for us. It is a
more competitive industry, and it is one that I think we all
want.
Senator Santorum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Roberts. Dr. Etter, do you want to give us a little
advance on the inner advanced electronics initiative that you
are introducing in the fiscal year 2002 budget so we can go in
a resolved and well-done--[Laughter.]
Dr. Etter. I would be glad to give you a sense of the areas
of priority in that. As you look at electronics, it is clear
that there are lots of areas where commercial industry is way
ahead, and what we need to do is just figure out how we can
leverage off of that. But there are some areas that DOD is very
interested in that commercial industry is not going to invest
in. We have identified four of those.
We think that, for example, RADHARD electronics is
something that is very critical to DOD, particularly as we make
the move into space. This is an area where there is not a
commercial market. So DOD has to take a special interest in
that.
We currently have some activities. We have two fabrication
lines that do RADHARD electronics, but one of the problems here
is that they are about two and a half generations behind the
commercial industry. So we need to look at this area not only
in terms of providing DOD support to make sure the capabilities
are there, but we really need to look very seriously at
bringing these up to perhaps a generation behind commercial
industry so that we have the kinds of capabilities that we
really need to do the kinds of things we want to do in terms of
space assets.
Another area has to do with radio frequency electronics.
This has two parts that are particularly important to DOD. One
is in vacuum electronics, again an area that DOD is the main
group that has an interest in this. This is an area that the
Navy in particular has a wide use of vacuum electronics in some
of its radar systems.
Another area in this is wide-band gap. This is looking
further out. This is certainly one of our basic research areas.
It is one in which we need to do some of the initial research
to the point where commercial industry will pick it up. So it
is not something we need to stay in forever, but we need to do
some of that initial work in it.
So those are three of the areas that fall in that. There
are a couple of others in terms of mixed signals that are
important for us to do, and some of the infrared areas. So we
have put together an initiative that particular identifies the
things DOD has an interest in.
We hope that with the priorities that Secretary Rumsfeld is
going to be naming, that we will be able to look at that as
part of the funding in the S&T program.
Senator Roberts. That is a great segue. We did not plan it
that way, but it is a great segue to Senator Bob Smith's
question which I have here. I would like to ask it at this
point with regards to RADHARD electronics. Following my own
rule of thumb to prevent me from putting a dollar into the fish
bowl that we did not really bring out today: Radiation Hardened
Micro Electronics Industrial Base, RADHARD.
Question on behalf of Senator Smith: Are there sufficient
funds in fiscal year 2002 and the out years to fund RADHARD
process development, to provide appropriate capital equipment,
and to design advanced electronic devices necessary to
modernize this critical industrial base?
Dr. Etter. Well, of course, we cannot talk numbers here,
but we certainly have been talking about that very issue, and
we hope that that will be one of the things that will be part
of our new budget.
Senator Roberts. I am sure that Senator Smith will follow
up on that, as we all will. He has a follow-up question. What
is your strategy to maintain robust competition for development
and production of RADHARD electronics?
Dr. Etter. Well, the competition area really comes from
having two different fabrication lines. So I think the essence
there is that there are real benefits to having the competition
of two lines. We recognize that and hope that that will be
something we can take into account as we look at the budget to
support this.
Senator Roberts. What do you need from Congress for the
Etter Initiative?
Dr. Etter. Well, I think the funding that Secretary
Aldridge has said he is going to support within our program is
the kind of support we need to be able to do that.
Senator Roberts. We will call it the Bob Smith/Rick
Santorum Initiative. We better find us some help from the
Majority as well.
Thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you for your
service to our country, Dr. Etter. Welcome aboard, Secretary
Aldridge.
We will ask the second panel to come up at this time.
Mr. Aldridge. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Etter. Thank you. [Pause.]
Senator Roberts. The second panel is comprised of the
Science and Technology representatives of the military services
and also DARPA.
As the witnesses are aware, the purpose of this hearing is
different from past years. Today, we will hear about investment
in ``leap ahead'' technologies, the transformation efforts
underway within the services' Science and Technology Programs,
and the transition of the revolutionary technologies in the
hands of the warfighter.
Without the budget, however, this subcommittee is unable to
review in detail the commitment by the new administration to
the Science and Technology Program. A strong, stable investment
in Defense Science and Technology remains a priority of the
subcommittee. In addition, we must ensure the warfighter has a
capabilities over match well into the future. That is why in
the absence of a budget it is still important to discuss the
investment in truly revolutionary and ``leap ahead''
technologies.
I would like to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing.
We will hear from Dr. Michael Andrews about the Army's
transformation efforts and the Future Combat Systems approach.
I look forward to hearing what a ``system of systems'' is and
what that approach is, and the definition of ``system of
systems,'' and how it is truly an out-of-the-box thinking.
The Future Combat Systems aim to be an ensemble of
capabilities, a group of systems working in collaboration. It
is ambitious, and is planned to lead the future in an Objective
Force.
The subcommittee now looks forward to hearing about the
partnership the Army has formed with DARPA to implement the
Future Combat Systems.
We want to welcome Admiral Jay Cohen. This year, the Navy
finished an ambitious process of realigning its Science and
Technology priorities. The subcommittee anticipates receiving
an overview of this transformation process, and the division of
the S&T Program into two areas, the long term grand challenges
and the more immediate future naval capabilities.
The Navy has realigned its funding priorities to correspond
to the newly identified technological capabilities, thereby
focusing its effort in the most important research areas. We
anticipate hearing more details about which technological
challenges the Navy has identified as necessary to achieving
these capabilities. I am also interested in hearing what
efforts you have taken for force protection following the
attack on the U.S.S. Cole.
Dr. Don Daniel will testify on behalf of the Air Force. The
subcommittee is particularly interested in hearing from you,
Dr. Daniel, on the Science and Technology Planning Initiative
now underway within the Air Force. I might mention that
everyone here is well-aware of the issues confronting the Air
Force Science and Technology Program, and the subcommittee's
past concern about the lack of support for the program.
It is critical that a real commitment to the long-term
technological superiority required by the Air Force be provided
in several key areas, including a renewed emphasis on space and
missile defense. I understand that the Air Force has taken a
very long look at the planning process mandated by Congress in
last year's National Defense Authorization Act. I know that you
are currently about halfway through the process, and real
progress is being made.
Also, I understand fundamental changes will occur no
earlier than next year. I hope to hear more about that process
today and the ownership taken by the Air Force leadership to
turn around that serious deficit in its Science and Technology
Enterprise.
I would like to be optimistic about the process you are
undertaking, Dr. Daniel, but do not be surprised if I remain
skeptical until the process is finished, and future budgets are
received and reviewed.
Finally, I would like to welcome Dr. Jane Alexander, Acting
Director of DARPA. The subcommittee looks forward to hearing
about the ``leap ahead'' technologies that DARPA is engaged in,
and the technology transition of these innovations to the
warfighter community. You heard the earlier statements, I am
sure.
We will begin with Dr. Andrews, followed by Dr. Daniel,
Admiral Cohen, and then we will close with Dr. Alexander.
Now, after all those very lengthy questions to discuss at
great length your future, we would like for your statement to
be around 5 minutes so there will remain time for questions and
answers.
I think you know what we call ``show and tell.'' Senator
Santorum has offered to try on the helmets and the goggles and
any other things. [Laughter.]
If things fly, he can be in charge of that as well.
[Laughter.]
So the liaisons will bring the displays to us and we will
proceed with our first witness.
STATEMENT OF DR. A. MICHAEL ANDREWS II, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY AND CHIEF
SCIENTIST
Dr. Andrews. Thank you, Chairman Roberts and Senator
Santorum. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss how the
Army's Science and Technology (S&T) Program is focused on
accelerating the pace of the Army Transformation. I have
previously submitted a written statement. I would like to
summarize my remarks this afternoon.
Senator Roberts. Certainly.
Dr. Andrews. We are developing the fullest range of
technologies to provide materiel solutions that will blur the
traditional distinctions between the Army's heavy and light
forces and, at the same time, increase their strategic
responsiveness, and very importantly, reduce our logistic
demands for those kinds of forces.
Our goal is to field this capability for the Objective
Force by the end of this decade, a very challenging time frame.
It is my privilege to report to you that the Army's scientists,
engineers, and our industrial and academic partners are
committed to making the transformation a reality.
The most vivid example of this commitment and our single
largest S&T investment for the Army S&T Program at about $500
million per year, is the Future Combat Systems (FCS) Program.
Importantly, this ``leap ahead'' capability is being
addressed in a strong partnership with DARPA. FCS is also a
very clear example of the spiral development that you mentioned
earlier; users, system developers and designers, and technology
developers working together to give us the first capability for
a fielded effort, followed closely with technology insertions.
We believe that the Objective Force soldiers in this 2010
time frame, equipped with the Future Combat Systems, will be
capable of dominating across the full spectrum of operations,
from peace time engagement through major theater warfare.
Our warfighters from the Vice Chief of Staff established a
design crucible for FCS, of 20-ton class or lighter. Abrams, of
course, is about 70 tons, but a world-class killer and
survivor.
This demands that our Future Combat Systems be achieved
with a ``systems of systems'' approach as you mentioned. This
provides us a ``leap ahead'' in force capability with
unprecedented lethality, survivability, integrated on the move
command and control, as well as full situational awareness.
It is not a platform. The FCS is not a platform. It is a
system of battlefield capabilities in which the whole exceeds
the sum of its parts. That is the real difference with ``system
of systems,'' for the whole to exceed the sum of its parts.
Fielding FCS will represent a true paradigm shift for the
Army and how it fights, perhaps as significant as the
introduction of the tank or the helicopter. It is that
significant. On behalf of our soldiers, though, I want to
really thank Congress, especially members of this committee,
who last year supported the FCS program and the increases we
needed.
In my submitted written testimony, I have described many
important areas of innovations. In the area of armaments, a
multi-role cannon that can do both direct and indirect fire, on
the move, and less than 20 tons; a compact kinetic energy
missile that moves at about a mile and a half a second, and has
the lethality to take on the next generation of tanks.
I also have talked about survivability, active protection
systems, as well as smart armors that protect our tanks and our
soldiers; and finally, in terms of C\4\ISR, the ability to have
on the move command and control for our systems.
But what I want to do is give you a very clear example of
the innovative thinking going into all key Objective Force
concepts. It is that synergistic mix of manned and unmanned
systems. You talked about that earlier, as well as Secretary
Aldridge.
To enable these innovations, we are pursuing a prudent
balance between higher and lower risk technologies for the
development of ground vehicles, or Unmanned Ground Vehicles
(UGVs) to support FCS and other systems of the Objective Force.
Let me describe this balance through three technical approaches
to introduce robotics on the battlefield.
First, at the lower end of technical risk, the Army is
conducting a Robotic Follower Advanced Technology Demonstration
Program. This program will develop and demonstrate near-term
technology that permits a UGV, unmanned ground vehicle, to
follow virtual bread crumbs, of a manned system that is in
front of it. Typical follower missions then that we can provide
are logistics resupply, medical evacuation, non-line-of-sight
weapons carriers, as well as security for our troops.
Second, for the mid-term we are pursuing a higher risk
Science and Technology Objective Program to provide Semi-
Autonomous Robotics through improved perception and command and
command capabilities. This will expand the UGV mission such
that we can take on an unmanned scout capability, one of the
tougher points. Tell it to go from ``a'' to ``b'' on its own,
find the target, locate where that is exactly, and communicate
where you are and where it is without being destroyed.
The third, and finally then, to enable the near
autonomous--getting as autonomous as we can get with UGV
systems--the highest risk and perhaps the highest payoff in
robotics work is being done as part of the DARPA/Army
Collaboration Effort. DARPA is pursuing advanced technology for
UGVs to increase mobility and provide alternative perception
and control technologies.
Now in addition to these ground vehicle robotic systems, we
also have Unmanned Air Vehicle concepts. One of these on the
table as you can see, the little round circular piece, is what
is called an Organic Air Vehicle, adducted fan rotorcraft. It
can provide extended range, stand-off sensors for the elements
of FCS, to see before being seen.
The current capabilities for this rotorcraft are capability
of vertical takeoff as you can tell; it hovers; horizontal
flight capability at 55 miles an hour, and up to 30 minutes of
endurance, already tested. Potential missions here obviously
include on-demand aerial reconnaissance for the FCS in
restrictive terrain such as under trees or in urban
environments. This also is being developed under the DARPA/Army
partnership.
Senator Roberts. How much does that weigh?
Dr. Andrews. Ten pounds. It carries a payload of about like
76 grams or so, 75 grams, a very small sensor----
Dr. Alexander. It is a scalable design so it can be made at
a larger size if a larger payload is needed.
Dr. Andrews. Very key. I have just described some of those
for the future. Let me now talk to you about two recent
successful technology transitions, talking about the past that
has certainly paid off here.
First on the table, you see the Objective Individual Combat
Weapon (OICW). That is the armament sitting in front of you.
This is the product of an Army Advanced Technology
Demonstration Program that was just transitioned to the program
management side. This is a full-scale model of this objective
individual combat weapon, weighs the same as the actual ATV
product.
It provides the individual soldier a new capability, to
shoot an enemy in a hide position, in a foxhole, or behind a
wall through a window, with its air bursting of 20 millimeter
round. This is done by using a laser range finder to provide
the smart munition and the front end for this round, the exact
range to detonate.
The bottom line, compared to the current M-16, grenade
launcher, the OICW provides eight times the fire power at twice
the range. This allows our soldiers to see first, act first,
and finish decisively, leaving the enemy no place to hide.
Another successful transition from the Army S&T Program
addresses the number one cause of combat fatalities, blood
loss. On the table in front of you are also two small plastic
samples. Those are fibrin bandages. This was successfully
transitioned from the Army Medical S&T Program. It is a cotton
fiber material that--can somebody show that?
Senator Roberts. Just grab the fibrin bandage. Do not grab
the weapon. [Laughter.]
Dr. Andrews. This is a cotton fiber material that has been
impregnated with two human blood clotting proteins. The bandage
will stop bleeding within 2 to 3 minutes.
If you think about a bullet wound, or a major surface
wound, or if you had a hole through your arm, you plug it in
and stop the bleeding, again, within 2 to 3 minutes. While the
obvious and primary purpose of this fibrin bandage is to save
soldiers' lives----
Senator Roberts. Doctor, why does this say, ``not for use
in humans''? [Laughter.]
Dr. Andrews. Prototypes, not Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) approved yet. Part of our process in the Army Medical S&T
is to go through FDA.
Senator Roberts. But okay for the family dog here, I guess.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Andrews. We go through FDA which takes us----
Senator Roberts. How long does that take?
Dr. Andrews. That is almost as long as our acquisition
cycles. It takes a good 7 years to get through the FDA.
Senator Roberts. Seven years to get this damn thing done?
Dr. Andrews. Well, once we get them through the technology
piece, then they take their time. I mean, we are talking about
using this on our soldiers, and FDA takes their time to make
sure there are no problems.
Senator Roberts. If you are trying to stop a bleeding
wound, it seems to me that is a little higher priority than
gulping down a pill or two for whatever ails you.
Dr. Andrews. FDA is outside our control, obviously, and
their priorities.
Senator Roberts. My Lord, we got Viagra before we could get
this thing. [Laughter.]
Dr. Andrews. It will be there before the end of the decade,
though.
Senator Roberts. Well, we need to take a look at that. That
is ridiculous. I guess that is outside of our jurisdiction. I
do not know.
How many of those prototypes do we have of the Objective
Individual Combat Weapon?
Dr. Andrews. That's up there.
Senator Roberts. OICW.
Senator Santorum. That is the gun.
Senator Roberts. Yes, I know that. I am not--[Laughter.]
Senator Santorum. Are you still talking about FDA?
[Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. No, I am done with FDA. I am upset with
the FDA. We will raise hell about that later. [Laughter.]
But, how many prototypes do you have of this? [Indicating]
Dr. Andrews. We built one prototype.
Senator Roberts. That is it?
Dr. Andrews. That is it. Now we are into the PM, and they
are building some new prototypes. They have just been in it for
1 year. We built our demonstration unit. Again, that is the
issue of limited resources. We carried two contractors as long
as we could, and then did a down select.
Senator Roberts. If so, in fact, this is the weapon of the
future as described in the combat situations that you have
described and this is acceptable to the Services, I am assuming
the Army, and the Marines, and others, how many years away are
we from that?
Dr. Andrews. This is roughly at the fiscal year 2009,
fiscal year 2008 time frame for introduction, first unit
equipped. So that is about 7 years down. We are just now
entering----
Senator Roberts. How do we speed that up?
Dr. Andrews. Resources.
Senator Santorum. So it is a resource question. It is not a
technology question.
Dr. Andrews. It is a resource question, yes.
Senator Roberts. It is not technology as the Senator has
indicated. It is a resource situation.
Dr. Andrews. In this case, this one is less science and
technology. It is now in the acquisition, and the acquisition
has limited resources.
Senator Roberts. Why can that transition fund not be used?
That is exactly what we asked Dr. Etter and the Secretary. Why
could that transition fund not be--if you want to hold that up
on the floor of the Senate. [Indicating] [Laughter.]
I do not know--if we really want to take over, that might
be a way. [Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. But, that is just too slow. I am sorry. Go
ahead.
Senator Santorum. Well, that is the classic problem with
all of our acquisitions. I mean, they just take too darn long.
Senator Roberts. Right.
Dr. Andrews. There are many parts to that problem. One is
the amount of testing that has to go on. Since our soldiers
will carry these, we have to make sure that everything is----
Senator Roberts. How much does that weigh?
Dr. Andrews. Too much. That is about 14 pounds, and trying
to go down.
Senator Roberts. Yes, that is too much.
Dr. Andrews. Right. It is on a diet right now. Everything
they are doing is to drive that weight down as well as working
on improving the cost of the munition that goes with it, smart
round.
Senator Roberts. OK. I am sorry to interrupt you. Go ahead.
Dr. Andrews. OK. Let me back up to the Army's vision.
Senator Santorum. Let me just--so part of it is technology.
Dr. Andrews. Yes, sir.
Senator Santorum. You are telling me it has to go on a
diet. I mean, if you knew how to do that, you would do it. So
the problem is not just money. It is money and technology.
Dr. Andrews. Money and technology, but most of the
technology is mature technology outside the S&T world. So it is
the PM world of reducing weight of materials, going more to
composites which are off-the-shelf, more design changes by the
contractor, drive the weight down.
Senator Roberts. OK.
Dr. Andrews. Since the Army's vision was announced in 1999,
we have significantly reshaped and sharpened the focus of our
advanced technology development in applied research investments
for transformation Objective Force.
Also on the table, I have the 2001 Army Science and
Technology Master Plan. Those are the two large documents that
you see sitting up there. [Indicating] This is the first Army
S&T document that really is a capstone for capturing all of the
changes to meet our transformation efforts.
Now critical to the Army Transformation to the Objective
Force, we have a corporate technology to readiness decision in
April 2003. This is when our Chief of Staff, and the Secretary,
and DARPA will make a decision to launch that ``system of
systems'' demonstration area, in 2003 and go through 2005.
Because S&T is critical to the Army's Transformation, last
summer we established monthly Science and Technology Reviews
with the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Army's four star
commanders to provide broad guidance on warfighter needs and to
assess our progress in satisfying those needs.
In addition to maturing and transitioning technologies as
rapidly as possible, we have maintained a longer term
perspective with our basic research program. We have increased
efforts in microturbine technology. This will allow us to be
more efficient in electric power for the individual, and reduce
the current demand we have for the number of batteries soldiers
have to carry.
We are also establishing a nanotechnology center to address
Objective Force survivability. The center will focus on
applying nanoscience technologies from universities, industry,
and Army labs to achieve the material breakthroughs in
soldier's stealth and ballistic protection, and reduced weight.
We are also exploring state-of-the-art simulation
technologies at the Army's Institute for Creative Technologies
at the University of Southern California. We are leveraging the
creativity of the entertainment and game industries to create
compelling immersive environments for training our soldiers,
increasing the likelihood that when the Nation sends soldiers
into harm's way, they will accomplish the mission and return
safely.
Now, of course, we cannot achieve these goals without top
caliber scientists and engineers who develop our technologies
for the soldiers. Recruiting and retaining S&Es is a challenge
across DOD as Secretary Aldridge has already testified.
Last month, I convened an Army-wide S&T Leadership Summit.
One of our tasks was to identify innovative approaches to
recruiting, retaining, and refreshing the Army S&E workforce.
We will be sharing these insights across the Department. I want
to assure this subcommittee that I am committed to ensuring the
quality of our S&E workforce. Our soldiers really depend on it.
In closing, the Army S&T community has stepped up to the
technical challenges necessary to enable the Army's
transformation. We have energized all of our resources and are
committed to making the Objective Force a reality. Your
continued support is very welcome and critical to this Army
transformation effort.
Thank you.
Senator Roberts. All right.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Andrews follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. A. Michael Andrews II
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Fiscal Year 2002 Army
Science and Technology (S&T) Program and the significant role S&T has
in the Army Transformation. It is my privilege to represent the Army
leadership, the members of the Army S&T community, and America's
soldiers who rely on us to provide them with the capabilities they need
to execute our National Military Strategy throughout the world.
I thank the members of this committee for your important role in
making today's Army the world's preeminent land combat force. I also
thank you for your assistance in our transformation efforts. Your
continued advice and support are vital to our success.
TRANSFORMATION
The Army is changing and Army S&T has accepted the challenge of
enabling this change. We are transforming today's Army from a Cold War
Legacy Force to an Objective Force. This force will provide early entry
capabilities that can operate jointly, without access to fixed forward
bases, and still have the power to win campaigns decisively. The Army's
Transformation will initially augment, and eventually replace, today's
Legacy Forces which are too heavy or lack staying power.
We are an Army between wars, and we are challenging all the
assumptions about what conflict may be like in the future. We are doing
this to ensure that our future soldiers have the capabilities necessary
to accomplish the full spectrum of operations they will face in the
21st century. Our future force, the Objective Force, will be more
responsive, more deployable, more agile, more versatile, more lethal,
more survivable, and more sustainable than our present force. The
Objective Force will be strategically dominant, capable of placing a
combat capable brigade on the ground anywhere in the world within 96
hours, a division on the ground within 120 hours, and five divisions in
theater within 30 days. These are ambitious, but achievable, goals.
THE ROLE OF ARMY S&T
The Army S&T program is central to enabling the new vision and is
on the critical path of the transformation leading to the Objective
Force. We are committed to providing the technology to accelerate this
transformation. The Army has challenged us to answer some very tough
questions about achieving the Objective Force-desired capabilities. As
General Shinseki has stated at a recent Association of the United
States Army meeting, ``We are asking the science and technology
community and industry to deliver capabilities that will help break the
Cold War mindset we all carry with us.'' He made specific challenges in
that same speech:
I would like to know whether we can design (combat)
systems that can't be hit.
I want range overmatch: I want to see farther than the
other guy and engage well outside his lethal envelope.
I want early, discrete targeting.
I want to pull the trigger first every time and kill a
target each and every time I pull the trigger, and I want to do
it at smaller calibers.
To meet these challenges, the Army's S&T community has focused and
sharpened its efforts. The Army has also partnered with the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to demonstrate an entirely
new land combat capability called the Future Combat Systems (FCS). FCS
is not ``a platform.'' It is a system of battlefield capabilities in
which the whole exceeds the sum of its parts.
FCS represents a true paradigm shift in how we fight--perhaps as
significant as the introduction of the tank or the helicopter. Fielding
FCS will be equivalent to making heavy forces lighter and lighter
forces more lethal, in addition to reducing logistics demands. Some of
the key challenges include:
Survivability: Survivability is the primary technology
challenge because our combat systems must weigh less than 20
tons to be rapidly deployable. This forces us to find new ways
to protect our soldiers. To survive a first round engagement
with 21st century threats, individual FCS platforms will
require advances in Command, Control, Communications,
Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
(C\4\ISR) and platform protection systems. Overall force
survivability will require unprecedented battlespace
situational understanding, stand-off threat detection, and
neutralization capability. Options under development include
advanced communications and sensor systems that will increase
situational awareness and allow us to ``see first'' and farther
than the enemy; active protection systems which are designed to
degrade, deflect or defeat incoming threats before they can hit
our vehicles; signature reduction techniques that will make us
harder to see and therefore harder to hit; and lightweight
armor that weighs \1/4\, of the current armor, but provides the
same protection.
Lethality: Although our systems will be lighter
weight, they must maintain the lethality overmatch of current
systems while supporting the shortened timelines associated
with future threat environments. Required capabilities include
lethal and non-lethal, line-of-sight and non-line-of-sight,
gun, missile and directed energy weapons that will provide for
the destruction or incapacitation of multiple targets. Options
under development include the precision and loiter attack
missile systems that will allow us to conduct precision
engagements against the enemy at much greater ranges than he
can; lightweight, lower caliber guns and ammunition capable of
precision direct and indirect fire at long ranges, potentially
enabling us to combine capabilities of the traditional tank and
artillery piece into one system; extremely lethal compact
kinetic energy missiles that ensure overmatch against advanced
protection systems, and directed energy systems like lasers and
high-power microwaves for lethal and non-lethal applications.
C\4\ISR: Network centric operation is the linchpin for
FCS and the Objective Force, providing the foundation for
comprehensive situational awareness and the capability for
instantaneous prioritization, distribution and engagement of
multiple threats. On-the-move, distributed command and control,
multi-function sensors and sensor fusion algorithms, and
development of a seamless Tactical Internet among leaders,
soldiers, platforms, and sensors are critical to achieving
these goals. Options under development include digital, secure
on-the-move communications for collaborative planning and
execution, positive command and control, and shared situational
awareness; enhanced radar and sensor systems for longer range
detection, accurate identification and precise localization;
information assurance to counter information attack and avoid
deception, denial and disruption; and aided target recognition
to reduce reliance on the human-in-the-loop and increase
likelihood of engagement against high-value targets.
Power Generation & Management/Electric Propulsion: The
Objective Force will require efficient power generation and
management systems to remain lightweight, but still function at
a fraction of the logistics burden of the current force.
Fortunately, the Army can leverage commercial investments, and
is engaging with industry to achieve mutual development
benefit. Options under development include hybrid electric
drive for high acceleration, silent operation, design
flexibility and increased fuel efficiency; fuel cells for
efficiency, quiet operation, reduced environmental impact and
potential water generation; advanced diesel engines scaled for
FCS-class vehicles with higher power density and greater fuel
efficiency; low power demand electronics to increase energy
efficiency; and efficient power management designs.
Human Engineering: Future soldiers will face increased
challenges because of the variety of missions and complexity of
tasks that they must accomplish. We must minimize this
complexity and ensure our soldiers are trained and ready to
function on the battlefields of the future. Options under
development include human/machine interface designs that
decrease task complexity and execution times, improve
performance levels, and minimize physical, cognitive, and
sensory demands; associate systems to complement human
operators, offload routine tasks and enhance high priority task
performance; and embedded/deployable training and mission
rehearsal environments to maximize warfighter readiness for the
full spectrum of operations in rapid deployments.
UNMANNED SYSTEMS
The Army supports the Congress' desire for fielding substantial
unmanned capability among future operational ground combat vehicles and
is aggressively addressing the technology, costs, risks and operational
issues. To achieve that end, the Army has implemented a bold robotics
technology investment strategy to provide the critical options needed
to create opportunities for insertion of unmanned capabilities into the
Objective Force. The Army has structured the FCS program with phased
upgrades to support the introduction of progressively more robust
unmanned ground combat capabilities.
As part of its on-going partnership with DARPA, the Army is
sponsoring the development of FCS concepts that involve significant
unmanned capabilities. The Army strategy is to initiate the
incorporation of substantial unmanned capabilities through the FCS
program. The synergistic integration of manned and unmanned systems
envisioned for the Objective Force will expand the envelope of
capabilities at the leader's command and reduce the threat to our
soldiers, taking them out of harms' way. The Army vision for the FCS
and the Objective Force incorporates unmanned systems as a key element
for both ground and air operations. The Army is currently developing
the fundamental technology to enable these systems, both on its own and
in collaboration with the DARPA.
The collaborative Army/DARPA FCS program will define and validate
FCS design and operational concepts, including the role of unmanned
ground vehicles (UGVs) and unmanned air vehicles (UAVs). Potential
unmanned functions include:
Remote sensing (UGV scouts, UAVs)
Communications relay (UAVs)
Unmanned weapons carriers for line-of-sight and non-
line-of-sight fires (UAVs and UGVs), and
Unmanned logistic support vehicles (follower UGVs).
As part of the Army/DARPA program, DARPA is pursuing advanced
technology for UGVs to increase mobility and support enhanced
perception capabilities. While promising, these technologies may not be
sufficiently mature to be inserted for the initial fielding of FCS. The
Army is, therefore, pursuing a complementary lower risk UGV approach
for FCS. Building on past successes, the Army is pursuing a dual-track
approach for development of UGV technology, consisting of a Robotic
Follower Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) and a Semi-Autonomous
Robotics for FCS Science and Technology Objective (STO).
The Robotic Follower ATD will develop and demonstrate near-term
technology that permits unmanned systems to follow a path ``proofed''
by a manned vehicle. The unmanned system may follow by as much as a
minutes, hours or a day later. The potential for new obstacles, such as
other vehicles, civilian traffic, or battle damage will still require
substantial development of perceptual capabilities. Follower technology
will enable the use of unmanned vehicles for logistics missions, as
non-line of sight weapons carriers, and to provide rear security for
troop formations, among other capabilities.
The Semi-Autonomous Robotics for FCS program focuses on the
development of more capable mid-term technology systems that are able
to maneuver without substantial human intervention. The development of
perceptual capabilities will permit unmanned vehicles to ``understand''
the environment, not only in terms of trafficability, but also
tactically. The creation of the algorithms required for unmanned
systems to employ tactical behaviors, analogous to the tactical
judgment employed by soldiers, are a key part of this STO. The
substantial, though still somewhat fragile, autonomous mobility
capabilities recently demonstrated during troop-led experiments in
relatively rugged terrain at Fort Knox, KY, underscore both the
attainability and promise of the technology.
Additional Army technology investments that have direct relevance
for FCS and the Objective Force are being made with DARPA. They include
the Organic Air Vehicle (OAV) and a UAV rotorcraft with a large
payload, long endurance and a vertical take off and landing capability
(the A-160 Hummingbird), advanced command, control and communication
technologies, and novel sensor systems. These technologies hold the
potential to permit the FCS, and its associated dismounted forces, to
operate in complex terrain by exploiting organic, non-line-of-sight
fire capabilities through remote sensing and communications relays.
OTHER S&T PRIORITIES
Beyond the FCS, our S&T program must continue to support the full
range of capabilities required for the remainder of the Objective
Force. Some key areas of investment include:
Objective Force Warrior: Integrated soldier system of
systems to provide leap-ahead capabilities for the dismounted
soldier with dramatic weight and power reduction. The system of
systems will provide seamless connectivity with other
personnel, weapon systems, FCS, and robotic air/ground
platforms to achieve overmatch for the full spectrum of future
operations.
Medical Technology: Individual health monitoring, new
medical and dental preventive and treatment modalities,
including, vaccines and drugs against malaria, hemorrhagic
fever, and scrub thyphus, will significantly reduce Disease and
Non Battle Injury (DNBI) casualties and increase return to
duty, thereby reducing the medical footprint and the attendant
logistical requirements. Innovative products for far-forward
stabilization and resuscitation, hemorrhage control, and
minimizing neural injury will push advance care forward to the
point of injury, decrease the mortality rate, reduce return-to-
duty delay rate, and make extended evacuation times possible.
Advanced Simulation: Modeling and simulation
technology, such as an innovative partnership with the
entertainment and game industries through the University of
Southern California (the Institute for Creative Technologies or
ICT) to accelerate the development of compelling immersive
environments for training, mission rehearsal, and concept
development. Another project, the Joint Virtual Battlespace
(JVB) program, is an enabling technology for evaluating how FCS
contributes to the total capability of the Objective Force, and
how the Objective Force plays in a joint force. JVB, combined
with virtual prototyping, also could provide an effective means
for performing Operational Test and Evaluation without the need
for numerous hardware test articles. This could result in
significant time and financial savings in the Army Acquisition
Process.
Rotorcraft Technology: As the DOD lead for Rotorcraft
Science and Technology, the Army is investing in the critical
technologies that could provide heavy (up to 20 Tons) and semi-
heavy (12 Tons), intra-theater lift to the Services, and armed
unmanned platforms for combat reconnaissance. These
technologies also could upgrade the current Army Aviation Fleet
for heavier loads and reduced logistical burden.
Basic Research: Investment in knowledge and
understanding of fundamental phenomena to enable future
technological development; includes support for academic
research through the Single Investigator Program, University
Centers of Excellence, University Affiliated Research Centers
(UARCs, such as ICT), and the Collaborative Technology
Alliances (CTAs, formerly known as Federated Laboratories). A
specific new thrust in this area is the establishment of a
Nanoscience UARC focusing on the application of emerging
nanotechnologies to enhance future warrior survivability.
Micro electro-mechanical System Inertial Measurement
Unit (MEMS IMU): The Army has recently solicited 50 percent-
cost share proposals to develop a low-cost, gun hardened and
high accuracy MEMS IMU for gun-launched guided munitions,
tactical missile and other military applications. The focus is
to produce a MEMS IMU that will be bought by the DOD in bulk,
thereby giving the economy of scale necessary to yield an
inexpensive unit price. The goal is a military tactical-grade
IMU that meets 90 percent of DOD munition and missile needs at
a low-performance unit price, available from two, or more,
commercial contractors.
High Energy Lasers: The Army S&T program continues to
investigate high energy solid state laser technology options
for potential application on the tactical battlefield. In this
effort, we are seeking to identify the most promising solutions
to ensure speed of light engagement and laser weapon lethality
throughout the spectrum of battlefield environments of weather,
dust and obscurants.
CONCLUSION
Since the Army Vision was announced in October 1999, the Army S&T
program has been re-shaped and focused to speed the development of
those critical technologies essential to Transform the Army into the
Objective Force. The Army S&T community has accepted the challenges and
has energized all of its resources to meet them. We are accelerating
the pace of transformation of The Army!
Senator Roberts. Dr. Daniel.
STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD C. DANIEL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE AIR FORCE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING
Dr. Daniel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Santorum. I
very much appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
In 1944, General Hap Arnold said, ``The first essential of
air power is pre-eminence in research.'' That statement was
true in 1944, and it is just as true today in the world that we
find ourselves. By continuing our investment in a broad and
balanced selection of technologies, the Air Force will retain
its dominance of air and space in future conflicts.
Sir, as you mentioned earlier, I am happy to report and
give you an update on our S&T Planning Review that we have
undertaken in response to Section 252 of the National Defense
Authorization Act. We have approached this review
enthusiastically, and we have received outstanding
participation from not only the Air Force S&T community, but
the requirements, planning, logistics, and user communities as
well.
We have over 250 people involved in this review now. About
140 of those are S&T folks, about 60 are from the requirements,
to plans, and logistics communities, and about 50 are from the
user or warfighter communities, all involved in this very large
activity.
As you required us to do, the S&T planning review will
identify the short-term objectives and long-term challenges of
the Air Force S&T Program. The review has been divided into
three distinct phases.
Phase I focused on identifying the objectives and
challenges at the top level. This work has largely been
accomplished in the January through April time frame. We
essentially completed it last week, but I briefed the Air Force
Council which is chaired by the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff,
and these objectives and challenges were subsequently approved
by the Council.
Phase II concentrates on in-depth investigations and
analyses of the work that needs to be accomplished in order to
meet these short-term objectives and long-term challenges.
Phase III will complete the review with an outbrief to the
Secretary of the Air Force, and subsequent communication of the
results to the Secretary of Defense and the Comptroller
General. We also are maintaining contact with the GAO at
periodic times as we go through the review, as well, so we do
not wait until the end of the review and show them the results.
Another activity we have undertaken I would like to speak
on for a few moments are Science and Technology Summits. There
has been a significant increase in the involvement of the
warfighting commands and senior Air Force leadership in S&T
planning, programming, and budgeting. We have established
semiannual S&T summits where the Secretary of the Air Force,
the Air Force Chief of Staff, all of the four star generals in
the Air Force, and other senior leaders in the Air Force review
the S&T portfolio.
The first two reviews resulted in increased emphasis for
research in sensors and information technology to advance our
ability to find and attack targets under trees, and accelerated
materials development for improved laser eye protection
devices, an accelerating of development for the joint battle
space infrasphere, and for completing important beam control
demonstrations for our directed energy program.
I might add that our next S&T summit will occur at the
conclusion of our S&T planning activity. So, again, with the
Secretary, and the Chief, and all the four stars, we will have
a detailed review of those results.
This technological superiority is increasingly a perishable
commodity. We work hard to stretch our S&T funding by not only
inventing the future, if you will, but also by speeding the
introduction of new technologies to our warfighters. One way we
are doing this is through applied technology councils and
advanced technology demonstrations.
The councils, the applied technology councils, are composed
of two and three star, senior level representatives from the
Air Force Research Laboratory, our acquisition product centers,
and our major user commands. Their focus is on assessing the
quality, utility, and time phasing of our advanced technology
demonstrators.
These councils are ensuring that up-front documented
planning by all the stakeholders take place to improve the
transition timeliness of demonstrated technologies from the
laboratory to the customer. This new process ensures that the
Air Force Research Lab pursues those ATDs with the highest user
support and transition funding. We hold an Applied Technology
Council meeting with each Combat Command every year and, thus
far, have commissioned 22 Advanced Technology Demonstrators
that have transition funding identified as a result of this
process.
The quality of our program is assessed by the Air Force
Scientific Advisory Board through yearly reviews. Twelve
technical areas were recently identified as world class
research during the last cycle of these reviews; let me
highlight just a few of these if I could.
The Air Force has been the world leader in developing
atmospheric compensation technologies that allow high energy
laser beams to propagate through the atmosphere. We do this by
first detecting the distortion the atmosphere causes to the
laser beam, and then instantaneously adjusting away from the
laser so that the beam reaches a target in a near perfect
condition. I brought along some photographs of satellite
imagery with and without atmospheric compensation that were
taken from our research site at Kirkland Air Force Base, New
Mexico, and they are on display here. [Indicating]
Our Space Weather Research at Hanscom Air Force Base,
Massachusetts is another world class operation. Recently, Air
Force scientists developed the first real time model of global
electron density profiles, providing critical input for
communications and global positioning systems. This model
supplies information crucial to the design, operation, and
simulation of a wide variety of communications, navigation, and
surveillance systems.
On display is a mass model of the Compact Environment
Anomaly Sensor, or CEAS. It was launched in the year 2000 and
has mapped areas in space that are hazardous to onboard
electronics.
Working closely with operational users, the AFRL
researchers at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio continue
to develop and transition new filter technologies that provide
improved eye protection for aircrews from various levels of
laser threats. The Laser Eye Protection Program is enabling
aircrews to conduct day and night air operations without visual
jamming or personal injury.
You can see some of the products of this research in the
form of the eye-glasses that are in the two cases here that we
brought along. [Indicating]
In addition, I have also brought along a recent version of
our Panoramic Night-Vision goggle. [Indicating] This device
dramatically improves the field-of-view of both in the
horizontal and the vertical to the user, thereby enhancing both
mission utility and most importantly, aircrew safety.
There are many other technology areas that deserve special
mention, but let me just highlight a few, if I could.
Senator Roberts. Keep going.
Dr. Daniel. Yes, sir. Let me highlight just a few examples.
One of these is our unmanned combat air vehicle, or UCAV, which
is an area that is generating increased excitement.
Our current joint major development demonstration program
with DARPA--this is a jointly funded program that is actually
managed by DARPA with an Air Force colonel as a program
manager--is now in its fourth year. Flight vehicle checkout and
ground testing of the first demonstrator designated the X-45A
is underway, with a projected first flight in September of this
year. We also recently completed fabrication of the second X-
45A.
I brought along a very small--it is nearly a 1/50th scale
model maybe to help put this in perspective. The UCAV when you
see the actual vehicle, it has a wing span that is about the
same as an F-16 fighter. It is actually a sizeable vehicle.
Our S&T Program is also providing the technology base for
micro satellites. It may offer new options in space
applications such as satellite servicing, or launch on demand.
Clusters, or formations of micro satellites cooperating to
perform the job of current large satellites may ultimately
allow space missions to be performed more cheaply and
effectively with higher survivability and flexibility.
I brought along a 1/20th scale model of TechSat 21.
[Indicating] This is a microsatellite that we will launch in a
three-satellite formation in the year 2004. Hypersonics is yet
another area of high interest to Air Force S&T. Our HyTech
program achieved major successes in fiscal year 2001 with the
ground test demonstration of a conventional jet-fueled
scramjet, so-called hydrocarbon fueled scramjet, producing
predicted levels of thrust over the Mach 4.5 to Mach 6.5 range.
This research which you may have seen was recently featured on
the cover of Aviation Week.
In addition, the Air Force is leading a DOD-directed
activity to formulate a National Hypersonics S&T Plan which Dr.
Etter also mentions in her written testimony.
I brought along a 1/3rd scale model of our HyTech ground
engine demonstrator. It is the white engine that you can see
just--perhaps can see just behind the X45. [Indicating]
In conclusion, let me say that the Air Force is fully
committed to providing this Nation the advanced aerospace
technologies required to meet America's national security
interests around the world, and to ensure that we remain on the
cutting edge of flexibility, performance, and affordability.
The technological advantage that we enjoy today is a legacy
of decades of investment in S&T. Likewise, our future
warfighting capabilities will be substantially determined by
today's investment in S&T. I am confident that we can lead the
discovery, development, and timely transition of affordable,
integrated technologies to keep our Air Force the best in the
world.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to appear
before you today, and thank you especially for your continuing
support of Air Force Science and Technology.
Senator Roberts. All right.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Daniel follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. Donald C. Daniel
Mr. Chairman, Members of the subcommittee, and Staff, the United
States Air Force is committed to a robust Science and Technology (S&T)
Program that enables us to achieve our vision of an integrated air and
space force capable of rapid and decisive global engagement. In 1944,
General Hap Arnold, the ``founding father'' of the United States Air
Force, stated, ``The first essential of air power is pre-eminence in
research.'' This was true in 1944 and it is still true today. By
continuing our investment in a broad and balanced selection of
technologies, the Air Force will retain its dominance of air and space
in future conflicts.
Innovation is vital part of our aviation heritage and it is the key
to ensuring the Air Force will meet the challenges of tomorrow. We must
be prepared to counter the worldwide availability of advanced weapons,
wide-ranging activities, increasing regional instabilities, and other
emerging and less predictable threats. We are developing ``leap ahead''
technologies that permit flexible forces capable of operating far from
home on short notice. We must also be able to afford these innovations
once we develop them in order to transform the Air Force to fulfill our
vision. To meet these challenges, we search out the most promising and
affordable technologies in order to win decisively, protect our forces,
and minimize collateral damage.
THE AIR FORCE S&T PROGRAM
The current Air Force S&T Program uses guidance from the National
Military Strategy, Defense internal planning documents, Joint Staff
guidance, and the Air Force Strategic Plan to focus our S&T investment.
The resulting Air Force S&T Plan establishes a program that is balanced
across our investments in Basic Research, Applied Research, and
Advanced Technology Development, as well as across a diverse number of
technology areas and the basic sciences. We balance our investment in
long-range research yielding potential breakthrough technology with
efforts to meet the more near-term needs of the operational warfighting
commanders.
To ensure program relevance, we involve system developers and
warfighters to focus our efforts on the warfighters' most urgent needs.
Finally, to ensure the technical quality of the program, the Air Force
Scientific Advisory Board, the Department of Defense Reliance
Technology Area Review and Assessment teams, the Defense Science Board,
and other peer groups regularly review, evaluate, and critique our S&T
programs. We feel that the result is an S&T program of validated high
quality and relevance.
S&T PLANNING PROCESS
In regards to our planning, I am pleased to be able to give you an
update on our S&T planning review that we have undertaken in response
to Section 252 of Public Law 106-398, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. We have approached this review
enthusiastically and have received overwhelming participation from, not
only the Air Force S&T community, but the requirements, planning,
logistics, and user communities as well. Currently, we have over 250
people involved in this review: approximately 140 from the S&T
community; 60 from the requirements, plans, and logistics communities;
and 50 from the user community.
As you required us to do, the S&T planning review will identify the
short-term objectives and long-term challenges of the Air Force S&T
Program. The review includes an assessment of the budgetary resources
that are being used to address the short-term objectives and long-term
challenges; the budgetary resources that are necessary to adequately
address those objectives and challenges; and a course of action for
each projected or ongoing Air Force S&T program that does not address
either the short-term objective or the long-term challenge.
The review has been divided into three distinct phases of activity.
Phase I focused on identifying the objectives and challenges. This work
was largely accomplished in the January through April timeframe and was
completed last week when the Air Force Council approved the objectives
and challenges. Phase II concentrates on in-depth investigations and
analyses of the work that needs to be accomplished in order to meet the
short-term objectives and long-term challenges. Integrated Product
Teams and workshops have been formed to examine each short-term
objective and long-term challenge, respectively. These results will
also be briefed to the Air Force Corporate Structure and at the next
Air Force S&T Summit in September. Phase III completes the review with
an outbrief to the Secretary of the Air Force to enable the results to
be communicated to the Secretary of Defense and the Comptroller
General.
The Short-term Objectives that have been approved by Air Force
leadership are: Target Location, Identification, and Tracking; Command,
Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence; Precision Attack;
Space Control; Access to Space; Aircraft Survivability and
Countermeasures; Sustaining Aging Systems; and Air Expeditionary Force
Support. The Long-term Challenges receiving similar approval are:
Finding and Tracking; Command and Control; Controlled Effects;
Sanctuary; Rapid Aerospace Response; and Effective Aerospace
Persistence.
I am convinced that this effort will provide both a short-term, as
well as a long-term focus to our S&T Program. The all-encompassing
nature of the review has produced a set of objectives and challenges
that reflect the enduring missions and capabilities that the Air Force
provides to the Joint Force Commander. Further, they also draw from a
broad range of technologies for their potential solution.
Also, contributing to my enthusiasm for the review is the fact that
it is closely coupled to other key Air Force documents. For example,
the short-term objectives and long-term challenges are closely linked
to the Air Force Core Competencies and operational mission areas.
Indeed the short-term objectives and long-term challenges related to
Command and Control are directly linked to all six of the Air Force
Core Competencies. Mastering the Core Competencies makes possible the
achievement of Global Vigilance, Reach, and Power, the key elements of
the Air Force Vision 2020. Thus the clear connectivity of the S&T
objectives and challenges to the Air Force Core Competencies ensure
that the Air Force S&T program is directly supporting the Air Force
Vision. Results of this review will be used to update the Air Force S&T
Plan, and they will also be an important input to the next update of
the Air Force Strategic Plan.
Today, the execution of our S&T effort is the responsibility of the
Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). Their mission it is to lead the
discovery, development, and integration of affordable warfighting
technologies for our aerospace forces. We are proud of AFRL, its
people, programs, and facilities. It conducts a vigorous S&T Program in
the following areas: basic research; propulsion; sensors; space
vehicles; materials and manufacturing; human effectiveness;
information; directed energy; air vehicles; and munitions. The S&T
planning review effort that you have directed us to undertake will
strengthen this Program as we move forward into what promises to be an
exciting and challenging period for our Nation.
S&T BUDGET
The single most important factor to strengthening the Air Force S&T
Program is an overall increase in the Air Force topline funding. We
have been faced with the reality of a fiscally-constrained, but
operationally-demanding environment. The high operations tempo the Air
Force has sustained in support of peacekeeping operations and
conflicts, such as Kosovo, has placed a great burden on our people and
resources and strained our ability to maintain current readiness and
make necessary future investments such as S&T.
In spite of these tight budgets, the Air Force is working hard to
increase S&T funding and maintain a balanced S&T portfolio. In
conjunction with this, there has been a significant increase in the
involvement of the warfighting commands and senior Air Force leadership
in S&T budgeting decisions. We have established twice yearly S&T
Summits where the Secretary of the Air Force, the Air Force Chief of
Staff, and the Air Force four-stars review the S&T portfolio and new
initiatives. The first two reviews resulted in increased emphasis for
research on sensors and information technology to advance our ability
to find and attack Targets-Under-Trees; for accelerated materials
development for improved Laser Eye Protection devices; for accelerating
development of the Joint Battlespace Infosphere; and for completing
important beam control demonstrations for our Directed Energy program.
MAXIMIZING OUR S&T DOLLARS
We will continue to leverage technology to achieve new levels of
combat effectiveness. Our strategy is to pursue integrated technology
solutions that support our warfighter's highest priority needs. We must
also pursue the fundamental enabling technologies that will improve
tomorrow's Air Force. As technological superiority is increasingly a
perishable commodity, we work hard to stretch our S&T funding, by not
only ``inventing the future'' ourselves, but also by speeding the
introduction of new technologies to our warfighters.
One way we are doing this is through our Applied Technology
Councils and the Advanced Technology Demonstrations (ATDs). The
councils are composed of two- and three-star, senior-level
representatives of the AFRL, our acquisition product centers, and our
major user commands. Their focus is on assessing the quality, utility,
and time-phasing of our ATDs. These councils are ensuring that up-
front, documented planning by all stakeholders takes place to improve
the probability that a demonstrated technology will transition out of
the laboratory to the customer. This new process will ensure AFRL
pursues those ATDs with the highest user support and transition
funding. We hold an Applied Technology Council meeting with each Combat
Command every year, and have commissioned 22 ATDs that have transition
funding in the fiscal year 2002 budget, and 30 potential ATDs that we
are still working to fund in outyear budgets. The Applied Technology
Council process has significantly contributed to focusing the S&T
Program on warfighter needs by bringing direct operational input into
development of a responsive and relevant demonstration program.
Since deployed technology may remain in use for decades, the Air
Force S&T Program not only focuses on enhancing performance, but we
have also increased our emphasis on the reliability, maintainability,
and affordability of weapon systems. Emphasizing affordability from the
very beginning through training of our management and engineering
staff, as well as through careful review of technology transition pilot
projects, increase our potential to reduce the costs of technology
early in the process and throughout a product's life cycle.
We are very selective about investing in the appropriate
technological opportunities. We constantly seek opportunities to
integrate planning by the Air Force and leverage our S&T funds by
cooperating with other Services, Agencies, the private sector, and
international partners. For example, we rely on the Army as the lead
Service for chemical-biological technology research. The Air Force also
has strong inter-Agency efforts such as our program in aging aircraft,
which is focused on detection and amelioration of corrosion and fatigue
in aging structures. It is closely coordinated with the civilian aging-
aircraft research programs at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and Federal Aviation Administration. Finally, the Air
Force is closely involved in international technology cooperative
efforts for S&T such as the cooperative technology development programs
with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom in tactical missile
propellants, insensitive high explosives, and aircraft battle damage
repair. Another example of international cooperation is the bi-lateral
work we are doing with the United Kingdom on developing a novel new
target detection device, fuze, and warhead integration concept.
International cooperative efforts help us increase the number of
sources for innovative ideas and transition new capabilities to the
warfighter. A key example is our extensive involvement with the NATO
Research and Technology Organization, which oversees all of the
cooperative military research the nineteen NATO members and the
Partnership for Peace nations wish to share with each other. I sit on
governing board of this group along with Dr. Etter, who is the senior
U.S. representative, and Mr. Dan Mulville from NASA. At the next level
are seven major technical panels each of which include three U.S.
senior scientists and engineers. Finally, we have close to a hundred of
our folks participating at the technical team level. This cooperation
in the early stages of technology development also helps to ensure any
ensuing technology product will be interoperable with the equipment of
potential allies in coalition operations.
WORLD CLASS RESEARCH
The quality of our program is assessed by the Air Force Scientific
Advisory Board (SAB) through yearly reviews. The SAB conducts an in-
depth review of half of the S&T Program each year, covering the entire
program over a 2-year period. Twelve technical areas have been
identified as world class research during the last cycle of reviews--
let me highlight a few of these areas that were identified as world
class.
The Air Force has been the world leader in developing atmospheric
compensation technologies to allow high power laser beams to propagate
through the atmosphere. It does this by detecting the distortion the
atmosphere causes to the laser beam and then instantaneously adjusting
the wavefront of the laser beam so that when the beam reaches a target
it is close to perfect. This is an enabling technology for the Airborne
Laser program, as well as future ground-based lasers. Since the
technology applies to any laser beam, it also enables ground-based
space imaging systems to have resolution comparable to that of space
systems. In fact this technology is now the baseline for large
astronomical telescope systems. Some photographs of satellite imagery
with and without atmospheric compensation that were taken from our
research site at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, are on display
here.
Another SAB-rated world class research area is our Information
Directorate Ground Moving Target Indicator and Sensor Fusion Laboratory
at Rome, New York. This unique laboratory develops, evaluates, and
transitions advanced trackers, information exploitation tools,
dissemination technology, multi-intelligence fusion exploitation, and
advanced fusion architectures. An example of one of the lab's
successful technology transitions is the Moving Target Information
Exploitation system, an all-source, web-enabled information
architecture. The Moving Target Information Exploitation system
processes, catalogs, exploits, and disseminates information to web-
based users utilizing real-time tools allowing relatively low-cost
distribution of tailored Moving Target Information data. It has been
demonstrated during several large-scale experiments, and has also been
transitioned to two Initial Operational Capability locations at Warner
Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, and Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.
Our research in Automatic Target Recognition at Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio will allow future weapon systems to automatically
identify and target specific ground targets. We are actively working to
transition this technology via an Advanced Technology Demonstration,
entitled Air-to-Ground Radar Imaging, and we are developing
technologies with payoffs well beyond automatic target recognition, in
areas ranging from combat search and rescue to drug interdiction
operations.
The Space Weather research at Hanscom Air Force Base,
Massachusetts, is another world class operation. Here, we have a robust
modeling capability including empirical and theoretical models that
specify and forecast space weather from the Sun to the ionosphere.
Recently, Air Force scientists developed the first real-time model of
global electron density profiles, providing critical input for
communications and global positioning systems. This model supplies
information crucial to the design, operation, and simulation of a wide
variety of communications, navigation, and surveillance systems.
Environmental effects forecasted by this model range from intermittent
outages caused by ionospheric scintillation to satellite system
failures caused by intense fluxes of magnetospheric particles. The
researchers at Hanscom also have developed hardware to protect our
valuable space assets. This is a mass model of the Compact
Environmental Anomaly Sensor that was first launched in 2000 and has
mapped areas in space that are hazardous to onboard electronics.
Working closely with operational users, AFRL researchers at Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio continue to develop and transition new
filter technologies that provide improved eye protection for aircrews
from varied levels of laser threats. The Laser Eye Protection program
is enabling aircrews to conduct day and night air operations without
visual jamming or personal injury. You can see some of the products of
this research in the form of eye-glasses here. In addition, I have
brought along a recent version of a Panoramic Night-Vision Goggle that
dramatically improves the field-of-view of the user thereby enhancing
their mission utility and safety of use.
NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS
The Air Force through its Basic Research Program sponsors a broad
spectrum of topics at many universities throughout the United States.
Approximately 60 percent of the $200+ million Air Force Basic Research
program is allocated to universities through our grant process. These
university investments have been highly successful for the Air Force
and the entire United States. The Air Force Office of Scientific
Research sponsors the work of exceptional people who provide basic
research---the fundamental core component of Air Force Science and
Technology. An indication of the Air Force's ability to select truly
world class researchers is that we identified and sponsored the
research of 38 Nobel Prize winners years before they won, including the
work of four Nobel Laureates in 2000: Professor Alan J. Heeger of the
University of California, Santa Barbara, who won a Nobel Prize in
Chemistry; Professor Herbert Kroemer of the University of California,
Santa Barbara, who won a Nobel Prize in Physics; Professor Paul
Greengard of the Rockefeller University who won a Nobel Prize in
Medicine; and Dr. Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments who also won a Nobel
Prize in Physics.
EXPEDITIONARY AEROSPACE FORCE
The operations in Kosovo have served as a proving ground for many
of the technologies developed by the Air Force S&T Program, especially
in the area of information operations. We validated the reach-back
concept, pulling forward information from continental United States-
based support elements to enhance the effectiveness of our deployed
fighting forces, while reducing the footprint of our combat support
forces. The Air Force tested high-tech products such as Broadsword
Secure Intelligence Gateway which allows intelligence analysts to
access any U.S. intelligence database and the capability to make a
single picture from multiple Predator images. And, for the first time,
we tied key mission processes to web-based networks, making critical
information instantly available to in-theater forces.
The Air Force is applying lessons learned in Kosovo to its EAF
planning. We're developing and incorporating new technologies and
concepts to ensure our warfighters get the right information, at the
right time. To do that, ``network-centric'' information infrastructures
will use ``smart push'' to make assured information available to the
warfighters, while providing ensured and easy access, or ``pull,'' of
timely assured information in a user-friendly format. Our theater
deployable communications systems will provide our aerospace
expeditionary wings with secure and nonsecure voice, data, imagery, e-
mail, and messaging--doubling the current capability of our aerospace
expeditionary wings, while getting to the fight with only one-half the
current airlift requirement for the same mission.
Using the latest advances in information technology developed by
the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), we have demonstrated several
advanced planning and execution tools in our Joint Expeditionary Force
Experiment. The Joint Assistant for Deployment and Execution allowed us
to generate time-phased force deployment plans and tasking orders to
send any combination of forces anywhere in the world, and have them
arrive in the right place at the right time, and in the right sequence.
This tool will allow the Air Force to complete in 1 hour a process that
normally takes 2 weeks. Using a unique adaptation of the Global Air
Traffic Management system, we were able to use both military and
civilian air-traffic communication systems to provide continuous
contact with our airlifters. Still another tool we demonstrated was the
Worldwide Aeronautical Route Planner. Using multiple parameters, such
as flight performance models, global weather patterns, country avoids,
current navigational aids, and airway restrictions, this tool plots the
most fuel and time efficient route possible in seconds versus hours.
Training is another integral part of implementing our EAF vision.
The technology for Distributed Mission Training is an area that holds
great promise. Using state-of-the-art simulation technology,
Distributed Mission Training permits geographically-separated aircrews
to jointly train in a synthetic battlespace, connected electronically
from their distant air bases. Importantly, Distributed Mission Training
delivers this enhanced training from the home station, which helps the
Air Force limit the amount of time airmen spend deployed and
facilitates the training of Air Expeditionary Forces as they prepare
for deployment.
THE LEADING EDGE
There are many other Air Force technology areas that deserve
special mention, but I will limit my testimony by describing just a few
examples. Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAV) is an area that is seeing
increasing support. The current joint major technology demonstration
program with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has entered
its fourth year. Flight vehicle checkout and ground testing of the
first demonstrator designated the X-45A is underway, with projected
first flight in September of this year. The second demonstrator
fabrication is complete and it was recently airlifted to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Dryden Flight Research Center from
Boeing, St. Louis, Missouri. Over 25 of the 90 demonstrations scheduled
for Phase II have been accomplished. We expect completion of Phase II
by the fall of 2003.
The joint DARPA/Air Force UCAV program may well serve as a model
for technology transition through detailed technology identification
and maturation. Phase I of the program involved operational comparative
analysis studies to assess the benefits of a UCAV system and identify
the technologies, processes, and system attributes necessary for such a
system to achieve those benefits. This initial phase was completed in
fiscal year 1999. Phase II is the maturation and demonstration of these
technologies, processes, and system attributes through the fabrication
and demonstration of the two demonstrator vehicles and their support
systems. This second phase will provide initial risk reduction
activities and multi-vehicle simulation and flight demonstrations.
Phase II will conclude with end-to-end demonstrations, validating the
technical feasibility of a UCAV performing a Suppression of Enemy Air
Defenses (SEAD) mission. A 1/48 scale model of the UCAV is on display.
To increase aircraft survivability and operational efficiencies,
the Air Force is developing both manned (F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter)
and unmanned (UCAV) flight vehicles that can carry and employ weapons
from both external and internal weapons bays. To increase the number of
weapons the flight vehicle can fit into their internal weapons bays,
part of our investment strategy focuses S&T funding on developing and
demonstrating smaller precision weapons.
One of the small munitions currently being flight demonstrated is
the Small Smart Bomb. The program is divided into three phases. Phase I
of the program, completed in 1997, demonstrated a six foot long, six-
inch diameter, 250-pound, adverse weather, low-cost, guided weapon
capable of penetrating six feet of reinforced concrete. The small
guided bomb reduces the logistic footprint over existing bombs and
increases multiple kills per sortie. The model shown here, Small Smart
Bomb with Range Extension, builds on the success of the first phase.
The Phase I Small Smart Bomb was outfitted with a fold-out wing and
control tail surface kit, that expands the footprint of the munition to
a 35 nautical mile downrange by 20 nautical mile off-boresight range
while maintaining its six foot reinforced concrete penetration
capability. The expanded footprint will simplify mission planning by
allowing a single release point for multiple munitions. Phase III of
the program will build upon the success of the Phase II by integrating
a low-cost, laser radar seeker with automated target recognition
algorithms to the small smart bomb. This program has an accuracy goal
of 1.5 meters. The increase in munitions accuracy and the decreased
volume of explosive will reduce the collateral damage that can occur
with larger munitions..
Advances in technologies for power, electronics, micro-electro-
mechanical systems, structures, and payloads are also enabling
significant reductions in the size, weight, and cost of satellites. Our
S&T Program will provide the technology base for 10-100 kilogram
microsatellites that will offer new options in many areas of space
applications. Applications previously considered not cost-effective due
to size and weight limitations, such as satellite servicing or launch
on demand, become possible. Clusters of formations of microsatellites
cooperating to perform the job of current large satellites may
ultimately allow space missions to be performed more cheaply and
effectively, with higher survivability and flexibility. Here is a model
of TechSat 21, a three satellite formation scheduled for launch in
2004. Here is a thin film photovoltaic array and the current technology
it replaces. This array will be incorporated into the TechSat 21.
To further the miniaturization of space platforms, DARPA and the
Air Force have funded ten universities to explore the military utility
of innovative, low-cost nanosatellites. These nanosatellites, weighing
two to ten kilograms, will perform such experiments as formation flying
algorithms, differential Global Positioning System navigation,
miniaturized sensors, and micropropulsion.
On July 19, 2000, the Air Force launched MightySat II.1 into orbit.
At 266 pounds, MightySat II.1 is one of the most sophisticated
satellites of its size ever launched. At a total S&T investment of
about $40 million, this small satellite provides researchers with a
``lab bench'' to test emerging high-payoff technologies for space.
MightySat II.1's primary payload is a Fourier Transform Hyperspectral
Imager, currently the only Department of Defense (DOD) demonstrator for
hyperspectral surveillance technology in orbit. Over one hundred images
have been taken to date. This summer, we will launch the Warfighter-1
hyperspectral sensor on board OrbView-4, OrbImage's commercial remote
sensing satellite. Warfighter-1 will allow us to continue our
assessment of the utility of hyperspectral technology to perform
military missions, such as detecting difficult military targets and
categorizing types of terrain.
The Air Force is also conducting the Experimental Satellite System
series to demonstrate increasing levels of microsatellite technology
maturity. XSS-10, the first in the series, is scheduled to launch in
March 2002. It will demonstrate semi-autonomous operations and visual
inspection in close proximity of an object in space--in this case a
Delta II upper stage. In fiscal year 2004, we will launch XSS-11, which
will demonstrate autonomous operations and provide experience with
command and control in proximity operations to another space object.
Hypersonics is another area of high interest to Air Force S&T. The
Air Force HyTech program achieved major successes in fiscal year 2001.
The first-ever demonstration of a conventional jet-fueled scramjet
producing predicted levels of positive thrust over the Mach 4.5 to Mach
6.5 flight range was accomplished. The engine was developed by Pratt &
Whitney in collaboration with AFRL engineers, and this research was
recently featured on the 26 March 2001 cover of Aviation Week. In
addition, the Air Force is leading a DOD directed activity to formulate
a National Hypersonics S&T Plan which has been discussed by Dr. Etter.
I've brought along a 1/3 scale model of the HyTech ground engine
demonstrator.
While hypersonics is at the forefront of revolutionary propulsion
technology, we are continuing the development of evolutionary turbine
engines. The Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology
(IHPTET) program is a national effort between DOD, NASA, and industry
to double turbine engine thrust to weight by fiscal year 2003 baselined
on that available in 1987. The Air Force is the DOD lead for this
program. The program is highly leveraged with industry contributing
approximately 50 percent of the cost. IHPTET has ambitious, rigorous
goals with objectives, technical challenges, and approaches identified
to meet these goals. For example, turbine blades using a double wall,
``supercooling'' concept enables the Joint Strike Fighter's required
turbine life; and advanced intermetallic refractory alloys for turbine
blade design enables engine operation at high temperature to double
turbine blade life to 4,000 hours. IHPTET technologies provide
potential excellent return-on-investment with a 20-40 percent fuel
efficiency improvement.
THANKS TO CONGRESS
I want to thank you for the strong congressional support for Air
Force S&T. Our S&T appropriations for the past 2 years have averaged
over $275 million above our requested amount and we greatly appreciate
your interest in this important program. Your support has benefited
several key technologies in the areas of space and sensors.
For example, these additional funds are allowing us to better
protect our Nation's space assets from both natural and man-made
threats. We are furthering our fundamental understanding of ionospheric
processes and improving our ability to forecast space weather
phenomena. Later this year, we will launch an instrument to demonstrate
the ability to detect and locate radio frequency threats to our
satellites. Finally, you are helping us make strides in the important
task of decreasing the cost of spacelift by reducing the cost to
produce lighter weight launch vehicle shrouds, while improving their
structural performance.
Last year, you also supported upgrades to the Integrated
Demonstrations and Applications Laboratory at AFRL. These funds are
being used to acquire and install a multispectral synthetic battlespace
simulation capability that will allow simulations at dramatically
reduced cost. In addition to reducing research costs, this capability
provides an affordable means to evolve the 21st century air and space
sensor technologies required for next generation ``system of systems''
concepts. These concepts will utilize multiple sensors on both airborne
platforms and space assets to successfully accomplish combat missions.
CONCLUSION
The Air Force is in the midst of a technological and organizational
transformation that is radically changing aerospace contributions to
the nature of war. Stealth and precision strike, in particular, have
injected ``leap ahead'' improvements into combat power unlike any we
have known since the introduction of the jet engine. We are making
important strides in command and control, long-range power projection,
and mobility in support of an integrated Expeditionary Aerospace Force.
The Air Force is fully committed to providing this Nation the
advanced aerospace tools and technologies required to meet America's
interests around the world and ensure we remain on the cutting edge of
technology, performance, military flexibility, and affordability. The
technological advantage we enjoy today is a legacy of decades of
investment in S&T. Likewise, our future warfighting capabilities will
be substantially determined by today's investment in S&T. As we face
the new Millennium, our challenge is to advance technologies for an
Expeditionary Aerospace Force as we continue to move aggressively into
the realm of space technologies. I am confident that we can lead the
discovery, development, and timely transition of affordable, integrated
technologies that keep our Air Force the best in the world. As an
integral part of the Department of Defense's S&T team, we look forward
to working with Congress to ensure a strong Air Force S&T Program
tailored to achieve our vision of an integrated air and space force.
Senator Roberts. Admiral, we are going to recognize you. I
am not too sure if we can get all of those demonstration
projects, but can we--okay, we are getting ready here, I can
see.
What is it down there that you think that Senator Santorum
and I and appropriate staff ought to take a close look at?
Dr. Daniel. Sir, if you have not seen--I assume you are
talking to me?
Senator Roberts. Yes.
Dr. Daniel. Sir, if you have not seen the X45, it is to me
a very fascinating vehicle, although this is a very small scale
model.
Senator Roberts. Bring up the X45.
Dr. Daniel. Again, that is about a 1/50th scale, and the
actual vehicle is about the size of an F-16. This vehicle
features two internal bomb bays; all the carriage of weapons
will be internal. It has about a 3,000 pound internal weapons
carriage capability.
It also has hard points on the wings where we can put fuel
tanks should we choose to extend the range or ferry the
vehicle, although typically the vehicle would be delivered in a
C-17. We stack several of these in crates on a C-17, and that
is part of the program, as well. Again, we are projecting first
flight now for September.
Another one that you may want to take a look at are the
laser eye protection devices. At first glance, these look like
regular eye glasses. They will, in fact, shield aviators and
aircrews from certain wavelengths of lasers. They are not
particularly heavy. They are not particularly cumbersome, but
they are very effective in shielding aircrews from certain
wavelengths of lasers.
Sir, one of the things we want to do with these particular
spectacles is over time, have a very broad range over which
they will shield.
Senator Roberts. My goodness, look at that. [Laughter.]
Dr. Daniel. We really need a picture of this. [Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. All right.
Dr. Daniel. Of course, one of the technology challenges
here is to----
Senator Roberts. Ride on, Dr. Daniel. [Laughter.]
Dr. Daniel. I am going to put that picture on my wall, sir.
[Laughter.]
Sir, one of the challenges is not only to shield the eyes
from what is coming in----
Senator Roberts. You take the picture and I will put you on
the wall, I will tell you that. [Laughter.]
Dr. Daniel. But you still need to be able to see. The human
still needs to be able to see. And, of course, there is that
balance.
I think also if we could just maybe look at one more.
TechSat 21 is a program that--this is the model here.
[Indicating] That is about a 1/20th scale model. These
satellites will go into orbit, actually collapse down into
something that looks like a can. They deploy, and once they are
in orbit into the elongated shape that you see now.
All along the sides of those are the panels that allow us
to collect solar energy that, in fact, creates power for the
satellite. This is quite an advance that we have made in
materials technology. That is very, very thin material that
allows us to do the solar collection and subsequent power
generation.
Again, our plan right now is we will put three of these on
orbit out of the same package. They will all be collapsed down,
one sitting on top of the other. They will go into orbit, and
this will be our first real experiment of formation flying, if
you will, with microsatellites. We are projecting to do that
about the year 2004.
Senator Roberts. All right. Admiral, knock our socks off.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. JAY M. COHEN, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL
RESEARCH; ACCOMPANIED BY BRIG. GEN. BILL CATTO, USMC, VICE
CHIEF OF NAVAL RESEARCH
Admiral Cohen. Good afternoon, sir. I must tell you that I
have heard of the singing Senators, but this is my first
exposure to the Blues Brothers. [Laughter.]
So, it is good to know that you are laser protected.
[Laughter.]
It is a great personal honor for me to be here representing
the Department of the Navy. Mr. Chairman, the Department of the
Navy includes both the Navy and the Marine Corps, and I am
quite honored to have in support here, my Vice Chief of Naval
Research, Brig. Gen. Bill Catto.
As you are aware, I previously submitted a written
statement, so I will make some short comments surrounded here
by the Marines.
I regret that Dr. Etter is not here. I am, unlike my
counterparts on this panel, I am just a fleet sailor. She and
they took me under their wing over the last year and have tried
to mentor me, a very difficult task, in the area of Science and
Technology. But I certainly second your comments on Dr. Etter,
especially her personal dedication to reinvigorating the
Science and Technology workforce.
Mr. Chairman, after I was on the job just a few months, we
had the heinous attack on the U.S.S. Cole in October of last
year. Several days later I received the following email which I
would like to read to you. It is a fairly short email.
It says, ``Dear Sir, My name''--and I will not include the
last name or some details just to protect the individual. ``My
name is John, my nickname is Jake. I am 9 years old, and I live
in North Carolina with my parents and sister. My dad is a First
Sergeant who has been on many ships. When I saw the U.S.S. Cole
on TV, I thought it was really bad. I have an idea that you
could probably try with your ships that you build. You can put
one more layer of steel on the ship, but it has to have air in
between it because if a layer is blown up, there is still one
more layer that can still keep it floating. Less people will
probably die or injured. I came up with this idea when I heard
about the U.S.S. Cole that had a hole in the ship. I hope you
will try this just to see if it works. Sincerely, Jake.''
Well, I must tell you there are a couple of things that
keep me awake at night. One is the fear of technological
surprise, and that has been addressed previously during this
hearing. But the other was this email. This is a little bit
like the letter that was written 100 years ago to the editor of
the Richmond Dispatch asking if there was a Santa Claus. Of
course, you are familiar with the answer, ``Yes, Virginia,
there is a Santa Claus.''
It took me 2 months to answer this email, and the initial
answer of course was, ``Jake, you are absolutely right, but we
do not build double hull ships because of cost and weight
considerations.''
When you think about how cheap steel is and how dear flesh
is, that was not an email that I was going to write back to
this 9-year-old whose father regularly deploys on Navy ships. I
was able to send him back an email 2 months later thanking him
for giving me the insight to see what we could do significantly
to improve force protection.
And, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to
hold up a card here. [Indicating] Perhaps, Tim, if you would
just take it closer to the Chairman. With those laser glasses,
he might have trouble seeing some of this.
Now this is just an artist's conception, Mr. Chairman, but
what you can see there is, number one, a small UAV flying. As I
said, we are a blue/green team in the Department of the Navy,
and we are able to leverage very quickly the work that the
Marines have done on Dragon Eye.
Major, if you will share with the Chairman what Dragon Eye
is, and perhaps General Catto will help me here.
Major. Senator, Dragon Eye is a man portable UAV. It weighs
4\1/2\ pounds. It has a day and night camera. The ground
control station weighs under 10 pounds. It will fly for 10
kilometers, and it is something that will give a marine or a
sailor a real-time tactical reconnaissance to help him see what
is on the other side of the hill or in the fort. [Indicating]
Admiral Cohen. Now, Mr. Chairman, this will, as you can see
just clip apart. It is very rugged. We designed it for a couple
of flights. The other prototypes have gone through several
dozen flights. We do not catch them when they land. They just
go ahead and strike the earth. You can see they have electric
props, and the wings fold.
The way it is launched is a sailor or a marine literally
just throws it like you would a paper airplane, and it is
electric driven. This was conceived, and built, and delivered
by the Naval Research Lab right down here on the Potomac, but
it was in response to the Marines' desire for a private to be
able to look over the next hill without sticking his head up
and getting it shot off.
Fifth Fleet, which is right now under raised security
conditions, asked for us to rapidly construct these and pass
them to them, and with the Marines' help, we are doing that.
They are sacrificing their initial lot to go and help. The view
here is to give the COs of those ships the tactical awareness,
situational awareness so, day or night, they can fly over a
port that they might enter, or a contact of interest to them,
and determine what the threat they think is to them.
Senator Roberts. It is still pretty heavy. Watch out.
[Laughter.]
Admiral Cohen. Four and a half pounds, and we make these
for about $10,000 a copy, and we view them as basically
disposable.
Senator Roberts. Now this is available to the fleet now?
Admiral Cohen. Yes, sir. We are pushing them within the
next month. Fifth Fleet will get between three and five with
Marines to train the sailors who will throw them off the helo-
deck, the stern, before a ship looks to enter port so the CO
can surveil the harbor.
If he should see a wooden dowel with Saddam Hussein's face
painted perhaps on the top of the dowel, giving an
inappropriate symbol, maybe we want to be at an even greater
level of defense. We are going to talk about some of the
options we have.
So, Tim, if you could hold that up again. [Indicating]
The next thing that you see there, it looks like a Venetian
blind hanging off the side. I am pleased that Senator Santorum
was able to rejoin us because thanks to ARL Penn State, we have
something, and we will get this to you. This is called LASCOR.
You will see it is very, very thin. It is something we have
used in Navy ships for some time, especially high up.
Senators, you could stand on that. It is just like
corrugated cardboard. I mean, that is where we got the idea
from. It is very thin steel, used as laser welding. If you fill
that with the appropriate light substance, the Marines have
made shelters for their Harriers and a 155-millimeter shell
will not penetrate it.
Our goal would be to have this as a Venetian blind.
Obviously, we could design the ships from this, but that is
what I call the next step. The now step is to make this
available as a Venetian blind, kick it off the gunnels prior to
entering port, or in the event that you are threatened by swarm
tactics, have it magnetic on the back side so that an explosion
like the Cole kind of explosion, might cause gross deformation,
but would not allow penetration of the ship's skin.
You see a diagram on there, and I might say below the DDG,
you see a nuclear submarine. We are going to make these in
saddlebag form, also, so that when they are in a tight area
such as a canal transit or restricted waters, they will have
the ability to put those on top side, above the water line, to
defend against shoulder-fired weapons which might otherwise
have an opportunity to penetrate.
In the Navy we have a big problem. In the Marine Corps,
everyone is a shooter and they are very proud of that. In the
Navy, we have a slightly different ethos. It is the Commanding
Officer or the pilot who fights the ship. Everyone else is
there to support. We say, take information into knowledge,
finally into the wisdom necessary to release the weapon against
the target.
The Marines, because of their new missions, whether it is
peacekeeping, Somalia, or in an urban environment, have
extrapolated what the police forces in America have used for so
long. They call it the Command Decision Range, and this is
where they use roleplaying to see--they show you a shadow, ``Is
this person holding a baby, or are they holding a new advanced
weapon?'' and then see how the Marine reacts, and they are able
to grade and see if the Marine has the right attitude in terms
of force protection, self defense, et cetera.
Well, on a ship in the morning, one of our young men or
women might be mess cooking, okay, or chipping and painting. In
the afternoon, we expect them to strap on a 45-caliber pistol
or a 9-millimeter pistol, or an M-16 and defend the ship. Well,
that is a significant transition to make.
So again, with the help of the Marines, we have gone ahead
and in Naval environments taken these command decision, CDS,
made them, passed them to all the number fleets--and as a
research man, I do not tell the ship COs what level they should
be at, but we have given them three different levels for the
terrorist threat. Now the numbered fleet commanders can tell
the ships to use these for training.
I want to show you one other thing on here. We always have
an issue in rules of engagement of what we call the tourist
versus the terrorist. Being Americans, we do not think a lot
about shooting first. We are ready to take a lot of injury
ourselves.
Well, again, the Marines working with us through Naval
Research, have developed--and you have read about it in the
open press--a high powered microwave which if you become
exposed to it, makes your skin feel like it is on fire. Now, it
does no permanent damage as long as you turn around and walk
away.
Well, how do you warn people? What we were looking at is
just using geometry, and we are going to have a green light
over yellow light over red light scenario. I am actually making
one of these. They will be hatch shippable on the submarine as
our first example. They will have a 360-degree range of this
high powered microwave.
Now if you are a tourist in your Boston Whaler and you are
approaching one of our ships, and you start to get warm--first,
you see green, and then you see yellow. When you see red, you
are getting warm. You are probably going to turn around.
But if you are a terrorist and you believe that you are
prepared to sacrifice your life, you will forge on. At that
point, our young sailors who might have been mess cooking in
the morning, if the rules of engagement are as such that they
are protecting their ship, will engage that enemy. So we are
excited about this. These things are actually happening today,
and you can see the advantage of the blue/green partnership.
Senator Roberts. But in relation to the U.S.S. Cole, even
if you were in threat condition Delta, there was no--how can I
phrase this? Use of deadly force is not--it is not in the rules
of engagement. In other words, you are going to have to have a
perimeter. You are going to have to have a situation to
identify the terrorist--as recorded at least in the
Intelligence and Armed Services Committee hearings, indicated
that the sailor looked right down at the boat. There was
nothing really visible. It was just two individuals who were
waving and smiling. It was completely open, but obviously, all
of the explosives were below the water level.
You are going to have to have a perimeter. I can see this
could be extremely helpful in regards to that. You establish
the perimeter depending on where you are, and then you are
saying that you have--when that red turns on, and it gets
uncomfortably hot, that if they say, ``All right, full speed
ahead,'' what happens then?
Admiral Cohen. Well, first of all, they are still
experiencing this tingling sensation.
Senator Roberts. Right.
Admiral Cohen. At that point, because we have marked that,
basically, we have given fair warning. Now, these are just my
ideas and research. I am not a fleet commander, and I do not
establish what the threat con levels are or when deadly force
will be utilized, but I am trying to give aids to the
commanding officer so he or she has situational awareness, and
that the young people who are forced to make those kinds of
decisions on short notice, at least----
Senator Roberts. Well, the Israeli Navy had a very
interesting concept. They establish a perimeter, which is the
whole bay area, and they use depth charges on a very regular
basis. Now, that does tend to encourage people not to go there.
Admiral Cohen. Yes, sir. [Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. I am just trying to say that with regards
to perimeter, more especially in a port like Aden where we went
in, what, 27 straight times and because of that, got very used
to it, but then if you really took a look at it, some of the
red flags came down in our collection efforts, the analysis,
left a great deal to be desired in my personal opinion.
But you are going to have to come up with the technology to
allow that ship commander to have a perimeter, and then turn on
that red light. Then what do you do? That was my next question,
and you just went into that a little bit.
Admiral Cohen. Well, I laughed a little bit, sir, because
shortly after the incident with the U.S.S. Cole happened, I
went to the Israelis and other navies and I asked them how they
handle situations like this. The Israelis told me they would be
unable to help me because of the exact situation you said. They
establish a perimeter. Anybody who violates that perimeter as
far as they are concerned is authorized to be killed. Now that
has not traditionally, in a peacetime environment, been the
United States' Navy approach.
Senator Roberts. No, that is not feasible.
Admiral Cohen. What I am showing here is the ``Defense in
Depth'' where we have shown you the LASCOR so that in the event
this person does get through, I have a final defense, and that
is deformation of the hull, but not penetration. So our most
valuable asset----
Senator Roberts. That would be the net that came down.
Admiral Cohen. Exactly, sir.
Senator Roberts. I see.
Admiral Cohen. Exactly.
Senator Roberts. OK. So he keeps coming and the red light
is on, you deploy the net, and then you use--well, if he keeps
coming obviously toward that net, I would assume under rules of
engagement in certain situations, you could use deadly force.
Admiral Cohen. Yes, sir, and I think Navy regulations tend
to favor the commanding officer, we favor the bold.
Senator Roberts. But you have also had this--what did you
call it? [Indicating] What is this called? [Indicating]
Admiral Cohen. It is called Dragon Eye.
Senator Roberts. OK. Dragon Eye. So the CO has had an
opportunity to have a pretty good overlook of the area, but of
course, with the terrorists, why, that is not what they are
going to do.
Admiral Cohen. In a classified format, I will talk to you
separately.
Senator Roberts. Certainly.
Admiral Cohen. We can tell you some of the enhancements.
Senator Roberts. We have called up in that regard.
Admiral Cohen. I have given you the layman's view, but I
think people can understand that there are other enhancements.
Senator Roberts. Well, we have a lot of lessons-learned
hearings in regards to U.S.S. Cole and force protection, and we
will even come back up. I am sorry to interrupt. Go ahead.
Admiral Cohen. No, not at all, sir.
The final thing, if you look at this picture just up on
your left, it really looks confusing. [Indicating] Now, what
you are seeing there is the projection from the 360-degree
camera. That is what is on the tripod.
Thanks to computers, we are able to know what the geometry
of that hemisphere is, and we can take that picture, and
although it is not the same picture, you can see on the very
next computer monitor, we took a very similar picture on one of
our yard patrol crafts. It is my enable research flag ship. We
just took it up to New York City and had thousands of people
come on board. We had about three dozen kiosks to show them
what we were doing in naval research.
We had this camera. This is leveraged off what the Army has
done. They call it Silent Sentinel, where they are able to
recognize human forms walking in a forest. But we can take that
very abstract picture, reduce it, thanks to computers, to a
panorama.
We are looking now to make this--you may have read about it
in the paper--a 360-degree periscope that would go on top of
our normal periscope which has a very limited field of view,
not only in daylight, but also in infrared, and use these
programs that the Army and others have developed for shape
recognition, shape motion, et cetera, as an alertment for our
COs if they operate in highly populated waters. Regrettably,
the oceans are getting more crowded every day.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot more I could say, and I
will look forward to your questions, but with deference to Dr.
Alexander, I will conclude my comments.
Senator Roberts. OK.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Cohen follows:]
Prepared Statement by Rear Adm. Jay Cohen
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you
for this opportunity to discuss the Department of the Navy's Science
and Technology Program.
When Admiral Clark assumed the watch from Admiral Jay Johnson last
summer, he said that our people were our first priority. His Marine
Corps counterpart, General Jones, is equally committed to doing
everything we can for his few and proud Marines.
One of the most important ways we can keep our people and recruit
more like them is to give them the best working conditions possible.
While the bedrock of our Navy and Marine Corps is good leadership,
technology is the foundation that rests on that bedrock. Admiral Clark
has directed me, as Chief of Naval Research, to make science and
technology work for our people in the Fleet. Since I also wear the hat
of Assistant Deputy Commandant (Science and Technology) for the Marine
Corps, I answer to the same marching orders from General Jones--make
science and technology work for the Marine. So I will couch quite a bit
of my testimony today in terms of what we're doing to deliver
capabilities for sailors and marines. I think we have a great record, a
sound process, and a terrific future.
As Chief of Naval Research, I want to protect our warfighters from
technological surprises, while giving them the tools to inflict
surprises on our adversaries. The business of surprise is especially
important today. The threats we face are too variable to yield to the
clear responses available during the Cold War. I would like to draw out
one fundamental lesson from the Cold War and other more recent
situations--as uncertainty increases, options increase in value. My
technical priorities electric warship, missile defense/space, human
factors, environment, and efficiency--will offer ``out of the box''
capability options; it's my job to give the Secretary, and the CNO, and
the Commandant, technology options they can exercise at need.
Our science and technology strategy balances long-term interests
with short-term needs. The health of our science and technology base-
our ability to discharge our National Naval Responsibilities, to remain
a smart buyer of science and technology, and to get capabilities into
the hands of the operating forces--ultimately depends upon a balanced
portfolio from basic research through advanced technology development
and manufacturing technology.
I especially look forward to incorporating Secretary Gordon
England's industry perspective on maximizing the Department of the
Navy's precious technology investments.
For the Next Navy and Marine Corps, we are concentrating our
science and technology investment into focused programs designed to
provide a critical mass of support that will yield Future Naval
Capabilities (FNCs). I recently restructured the program to combine
overlapping efforts, and I added two programs--Electric Warship and
Combat Vehicles Technology (which will focus on bringing the advantages
of electrical technologies to the naval warfighters), and Littoral
Combat and Force Projection (which includes both combat and
expeditionary logistics capabilities), which will focus on Marine Corps
requirements in projecting power from the beach in-land. The other ten
FNCs (in no priority order) are:
Autonomous Operations will focus on dramatically
increasing the performance and affordability of Naval organic
unmanned vehicle systems;
Capable Manpower will focus on selection and training
to provide fully prepared sailors and marines through human-
centered hardware and systems;
Knowledge Superiority and Assurance will focus on
issues of connectivity and knowledge superiority for
distributed Naval Forces to ensure common situation
understanding, increased speed of command, interoperability,
and dynamic distributed mission planning and execution across
all echelons;
Littoral Antisubmarine Warfare will provide effective
capability to detect, track, classify and neutralize all
subsurface systems and systems to deny access, in support of
power projection ashore;
Missile Defense will focus S&T necessary to detect,
control, and engage projected theater ballistic and cruise
missiles as well as enemy aircraft threats;
Organic Mine Countermeasures will focus on an organic
MCM capability to shorten the MCM tactical timeline and
eliminate the need for manned operations in a minefield;
Platform Protection strives to win or avoid
engagements with evolving threats either in-stride or while
engaged in projecting power from the sea;
Time Critical Strike will focus S&T that provides a
substantial reduction in the engagement timeline against time
critical mobile targets, theatre ballistic missiles, weapons of
mass destruction, C\4\I Centers and armored vehicles;
Total Ownership Cost Reduction seeks to significantly
decrease costs associated with acquisition, operation and
support and to develop methods to accurately predict costs and
assess return on investment; and,
Warfighter Protection will focus on protecting
warfighters to reduce casualties in the emerging Expeditionary
Maneuver Warfare battlespace.
I have directed my people to get close to the Fleet and the Force,
to be alert to their needs and swift to respond to them. We are working
to enhance their quality of service. As we connect better with our
customers--the operating Fleet and Force--we are undertaking some novel
initiatives to reduce the cycle time of our technologies. I have
established a program I call ``Swamp Works.'' This takes high-risk,
high-payoff technologies, puts the right stakeholders together, and
gets a product into the hands of the operators who need it. Swamp
Works' efforts are intended to be technically risky--I anticipate a 90
percent failure rate--because leap-ahead work is always technically
risky. Some of the items I'll show you today--particularly those
related to force protection--are Swamp Works projects.
Force protection crosses all technologies. New materials for hull
protection, advanced sensors, next generation decision support systems,
autonomous platforms, and, ultimately, directed energy weapons--all of
these are technological responses to the asymmetric threats our forces
encounter as they remain forward deployed.
Another priority I mentioned is human factors and quality of
service. Our young people will join and stay with us if we give them
meaningful and challenging missions, and if we give them the means to
accomplish those missions. The biggest morale-killers on a ship can be
those repetitious, labor-intensive, dirty maintenance jobs that have to
be done. Naval science and technology offers solutions: coatings that
don't have to be scraped and chipped; fault diagnostics that tell you
when a bearing is about to fail; condition-based maintenance that saves
time and resources. The smart people we have in the Fleet today deserve
to work with systems that are engineered with the human being in mind.
Human-centric systems, because the system is made for the sailors and
marines . . . not vice-versa. These include embedded training that
helps sailors and marines work smarter, stay proficient, and learn new
skills. There is also no greater satisfaction in sailors' and marines'
working lives than accomplishing their mission and getting home to
their loved ones.
Below are some of the technologies that I think are steps in this
direction, and are examples of our response to the needs of the Navy
and Marine Corps of today:
Dragon Eye: The marine sergeant's 4-pound, electronic
reconnaissance, backpack aircraft. You launch it by hand and
recover it by catching it. If you crack it up, well, that's not
a disaster.
360+ Periscope: Omnivision extends the view you get
through a periscope. It contributes to situational awareness--
it helps the submarine commander know what's around him on the
surface.
Advanced hull forms: Why should all ships be designed
with metal skin frames and stringers? We've been building them
that way since they were literally made of animal skins. In
particular, why must ships today be built to accommodate a long
propulsion shaft? We're moving to an all-electric Fleet, and
that means we have an opportunity to experiment with new hull
forms, like SEA SLICE, that provide a stable platform in the
littorals.
Handheld Ultrasound: Save lives on the battlefield. It
enables a corpsman to detect--among other things--internal
bleeding.
Intelligent Shock Mitigation and Isolation System:
Intelligent use of COTS. This came out of the building
industry, specifically, the earthquake mitigation industry.
It's going into the LPD-17.
High power microwave technologies: Advanced electronic
materials like gallium nitride are revolutionizing this vital
area.
Additionally, we are working to field hearing protection systems
and vaccines to keep our sailors and marines healthy. We are working on
more effective firefighting tools and techniques. We continue to work
on environmentally friendly technologies such as the active noise
cancellation program that may help our fighter jets to coexist with the
ever-increasing civilian population around our bases.
With the assistance and support of the Vice Chief of Naval
Research, Brigadier General William Catto, who is with me here today, I
focus on the Navy and Marine Corps of today, tomorrow and ``after-
next'' (the one that will fight and win battles in 2020 and beyond). I
have given examples above of initiatives in progress for today and
tomorrow. The Navy and Marine Corps ``after-next'' will be based on
discoveries just being made today. To ensure we get the technology and
development concepts right, a robust cycle of innovation, validated by
experimentation that leads to transformation, must continue. It is a
process without end; new technologies evolve, new ideas are born, new
innovations must be experimented with, resulting in further
transformation. It is a process as old as the Navy and Marine Corps,
and as relevant as the need for a strong national defense today,
tomorrow and always.
The United States has a Navy and Marine Corps second to none in the
world, thanks to our volunteers and America's investment in science and
technology. I have committed to a science and technology program that
ensures our technological superiority continues in this new century--
and a program that has the sailor and marine at its center. I hope you
will visit the world class Navy/Marine Corps corporate laboratory right
here in Washington, DC on the Potomac.
Senator Roberts. We will move to Dr. Alexander. Pardon me,
Doctor, but because of my interest in the U.S.S. Cole and force
protection and all that involves, we wanted to get into that,
and I apologize to you. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. JANE A. ALEXANDER, ACTING DIRECTOR, DEFENSE
ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY
Dr. Alexander. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the
committee for the opportunity to come here today and tell you a
little bit about what the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency is working on.
We are the central R&D organization for the Department of
Defense. We can work on problems with individual Services, and
we can work in the joint arena and for national command
authority problems. Our portion of the R&D portfolio is to
emphasize high risk, high payoff, those revolutionary
capabilities that lead to big jumps in military capability for
the United States.
The other part of our charter says, ``Avoid technological
surprise.'' So that means looking into the future 10 or 15
years and anticipating what the opponents of the United States
may be doing and come up with technological counters. We cannot
prevent them getting their hands on technology, but what we can
do is anticipate what advantage they may be trying to derive
from that technology and coming up with a counter so that they
do not get an advantage.
So that is part of the Department's response to the
globalization of technology, especially in the areas of
electronics and information technology.
We are going to be facing more and more sophisticated
threats, as well as well as asymmetric threats where folks come
up with counters to our weapons systems. Adversaries have
figured out that if you go force on force against us, you will
lose.
We are working in three major investment areas. National-
level problems: Those are things that could really pose threats
to the Nation. Currently, we are working in the area of
biological warfare defense and in cyber defense. We are working
in the area of core technologies. These are the breakthrough
technologies----
Senator Roberts. Let me interrupt for just a minute----
Dr. Alexander. Sure.
Senator Roberts. --to indicate that you are right on the
money in that respect. We asked people, 3 years ago when this
subcommittee was first formed, ``What keeps you up at night?''
These were the alleged gurus of what could happen down the road
in regard to homeland security and force protection overseas.
One thing they said--well, two things, one was cyber
attacks or informational warfare; and the other was the
biological weaponry which is so easy to use. So you are right
on the money.
Dr. Alexander. The second area we are working in is core
technology. Those are the breakthrough things that enable the
next generation beyond military systems. What we try to do is
we look at where industry is going, and if they are already
leading in a direction that will support what we need, then we
stay out of it. But there are many areas, even in information
technology and electronics, where there is a divergence of the
military's needs from what the commercial industry will
typically give us.
You heard Dr. Etter talk about some of those in the area of
radiation hard electronics. That is not one that DARPA is
investing in, but we are looking at the wideband gap materials
leading to systems that the military needs.
We look for where things may diverge. For instance, in
communications technology, in the commercial world, you want to
be able to locate the emitter. In the military world, you do
not want that to happen because your opponent could then use
that as a vulnerability.
The final area that we are working in is operational
dominance, coming up with new systems, new technology, combined
with concepts of operation that will really give that war-
winning capability you heard Under Secretary Aldridge talk
about.
I brought a few examples of what is coming out of the
pipeline from DARPA today for each of those areas. Starting
back with national-level problems, this is in the information
assurance area. Working with a small company called, Secure
Computing Corporation, they developed some algorithms that are
improved firewalls. Actually, most firewall technology in your
computer comes from DARPA investment in the early 1990s.
This is the next generation. Firewalls are, in effect, a
lock on your front door. But if your opponent gets through the
front door, your house is open to them. That burglar can wipe
you out. This technology allows you to put a firewall on each
and every computer. Your system administrator, through an
encoded channel, can change the lock continuously. So if you
know you are under attack, then this can be rapidly changed so
you have a defense against it.
The company that we funded is now partnered with 3Com. The
hardware is on the market now, and the upgraded software that
will activate some of the special hardware in here will be on
the market in the fall. So that is available.
Could you take that up to the Senators? [Indicating]
In the area of biological warfare defense, I brought you a
decontamination solution. What we use currently is bleach.
Bleach is very harsh on the skin, and it is very tough on the
electronics. We use actually very concentrated bleach on
electronics. After only a few times, you can actually destroy
the equipment you are having to decon.
This is a very gentle solution. It does not destroy
electronics. In fact, it is edible. It can be used to clean
wounds. You cannot use bleach----
Senator Roberts. FDA-approved edible? [Laughter.]
Dr. Alexander. FDA will--it is actually----
Dr. Andrews. It is an herb. [Laughter.]
Dr. Alexander. There are two personal care companies that
are thinking about working to license this and to take it to
the market. They are actually interested in it's wound cleaning
capability, but it also will work for regular decontamination.
Let us see. In the technologies area, we actually did
investment in the early 1990s in microelectro mechanical
systems (MEMS) technology that has now entered the marketplace,
and you think of it as a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)
technology.
This is a MEMS exploder for a torpedo. [Indicating] The
other weighs 17 pounds. The MEMS exploder is 17 times lighter.
We worked with the Navy on developing this because they have an
anti-torpedo torpedo where the form factor would not take this
monster. In here are three COTS MEMS technologies, so things
actually had gotten commercialized. In addition, we worked with
the Naval Surface Weapons Center (NAVC) on developing two
specialized MEMS components. So there are five MEMS components
total in here. [Indicating.]
Not only does this do what this monster does, but in
addition, it has an inertial navigation system in it. It
actually has more functionality in the smaller form factor. So
that is an example of where core technologies can lead to
breakthrough next generation systems.
Can you hold up the optics?
The normal nosecone of a missile is hemispherical. That is
because up until now, that was all you could do and have the
correct optical design and the correct ability to manufacture
the technology. The problem with that is that very small change
in shape can reduce the drag by about half.
What that leads to is a greatly increased distance that the
missile can travel with the same propellant, or you could go at
a much more rapid speed by being able to make a shape like this
called an ``A sphere.'' I brought this with me, just to show
you we can make it in any size. [Indicating.]
In addition, we developed both the design software that
allows you to figure out how to make those shapes, what shape
you want, and we worked with industry to develop the
manufacturing tools. The tools are now commercially available
to make these. It is transitioning to Army and Navy systems.
Once you go on to--yes, that one. [Indicating.] Captain
Kamp, if you could stand up. This is an example of the
excellent staff we have at DARPA. Captain Kamp was the
originator of the idea of looking at the problem of ``How do I
deal with diesel subs proliferating and working in the littoral
zone?'' The idea was to take what in the Air Force is a manned
fighter and make it an underwater fighter. So that is the
breakthrough idea there, the capability to actively go after
opponent submarines in the littoral. What enables this is a new
propulsion system, and some new design capabilities in the
submarine.
Then finally, we have been working in the area of unmanned
air vehicles for a very long time. The Predator that you are
used to hearing about from Kosov was actually Project Amber a
long time ago at DARPA.
One of the issues with the normal UAVs is that you have to
continue forward. They are basically aircraft. The problem with
helicopters is they do not have long endurance, and they are
manned aircraft if you want to use them as an observation
point.
The idea of the A160, working with a small company in
California, was to make a very long endurance, 48 hours,
aircraft that is helicopter-based, but unmanned so you can use
it as an eye in the sky. This is one of the concepts that is
being considered for the FCS as part of that system of systems.
So I hope I have given you a little bit of a feel for some
of the technologies that are coming out of DARPA. Addressing
your question on transition, I think I have given you a feel
that some of these we are transitioning through the commercial
industry and bringing it to the market so the Department can
buy it. In some cases, we are transitioning it into the
military program executive officers (PEOs) in order to bring
breakthrough capability to our warfighting forces.
Thank you very much.
Senator Roberts. Doctor, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Alexander follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. Jane A. Alexander
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, subcommittee members, and staff: I am very pleased to
appear before you today to discuss DARPA's strategic plan, and to
highlight a selection of DARPA's fiscal year 2002 programs.
Let me refresh your memory concerning DARPA's strategic plan.
DARPA's mission continues to be to act as the technical enabler for
radical innovation for national security. We are pursuing three main
mission areas that have endured since DARPA's founding in 1958, even as
individual technologies change. DARPA's enduring mission areas are:
To find technical solutions to National-Level
Problems. The Agency's priority is on problems that may impact
our national survival.
To be the technical enabler for the innovation
required for our warfighters to achieve dominance across the
range of military operations--Operational Dominance.
To develop and exploit high-risk Core Technologies for
our Nation's defense.
In the area of National-Level Problems, DARPA's programs are
focused on biological warfare defense and information assurance and
survivability. The biological warfare defense effort is developing
therapeutics countermeasures, advanced sensors, advanced diagnostics,
air and water purification devices, and genetic sequencing codes for
potential biological threat agents. In the area of information
assurance and survivability, DARPA is developing technologies to raise
strong barriers against cyber attack and provide commanders with
mechanisms to see, counter, tolerate and survive sophisticated cyber
attacks. DARPA invests approximately 15 percent of its annual budget in
this mission area.
In the area of enabling Operational Dominance, DARPA is investing
in technologies and systems for affordable, precision moving target
kill for both offensive and defensive missions and dynamic command and
control capabilities for mobile networks and near-real-time logistics
planning and replanning. Other programs include technologies and
systems that will enable future warfare concepts for air, space, land
and sea.
We believe that one key to Operational Dominance will be combined
manned and unmanned operations--this will give the future U.S. military
an overwhelming edge. Our investments in advanced, high-speed networks,
complex system design and operation, wireless communications,
microcircuits that combine information technologies and biological
systems, and other areas, will enable the U.S. to conduct successful
combined manned and unmanned military operations. Providing this
technical edge is the key to our involvement with the Army in
developing Future Combat Systems (FCS). Our vision for FCS is
revolutionary--a network-centric land warfare system of systems
composed of manned and unmanned nodes. It will give the U.S. a
capability that no other nation possesses.
Our Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) programs are another example
of our Operational Dominance investments. We are working jointly with
the Air Force and the Navy to develop autonomous unmanned systems that
will be able to work with manned aircraft to effectively and affordably
suppress enemy air defenses, and for the Navy, also conduct
surveillance missions. With these systems, the U.S. will be able to use
an unmanned aircraft for dangerous operations rather than put pilots at
risk. The unmanned system will operate autonomously within the rules of
engagement, in association with manned aircraft, to prosecute its
mission. It will not be fire and forget--humans will maintain command
and control throughout the mission, and the vehicle will return to base
to be used again. This will truly be a revolutionary capability.
The U.S. also must have Operational Dominance in space. The Orbital
Express program is developing technologies to allow the autonomous
rendezvous, refueling and repairing of satellites on-orbit. This will
give us unprecedented abilities to upgrade our space-based assets.
Approximately 40 percent of our annual budget is invested in the
Operational Dominance mission area.
DARPA's Core Technology investments include information technology,
microsystems technologies, materials technologies, micro-
electromechanical systems, beyond silicon complementary metal oxide
semiconductor (CMOS) technologies, and investments that combine biology
with DOD's traditional strengths in information technologies,
electronics, optoelectronics, sensors, and actuators. It is the results
of all of these investments that will allow DOD to build systems and
capabilities for future operational dominance. In addition, investments
in these core areas provide DARPA with a unique outreach into
commercial and dual-use technology.
DARPA's investments in information technologies will provide
information superiority to the DOD through revolutionary advances in
embedded and autonomous systems software; high performance computing
components; advanced networking; seamless computer interfaces for the
warfighter; ubiquitous computing and communications; and agent-based
systems.
In addition, DARPA is investigating chip-scale microsystem
technologies that integrate the core technologies of electronics,
photonics (light) and micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS). This
chip-scale integration offers substantial new opportunities to
revolutionize and miniaturize communications, targeting and analytical
systems, as well as sensors.
DARPA invests approximately 40 percent of its annual budget in the
Core Technology mission area.
I will now go into more detail about DARPA's investments in
currently ongoing and planned programs. The Department is in the middle
of a strategy review and a Quadrennial Defense Review. As these reviews
complete, we may propose changes to some of the details of these
efforts. So, with that understanding, I'll launch into an overview of
our programs.
TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS TO NATIONAL-LEVEL PROBLEMS
DARPA's charter is to solve national-level technology problems,
foster high-risk, high-payoff military technologies to enable
operational dominance, and avoid technological surprise. In today's
world of emerging asymmetric and transnational threats, our concern
focuses on two principal national security issues: protection from
biological warfare attack and protection from information attack.
Protection from Biological Warfare Attack
A clear and growing national security need is protection of our
military forces from biological warfare attack by both military and
terrorist organizations. DARPA's goal is to deter or thwart such
attacks with a Biological Warfare Defense thrust focused on sensors,
medical diagnostics and countermeasures, air and water purification,
pathogen genetic sequencing, building protection, and consequence
management.
``We will work to defend our people and our allies against
growing threats: the threats of missiles; information warfare;
the threats of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. . . .
We will be creating the military of the future, on that takes
full advantage of revolutionary new technologies. . . .''
--President Bush, January 26, 2001.
Sensors
To detect the presence of a threat agent, DARPA is investing in the
development of advanced Bio Sensors that are robust, autonomous, fast,
and sensitive to multiple biological warfare agents. DARPA's mass
spectrometer holds the promise of extraordinarily fast and robust
identification of all known biological warfare pathogens. The first-
generation prototype was evaluated in field trials last year against
simulants; based on these trials as well as other technology
development, we are now making design and engineering modifications to
develop a robust and automated identification and detection capability
using time-of-flight mass spectrometry. The program is also developing
a nucleic-acid-based microarray sensor to integrate and automate DNA/
RNA isolation, labeling, and hybridization procedures into a single
platform. The program has already developed a first-generation sensor
designed to determine whether anthrax is present, to enable fast
separation of hoaxes from real threats. We are evaluating the sensor's
performance this year for possible transition to a number of partners,
and we are developing an improved, hierarchical sensor in fiscal year
2002.
Another part of the sensor program is investigating whether it is
possible to build sensors around cells or pieces of tissue to alert us
to the presence of a toxic environment. These Tissue Based Biological
Sensor (TBBS) systems use the physiological response of biological
cells and tissues to detect biological or chemical threats. The TBBS
program is fabricating new devices based on high-density microarrays to
detect the presence of engineered agents (or as-yet unidentified
threats) for which there are no antibodies or genetic sequences. We
constructed laboratory prototypes in fiscal year 2000, including an
integrated chip microarray that incorporates liver tissue and measures
liver response following exposure to biological agents and chemical
toxins. We then took hand-held systems that incorporate electrically
active cells into the field at the U.S. Marine Corps base at Twentynine
Palms, CA, and tested portable life support systems to provide on-site
support for these systems. In fiscal year 2001, we are continuing
development of these systems to screen them against a wider list of
chemical and biological threats and to determine the limits of
sensitivity, false alarm rates, and the effects of interferrants. The
Metabolic Engineering for Cellular Stasis (MECS) program complements
TBBS efforts. It is investigating biological practices that allow
organisms to adapt to environmental extremes and is using those
practices to engineer new cellular systems such as platelets and red
blood cells. In fiscal year 2000, MECS researchers demonstrated
dramatic improvements in the stability of cells by genetically
engineering them to increase their resistance to drying for storage. In
fiscal year 2001, the program is designing and testing cell and tissue
systems that reliably report on viral and bacterial exposures and
investigating key sensor features to minimize false positives and
maximize signal strength.
Medical Diagnostics and Countermeasures
In the event of a biological attack, the U.S. will need to identify
those who have been exposed to a biological warfare agent and to
distinguish them from the ``worried well,'' as well as from those with
natural diseases that might require different treatment. Therefore,
identifying disease markers that can serve as rapid indicators of
exposure is one of the focus areas of the Advanced Medical Diagnostics
program. One group at Stanford University is looking for genetic
markers by testing human cell cultures exposed to a variety of
infectious disease agents and other stimuli. In fiscal year 2000, the
researchers identified a number of human genes that are selectively
turned on or off in response to infection, and in fiscal year 2001,
they are testing for these markers in clinical settings such as
hospitals. Another activity in this program is identifying markers in
breath that may be used to determine who has been exposed to a
potential pathogen. In fiscal year 2001, the program identified
specific biochemical markers using non-invasive mass spectroscopy that
can provide critical information from breath samples. Future studies
will look for these markers in breath in models of pathogen exposure
(in model systems). In fiscal year 2001, we made significant progress
in establishing diagnostic detection equipment based on antibody
detection of pathogens. The program transitioned this time-resolved
fluorescence technology to the Centers for Disease Control, and it is
now being validated for use in public health facilities; the system has
been tested against a number of biological pathogens. Rapid sequencing
techniques also progressed significantly in fiscal year 2001, and the
program is transitioning results to the private sector for further
development.
The Unconventional Pathogen Countermeasures (UPC) program is
developing broad-spectrum countermeasures for threat pathogens. This
includes anti-viral and antibiotic drug discovery and development as
well as vaccinations. Three UPC projects, plant-based vaccine
production, optimized vaccine development using gene-shuffling, and
optimization of novel antimicrobial therapeutics, have succeeded in
initial DARPA experiments, and we are transitioning them to the U.S.
Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) for
further development. In addition, the U.S. Army Institute for Surgical
Research, Fort Sam Houston, is evaluating skin decontamination by
nanoemulsion technology. In fiscal year 2001, we anticipate
transitioning other successes to USAMRIID, including novel antibiotic
therapeutics, antibiotic target methodologies, and novel DNA vaccines
and platforms. A novel vaccine enhancer developed under the UPC program
is likely to transition to the Centers for Disease Control or USAMRIID
later this year. By fiscal year 2002, we expect to have additional
programs ready for transition including vaccine candidates, novel
enzyme antibacterial therapeutics, and new approaches to using
computers to accelerate the process of discovering therapeutics.
Building Protection
In addition to the component technologies, DARPA is developing
complete systems solutions to counter the biological warfare threat.
The goal of the Immune Building program, which is just getting underway
in fiscal year 2001, is to make military buildings far less attractive
targets for attack by chemical or biological warfare agents by reducing
the effectiveness of such attacks via active and passive response of
heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems and other building
infrastructure (neutralization, filtration, etc.). This ambitious goal
can only be achieved through a combination of technology development
and systems-level experimentation. The program is leveraging earlier
efforts in these technologies--for example, decontaminating foams and
novel materials that can be used for both chemical and biological
filtration--and extending them for use in this application. The program
is also developing new component technologies specifically for this
application, such as new gaseous decontamination techniques that can
follow the contaminant into the small, inaccessible spaces within
buildings, specialized low-pressure-drop filtration for use at return
vents, and high-efficiency/long-lifetime sources of ultraviolet
radiation for on-the-fly neutralization of agents. In addition, several
industry teams are evaluating candidate architectures for building
protection systems. In fiscal year 2002, the program will test
successful technologies and prototypes as parts of complete protection
systems, and we will evaluate the most promising architectures
experimentally at full scale, as a first step in the design of
``optimal'' protection systems.
Air And Water Purification
Clean air and water are crucial to the sustained operation of our
Military Services in the event of a biological and chemical warfare
attack. To-date, our program in Air and Water Purification has
demonstrated encouraging results. Warfighters must be able to obtain
potable water quickly--their water purification devices and beverage
containers must be integrated in order to work and pack away together.
One project, the New Generation Hydration System, will produce
microbiologically safe drinking water and beverages from sources of
unknown quality and will provide an efficient storage and delivery
system for hands-free, on-the-move hydration.
One of the program's key design objectives is to be able to purify
all available water sources in the field, including desalinating
seawater. We plan to meet this requirement by developing a forward
osmosis membrane. The program has completed proof-of-principle
experiments showing technical feasibility. During the remainder of this
year, the program is optimizing the components of the system, e.g.,
increasing the water flux through the membrane and demonstrating
removal of volatile organic compounds and other harmful contaminants
from the water. In fiscal year 2002, the program will make the system
more rugged and will integrate the forward osmosis component with a
standard military hydration bag (such as a Camelback). The Marine Corps
plans to transition DARPA's New Generation Hydration System as an
official enhancement program.
The Air and Water Purification program is also developing
pioneering approaches for advanced gas mask filters. Today's masks have
higher-than-desirable breathing resistance, and their capacity (the
period of time they effectively filter) is limited. Recently, we have
demonstrated the proof-of-principle that microfibrous carriers make
better use of carbon to adsorb chemical agents and that they accomplish
this with an inherent particulate filtration capability. For the next 2
years, our work is aimed at reducing the pressure drop by at least a
factor of two over current C2A1 canisters, while maintaining the
equivalent period of time the filters operate effectively.
Protection from Information Attack
The United States possesses limited capabilities to protect against
sophisticated cyber attacks. Defending against distributed, coordinated
attacks requires technology and infrastructure that commercial industry
is not developing. To address this challenge, DARPA initiated the Third
Generation Security (3GS) suite of programs to defend the Defense
Department's advanced information systems. The goals of these programs
are to raise strong barriers to cyber attack and provide commanders
with technology to see, counter, tolerate, and survive sophisticated
cyber attacks.
In fiscal year 2000, the 3GS suite of DARPA programs made
significant progress toward these goals. These programs:
Developed and demonstrated techniques to detect
malicious code and confine damage caused by mobile malicious
code;
Identified survivability principles to allow continued
operations through a wide class of cyber attacks;
Developed distributed security technologies to
overcome the limitations of perimeter defense strategies (i.e.,
firewalls);
Developed intrusion detection and correlation
techniques to enable detection of certain kinds of stealthy
network-based attacks and to reduce the overwhelming numbers of
security alerts that operators face by recognizing actions that
are part of significant multi-step attack scenarios; and
Developed modeling techniques to determine how the
effects of attacks or defensive responses might impact the
system's continued ability to perform mission-critical
functions.
In fiscal year 2001, the 3GS programs are integrating evolving
security technologies to achieve automatic defense, assess correlated
attacks, achieve preliminary situation understanding, improve tolerance
against intrusion, obtain better assessments of damage and containment,
and develop a hardened core. DARPA is using experimentation and
technology transition partnerships with operational commanders to
evaluate these advanced defensive technologies and transition them to
warfighters. Also this year, conceptual system definition studies will
begin to apply the results of the 3GS programs to make the DOD's Global
Information Grid (GIG) more survivable in the face of cyber attacks. In
fiscal year 2002, the suite of programs will use previous system
concept studies to design both a survivable prototype of an exemplar
GIG system and a Cyber Panel for monitor and control. Next year, the
program will:
Demonstrate the ability of mission-critical systems to
operate through cyber attacks;
Develop a new family of protocols resilient to both
service denial and traffic analysis;
Develop techniques for detecting and correlating
disturbances across large networks to allow response to
widespread attacks in real time; and
Develop and demonstrate tools for selecting and
carrying out collective defensive actions in response to
correlated cyber attacks.
ENABLING OPERATIONAL DOMINANCE
DARPA is the technical enabler for the revolutionary innovation
required for our warfighters to achieve Operational Dominance--
dominance across the range of military operations. DARPA is emphasizing
development of technologies and systems to enable affordable,
precision, moving target kill for both offensive and defensive
missions. We are also developing technologies and systems to provide
dynamic command and control capabilities to our commanders, including
the advanced communications and mobile networking technologies
necessary for assured communications and information superiority. Other
programs focus on technologies to allow planning and replanning in
near-real-time. Lastly, DARPA is investing heavily in technologies and
systems that will enable future warfare concepts for combined manned
and unmanned operations, and operations in space, on land, at sea and
in the air.
Affordable, Precision, Moving Target Kill
Current approaches to engaging time-critical surface moving targets
include area-of-effect munitions and man-in-the-loop targeting. These
approaches traditionally involve large, very expensive weapons, the
potential for large collateral damage, and, often, the requirement to
put the warfighter in harm's way. DARPA is responding by developing
low-cost, highly capable weapons networked to a variety of airborne
sensors for offensive and defensive missions, advanced sensors capable
of detecting targets hidden in foliage, and camouflage and broadband
antennas that can be electronically reconfigured.
The Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement (AMSTE) program is
developing technologies to make it feasible and practical for the
warfighter to precisely, rapidly, and affordably engage individual
moving surface vehicles. The program will demonstrate that, without
expensive modifications to existing and planned systems, networked
sensors and weapons can be integrated to provide robust, precise
standoff engagement of moving surface targets. In fiscal year 2000, the
AMSTE program completed a series of weapon system trade studies that
evaluated AMSTE component architectures, developed and performed real-
time laboratory experiments to assess the accuracy and robustness of
fire control algorithms using radar data collected from multiple
airborne sensors, and completed detailed system designs of an
experimental AMSTE system. These studies demonstrated the feasibility
of the AMSTE concept and identified critical supporting technologies
requiring further development and maturation. In fiscal year 2001, the
AMSTE program awarded two contracts, to Northrop Grumman Corp.
Integrated Systems Sector (Melbourne, FL) and to Raytheon System Co.
(El Segundo, CA), to develop and assemble prototype AMSTE experimental
systems (representative radar sensors, data links, and weapons) for
live flight experimentation. At the end of this year, a series of
developmental flight experiments will culminate in the delivery of GPS-
guided precision weapons against moving vehicles, targeted by standoff
networked sensors using AMSTE precision fire control techniques.
Further experimentation with the AMSTE system is planned for fiscal
year 2002, and the program will develop and incorporate critical
enhancements to address high-confidence track maintenance in highly
cluttered environments.
The Advanced Tactical Targeting Technology (AT\3\) program is
developing and demonstrating technologies that will radically improve
today's capability to target surface-to-air missile (SAM) threats
through the use of networked, next-generation electronic support
measures systems. AT\3\ enables the rapid and accurate targeting of
precision-guided weapons to counter the modern, more capable enemy SAM
systems, which are using increasingly sophisticated tactics such as
early emitter shutdown, making them particularly challenging targets.
In fiscal year 2000, the program successfully completed initial
software algorithm development, non-real-time flight tests, test data
analysis, and a critical design review. The data collections focused on
a few critical issues: platform-to-platform decorrelation from
electronically or mechanically scanned systems, multipath, and
geolocation performance. Using realistic emitters, we conducted these
tests with a combination of legacy hardware, new AT\3\ hardware, and
off-the-shelf navigation solutions, and all technical objectives were
achieved. The successful conclusion of the tests laid the foundation
for our continuing development work in AT\3\. DARPA has selected
Raytheon Defense Systems Company (Tucson, AZ) to conduct the program's
second phase. This year, the program is fabricating AT\3\ test
hardware, conducting hardware-in-the-loop and ground tests, and
continuing software algorithm development. In fiscal year 2002, the
program will complete real-time flight tests of the AT\3\ packages
against real threats, analyze the test data, and continue software
algorithm development based on the collected flight-test data.
A new generation of collection systems will provide dramatically
increased volumes of high-fidelity data to the operational decision-
maker. The challenge will be to manage and synchronize these advanced
collection systems with tasking, processing, exploitation, and
dissemination capabilities to provide critical information in a
constantly changing operational situation. The Advanced ISR
(Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) Management (AIM)
program is providing the technical foundation for ISR support through
the development of an automated system to optimize the tasking of ISR
assets to meet users' needs. The AIM program is developing and
advancing technologies in areas of multi-node collaboration, semi-
automated reasoning, and mathematical programming. The resulting AIM
capabilities will transition to DOD automated planning and command,
control, communications, computers and ISR (C\4\ISR) migration systems
as appropriate. In fiscal year 2001, the AIM program is installing the
Multi-Asset Synchronizer at the U.S. Southern Command to participate in
Exercise Unified Endeavor. AIM is providing enhanced coordination and
visualization of multiple diverse collection assets, enabling
collection managers to assess the utility of the technology and to
provide valuable feedback to guide further development. In fiscal year
2002, AIM capabilities will be further extended to provide near-real-
time re-tasking of assets to respond to contingencies and to maximize
exploitation system product value.
The goal of the DARPA Counter Camouflage, Concealment, and
Deception (Counter CC&D) program is to mature and demonstrate a foliage
penetration (FOPEN) synthetic aperture radar (SAR) to provide the
warfighter with all-weather, day/night capability to detect targets
hidden by foliage and camouflage. In fiscal year 2000, the FOPEN SAR
was installed on an Army RC-12 aircraft, and the program conducted
preliminary flight tests to validate the real-time image formation
software and verify that the system could provide the required image
resolution and sensitivity. This year, the FOPEN SAR has demonstrated
excellent image quality in the VHF and UHF bands and will complete the
preliminary RC-12 flight tests by imaging vehicles hidden under foliage
at Camp Navajo, AZ, to establish the capabilities of single-pass and
change-detection algorithms. In fiscal year 2002, the RC-12 FOPEN SAR
will fly an extensive series of flights to collect the data necessary
to train, test, refine and validate algorithms in different foliage
environments. The program will also conduct experiments to determine
the ability of FOPEN SAR to perform terrain mapping and terrain
characterization.
The Symbiotic Communications program will develop a passive, all-
weather airborne system that can produce real-time high-resolution
synthetic aperture radar images, and very accurate (National Imagery
and Mapping Agency level four) terrain height maps, categorize terrain
(for example trees versus roads), and detect and locate slowly moving
ground vehicles. This system is a passive, bistatic receiver, making it
difficult for adversaries to detect and counter the system. This
approach will allow our warfighters to gather the battlespace data they
need without putting themselves at risk. In fiscal year 2001, an expert
Government team and two contractor teams will develop system concepts
and ground-based experiments to validate technical feasibility and to
refine performance predictions. In fiscal year 2002, the two contractor
teams will conduct early flight tests, achieve radar processing of
signals of interest, and demonstrate bistatic synthetic aperture radar
processing.
DARPA is concerned about the threat of attack by large numbers of
low-cost air vehicles--from unsophisticated cruise missiles to small
fixed-wing aircraft. This asymmetric threat can emerge very quickly,
and there are many ways an adversary can acquire such a threat, e.g.,
manufacturing them indigenously, importing them from other countries,
or converting existing assets. Initiated in 1996, the goal of the Low
Cost Cruise Missile Defense (LCCMD) program is to develop a viable,
affordable option for countering such an attack without resorting to
our current inventory of interceptors (designed for far more
sophisticated threats) and running the risk of being overwhelmed by
sheer numbers of attacking platforms. The LCCMD program is developing
and demonstrating affordable seekers for use on a low-cost interceptor
system. Seekers represent approximately two-thirds the cost of a
typical interceptor system. Last year, the program conducted laboratory
testing of a laser radar seeker and a novel microwave-frequency noise
radar seeker. In fiscal year 2001, the program is conducting field-
testing of the noise radar seeker and initiating development of an
affordable micro-electromechanically switched electronically scanned
array (MEMS ESA) seeker. In fiscal year 2002, the program will complete
a preliminary design of the MEMS ESA seeker and fabricate subassemblies
of its antenna system. The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command
has expressed great interest in this program, and has funded an effort
this year to evaluate low cost cruise missile defense options.
The Real Time Battle Damage Assessment (RT-BDA) program is
developing and demonstrating new techniques to automate the assessment
of target battle damage. The program will use tactical and theater
synthetic aperture radars coordinated with weapons delivery to image
the targets before, during, and following the strike to enable
immediate assessment of the strike effectiveness. This year the program
is conducting instrumented data collections of real battle damage on
realistic targets to produce a database to support further research in
signature exploitation techniques. The program is also investigating
imaging radar BDA phenomenology and developing prototype RT-BDA
detection algorithms and assessing their effectiveness. In fiscal year
2002, we will further mature these initial algorithms to provide damage
localization and assessment, and they will be implemented and evaluated
in a real-time laboratory system.
The Global Positioning Experiments program addresses the problem of
enemy jamming of the Global Positioning System (GPS). The program will
demonstrate the use of airborne pseudolites, which are high-power, GPS-
like transmitters on aircraft, to broadcast a powerful replacement GPS
signal that ``burns through'' jammers and restores GPS navigation over
a theater of operations. Two field demonstrations last year showed that
signals broadcast from airborne pseudolites can be used in place of
satellite broadcasts to provide good quality navigation to military GPS
receivers with only software modifications to the receivers. In fiscal
year 2001, the program is conducting laboratory and field tests to
demonstrate that beamformer antennas can protect the airborne
pseudolite from jamming. In fiscal year 2002, the program will combine
these two key pieces of the concept by flying an aircraft in the
presence of powerful jamming and demonstrating the ability of a
beamforming antenna to allow the aircraft to acquire a satellite signal
and rebroadcast it as a pseudolite. Preparations will also begin for a
multiple, airborne psuedolite demonstration.
Dynamic Command and Control
One key aspect to operational dominance is the ability of the
commander to access critically needed information and to control that
information dynamically. Information technologies can provide this
ability by allowing disparate information systems and databases to
interoperate quickly and efficiently. Other technologies allow
commanders to develop operational plans quickly and revise their plans
in near real-time to capture new information or counter an adversary's
activities. Mobile networking technologies are also important, as
future warfare concepts envision small units armed with comprehensive
knowledge of the battlespace and able to communicate while maneuvering.
The military has a unique need for communications networks that can be
formed and reformed rapidly without a fixed infrastructure, and that
are highly secure and resistant to jamming; DARPA has a number of
investments in these areas. Other programs are focused on the
application of information technology to the critical military
challenge of controlling and automating the logistics pipeline and
planning process.
Near-Real-Time Planning and Replannning
Many recent studies agree that future U.S. adversaries are unlikely
to challenge the U.S. directly. Rather, it is more likely that they
will present an asymmetrical threat, developing and using approaches
that avoid U.S. strengths and exploit potential vulnerabilities using
significantly different methods of operation. Adversaries will attempt
to create conditions that effectively delay, deter, or counter the
application of U.S. military capabilities. DARPA is undertaking high-
risk research to help our military and intelligence agencies identify
threats before attacks happen. This will allow deterrence or deflection
of unconventional but potentially devastating attacks against our
military forces and infrastructure. The DARPA Asymmetric Threat
initiative will develop a suite of new technological capabilities to
better detect, correlate, and understand these asymmetric threats.
The Human Identification at a Distance program began in August
2000. In fiscal year 2001, the Human Identification at a Distance
program is developing automated multi-modal surveillance technology for
identifying humans at a distance using different biometrics techniques
such as face and body parts identification, infrared and hyper-spectral
imagery, gait and temporal human dynamics, non-imaging physiological
based-biometrics, and remote iris scan. In fiscal year 2002, the
program will assess the capabilities of each biometric to identify
people at a distance. Based on the assessment, the program will further
develop the most promising biometrics and investigate fusion methods.
The Wargaming the Asymmetric Environment (WAE) program will develop
and demonstrate specific predictive tools to better anticipate and act
against terrorists. WAE is a revolutionary approach to identify
predictive indicators of terrorist-specific attacks and behaviors by
examining their past behavior in the broad context of their political,
cultural and ideological environment. Initial results demonstrate the
feasibility of developing automated and adaptive behavior prediction
models tuned to specific terrorist groups or individuals. It uses their
past behaviors and the consequences of their deeds, as well as the
antecedent activities that led up to the act, to predict what, when,
where, how and why they will strike next. Over the past year, WAE
developed a model able to predict an active terrorist group's next
tactic (assault, bombing, assassination, hijacking, or no attack). The
model was validated against archival data covering 66 attacks over 17
years. In fiscal year 2001, WAE is expanding its predictive model and
validation process to increase the level of detail for predictions of
target characteristics, timeframes, geographical location, and
motivating factors. In fiscal year 2002, WAE will extend its predictive
model development and validation to include other groups and
individuals; these models will then be used to develop an intervention-
testing environment.
The Evidence Extraction and Link Discovery (EELD) program will
develop automated discovery, extraction and linking of sparse evidence
in large amounts of classified and unclassified data sources. EELD is
developing detection capabilities to extract relevant data and
relationships about people, organizations, and activities from message
traffic and open source data. It will then link together related items
that comprise potential terrorist groups or scenarios, and learn
patterns of different groups or scenarios to identify new organizations
or emerging threats. EELD's initial activities demonstrated the
feasibility of extracting relationships from text and validated the
detectability of patterns representing terrorist groups and scenarios.
EELD also developed two promising techniques for learning patterns of
activity, and developed functional system concepts to guide technology
developments. In fiscal year 2001, EELD will develop techniques for
evidence extraction, link discovery and pattern learning, validate the
detectability of patterns in classified data, and initiate collection
and characterization of documents for technology evaluations. In fiscal
year 2002, EELD will develop and demonstrate technology to extract
relationships, and detect and learn single-link type patterns.
Project Genoa, in the process of concluding, provides the
structured argumentation, decision-making and corporate memory to
rapidly deal with and adjust to dynamic crisis management. Project
Genoa is developing information technology for the intelligence
community to rapidly and systematically accumulate evidence, facilitate
collaboration while protecting critical information and test hypotheses
that support decision-making at the national level. In fiscal year
2000, Project Genoa matured and transitioned a new ``thematic'' search
engine to users on Intelink. Based on successful technology
demonstrations, the Defense Intelligence Agency has agreed to be a
transition partner for Project Genoa technology. In fiscal year 2001,
Genoa evidence-accumulation components are being delivered to the
Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff Directorate for
Intelligence (J2), the Joint Counter-intelligence Analysis Group, and
U.S. Pacific Command. In fiscal year 2002, these transition activities
will be completed.
The Command Post of the Future (CPOF) program is developing tools
that enable commanders to rapidly acquire a deep understand of any
military situation, leading to faster and better decision making and
more effective employment of military forces. In the past year, CPOF
has developed several prototypes of the BattleBoard, a mobile command
interface that provides the commander with a visual interface to
subordinates, superiors, peers, and staff that significantly improves
situation awareness and has demonstrated an order of magnitude
reduction in time to plan while at the same time improving the
robustness of plans. In fiscal year 2001, CPOF is extending research
into team collaboration tools and augmenting the collaboration and
visualization tools in the BattleBoard with reasoning tools that will
provide the commander with the ability to attach intelligent monitors
to places, objects, and times in the battlespace, effectively using the
BattleBoard as an extension of his memory and expertise. In fiscal year
2002, CPOF will add a dialog system to the BattleBoard providing the
commander with richer, more natural ways to query information in the
command and control system. Additionally, CPOF will integrate the
BattleBoard into existing Army and Marine Corps command and control
systems.
The Active Templates program is developing and delivering critical
command and control software tools for special operations forces (SOF).
These tools enable commanders to plan four times faster, coordinate
decisions immediately, synchronize combined-arms operations, and
control resources that dictate the outcome of the fight. In fiscal year
2000, the temporal plan editor and execution checklist tool were tested
successfully in three SOF exercises and subsequently adopted by a
number of SOF organizations. In fiscal year 2001, DARPA is developing a
geo-spatial editor for planning and tracking SOF missions on a map or
an image. In fiscal year 2002, the program will use default reasoning
to develop a networked spreadsheet that allows users to coordinate
information, get intelligent assistance for decision-making, and reuse
solutions to similar problems solved in the past.
Advanced information technologies are being actively applied to
warfighter logistics support, making that support secure, scalable, and
robust, and to collaborative logistic and operational planning and
execution capabilities for the Global Combat Support System.
The objective of the Advanced Logistics Project (ALP) is to
demonstrate the feasibility of using advanced agent-based technology to
make a revolutionary improvement in how the DOD provides logistics
support to the warfighter. The Advanced Logistics Project is a joint
DARPA/Defense Logistics Agency effort, in partnership with the U.S.
Transportation Command and the Joint Staff Director for Logistics. The
project has developed a distributed systems technology that will
revolutionize dynamic planning, execution, and overall information
management of the DOD logistics enterprise. In fiscal year 2000, the
project dramatically enhanced the architecture to provide the
capability to develop and manage multiple concurrent logistics plans.
The program worked with the Defense Agencies and Military Services to
identify high-payoff pilot projects and developed several applications.
One is operational today at U.S. Transportation Command, and another is
operating at the Defense Supply Center Columbus, a component of the
Defense Logistics Agency, and is scheduled to go into full operation by
late June. The program concludes this year having demonstrated a
systems architecture that has the capability to: generate an item-level
logistics plan in under an hour; totally control the transportation
pipeline; continuously generate time-phased support and sustainment
demands; monitor the execution details down to the individual items
against real-time information from the real world; and dynamically
repair the plan when necessary. If this technology were fully fielded
in the military, it would allow the military logistics enterprise to:
gain control of the logistics pipeline; enable the warfighter to
project and sustain overwhelming combat power sooner; permit forces and
materiel to be deployed, tracked, sustained, and redeployed more
effectively and efficiently with reduced reliance on large DOD
inventories; provide users at any level the ability to effectively
interact during planning and execution; and, link operations with
logistics staff elements at all echelons. As an infrastructure for
global logistics, an operational ALP capability would truly enable
Focused Logistics as envisioned in Joint Vision 2020.
The Ultra*Log program is developing information technologies to
enhance the survivability of large-scale, distributed, agent-based
logistics systems operating under very chaotic wartime conditions. This
program will build upon--and extend--the revolutionary technologies
developed under the Advanced Logistics Project in the areas of
security, scalability and robustness to ensure reliable logistics
support to the warfighter under the most extreme kinetic and
information warfare conditions. If successful, this would serve as a
template for creating agent-based distributed command and control
systems operating at all echelons that could dynamically recover from
information attacks, infrastructure loss, and other real-world problems
that plague effective planning and control in complex wartime
environments. In fiscal year 2000, the program identified several
critical survivability technology extensions such as adaptive
communications protocols, layered certificate and encryption-based data
security, and techniques for recovery from catastrophic information
loss, as well as the processes for measuring and experimentally
evaluating them. In fiscal year 2001, the program is concentrating
first on building the foundation for survivability in the core
architecture to include secure information management, increased fault-
tolerance, and system scalability. The program will perform its first
large-scale evaluation and assessment in late 2001, to include a Red
Team attack of the logistics information system during a representative
Major Regional Contingency (MRC) scenario. In fiscal year 2002, the
program will focus on expanding the logistics information system's
capability to detect threats and change system-state dynamically in
response to those threats. The military concept of ``ThreatCon'' will
be incorporated into the software agent architecture to support dynamic
reconfiguration for enhanced survivability in increasingly chaotic
conditions. In the program's second major assessment in the late 2002,
the prototype system will attempt to detect various threats and
failures and deploy appropriate countermeasures during the
representative MRC scenario.
The primary theme of the Joint Theater Logistics Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstration (ACTD) is logistic command and control. The
ACTD will leverage current and emerging technology to produce, and
rapidly transition, advanced collaborative logistic and operational
planning and execution capabilities for the Global Combat Support
System (GCSS). It will build a series of web-based Joint Theater
Logistics Decision Support Tools that will encourage operations and
logistic collaboration during planning and requirements determination
and execution tracking, and while realigning resources to meet changing
operational situations. The Joint Theater Logistics ACTD will correct
existing logistic deficiencies and provide the capabilities necessary
to ensure the future coordinated sustainability for logistic
operations. This ACTD builds upon the success of the Joint Decision
Support Tools and technical architecture developed under the earlier
Joint Logistics ACTD, and incorporates technologies from DARPA's
Advanced Logistics Project, the Command Post of the Future, and other
ACTDs targeted for Joint Task Force operations. The target user for
Joint Theater Logistics ACTD is at the operational level: the Joint
Task Force, its Service components, and major Service logistics
organizations.
In fiscal year 2000, the Joint Theater Logistics ACTD conducted an
initial demonstration of collaborative products, allowing operations
and logistic users, in real-time via the web, to coordinate shared
concepts for planning and execution. This effort included selection of
combat and combat support forces, missions, locations, and time
phasing. In fiscal year 2001, the Joint Theater Logistics ACTD is
demonstrating the ability to collaboratively develop operational
courses of action and the corresponding logistic supportability
assessments for fuel, engineer, and other commodities in a Joint Task
Force environment. In fiscal year 2002, the ACTD will provide a
logistic watchboard capability to monitor and replan ongoing logistic
operations in real-time, with flexible visualizations to provide rapid
drilldown for assessment details. The Joint Theater Logistics ACTD
products will transition through the Defense Information Systems Agency
in fiscal year 2003 as a Pilot Service Program, with expected fielding
to GCSS in fiscal year 2005.
Mobile Networking Technologies
The Airborne Communications Node (ACN) program is developing a
multi-mission payload that will simultaneously provide, in a single
package, assured communications and radio frequency exploitation
(signals intelligence, electronic warfare and information operations)
for joint and multinational forces on maneuver. The payload will be
scalable for application on a wide range of platforms. It will enable
high-bandwidth, beyond-line-of-sight connectivity and will allow the
tactical commander to dynamically reconfigure his available assets to
satisfy changing mission priorities. In fiscal year 2000, the three
competing Phase I contractor teams demonstrated their architecture and
proof-of-concept designs for ACN. The program selected two teams to
incorporate multi-mission functionality (e.g., assured communications
and radio frequency exploitation) into their architecture and begin
development of the technologies necessary to implement the multi-
mission design. In fiscal year 2001, the program is demonstrating
subsystem performance through detailed laboratory testing and
simulation. In fiscal year 2002, the program will validate multi-
mission functionality in an end-to-end system demonstration in a
laboratory environment.
The Small Unit Operations Situation Awareness System (SUO SAS)
program is developing and integrating key communications, navigation,
and situational awareness technologies for use by light, early-entry
forces in restrictive terrain where they currently cannot communicate.
The program is developing technologies to enable warfighters to
communicate clandestinely in buildings, tunnels, jungles and
mountainous terrain using self-forming, computer-controlled networks
that continuously monitor the environment, mission needs and the
tactical situation, and optimize themselves to ensure that
communications are always maintained. These capabilities will greatly
increase the effectiveness and survivability of small, dismounted
forces. Last year, a series of contractor laboratory and field tests
were highly successful in demonstrating SUO SAS' clandestine
communications waveform and its non-GPS method for precisely locating
soldiers inside buildings. In fiscal year 2001, the program is
completing the detailed hardware and software designs, fabricating the
major prototype components, and integrating and measuring system-level
performance. In fiscal year 2002, the program will complete prototype-
level field performance testing and analysis, providing important
measures of the technological advances for implementation by the
Services in their communications and situation awareness systems.
Transition details are currently being discussed with the Army.
The WolfPack program is developing new electronic warfare
technologies that can hold enemy emitters (communications and radar) at
risk throughout the tactical battlespace while avoiding disruption of
friendly military and protected commercial radio communications. The
WolfPack concept emphasizes an air-deployable, ground-based, close
proximity, distributed, networked architecture to obtain radio
frequency spectrum dominance. The WolfPack concept is to use a network
of nodes to sense the radio frequency environment, ascertain the type
and configuration of the threat, and carry out a precise, coordinated
response. That response can either be to disable communications and
radar reception, or to relay the geolocation information of the threat
transmitter. In fiscal year 2000, a team made up of representatives
from government, academia, and industry validated the WolfPack concept
and highlighted the critical areas of technology development through
analytical assessments of critical technology and performance
tradeoffs. This year, the program is starting development of high-risk,
high-payoff technologies such as wideband antennas, precision
geolocation techniques for urban terrain, spectrum denial techniques
for dense threat environments, and extremely small micro-jammers. The
program is selecting competing contractor teams to design the system
architecture and develop critical component technologies. In fiscal
year 2002, the WolfPack program will finalize the system designs and
conduct laboratory and limited filed demonstrations of component
technologies for network management and emitter node and network
identification, classification and geolocation.
Future Warfare Concepts
DARPA is investing in a number of diverse technologies and
prototype demonstrations that will enable future operational concepts
for a wide variety of critical military missions combining manned and
unmanned systems and in space, in the sea, on land, and in the air. The
investments for combined manned and unmanned warfare are significant.
The autonomous robotics technologies being developed today will allow
future warfighters to accomplish their missions more effectively with
less risk of casualties, thus preserving the U.S. military's most
important resource, its people. In space, we are pursuing revolutionary
methods to extend the life of spacecraft while they are on-orbit. We
have programs to reduce the frictional drag on ships, analyze future
missions for attack submarines, and improve the performance of towed
sonar arrays. For land warfare, we are developing a hybrid-electric
drive reconnaissance, surveillance and targeting vehicle, covert
optical tags for precisely locating objects at kilometer-ranges, and
alternatives to antipersonnel landmines. In the air, we are developing
active control of flows using a variety of very small-scale actuators,
and, based on our success with the Miniature Air Launched Decoy
program, we are fabricating a low-cost interceptor to engage enemy
cruise missiles.
``On land, our heavy forces will be lighter, our light forces
will be more lethal. All will be easier to deploy and to
sustain. In the air, we will be able to strike across the world
with pinpoint accuracy, using both aircraft and unmanned
systems. On the oceans, we will connect information and weapons
in new ways, maximizing our ability to project power over land.
In space, we'll protect our network of satellites essential to
the flow of our commerce and the defense of our common
interests.''
--President Bush, February 13, 2001.
Combined Manned and Unmanned Operations
Flying manned aircraft into hostile territory to strike targets or
to suppress enemy air defenses places the aircrews at great risk. The
DARPA/Air Force Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) Advanced Technology
Demonstration will prove that some of the most hazardous missions can
be performed effectively by an unmanned vehicle and made operational by
2010, while, at the same time, reducing costs and risk to human life.
DARPA firmly believes that the unit recurring fly-away cost of the UCAV
weapon system will be one-third that of the Joint Strike Fighter and
that operations and support costs, compared to a current manned fighter
squadron, will be reduced by 75 percent. The program began its second
phase in 1999, selecting a single contractor to conduct a comprehensive
series of simulations, ground tests, and flight tests using a surrogate
aircraft, two full-scale air vehicle demonstrators, and a
reconfigurable mission control station. The first UCAV demonstrator air
vehicle was previewed last year, and the test flight program started
this year. The X-45A air vehicle is currently completing engine runs
and will systematically move through a series of taxi tests toward a
first flight late this Summer. In parallel, a series of simulations
will demonstrate the ability of an operator to manage a UCAV in a
realistic battle environment. The remainder of the current phase of the
UCAV program, extending through fiscal year 2003, will demonstrate:
compatibility of the unmanned system with the envisioned 2010
battlespace; robustness and security of communications with the air
vehicle; the feasibility of adaptive, autonomous control of the air
vehicle, with advanced cognitive decision-aids for the ``man-in-the-
loop'' system operators; feasibility of coordinated, multi-vehicle
flight; affordability of operations and support costs; and
deployability of the system.
The potential of the unmanned approach to hazardous air missions
has also resulted in a joint DARPA/Navy Naval UCAV (UCAV-N) program.
The Navy has a need for sea-based, highly survivable, effective and
affordable air power to conduct deep strike, suppression of enemy air
defenses, and surveillance missions as part of an integrated air
campaign. A Naval Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle can prosecute the enemy
integrated air defense system and high-value targets with relative
impunity without placing a pilot in harm's way. In addition, a UCAV-N
capability that can maintain continuous vigilance will enable advanced
surveillance, suppression of enemy air defenses, and immediate lethal
strike for attacking time-critical targets. DARPA and the Department of
the Navy have agreed to a joint program to validate the critical
technologies, processes and system attributes and demonstrate the
technical feasibility of a UCAV-N system. The UCAV-N Advanced
Technology Demonstration program is structured in two phases: first,
analysis and preliminary design, and second, development and
demonstration. In July 2000, DARPA awarded two Section 845 agreements
to Boeing and Northrop Grumman for analysis and preliminary design of a
UCAV-N air system, and those studies were completed in March 2001. In
April of 2001, the Phase I contracts were modified to permit more
complete system preliminary design and to begin risk reduction of
critical technologies, processes and system attributes. A successful
conclusion to Phase I would lead to a seamless transition into Phase II
in January 2002. Phase II will continue through December 2004.
The jointly funded, collaborative DARPA/Army Future Combat Systems
(FCS) demonstration program will define the concept design for a new
generation of deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable,
sustainable and dominant combat systems. The program will develop
innovative technologies to get more firepower to the battlefield
quickly, establish dominance once there, and reduce the risks to U.S.
soldiers. A collaborative system of manned and unmanned platforms is
the key FCS enabler. DARPA and the Army are developing the technologies
to achieve this new way of fighting, managing the development risks
carefully in order to field a highly successful combat system.
The program will develop a preliminary design and fabricate and
test an FCS concept demonstrator that will show how the collaboration
of manned and unmanned vehicles can establish dominance on the
battlefield. At the same time, the program is developing radically
innovative enabling technologies for insertion in the demonstrator.
These jointly funded enabling technologies will provide mobile,
networked command, control, and communications capabilities; autonomous
robotic systems; precision indirect fires; airborne and ground organic
sensor platforms; and precision, three-dimensional, adverse-weather
reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting and acquisition. In fiscal year
2001, the FCS program entered a competitive concept development phase
and is conducting a series of government-run experiments to evaluate
the potentially revolutionary impact of various technologies on land
warfare. In addition to this design and demonstration effort, DARPA is
supporting eight programs to provide supporting technologies:
The Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle program, to provide
increased mobility, access and flexibility for ground combat
units;
The Perception for Off-Road Robotics program, which
will solve problems in autonomous ground vehicle mobility;
The Organic Air Vehicle program to provide small
ground combat units with their own air vehicle for close-in
surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting;
The A160 program, developing a long-endurance, high-
altitude rotorcraft for wide-area reconnaissance and
surveillance and for use as a communications relay;
The JIGSAW program, using laser imaging to facilitate
the identification of targets hidden under foliage;
The Command and Control program, which will develop
the necessary architecture for a combat system such as FCS with
distributed capabilities;
The FCS Communications program, for the robust, secure
links between mutually supporting vehicles needed on the
battlefield; and
The NetFires program, a continuation of the Advanced
Fire Support System, to provide precision, vertically launched
missiles.
The Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle program is determining the
performance benefits associated with design of ground combat vehicles
unrestrained by the need to accommodate a crew. The resulting vehicles
are expected to show radical improvements over their crewed
counterparts in deployability, endurance, and obstacle negotiation.
This program began in fiscal year 2001 and will generate seven
preliminary unmanned vehicle system designs for payloads of
approximately 330 pounds and 3300 pounds by year-end. These payloads
are notionally associated with sensor missions and sensor plus weapons
missions. In fiscal year 2002, the program will select at least four
designs to conduct critical subsystem testing (power systems,
suspensions, structural dynamics, and controls) in conjunction with
design refinement in preparation for prototype fabrication, which
should begin in the Summer of 2002.
The Perception for Off-Road Robotics program is determining the
extent of autonomous ground navigation that can be achieved in the
near-term to support tactical assumptions being made for robots in FCS.
This program is structured around unscripted field testing of multiple
perception approaches using state-of-the-art sensors, algorithms, and
processing capability in a wide variety of environmental conditions.
Example multiple perception approaches include dual perspective sensing
with a small unmanned air vehicle assisting the ground vehicle, or
combined active and passive sensing with radar and infrared sensors.
Some approaches also use strong adaptive learning algorithms to place
sensor data in the context of the local terrain and simplify the
identification of hazards. The field tests will incorporate on-the-fly
learning by the robots and operation in coordinated teams (including
unmanned air vehicles). This program began in fiscal year 2001 and will
involve four competing perception system teams, each preparing two
surrogate vehicles for autonomous mobility and perception testing in
fiscal year 2002. In fiscal year 2002, three of these approaches to
participate in field testing in forest, desert, mountainous, and
outdoor urban terrain under both day and night conditions. These tests
will be used to refine the algorithms and assess the performance (and
potential performance) of each approach under these widely varying
conditions. The results will provide validated data for FCS simulation
models.
The purpose of the Organic Air Vehicle (OAV) program is to provide
ground combat units, including Future Combat Systems units, with a
capability to detect adversary troops concealed in forests or behind
buildings or hills--anywhere that U.S. forces do not have a direct
line-of-sight to the hostile force. Today the military must send out
human scouts to locate and identify enemy troops, a slow and dangerous
process. The air vehicle will be small, lightweight, and inexpensive
enough to be carried, launched, and operated by lower-echelon ground
units. The goal is that the OAV design be less than one foot in any
dimension, weigh less than two kilograms, and cost approximately $1,000
each in quantities of 100,000 or more (cost for the air vehicle without
payloads). The air vehicle will carry a variety of sensors, such as
LIDAR, infrared, or electro-optic devices to detect vehicles or
individual soldiers. Initial testing of an OAV candidate, the Lift
Augmented Ducted Fan vehicle, was completed satisfactorily last year.
In fiscal year 2001, we will conduct flight tests of promising vehicles
and develop flight control software. The program will finalize
integration of complete, scalable vehicles and sensor packages in
fiscal year 2003.
The Hummingbird A160 program is developing a revolutionary
advancement in the capabilities of helicopters. The program began in
1998 to satisfy a military need of the Army and the Marine Corps for an
affordable, vertical take-off and landing unmanned air vehicle with a
long ferry-range (greater than 2,500 nautical miles) and high-endurance
(greater than 24 to 48 hours) capability with substantial payloads. The
A160 is also being developed as a sensor and communications platform
for U.S. Special Operations Command and the DARPA/Army Future Combat
Systems program. Automated flight controls and an automated ground
station will allow operation of the aircraft with minimal operator
training. The flight control system and ground station were
demonstrated successfully last year with a surrogate unmanned
helicopter. The rotor system was also demonstrated on a ground-based
rotor test stand in the past year, and the first A160 air vehicle is
expected to begin flight-testing this year. In fiscal year 2002 and
2003, the A160 program will integrate and demonstrate several
surveillance payloads.
The Jigsaw program is developing LADAR sensors to enable combat
identification by humans. Unlike video data, LADAR sensors will provide
three-dimensional information that can penetrate holes in foliage and
assemble information from multiple viewpoints as the sensor moves
around the potential target. This program, which started in fiscal year
2001, is collecting experimental data mimicking FCS environments and is
developing software to perform the assembly and visualization of three-
dimensional information. In fiscal year 2002, the program will build
prototype LADAR sensors with integrated software to perform experiments
in realistic scenarios.
The objective of the FCS Command and Control program is to develop
an integrated command and control system for the Future Combat System
Unit Cell that enables two to six people to command all organic assets,
both manned and unmanned, in combat. Since the proposed area of
influence, operational reach, and lethality of the cell's organic
assets are comparable to that of a current operational battalion, this
program is attempting to reduce the command and control staff by a
factor of 10. The current battle command approach is stovepiped in
nature and is not integrated. The operational constructs of FCS dictate
the need for a responsive, integrated command and control system to
support this new approach to distributed networked battle. The program
began in October 2000, and has mapped information flows, tasks,
operational constructs and technical build requirements for the
integrated command and control architecture. This year, the program
continues research in integrated battle command and modeling and
conducts an initial pilot test simulation of a unit cell in combat. We
begin a series of four experiments in integrated battle command in
October 2001, with the final experiment planned for April 2003.
The objective of the FCS Communications program is to create a
real-time, mobile, ad hoc network capable of operating with the
extremely low probability of detection and robustness to jamming
necessary for positive robotic and fire control requirements. In fiscal
year 2001, the program selected contractors to develop critical
enabling technologies: high band technology for dynamically exploiting
millimeter-wave frequencies; low bandwidth (e.g., future Joint Tactical
Radio System) technology for dynamically exploiting complex radio
frequency environments; mobile ad hoc network technology for smoothly
blending the high bandwidth and low bandwidth technologies into an
assured single network; and network modeling and simulation. In fiscal
year 2002, the program will down-select to a single team for system
integration and demonstration.
The Future Combat Systems and the U.S. Marine Corps' concept for
Operational Maneuver from the Sea both envision the use of forces
rapidly deployed by air and sea that need to be able to call upon
precision, responsive firepower guided by beyond-the-horizon targeting.
The NetFires program is developing a family of small, container-
launched missiles to provide massive, responsive, precision firepower
early in a conflict and is a key element supporting beyond-line-of-
sight engagements for the DARPA/Army Future Combat Systems program.
NetFires is designed for low logistics burden and low life-cycle cost:
a single C-130 could deliver a shipping container with 150 NetFires
missiles capable of engaging 150 separate targets up to 200 kilometers
away. The system is shipped in its launching container, requires no
additional launch support equipment, and can be fired remotely from
trucks, HMMWVs, or a variety of other platforms. NetFires' rounds are
ready to fire immediately, resulting in a much higher potential rate of
fire than is possible with current howitzers or missile launchers. Last
year, the program tested both a variable thrust motor, a key enabling
technology, and a launcher. This year we are continuing to verify the
operation of the variable thrust motor, having successfully
demonstrated maximum-flight-duration motor burn-times. Both missile
contractors have successfully conducted their first boost test vehicle
launches, and we are conducting seeker captive flight tests and
extensive wind tunnel tests; air drop tests of the loitering attack
missile will take place this summer. Initial unguided air vehicle
flight-testing begins this year, and extensive, fully integrated
missile flight-testing will be conducted in fiscal year 2002 and 2003.
One key to developing intelligent, autonomous, unmanned platforms
is advanced software. The Software for Distributed Robotics (SDR)
program is developing robot software technologies to allow a single
soldier to interact naturally with and intuitively control a large
swarm of very small micro-robots performing a collective task. In
fiscal year 2000, SDR demonstrated statistically grounded,
probabilistic control algorithms suitable for directing the actions of
a dozen micro-robots. In fiscal year 2001, the program is demonstrating
the ability of a single soldier to control the behavior of a swarm of
100 simulated micro-robots. In fiscal year 2002, SDR will demonstrate
these ensemble behaviors on a swarm of 100 physical micro-robots and
will transfer the software to physical robot platforms.
Space Operations
The Orbital Express program is designed to create a revolution in
space operations. It will demonstrate the feasibility of refueling,
upgrading, and extending the life of on-orbit spacecraft. Automated
spacecraft will perform all of this space work, lowering the cost of
doing business in space and providing radical new capabilities for
military spacecraft such as high maneuverability, autonomous orbital
operations, and satellites that can be reconfigured as missions change
or as technology advances. Giving military satellites the capability to
maneuver on-orbit would provide them with dramatic advantages: they
would be able to evade attacking spacecraft and could escape
observation by making their orbits less predictable to adversaries.
Last year, the program selected multiple contractor teams to recommend
the optimum architecture for an on-orbit servicing infrastructure. The
teams reported to DARPA on the space missions they determined would
benefit the most from being serviced, e.g., surveillance satellites
that could be maneuvered to coordinate overhead coverage with air
strikes to provide timely battle damage assessment if they could be
refueled, or space based radars that could be upgraded with faster
processors instead of waiting for new satellites to be launched. In
fiscal year 2001, the teams are designing a pair of spacecraft for an
on-orbit demonstration of the enabling technologies needed to make on-
orbit servicing feasible--autonomous guidance, navigation, and control
software to control satellite rendezvous and proximity operations,
sensors to measure and match relative satellite motions, wide capture-
range grapple and soft docking mechanisms, and open satellite bus
architectures that can accept plug-in upgrade components. The program
will select one team to build components necessary for the on-orbit
demonstration and continue development of key technologies. Fabrication
and ground-test of the two space vehicles will continue through fiscal
year 2004, with launch of the space experiment anticipated for late
2004.
The Coherent Communications, Imaging and Targeting (CCIT) program
could lead to more efficient systems for tracking satellites and
transmitting communications to them from mobile platforms. Current
systems, which use adaptive optics (flexible mirrors whose surface can
be changed to compensate for atmospheric aberrations or distortions),
are too heavy to use in mobile platforms. The CCIT program will
demonstrate aberration-free communications, imaging, and tracking using
the coherent properties of laser light and aberration correction
devices that employ micro-electromechanical (MEMS) technology. Fiscal
year 2001 is the first year of the program, and we are designing and
modeling the CCIT system and developing aberration correction. The
program is developing three device types, and we will assemble the most
promising into a laboratory CCIT system in fiscal year 2002. All three
Military Services are potential customers as CCIT provides capabilities
for secure communications.
Maritime Operations
The goal of the Robust Passive Sonar (RPS) program is to
significantly increase the performance of tactical towed sonar systems
by canceling out surface shipping noise, the primary cause of
interference. The RPS program accomplishes this cancellation by
innovative and optimal processing techniques coupled with multi-
dimensional receive arrays and other external information. The expected
net system performance gain is 10 to 20 decibels, and the system is
expected to dictate future array and acoustic sensor field designs.
Last year, the program began development of the space-time processing
algorithms to reject interference. In fiscal year 2001, the program is
beginning development of a processing system that will integrate the
various algorithms and is also planning an initial data collection
exercise. In fiscal year 2002, the program will conduct data collection
exercises with the Navy and carry out a preliminary performance
assessment of the integrated system.
The Submarine Payloads and Sensors Program was a joint DARPA/Navy
program to investigate missions for attack submarines in the future,
the payloads and sensors needed to conduct these missions, and the
impact of these changes on the overall submarine design. Two consortia,
formed in 1999, provided final reports to DARPA and Navy last year, and
program management of this effort has transferred to the Navy this
year. Concepts generated under the study will enable the Navy to
investigate new payload and sensor technologies for its Virginia class
submarines. In fiscal year 2002, DARPA is evaluating the results of the
study in consideration of other DARPA investments in maritime
technologies. Several innovative technologies in underwater propulsion
concepts, underwater littoral warfare concepts and antisubmarine
research can be combined to enable new warfighting capabilities. One
such idea is a very fast, highly agile underwater fighting vehicle
employing vortex combustor technology for propulsion and advanced
sensor technologies for targeting surface ships and submarines in the
littoral regions.
The Buoyant Cable Array Antenna (BCAA) program is developing a
submarine phased array antenna in a towed buoyant cable format, which
will provide high bandwidth, full duplex communication capabilities
while a submarine is operating at speed and at depth. Over the next
decade, increased emphasis on joint littoral operations, network
centric operations, and advanced threat sensor systems will overwhelm
the submarine's operational connectivity. In fiscal year 2000, the
program developed and tested antenna and transmit algorithms in
controlled environments, i.e., laboratory and in-water conditions. In
fiscal year 2001, DARPA is conducting open-ocean testing of the antenna
system to demonstrate critical performance milestones. Fiscal year
2002, the integrated system will be fabricated, deployed from both a
surface ship and a submarine, and tested at sea to demonstrate high
bandwidth connectivity from a submarine.
The Friction Drag Reduction (FDR) technology program is developing
a multi-scale modeling capability for turbulent flow to allow ship
designers to decrease friction drag by at least 30 percent with a
commensurate increase in endurance and/or payload fraction and possibly
significantly increasing speed. Using recent advances in computational
technology, FDR will examine whether injecting polymers and
microbubbles will achieve these goals. In fiscal year 2001, DARPA is
modeling different drag-reduction mechanisms. In fiscal year 2002,
DARPA will continue modeling activities, and begin system optimization
and design of near full-scale laboratory experiments.
Ground Operations
The Antipersonnel Landmine Alternatives (APLA) program is focused
on long-term alternatives to antipersonnel landmines that would prevent
adversaries from maneuvering at-will. The Self-Healing Minefield is
developing an antitank minefield that completely eliminates the need
for antipersonnel landmines. The military uses antipersonnel landmines
within an antitank minefield to prevent dismounted soldiers from
finding and disabling the antitank mines. In the Self-Healing
Minefield, no antipersonnel landmines are used. Instead, antitank mines
detect a breach attempt via mine-to-mine communication and the
minefield responds by self-repositioning a fraction of the mines
remaining in the minefield to fill in the breach. In fiscal year 2000,
the program began designing and testing three concepts for the antitank
mine mobility system and communication system, investigated behavioral
responses to breaching, and completed preliminary field-testing of a
liquid fuel-based hopping mobility system. During fiscal year 2001, the
program is testing and refining the three system concepts, culminating
with the construction of at least 10 prototype inert mines for each
concept. During fiscal year 2002, the program will complete final
testing of the first generation prototype mines at Fort Leonard Wood,
MO.
The Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Targeting Vehicle (RST-V)
program will develop, demonstrate and transition to the Services four
hybrid-electric drive, lightweight, highly maneuverable advanced
technology demonstrator vehicles that can be transported inside a V-22.
The RST-V's compact, V-22 airlift-requirements-driven design also makes
it attractive for transport in a wide variety of aircraft, including
the CH-47 and CH-53 helicopters and the C-17 and C-130 fixed-wing
aircraft. The vehicle will incorporate advanced integrated
survivability techniques and an advanced suspension. It will carry
integrated precision geolocation, communication and reconnaissance,
surveillance and targeting sensor subsystems. The RST-V platform will
provide small-unit tactical reconnaissance teams, fire support
coordinators, and special reconnaissance forces with quick deployment
and deep insertion of a multi-sensor vehicle to provide battlespace
awareness. Last year, the first two vehicles rolled out and the program
demonstrated the ability to transmit digital video and to operate using
battery-only mode, diesel-engine-only mode, and diesel-electric hybrid
mode. In fiscal year 2001, the program is participating in the U.S.
Navy Extending the Littoral Battlespace Advanced Concept Technology
Demonstration and U.S. Marine Corps Capable Warrior Advanced
Warfighting Experiment to demonstrate the silent watch/silent movement
capability of a hybrid-electric vehicle. During the experiment, Force
Reconnaissance Marines will conduct a reconnaissance, surveillance, and
targeting mission using the RST-V's integrated command, control,
communications, computer, and intelligence/reconnaissance,
surveillance, target acquisition communication and sensor suite
digitally linked into the Extending the Littoral Battlespace wide-area
network architecture. The third and fourth vehicles will also be rolled
out this year. During fiscal year 2002, the vehicles will undergo
survivability, automotive, and active suspension performance testing.
The Optical Tags program is investigating optical technologies and
innovative design and fabrication techniques for covert, kilometer-
range, optical tags systems for downed pilot extraction, covert
tracking, and precision targeting. Specific applications will be
selected based on their operational significance and user input, and
then demonstrated in meaningful warfighter experiments. During fiscal
year 2001, applique-based tags are being fabricated and demonstrated at
kilometer ranges. A live technical demonstration for early-entry and
special operation forces is planned for late-Summer 2001, when we will
demonstrate specific vehicle identification within a convoy, individual
soldier identification and location marking applications. During fiscal
year 2002, the program will begin investigating precision strike
applications and conduct engineering tests of improved tags in a more
stressing, operationally realistic situation.
The Tactical Sensors program is developing the architecture,
sensors, and other technologies to incorporate unattended ground
sensors into the suite of tools useful to the warfighter for detecting
and classifying time critical targets. The system will consist of
miniature, low-power internetted unattended ground sensors, deployed in
clusters and fused with longer-range space and airborne systems. In
fiscal year 2001, the emphasis is on quantifying system performance,
developing target classification algorithms, and initiating planning
tools. In fiscal year 2002, the program will finalize the system design
and build a number of systems for demonstration and validation in the
field.
Air Operations
The Small Scale Propulsion Systems program is developing a new
class of propulsion systems that will be smaller than any existing
engines, i.e., less than seven centimeters diameter and generating
thrusts of less than 10 kilograms. The new engines will enable
development of very small missiles to use against small targets, small
unmanned vehicles for close-in surveillance, and new space-launch
vehicles. Engines being developed include a shirt-button-sized turbo-
jet engine, a rocket engine only 12 millimeters wide by five
millimeters thick, an efficient and high-thrust seven-centimeter
diameter turbo-jet, and a pulse detonation engine. During fiscal year
2000, the program began detailed design of the engines. During fiscal
year 2001, the program is completing detailed designs, finishing the
fabrication of the button-sized turbo-jet engine, and testing the pulse
detonation engine prototype and the turbo-pumps for the 12-millimeter
rocket. The program will finish fabrication and testing in fiscal year
2002.
The performance of any system that travels through air or water is
dominated by the ability to control the flow over its surfaces. To-date
we have been limited to passive control methods such as surface
shaping. Recent advances in very small-scale actuators are being used
in the Micro-Adaptive Flow Control (MAFC) program to enable active
control of flows using a variety of very small-scale actuators. The
MAFC program combines adaptive control, distributed sensor arrays, and
advanced miniature actuators to provide a closed-loop control system
for a particular application. The program is beginning to demonstrate
revolutionary performance improvements for aerospace and marine
applications. Performance improvements as large as 30 percent have been
achieved, with momentum inputs 10 to 50 times smaller than those used
in conventional systems. MAFC technologies are being explored for a
wide range of applications, including: adaptive lift-on-demand for
agile weapons and uninhabited aircraft; lightweight gas-turbine
engines; control of cargo aircraft jet engine exhaust on the ground for
safe loading operations; and steering projectiles for extended range
and precision. In addition, MAFC technologies hold promise for improved
payload capacity for rotorcraft, enhanced aircraft maneuverability,
extended vehicle range, and decreased fuel burn at lower total system
cost. The applications are guided by system-level performance benefits
and cost assessments. In fiscal year 2001, several promising control
devices are testing protocols and demonstrating open-loop flow control.
We tested a prototype full-scale flow control system on a C-17 engine
and established that it would not adversely affect engine performance.
An active hover download alleviation system for the V-22 performed
better than expected at one-tenth scale, with a 20 percent increase in
overall vehicle lifting capacity; testing will progress to one-quarter
scale in fiscal year 2002. The program will demonstrate fully
integrated MAFC subsystems in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003.
developing and exploiting high-risk, high-payoff technologies
DARPA continues its traditional investments in information
technology, microsystems technologies, advanced materials, and micro-
electromechanical systems (MEMS). It is the results of these
investments that allow us to build the systems and capabilities for
operational dominance of the future. In an exciting new initiative,
BioFutures, we have begun to invest in programs that lie at the
intersection of biology, information technology, and the physical
sciences, having realized that the biological sciences, when coupled
with DARPA's traditional strengths in materials, information, and
microelectronics, could provide powerful approaches for addressing many
of the most difficult challenges facing DOD in the next 15 to 20 years.
In the Beyond Silicon Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductors (CMOS)
thrust, we are pursuing a radically different approach to the
fabrication of logic and memories, enabling enormous gains in
computational power in smaller and smaller devices.
Information Technologies
DARPA's investments in information technologies will provide
information superiority to the U.S. military through revolutionary
advances in:
Design methodologies for embedded and autonomous
systems software;
High performance computing components;
Networking;
Seamless computer interfaces for the warfighter;
Ubiquitous computing and communication resources; and
Agent-based systems.
Information technologies such as computing and networking have come
a long way, but their future remains unlimited. New technologies offer
great promise, e.g., wireless and power- and energy-aware computing
devices, embedded computers (that is, computers interacting in real-
time with networks of sensors and actuators), wideband optical
networks, MEMS, quantum devices, cognitive neurophysiology, and
computational biology and bio-informatics. However, these new
technologies also require additional development if DOD's future
computing systems are to be able to take full advantage of them.
Embedded and Autonomous Systems Software
As computers are increasingly embedded in the real world with
networks of actuators and sensors interacting with physical devices in
real-time, it is important to design middleware for connecting the
computing intelligence to the physical system. Advanced weapon systems
are increasingly becoming totally dependent on the efficacy of their
embedded computing systems. Consequently, as we endeavor to improve the
functionality of military systems, either for reasons of greater
autonomy or higher performance requirements for the warfighter, we must
develop methodologies, tools, and technologies for embedded software
that are:
Verified and validated by design so as to reduce the
need for extensive testing;
Reasonably well separated from the underlying
computing platform to enable their upgrade as new processors
become available; and
Composable so as to allow for the addition of new
functionality without extensive rewriting of the legacy code.
As DOD systems increasingly transition from platform-centric to
network-centric weapons systems, developing a new generation of
technologies that can greatly enhance the adaptivity, assurance, and
affordability of embedded software is essential for U.S. national
security. To address this need, the Program Composition for Embedded
Systems (PCES) program is creating new technology for programming
embedded systems that will substantially reduce development and
validation effort and improve the flexibility and confidence of the
resulting software. The technology produced by the PCES program in
fiscal year 2000 has been used to refactor complex monolithic operating
systems into modular components that can be reassembled rapidly to
build custom embedded control systems. In fiscal year 2001, the program
is developing and applying static analysis techniques for real-time
embedded systems' properties and demonstrating these techniques to
enhance the performance and robustness of operational avionics mission
computing systems. In fiscal year 2002, the PCES program will develop
and apply intermediate representations and mechanisms for code
composition and transformation that will synthesize adaptive software
to control and enhance the quality of service properties of data-
streaming missions performed by advanced unmanned air vehicles.
The Mobile Code Software program develops software technology to
resolve time-critical constraints in logistics and mission-planning,
including integrated maintenance and mission planning to support the
operation of Marine Attack Squadrons, real-time mission planning and
dynamic replanning experiments for unmanned combat air vehicle
operation, and adaptive scan-scheduling for electronic warfare
platforms. Demonstrations of Mobile Code Software in real-time,
distributed, resource management of radar sensors for tracking moving
objects showed that negotiation-based approaches can meet the time
requirements of electronic warfare applications. The Mobile Code
Software program solves the resource management problem through the
interaction of lightweight, mobile software components. We use a
bottom-up organization approach and negotiation as techniques for
resolving ambiguities and conflicts to get logistics and mission-
planning solutions that are both ``good enough,'' and ``soon enough.''
In fiscal year 2000, Mobile Code Software successfully demonstrated
real-time negotiation technology in mission planning with users at
Marine Aircraft Group 13, Yuma, AZ. In fiscal year 2001, the program is
scaling-up the technology to demonstrate integrated mission planning
and maintenance planning using real-time negotiation. In fiscal year
2002, Mobile Code Software will demonstrate rapid, dynamic,
negotiation-based re-planning in highly decentralized environments and
in electronic warfare applications.
The Mobile Autonomous Robot Software (MARS) program is developing
software technologies that can enable machine-learning strategies to
automatically generate sophisticated robot behaviors such as autonomous
navigation and real-time obstacle avoidance. These sensor-mediated
behaviors will reduce the requirement for remote operator control for
robots employed in tactically realistic environments including complex,
dynamic environments such as urban combat battlespaces. In fiscal year
2000, MARS demonstrated a suite of off-line learning technologies that
can rapidly generate desired robot behaviors with minimal hand coding
of the control software. In fiscal year 2001, the program is
demonstrating on-line learning techniques that can automatically
generate desirable, adaptive behaviors without human intervention. The
ultimate goal is to allow the warfighter to task a robot in the same
terms as he or she might task a human. In fiscal year 2002, MARS will
demonstrate a trainable, perception-based autonomous indoor navigation
capability.
The goal of the Software-Enabled Control (SEC) program is to
leverage increased processor and memory capacity to achieve higher
performance and more reliable software control systems for mission
system platforms. Military applications include integrated avionics
design and vehicle control for high-performance unmanned air vehicles
(UAVs) and unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs), as well as upgrade
potential for existing airframes such as the F-15E, F-18, and AV-8B.
This research will yield control technology that is robust enough to
withstand extreme environments and to enable highly autonomous,
cooperating mission systems. In fiscal year 2000, the SEC program
designed an open software architecture for hybrid discrete and
continuous control that supports better integration of control mode
logic with continuous control laws, including synchronized switching
and new software scheduling mechanisms. In fiscal year 2001, a
prototype implementation of the hybrid multi-mode control software is
being completed for single-vehicle uses, including predictive modeling
of environmental effects (e.g., wind gusts, turbulence) and safely
controlling mode transitions under such effects. This technology will
provide enhanced maneuverability/evasive capability for UAV/UCAV
systems and enhanced robustness under extreme conditions for piloted
systems, increasing the warfighter's survivability and decreasing his
workload. Multi-modal control technology will provide better-controlled
transitions between complex operational flight modes (inherent in
vertical takeoff and landing UAVs and high performance/transonic manned
aircraft), thereby reducing safety risks to the warfighter and vehicle.
In fiscal year 2002, the program will develop adaptive hybrid control
services to ensure stable operation and extend the control software
design to support highly coordinated control of multiple platforms.
Coordinated multi-modal control technology will simplify the task of
controlling groups of unmanned vehicles, increasing the capacity of a
single warfighter to safely control large numbers of air and ground
vehicles. This technology will directly support management of authority
within groups, supporting the ultimate goal of enabling safe combined
manned and unmanned operations.
From avionics systems to smart weapons, embedded information
processing is the primary source for superiority in weapon systems. The
new wave of inexpensive MEMS-based sensors and actuators and the
continued progress in computing and communication technology will
further accelerate this trend. Weapon systems will become increasingly
``information rich,'' where embedded monitoring, control and diagnostic
functions penetrate deeper and with smaller granularity in physical
component structures. Virtually all new and planned weapon systems
illustrate this trend: proposed future functionally integrated but
physically distributed ``open flat avionics architectures,'' inherently
distributed architectures for National Missile Defense and Future
Combat Systems, mission control software architecture for UCAV, and
many others. These systems all require solutions that the Networked
Embedded and Autonomous Software Technology (NEST) program is
developing: application-independent, customizable, and adaptable
services for the real-time ``fine-grain'' distributed control of
physical systems. The quantitative target is to build MEMS-based,
dependable, real-time, embedded applications comprising 100 to 100,000
computing nodes. In fiscal year 2001, NEST is designing Open
Experimental Platforms (including a ``smart structure'' and a
distributed vehicle application), challenge problems, and NEST
integration frameworks. The smart structure application provides
active, acoustical/structural mode damping and adaptive damage
identification in payload fairings. The distributed vehicle application
implements closed-loop coordination among large number of sensors and
micro-vehicles in pursuer-evader simulations. In fiscal year 2002, the
program will demonstrate the scalability and fault resilience of basic
coordination service components in 100-node, simple network embedded
software technology applications using lightweight, wireless
communication networks.
High Performance Computing
DARPA's investments in information technology are also providing
technology and tools to design high performance computing components
that are adaptable (i.e., the computer hardware can be modified by its
own software), with processors embedded close to the memory to prevent
data starvation and allow power- and energy-aware computing.
Many defense applications such as dynamic, sensor-based processing,
battlefield data-processing integration, and high-speed cryptographic
analysis are data-starved--that is, the processor is so fast that it
has to wait for memory to be accessed from random access memory between
operations, thus slowing down the computation. Prior analysis showed
that memory access was growing at the rate of 7 percent annually, while
Moore's Law predicted the doubling of processor speed every 18 months.
This program is aimed at reducing this imbalance.
The Data Intensive Systems program is developing innovative data
access techniques to solve this problem and enable new military
capabilities. For example, if the processing portions of the computer
architecture are physically closer to the memory location, data can be
retrieved more quickly. In fiscal year 2000, the program designed and
simulated intelligent memory controllers, adaptive caches, and memory
systems. In fiscal year 2001, we are completing the concept development
and testing of the early prototypes and demonstrating a 16-fold
improvement in the speed at which memory is made available to the
processor for data intensive applications.
Energy and power management has now become a critical factor for
future embedded and large scientific computing applications. The Power
Aware Computing/Communication program is developing an integrated
software/hardware power management technology suite comprised of novel
techniques that may be applied at all levels of a system--from the chip
to the full system. This will enable embedded computing systems to
reduce energy requirements by a hundred- to a thousand-fold in military
applications ranging from hand-held computing devices to unmanned air
vehicles. In fiscal year 2000, we began power aware computing and
communications research, metrics, and mission scenarios. In fiscal year
2001, the program is evaluating and prioritizing individual power aware
technologies for components, micro-architectures, compilers, operating
systems, and algorithms. In fiscal year 2002, power management
technologies will be demonstrated showing a potential 10-fold power/
energy savings for multiple candidate DOD platforms and missions,
including Land Warrior Dismounted Soldier, distributed sensors, and
unmanned combat air vehicles.
Networking
DOD applications are highly bandwidth-intensive, and their
demanding requirements cannot be met by the commercially developed
networking technologies that are optimized for web browsing and low
data-rate data streaming. The Next Generation Internet program, ending
this year, has developed the key technologies, both in hardware and
software, to enable access to extremely high bandwidth. The program has
deployed a national-scale SuperNet test bed that ties together several
dozen sites at multi-gigabit rates. A number of high-speed, end-to-end
networking records were established during our experimentation. These
early experiments also revealed the vulnerability of existing
networking protocols to bandwidth-intensive flows, and have stimulated
a number of efforts to streamline the networking protocol. This year,
the new protocols that enable high-speed access at 40 gigabits per
second are being integrated into network interface cards and tested
along with all-optical burst switches.
The Gigabyte Applications program is developing technologies for a
highly robust, high-speed networking infrastructure in a heterogeneous
environment. By extending high-bandwidth capability to wireless links,
it will be possible to deploy high-speed networks with many hundreds-
of-megabit- to gigabit-per-second capacity in remote tactical locations
with no pre-existing fiber infrastructure. Such links will also enable
high-speed reach back to a command post or to the U.S. This can be
contrasted to approximately 20 megabits per second connectivity made
available to a handful of U.S. installations during the Bosnia
conflict--a speed totally inadequate for distributing sensor output,
maps, high-resolution imagery and other intelligence data in real-time.
The program is also developing key DOD applications that take advantage
of a robust capability to stream gigabytes to terabytes of real-time
data. In fiscal year 2001, the program is testing multi-antenna
wireless networking technology that has the potential for gigabit end-
to-end radio frequency connectivity. In fiscal year 2002, the program
will demonstrate the sparseband sensor processing technology, where
multiple gigabit per second streams from radars operating in different
bands or locations are networked and coherently processed to
dramatically enhance the sensitivity and resolution that could be
attained from independent sensors.
Seamless Computer Interfaces
The Translingual Information Detection, Extraction, and
Summarization (TIDES) program is creating technology to enable English
speakers to locate and use network-accessible information in multiple
languages without requiring knowledge of those languages. Last year
TIDES started developing key component technologies and cooperated with
Third Fleet in a field experiment called Strong Angel that applied
early versions of the technologies to humanitarian assistance and
disaster relief operations in a mock exercise in Hawaii. In fiscal year
2001, TIDES is making the technologies more robust and using them in a
more ambitious experiment called Integrated Fleet Experiment-Bio (IFE-
Bio), aimed at global infectious disease monitoring, that will be
conducted in Bedford, MA, and San Diego, CA. In fiscal year 2002, the
program will add cross-document, cross-language summarization and
translation capabilities and will conduct experiments in additional
languages of defense interest, including Chinese and Arabic.
Ubiquitous Computing
Miniaturized, low cost sensors will become more capable and
pervasive in future military systems to detect ground-moving targets
and biological and chemical warfare agents, and for military operations
in urban terrain. To fully utilize these sensor capabilities, we must
develop software that can create an ad-hoc network of deployed sensor
devices, and process information collected by the sensors for
reconnaissance, surveillance, and tactical uses for the warfighter. The
Information Technology for Sensor Networks (SensIT) program is
producing software that enables flexible and powerful sensing
capabilities for networked micro-sensors. During fiscal year 2000, the
program developed new algorithms for ad hoc sensor networks, and
methods for cooperative sensing. The initial version of the SensIT
software with dynamic programming ability was demonstrated at the U.S.
Marine Corps base at Twentynine Palms, CA, where extensive data from
acoustic, seismic, infrared and other sensors was collected to develop
micro-sensor network methods for detecting, classifying, and tracking
ground moving targets and communicating this data to (and receive
tasking instructions from) a remote site. In fiscal year 2001, the
program is developing an integrated software suite and conducting field
demonstrations, also at Twentynine Palms, CA. This demonstration will
include inter-networking of ground sensors with sensors on mobile
platforms such as unmanned air vehicles, predicting target movements,
imaging the targets and relaying the image data to a command center for
confirmation. In fiscal year 2002, the program plans a field
demonstration and two joint experiments with the Marine Corps. These
demonstrations will feature fully integrated software that highlights
the new operational capabilities of low-latency networks of
programmable, multi-modal micro-sensors for rapid tracking of ground
moving targets and for detecting and classifying of threats in urban
environments.
A grand challenge for information technology is bridging the gap
between the physical and digital worlds. Computers should disappear
into the background while information becomes ubiquitous. The
Ubiquitous Computing program focuses on developing the underlying
technologies to provide accessible, understandable, relevant
information to mobile users, based on an understanding of the user's
tasks and informational needs, to provide the user with greater and
more timely situational awareness--thereby increasing his
survivability, lethality, and effectiveness. In fiscal year 2000, the
Ubiquitous Computing program delivered several products, including: a
small foot-print operating system, TinyOS, that enables self-
organization of small computing devices, such as those in the SensIT
distributed sensor network vehicle tracking demonstration; an initial,
component-based architecture to provide seamless computing support to
mobile ground troops, enabling them to have access to digital
information needed for their tasks; and an architecture to support
secure, mobile access to ``persistent data,'' i.e., data that must be
stored and accessed for some period of time, such as logistics and
casualty information. In fiscal year 2001, the program is developing
software components to support nomadic data access and representations
for task-level computing.
Agent-Based Systems
The DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML) program is creating
technologies that enable software agents to identify, communicate with,
and understand other software agents dynamically in a web-enabled
environment. Agents, which are software programs that run without
direct human control or constant supervision to accomplish goals
specified by the user, can be used to collect, filter and process
information--a crucial need of command, control, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance applications. DAML is developing an
extended XML markup language that ties the information on a page to
machine-readable semantics, thus creating an environment where software
agents can function. This effort will provide new technologies for
operational users by integrating information across a wide variety of
heterogeneous military sources and systems as the technologies are
deployed in both command and control and intelligence applications.
Last year, in the first year of the program, DAML developed the first
working draft of the software language and coordinated it with the
World Wide Web Consortium. In fiscal year 2001, the program is
releasing working versions of Briefing Tools, Search Tools, and
Ontology Creation Tools, and is defining and testing a toolset for
military applications of DAML technologies. In fiscal year 2002, the
program will deploy the DAML Search tool on an operational Intelink
node and prototype selected DAML tools to enhance search and retrieval
tools at the Center for Army Lessons Learned and other military and
civilian venues.
Information superiority in the modern battlefield requires that the
military be able to rapidly assemble a set of disparate information
systems into a coherently interoperating whole. This must be done
without system redesign and may include interoperation with non-DOD
governmental systems, systems separately designed by coalition
partners, or commercial-off-the-shelf and open-source systems not built
to a pre-existing government standard. The Control of Agent Based
Systems (CoABS) program is building on the technology of run-time
interoperability of heterogeneous systems to develop new tools for
facilitating rapid system integration. Last year, CoABS developed and
demonstrated a flexible information infrastructure and an
interoperability tool called the Agent Grid, which supports the dynamic
deployment of complex applications for military command and control.
The Agent Grid was demonstrated to the U.S. Army Communications-
Electronics Command Research, Development and Engineering Center
(CECOM), Fort Monmouth, NJ, and to the Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRL), Rome, NY. CECOM is now investigating the Agent Grid for use in
their battlefield command and control systems, such as the Maneuver
Control System, and AFRL is experimenting with the Agent Grid to solve
interoperability issues for Air Force missions. In fiscal year 2001,
CoABS is using agent technologies and tools in military scenarios to
demonstrate the run-time integration and interoperability of
heterogeneous systems in applications that address present and future
command and control problems. In fiscal year 2002, CoABS will
transition run-time integration capabilities to the Military Services
by providing the command and control infrastructure for Joint Forces
Command's Millennium Challenge `02, operating in the Army's Agile
Commander Advanced Technology Demonstration, and facilitating new
operational capabilities for the Air Mobility Command.
At present, complex military problem-solving tasks are either
performed totally by human operations officers and intelligence
analysts, or with minimal assistance by small knowledge bases. Computer
scientists trained in artificial intelligence technology must formulate
these knowledge bases. The Rapid Knowledge Formulation (RKF) program is
developing methods to conduct rapid database searches, construct
knowledge bases, and draw inferences for key information. The RKF
program is enabling end-users to directly enter knowledge into
knowledge bases and to create massive knowledge bases (106 axioms) in
less than 1 year. It will allow artificial intelligence novices to
directly grasp the contents of a knowledge base and to compose formal
theories without formal logic training. As a result, it will enable
military and technical subject matter experts to encode the problem-
solving expertise required for complex tasks by directly and rapidly
developing, extending, and expanding small knowledge bases by a factor
of 10. Because these knowledge bases are required for analysis of
hardened and deeply buried targets, offensive and defensive information
operations, and weapons of mass destruction capability assessments of
terrorist organizations, the capabilities enabled by RKF will be
extremely useful. The RKF program began in fiscal year 2000 and
demonstrated a language and diagram interface, analogic reasoners, and
theory explanation capabilities; it also developed 10 to 20 core
theories. In fiscal year 2001, RKF is demonstrating direct knowledge
entry by a single, novice user at a rate of 2,000 axioms per month
entered into a knowledge base that addresses malaria and orthopox
(smallpox) biological weapon threats, vaccines and other
countermeasures. By the end of fiscal year 2002, RKF will demonstrate
knowledge entry of a biological warfare challenge problem at a rate of
50,000 axioms per month from each of 25 subject-matter experts.
Microsystems Technologies
DARPA's pursuits in microsystems technologies are driving a new
chip-scale revolution in electronics, photonics, and micro-
electromechanical systems (MEMS) while demonstrating revolutionary
display technologies and photonics for military information systems.
The objective of the University Opto-Centers program is to
establish multi-investigator university optoelectronic centers with
programs closely coupled to photonic industry researchers to develop
and demonstrate chip-scale optoelectronic integration technologies. The
development of advanced, chip-scale optoelectronic modules is essential
for future, high-performance military sensor and information processing
systems. University-based research provides the knowledge base and the
highly capable expertise to both innovate and support the development
of these capabilities within industry. In fiscal year 2000, the
University Opto-Centers established new capabilities for the design,
fabrication and demonstration of chip-scale modules that integrate
photonic, electronic and micro-electromechanical systems-based
technologies. The program also established university technology
research goals and identified methods to facilitate industry access to
these technologies. In fiscal year 2001, the program is evaluating
specific chip-scale integrated module designs and assessing the success
of engaging industry commitment to the program. In fiscal year 2002,
the program will fabricate and test individual chip-level sub-
assemblies for later use in prototype development.
The Flexible Emissive Display program was established in fiscal
year 1999 and is developing and demonstrating large-area, high-
resolution, flexible, emissive, rugged displays for DOD applications.
The development of rugged, lightweight, inexpensive, flexible displays
will be useful for aircraft, ships, land vehicles, and foot soldiers.
In fiscal year 2000, the program conducted demonstrations in all three
key technology areas: backplanes, emissive materials, and substrates.
In fiscal year 2001, the program is demonstrating a low-cost, high-
speed, roll-to-roll assembly process for plastic-film liquid crystal
displays and is demonstrating a flexible, lightweight, emissive, color,
electroluminescent display based upon plastic material. By the end of
this fiscal year, the program will have demonstrated emissive color
display video capable of greater than 80 lines per inch on a flexible
substrate.
The primary human-machine interface remains the visual display of
information. The DOD has a diverse range of needs for display
technology, and today most of these needs (approximately 80 percent)
can be met by commercial parts, while the remaining require ruggedized
or custom design and manufacture to meet performance requirements.
DARPA's High Definition Systems (HDS) program, ending this year, began
13 years ago and invested over $650 million in display and related
technologies. The HDS program has played a significant role in meeting
today's DOD display needs. At the start of the program, cathode ray
tube technology dominated most applications. Liquid crystal displays
(LCDs) were just beginning to emerge as an alternative, primarily for
power-efficient, lightweight laptop computer applications. The primary
suppliers of these technologies were in Japan and were unwilling to
work with DOD contractors. Today, for most of the displays important to
the DOD, LCDs continue to dominate, but new technologies are emerging
that include MEMS mirror arrays, light emitting diodes (LEDs), and thin
film electro-luminescence displays. These latter types of displays are
available from both domestic and international sources, but the
dominant LCD suppliers are still centered in the Far East (Korea,
Taiwan and Japan). However, the market for LCDs is highly competitive,
presenting a robust marketplace in which DOD suppliers have ready
access to the most advanced technologies.
Specific HDS program successes include: MEMS-based Digital
Micromirror Device technology, which is finding application in the
Common Large Area Display Set for Airborne Warning and Control System,
Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System and E-2C airborne
systems and UYQ-70 aboard ship; cholesteric liquid crystal technology
that can maintain a static image without consuming power and is finding
application for information management systems by the Army Military
Police; small (one-inch) active matrix LCD for use in head-mounted
displays being transitioned to the Army's new reconnaissance/attack
helicopter, the RAH-66 Comanche; and low-voltage thin film electro
luminescence displays for the forward looking infrared displays in the
Army's Abrams M1A2 System Enhancement Program. A major investment area
for the HDS program has been in developing flexible emissive displays,
including organic light emitting diodes and flexible substrate
technologies. These technologies are becoming available but face
considerable manufacturability and long-term reliability challenges.
However, they offer the promise of roll-up or ``window-shade'' displays
for compact, portable command and control applications. In addition,
the HDS program has supported, on a cost-shared basis, the U.S. Display
Consortium (USDC). The USDC is made up of U.S. display industry
companies and provides support for the development of display
manufacturing equipment, processes and materials. The Consortium has
completed more than 40 projects, including 25 that resulted in
commercialization of new tools or materials for fabricating LCD,
electro-luminescent or organic light emitting diodes.
Relative to defense needs, today's truly global market for high
definition displays and the far greater commercial applications of
these devices has resulted in an advantageous position for the DOD. The
DOD strategy as we go forward is to make use of the global industrial
capability where it is available, using existing acquisition
guidelines, with contractors buying most display components in a highly
competitive, rapidly evolving and increasingly robust market place. In
the future, DARPA will limit its research and development investments
to focused specific needs where industry is not yet leading the way and
a military advantage is foreseen.
The Photonic Analog-to-Digital Converter Technology program will
apply photonic technologies to improve analog-to-digital converter
performance to achieve 12- to 14-bit resolution at sampling rates up to
10 giga-samples per second. Sampling at these very high rates enables
use of more complex radar waveforms and improved signal-to-noise
performance, providing enhanced resolution and improved target imaging
for military radar systems. The ability to directly perform analog-to-
digital conversion of multi-gigahertz signals at the source, while
preserving their entire spectral content, will have significant impact
on the performance of a wide range of radar, electronic warfare and
communication systems and create new architectural possibilities for
these systems. In fiscal year 2000, the program evaluated alternative
designs for the optical clock, optical sampler, and electronic
quantizer modules. In fiscal year 2001, the program is completing the
initial photonic analog-digital converter evaluation and finalizing the
design for the demonstration module. In fiscal year 2002, the program
will integrate the photonic clock and sampler modules with electronic
quantizers and complete analog-to-digital converters with at least 10
gigasamples per second.
Traditional approaches to electronic interconnects based on wire
interconnection lead to information processing systems that are bulky,
heavy, and power-hungry. The communication bandwidth and speed possible
with these electronic interconnects is lower than that of the processor
itself, leading to bottlenecks within the system. The Very Large Scale
Integration (VLSI) Photonics program is developing photonics technology
that uses optical links instead of electronic wire links for chip-to-
chip and board-to-board communications. This new technology will allow
data transfer rates faster than a terabit per second, which is crucial
for high-speed processing applications such as synthetic aperture radar
and automatic target recognition. In addition, VLSI Photonics will
enable a 100- to 1000-times reduction in power and size for these
systems.
The most important accomplishment in the VLSI Photonics program has
been the demonstration of the capability to manufacture vertical-cavity
surface-emitting lasers with yields of over 99 percent on large-area
(three-inch) wafers. Technology for manufacturing conventional lasers
will never achieve this low-cost, large-area capability. Surface-
emitting lasers have demonstrated the lowest threshold currents of any
lasers ever manufactured, with estimated lifetimes of well over 50
years. In fiscal year 2000, the program used optical links to transfer
useful data between chips to allow benchmarking performance against
traditional electrical approaches. We are planning the two major
capstone demonstrations of the program for the third and fourth
quarters of fiscal year 2001, the program's final year. The first
involves data processing in synthetic aperture radar, and the second in
hyperspectral imaging. Both of these applications generate large
quantities of data that are currently difficult to process in real-
time. The reduced size of the optical components and increased data
processing speed will demonstrate the feasibility of achieving more
than 100-times reduction in power-volume product for synthetic aperture
radar two-dimensional fast Fourier transform computations. This program
has successfully captured the interest of systems designers, including
commercial high-end workstation designers, and has stimulated the
creation of at least two start-up activities to pursue the continued
development of the technology.
Thermal imaging remains a cornerstone technology for many military
applications, including small unit operations, ground, air and sea
target acquisition, missile seekers, and threat warning. Significant
strides have been made in converting thermal imaging technology from
cryogenically cooled detectors to uncooled thermal detectors, which
have the potential to improve detector performance by a factor of 10.
The Uncooled Infrared Integrated Sensors program has catalyzed a major
shift in focal plane array technology. For many years, the standard
uncooled array was based upon a pixel size of 50-by-50 micrometers and
an array format of 320-by-240 picture elements. This relatively large
pixel size limited both the system resolution and target acquisition
range, and most importantly, restricted the options available to the
system designer. Last year, this program demonstrated for the first
time the ability to fabricate uncooled infrared sensors with a pixel
size of 25-by-25 micrometers, a 75-percent reduction in area. Although
thermal sensitivity should be reduced for smaller pixels, the
sensitivity was maintained at 0.050 degrees Kelvin, exceeding current
uncooled performance. These efforts will truly revolutionize thermal
imaging, providing lower cost sensors for current systems and allowing
the integration of imaging micro-sensors into novel platforms such as
micro air vehicles and robotics. A 320-by-240 array incorporating this
structure demonstrated two times the target acquisition range of the
typical uncooled infrared sensor. In fiscal year 2000, the program
began the investigation of new concepts for thermally sensitive
microstructures. In fiscal year 2001, the program is demonstrating a
100-gram imaging sensor with performance acceptable for micro air
vehicles. In fiscal year 2002, the program will incorporate high
responsitivity materials into the detector structures and integrate
materials and microstructures into imaging arrays. This will establish
the viability of high-performance uncooled infrared, providing
acceptable thermal imaging performance in a package 10 to 100 times
smaller and at one-tenth the cost of current thermal imaging sensors.
The objective of the Photonic Wavelength and Spatial Signal
Processing program is to develop integrated electronic and
optoelectronic device and module technologies that allow the dynamic
and reconfigurable manipulation of both the wavelength and spatial
attributes of light for adapting, sensing and image pre-processing. The
reconfiguration and data pre-processing capabilities of these
technologies will allow the design and manufacture of real-time sensing
and imaging systems. These systems could be deployed in a wide variety
of tactical systems, such as night vision systems, early warning
sensors, and autonomous platforms. This will be a significant
improvement over the current generation of sensing and imaging systems,
most of which are not capable of real-time data collection, analysis,
and presentation. The technology will allow hyperspectral imaging in
real-time in a single, chip-scale microsystem. The data contained in a
given scene will be processed, in terms of spatial and spectral
content, on-chip at the sensor/imaging array through the heterogeneous
integration of detector arrays, micro-optics, and controlling
electronics. This approach will result in greater than an order of
magnitude reduction in the amount of data that must be transmitted to a
user, thereby reducing demand on constrained bandwidth links.
Furthermore, since processing is done at the sensor, faster and more
reliable decision making will be enabled, e.g., rapid detection,
identification, and classification of chemical and biological agents.
The same suite of technologies can also be used in the detection and
recognition of targets and objects that are otherwise obscured from
view. During fiscal year 2000, the first year of the program, we
developed the basic source and detector device technologies that cover
spectral bands between 350 nanometers and 14 micrometers. In fiscal
year 2001, the program is demonstrating emitters and detectors in the
spectral band 350 to 500 nanometers. In fiscal year 2002, the program
will develop micro-machined optical elements for the spectral band 300
to 500 nanometers and three to five microns in the infrared band.
The Advanced Lithography program is seeking solutions to critical
technical barriers in emerging microcircuit fabrication technologies
that are essential to improving the computational speed, functionality,
size, weight, and power requirements of microelectronics. These
performance improvements will benefit essentially all advanced military
systems, including computation and signal processing for
communications, sensing, and guidance systems. In fiscal year 2000, the
program developed key tool components, materials and processing to
accelerate the availability of emerging lithography technologies beyond
193 nanometers. In fiscal year 2001, the program is demonstrating key
components of a maskless wafer writer and key components for
lithography of 0.07-micron features. In fiscal year 2002, the program
will develop key tool components, materials and processing for both
maskless and projection approaches for lithography at 0.05 microns and
will fabricate prototype devices for military applications with
features of 0.1 micron in size. The fiscal year 2002 budget level for
the Advanced Lithography program will reflect and support the
semiconductor industry's decision regarding next generation
lithography; they decided to pursue extreme ultraviolet lithography as
opposed to optical and x-ray lithography technologies. DARPA's Advanced
Lithography program will therefore reduce investments in those areas
while concentrating on leading edge technologies critical to military
needs--maskless and nanolithography. DARPA will continue to push the
leading edge of lithography into the sub-35 nanometer range, while
industry provides the engineering developments for next generation
lithographies. In addition, DARPA initiated a broad effort to identify
and develop the next-generation of microcircuitry components to
overcome the traditional limits of current silicon technology. This
effort, Beyond Silicon Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductors, is
discussed later.
The objective of the Three-Dimensional Imaging program is to
develop the ability to rapidly capture a three-dimensional image of a
target and determine its detailed target profile. This will
significantly enhance the ability to identify targets in cluttered
backgrounds and to correctly identify friendly versus unfriendly
targets. Imaging from fast-moving platforms and the requirement to
rapidly engage multiple targets necessitates the development of an
imaging array, which, using a single flash of laser illumination,
provides both intensity and target depth information. The Three-
Dimensional Imaging program focuses on the materials, detector, and
unique electronics technology required to obtain, in a single, very
short-duration, eye-safe laser pulse, a target depth profile or three-
dimensional image of the target. Key innovations in the technology are
the ability to incorporate gain into the detector structure, fabricate
focal plane arrays of high-gain detectors sensitive at short-wave
infrared wavelengths, and to integrate range-processing circuitry into
the unit cells at each detector. In fiscal year 2000, the program
evaluated fundamental materials properties necessary to fabricate high-
gain detection devices in the short-wave infrared wavelengths, with a
focus on material defect reduction and the uniformity enhancement
necessary for array development. This year, the program has
demonstrated a four-by-four detector array with a gain of 30 at one
gigahertz and will complete investigations of novel high-gain detector
concepts. In fiscal year 2002, the program will demonstrate a low-power
system with a range resolution of one to six inches at one to two
kilometers.
The Steered Agile Beams (STAB) program is developing small,
lightweight laser beam steering technologies for the replacement of
large, mechanically steered mirror systems for free-space optical
communications and infrared countermeasures systems. New solid-state/
micro-component technologies such as optical MEMS, patterned liquid
crystals and micro-optics will provide the opportunity to incorporate
small, ultra-light, rapidly steered laser beam subsystems into a
broader range of military platforms and man-transportable applications.
These advanced subsystems will enable laser designators to
simultaneously engage multiple targets, increase both smart weapon kill
ratio and delivery platform stand-off distance (and, therefore,
launcher survivability), allow full 360-degree infrared countermeasures
coverage around aircraft and other high-value military assets, and
provide a secure, covert means of high-bandwidth transmission programs
for special operations forces and scout intelligence preparation of the
battlefield. During fiscal year 2000, the program determined the
optimum mix of technologies to be developed, and established STAB
system architectures and performance objectives for subsystem
components to form the basis for managing risk and technical progress.
In fiscal year 2001, the program is developing, fabricating and
evaluating the beam steering, emitter, and detector components and
downselect the most promising approaches. In fiscal year 2002, the
program will develop design goals for assembled components and
fabricate individual laser beam steering components.
High-performance radio frequency systems are critical to a wide
range of advanced military radar, electronic warfare and secure
communication applications, but they are currently restricted to
deployment on large weapons platforms due to the size, weight and power
characteristics of electronics-based radio frequency components. The
Radio Frequency Lightwave Integrated Circuits program will develop
smaller, lighter, yet higher performance photonics-based radio
frequency components capable of operating over a much broader range of
radio frequencies, while also providing the form factors required by
the small and rapidly mobile weapons platforms of the future. This
program, which began in fiscal year 2000, is identifying promising
approaches to photonic components or enhanced radio frequency
applications. The first year was spent developing radio frequency
photonic modules that enable links with zero net radio frequency loss
from input to output and demonstrating optically integrated modules
capable of performing complex radio frequency functions. In fiscal year
2001, the program is identifying key applications for integrated radio
frequency photonic modules, producing initial prototypes, and
demonstrating methods to evaluate their performance. In fiscal year
2002, the program will integrate recently developed emitters,
waveguides, detectors and integrated circuits to produce radio
frequency photonic component prototypes.
Advanced Materials
DARPA's Structural Materials program is tailoring the properties
and performance of structural materials to lower the weight and
increase the performance of defense systems. Technologies are being
pursued that will lead to ultra-lightweight ground vehicles and
spacecraft through the use of structural amorphous metals or
multifunctional materials. The program is also developing improved body
armor for the individual soldier.
The Multifunctional Materials program explores materials that
combine the function of structure with another critical system function
(power, repair, ballistic protection, etc.). For example, in fiscal
year 2001 the program is demonstrating the use of fuel cells whose
physical structure also serves as the functional structure for the
system or platform, significantly reducing the parasitic weight of
power generation in weight-sensitive micro air vehicles. An example is
a micro air vehicle with a wing that is the structure, the antenna, and
the fuel cell wall (hydrogen inside, air outside). In fiscal year 2002,
the program will investigate structures that combine ballistic
protection with structure.
The goal of the Lightweight Body Armor program is to significantly
reduce the weight of soldier body armor designed to stop 30 caliber
armor piercing bullets to an aereal density of 3.5 pounds per square
foot. Three ultra-lightweight body armor concepts, two of which use
active armor techniques, are supported by the U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command Systems Manager-Soldier. The DARPA program is the
first to investigate how active armor systems could be safely and
effectively employed for personnel protection. This year, the program
is selecting the most viable concept for further development, with
subsequent demonstration of an armor system by the Army planned for
fiscal year 2002.
The Structural Amorphous Materials program exploits the truly
unique properties (toughness, strength, ballistic properties) of
structural amorphous materials for critical defense applications such
as ballistically resistant ship structures and as a replacement for
depleted uranium in anti-armor projectiles. In fiscal year 2001, we are
developing approaches for processing these advanced materials in bulk
at reasonable cost. In fiscal year 2002, we will evaluate the
properties of these materials in the context of making significant
improvements for defense applications.
The objective of the Mesoscopic Integrated Conformal Electronics
(MICE) program is to be able to create electronic circuits and
materials on any surface, e.g., to print electrical circuits on the
frames of eyeglasses or interwoven with clothing. The MICE program will
provide a number of benefits to the DOD. The ability to print
ruggedized electronics and/or antennas on conformal surfaces such as
helmets and other wearable gear will provide new capabilities and
functionalities to the future warfighter. MICE technologies will
eliminate the need for solder, thereby greatly increasing the
robustness of electronic circuitry, and the need for printed wiring
boards, enabling significant weight savings for a number of military
electronic platforms. To accomplish these objectives, the program is
developing manufacturing tools that directly write or print electronic
components such as resistors, capacitors, antennas, fuel cells, and
batteries on a wide variety of substrates and with write speeds that
approach or exceed commercial printing technologies--all at
significantly decreased processing complexity and cost. Recent efforts
have demonstrated the ability to print metal lines on curved surfaces,
feature sizes as small as five microns, and print speeds close to one
meter per second. One of the most exciting developments has been the
demonstration of printed zinc-air batteries that have four times more
volumetric power density than commercial batteries. With these
demonstrations in hand, industry is moving forward with plans to use
MICE tools for printing batteries, fuel cells, conformal antennas, and
circuit interconnects. Plans for upcoming years include printing high-
gain antennas on conformal surfaces, printing solar cells and fuel
cells for integrating energy sources with the electronics, and making
high-quality electronic parts at very low temperatures.
The Smart Materials and Structures Demonstrations program has
applied existing smart materials in an appropriate device form to
reduce noise and vibration and to achieve aerodynamic and hydrodynamic
flow control in various structures of military interest. These devices
can facilitate a paradigm shift for the design of undersea vehicles,
engine inlets, aircraft wings, and helicopter rotor blades.
Demonstrations have included small, high-bandwidth devices for acoustic
signature reduction of marine turbo-machinery, shape memory alloy (SMA)
actuators to control the shape and attitude of fighter inlets to
achieve higher aerodynamic efficiencies and performance, flexible skins
with embedded SMA wires that permit continuous control surface shape
changes for improved aerodynamic performance (Smart Wing), and small,
powerful actuators capable of fitting into the confined interior space
of a rotating helicopter rotor blade for noise and vibration reduction
(Smart Rotor). We are also exploring novel ways to make compact hybrid
actuators that will employ smart material driving elements to create a
new class of efficient, high energy density actuators in a package that
is smaller and lighter than conventional hydraulic and electromagnetic
actuators with similar power ratings. These new actuators could lead to
considerable weight savings and reduced complexity and maintenance in
smaller aircraft and have applications to the control of new types of
hypersonic missiles. We concluded the marine and aircraft
demonstrations earlier this year, and will conduct the final Smart Wing
wind tunnel test of a scale-model unmanned combat air vehicle in the
NASA Langley Transonic Dynamics Tunnel later this year. Construction of
full-scale helicopter rotor blades in the Smart Rotor effort is
currently underway, and wind tunnel and whirl stand tests are planned
for late 2001. The overall goal of the Smart Rotor effort is to
successfully demonstrate acoustic noise and vibration reductions in a
flight test aboard an MD900 Explorer in early 2002.
The Exoskeletons for Human Performance Augmentation program is
developing technologies to enhance a soldier's physical performance to
enable him, for example, to handle more firepower, wear more ballistic
protection, carry larger caliber weapons and more ammunition, and carry
supplies greater distances. This will provide increased lethality and
survivability of ground forces in combat environments, especially for
soldiers fighting in urban terrain. Working with significant interest
and technical input from the operational military, we are exploring
systems with varying degrees of sophistication and complexity, ranging
from an unpowered mechanical apparatus to full powered mechanical
suits. The program is addressing key technology developments, including
energy-efficient actuation schemes and power sources with a relevant
operational life, active-control approaches that sense and enhance
human motion, biomechanics and human-machine interfaces, and system
design and integration. In fiscal year 2000, the program evaluated
innovative actuation concepts using chemical energy sources such as
hydrocarbon fuels to provide mechanical motion. In fiscal year 2001,
researchers are developing, characterizing and testing integrated
technologies, activities that will continue in fiscal year 2002.
Biomimetic technologies look for inspirations from biological
systems to create hardware with superior capabilities. One focus of the
biomimetics efforts in the Controlled Biological and Biomimetic Systems
program is to explore the unique mobility offered by legged platforms.
The program designed small, legged robotic vehicles (the size of a
shoebox) for fault-tolerant mobility over rough terrain where wheeled
and tracked vehicles often fail. Field-testing with the Marine Corps
has demonstrated that these platforms have significant mobility in
operational environments such as urban terrain where large obstacles
and unplanned rough terrain impeded mobility. Preliminary assessment of
the six-legged platforms called Rhex and Scorpion have shown superior
performance in benchmarking tests against wheels and tracks and in
operational environments of interest. The program now plans to explore
developmental prototypes and define additional military utility for
these legged robotic vehicles. We are interested in including
additional fundamental principles of legged performance, new biomimetic
structural and functional materials and enhanced software. The program
will ultimately add sensor payloads for navigation and guidance and to
perform specific military applications such as reconnaissance, or
identification and removal of unexploded ordinance.
The Functional Materials program is developing non-structural
materials and devices that enable significant advances in
communications, sensing and computation for the military. Examples
include: magnetic materials for high sensitivity, magnetic field
sensors and non-volatile, radiation-hardened magnetic memories; light-
emitting polymers for flexible displays; and frequency-agile materials
based on ferrite and ferroelectric oxides for high sensitivity, compact
tuned filters, oscillators, and antennas. In fiscal year 2000, the
program demonstrated light-emitting polymers for flexible displays with
performances almost equivalent with inorganic alternatives. The program
demonstrated a frequency-agile, lightweight patch antenna for UHF
satellite communications that has 20 times less volume than existing
antennas and, thus is suitable for low-profile mounting on the roof of
military vehicles. We also developed a very low cost, high performance
ferroelectric phase shifter for monolithic thin-film electronically
steered antenna applications. In fiscal year 2001, the program is
expanding its work in electroactive polymers to include the development
of thin-film spatial filters that will improve by a factor of 10 the
speed and power requirements for sensors for missile defense. In
addition, the program is exploring the development and application of
artificially engineered nanocomposites or ``meta-materials'' for
achieving electromagnetic properties unobtainable in nature. In fiscal
year 2002, the program will demonstrate actuators that mimic biological
muscles for robotic applications and meta-materials concepts for a
number of important DOD electromagnetic applications. The program will
demonstrate a one-megabit, fully radiation-hard memory by the end of
fiscal year 2002. This memory will be competitive with conventional
memories and will definitely replace some, if not all, of the existing
random access semiconductor memories like Flash, Dynamic Random Access
Memory (DRAM) and Static Random Access Memory (SRAM). This memory
technology is transitioning to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and
the Navy Trident Program, and it is beginning to generate a significant
amount of commercial investment.
The Totally Agile Sensor Systems (TASS) program is developing
ultra-sensitive radio frequency receivers using high-temperature
superconductivity (HTS) filters and low-noise amplifiers. This
technology will provide the highest possible sensitivity for
communications intelligence and signals intelligence missions pursued
by the U.S. military and intelligence communities. The goal is to
enable superconducting filters and amplifiers that can achieve up to 10
times the range compared to conventional means for detection of low-
level signals. In fiscal year 2000, the program investigated several
methods to ``tune'' the frequency of HTS filters. In fiscal year 2001,
the program is working toward tunability of 30 to 50 percent of base
frequency demonstrating a system to detect and geolocate sources of
unintended radiation for the Rivet Joint aircraft. In fiscal year 2002,
the program will push tunability to 100 percent of base frequency, with
automatic electronic selection within one millisecond. The program will
consider using the technology for non-imaging identification and
location of battlefield targets.
Current sensor system architectures sense signals from a physical
stimulus, transduce them to electrical signals, convert the electrical
signals to digital form for processing by computers, and finally
extract critical information from the processed signals for
exploitation. Integrated Sensing and Processing (ISP) aims to replace
this chain of processes, each optimized separately, with new methods
for designing sensor systems that treat the entire system as a single
end-to-end process that can be optimized globally. The ISP approach is
expected to enable order-of-magnitude performance improvement in
detection sensitivity and target classification accuracy, with no
change in computational cost, across a wide variety of DOD sensor
systems and networks, from surveillance to radar, sonar, optical, and
other weapon guidance systems. Fiscal year 2001 was the first year of
funding for this program. In fiscal year 2001, the program is
developing new mathematical frameworks for global optimization of
sensor system performance. In fiscal year 2002, the program will
implement physical and software prototypes of the new methodology in
test bed systems such as missile guidance and automatic ground target
recognition modules for validation and evaluation, and to support
continuing iterative development of new design methods for sensor
systems.
The Virtual Electromagnetic Test Range (VET) program will develop
and demonstrate fast, accurate three-dimensional computational
electromagnetic prediction codes enabling practical radar cross-section
design of full-size air vehicles with realistic material treatments and
details and components such as cavities, thin edges, and embedded
antennas. Success will provide the predictive modeling phase of
aircraft design with an order of magnitude savings in man-hours; two
orders of magnitude reduction in computation expenses may be
obtainable. An order of magnitude reduction in range and model costs is
also predicted. The biggest impact of these new capabilities is likely
to come in the form of cost reductions for modifications and upgrades
to existing air vehicles. In fiscal year 2001, the program is
developing the capability to predict scattering from deep cavities,
gaps, cracks, and thin edges with high fidelity. In fiscal year 2002,
it will demonstrate the capability for high fidelity prediction from
multi-sensor apertures and arrays.
It has been long recognized that current and future battery
technology will not provide sufficient energy to meet the requirements
of military missions unless multiple batteries are carried throughout a
mission, an incredible expense in logistics and mission effectiveness.
This limitation could also significantly degrade the usefulness of
emerging systems such as robots and other small unmanned vehicles. To
address this issue, DARPA began the Palm Power program in fiscal year
2001 with the goal of developing and demonstrating technologies to
reduce the logistics burden for the dismounted soldier by developing
novel energy conversion devices operating at 20 watts average power
with 10 to 20 times the energy density of batteries. The program is
examining several approaches that can convert high-energy-content fuels
to electricity, with an emphasis on approaches that can use available
military fuels. Among the technologies being considered are: direct
oxidation solid oxide fuel cells; extremely compact fuel processors for
integration with proton exchange membrane fuel cells; novel small
engines; new approaches to solid state thermionic emission and
thermoelectrics coupled to advanced miniature combustion systems; and
advanced materials and materials processing. In fiscal year 2002, the
program will evaluate new materials and concepts to meet program goals.
MEMS
Micro-electromechanical Systems (MEMS) technology enables ultra-
miniaturization of mechanical components and their integration with
microelectronics while improving performance and enabling new
capabilities. The MEMS program has been focusing on developing
integrated, micro-assembled, multi-component systems for applications
such as aerodynamic control; inertial measurement and guidance; and
microfluidic chip-technologies to be used for biological detection,
toxin identification, DNA analysis, cellular analysis, drug preparation
and drug delivery. Over the last several years, many significant
programs were established within DARPA that leverage MEMS technology.
One such new activity is the Micro Power Generation program. The
development of micro power sources will enable ultra-miniaturization
and functionality of new standalone systems. The use of MEMS technology
has already demonstrated size reduction, mass reduction, power
reduction, performance enhancements, new sensing concepts and new
functionality in weapon systems and platforms. Micro power sources will
be the key components in ultimate miniaturization and integration of
standalone, self-contained, wireless micro-sensors and micro-actuators
that can be deployed remotely in clusters to drastically enhance
superiority of weapon systems and field awareness. Another new activity
is the Nano Mechanical Array Signal Processors (NMASP) program. The
development of NMASP will enable ultra-miniaturized (the size of a
wristwatch or hearing aid) and ultra low-power UHF communicators/GPS
receivers, greatly improving the mobility and location identification
of individual warfighters. NMASP technologies will deliver these new
component level technologies, as well as new methods for production of
mass spectrometers, calorimeters, bolometers, and high-resolution
infrared imaging devices.
The objective of the BioFluidic Chips (BioFlips) program is to
demonstrate technologies for self-calibrating, reconfigurable, totally
integrated bio-fluidic chips with local feedback control of physical
and chemical parameters and on-chip, direct interface to sample
collection. In fiscal year 2000, its first year, BioFlips identified
promising microfabrication platforms to integrate fluidic chip
components and developed several subsystem approaches to achieve system
specifications. The program used advanced modeling of microscale
fluidics to evaluate these subsystem designs. In fiscal year 2001,
BioFlips is developing closed-loop bio-fluidic chips to regulate
complex cellular and molecular processing through the integration of
individual biomolecular transport components and in situ sensors for
local feedback control of the fluid parameters. In fiscal year 2002,
the program will demonstrate optimization of subsystems and components
for integration into prototype systems. Examples of prototype systems
include micro flow cytometers that are the size of a wristwatch, a
sample preparation microsystem that extracts purified DNA from whole
blood samples, and a wristwatch-sized physiological monitor that can
acquire body fluids through the skin for measuring blood gas partial
pressures, pH, glucose, and hematocrit.
BioFutures (Bio:Info:Micro)
DARPA's investigations at the intersection of biology, information
technology and the physical sciences (Bio:Info:Micro) began in fiscal
year 2001 with the realization that the biological sciences, when
coupled with the traditional strengths of DARPA in materials,
information and microelectronics, could provide powerful approaches for
addressing many of the most difficult challenges facing DOD in the next
15 to 20 years. Chief among these challenges is preventing human
performance from becoming the weakest link on the future battlefield.
For example, DOD must be able to maintain the decision-making and
fighting capability of the soldier in the face of asymmetric attack
(e.g., biological warfare defense), stress and increasingly complex
military operations. We will explore and develop new capabilities and
methods for performing complex military operations by applying what we
learn from the models provided by living systems, which function and
survive in a complex environment and adapt, out of necessity, to
changes in that environment. In short, the combination of biological
science and technology offers an avenue into the understanding--and
development for defense applications--of systems that are capable of
complex, robust, and adaptive operations using fundamentally unreliable
components.
As we proceed with the Bio:Info:Micro initiative, two development
themes emerge that have become our organizing principles: critical
human factors for future warfighting, and complexity in military
operations. The proliferation of technology on the battlefield and the
open-market availability of extremely capable weaponry are dramatically
shortening the timelines for critical decision-making while increasing
the complexity of the battlespace. The tools we develop at the
intersection of biology, information technology, and the physical
sciences will enable radically new command capabilities to deal with
this increased complexity in warfare, while addressing the increasing
demands being placed on our warfighters.
Critical Human Factors for Future Warfighting: Human physical and
cognitive limitations often constrain technological superiority and
superior warfighting, especially in a future battlespace that will
continue to increase in complexity and tempo. A major thrust for
DARPA's Biological Science and Technology program is to explore
solutions to extending human performance. Solutions include extending
physical and cognitive performance during the stress of military
operation, and interacting with complex, teleoperated, semi-autonomous,
and autonomous systems. The program is exploring biological principles
and practices to enable new capabilities to sustain or extend human
performance for future warfighting. The program will investigate
therapeutics, sensors, materials, neural and mechanical interfaces,
biological or biomimetic controllers, and learning, memory and
training.
Complexity in Military Operations: Military operations and systems
are increasing in complexity. DOD must explore new solutions able to
maintain superior performance in spite of increased complexity. Living
systems demonstrate robust solutions as they operate in a complex world
by optimizing performance through adaptive evolution. A major thrust at
DARPA will be to explore and develop new capabilities to perform
complex military operations based on the principles and practices of
biology. Of particular interest to DOD are biological capabilities for:
regenerative, cooperative, or redundant processes and materials;
information processing; pattern recognition and decision analysis;
target identification and acquisition; maneuverability and navigation;
stability in wide environmental extremes; and communication of singular
or networked systems.
Three programs illustrate DARPA's emphasis on human factors and
complexity in military operations:
The Metabolic Engineering for Cellular Stasis program is
investigating biological practices that allow organisms to adapt to
environmental extremes (water, temperature, salt) and using these
practices to engineer new cellular systems such as platelets and red
blood cells. In fiscal year 2000, this revolutionary effort
demonstrated the functional recovery of dry platelets and other cells
that could be used in therapeutic or diagnostic applications for DOD.
Future efforts will focus on new engineering methods and practices that
result in the enhanced stabilization of cells and tissues.
The Bio-Computation Program is exploring and developing
computational methods and models at the bio-molecular and cellular
levels for a variety of DOD and national security applications. The
program is developing powerful, synthetic computations that can be
implemented in bio-substrates, and computer-aided analytical and
modeling tools that predict and control cellular processes and systems
of living cells. The DOD applications of the program include the
ability to predict cellular-level effects of chemical and biological
agents and the underlying pathogenic processes; the effect of stress on
cell functions (such as circadian rhythms) that affect warfighter
performance; and mechanisms for controlling these effects. We are
selecting performers in fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, the
program will begin to develop scalable, DNA-based computing and storage
and computational models that capture the behavior of mechanisms in
living cells underlying pathogenesis and rhythms that are common to
many organisms.
The Simulation of Bio-Molecular Microsystems (SIMBIOSYS) program is
developing innovative interfaces between molecular-scale processes in
chemistry, biology and engineering (electronics, optics, MEMS) through
experimental and theoretical analyses. The program is beginning this
year by developing experiments, models, phenomenological relationships
and scaling laws for a range of bio-molecular recognition processes
(i.e., antigen-antibody, DNA hybridization, enzyme-substrate
interactions) and bio-fluidic transport processes in microsystems. In
fiscal year 2002, SIMBIOSYS will develop methods to transduce these
molecular recognition signals into measurable electrical/optical/
mechanical signals through integrated on-chip elements that interface
with the biological recognition process. We will characterize and
quantify innovative transduction (and signal amplification) methods
through experiments and models.
Beyond Silicon Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductors
We are approaching the end of a remarkably successful era in
computing--the era in which Moore's Law reigned and where processing
power per dollar doubled every year. In large part, this success was a
result of advances in complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS)-
based integrated circuits. Although we have come to expect, and plan
for, the exponential increase in processing power in our everyday
lives, today Moore's Law faces imminent challenges both from the
physics of deep-submicron CMOS devices and from the enormous costs of
next-generation fabrication plants. This situation requires DOD to
consider a radically different approach to the fabrication of logic and
memories--a program we call Beyond Silicon CMOS.
The Beyond Silicon CMOS thrust is starting in fiscal year 2001. The
initiative is aimed at maintaining the phenomenal progress in
microelectronics innovation that has served military systems designers
so well over the last 30 years. Taking advantage of advanced materials
deposition and processing techniques that enable increasing control
over material and device structures down to nanoscale dimensions, the
Beyond Silicon MOS initiative will enable low-cost-to-manufacture,
reliable, fast, and secure information systems critical to meet future
military needs. Because the transistors can be made so small, we can
make chips with a very large number of transistors per chip, which
allows greater fault tolerance and high speed (future microprocessors
based on these technologies will run at speeds 10 to 100 times faster
than today's best gigahertz-level clock rates). And, with the resulting
greater computational power, we will be able to run more complex
algorithms to improve security. In the case of the ultimate computers
that exploit quantum mechanical effects, we will be able to make use of
physical phenomena not available in today's electronic devices to
achieve computational capabilities unavailable by traditional
techniques.
With a goal to develop new device capabilities, DARPA is exploring
options such as non-silicon-based semiconducting materials, including
organic and amorphous materials. Components and systems leveraging
quantum effects, and innovative approaches to computing designs
incorporating these components, will allow low-cost, seamless,
``pervasive computing'' (making generally available the kind of
computing power normally associated with large computing facilities);
ultra-fast computing; and sensing and actuation devices. Much as
today's desktop computers have the power of the super-computers of a
decade or so ago, these chip-scale computers will enable super-
computer-like capabilities in portable machines. The military impact
could be, for example, to enable a computationally intense synthetic
aperture radar capability on a small unmanned air vehicle.
The Beyond Silicon CMOS thrust is composed of five programs that
will develop new capabilities from promising information processing
components using both inorganic and organic substrates and components
and systems leveraging quantum effects and chaos.
The first of the Beyond Silicon CMOS programs is Antimonide Based
Compound Semiconductors (ABCS). Its goal is to develop low-power, high-
frequency electronics circuits and infrared sources based on the
antimonide family of compound semiconductors. Specific goals include
circuits with over 104 devices per circuit operating at frequencies
above 100 gigahertz and consuming less than one femtowatt (10-12 Joules
per second)--a two-order-of-magnitude improvement over today's
capabilities (i.e., 10 times faster, consuming one-tenth the power).
Specific infrared source goals include operating above thermoelectric-
cooled temperatures, with much greater efficiency for continuous wave,
mid-wave infrared and single-mode operation in the long-wave infrared
range. In fiscal year 2001, this program is demonstrating non-silicon-
based transistor technologies and nanostructured materials for quantum-
based electronic and optoelectronic device applications. In fiscal year
2002, ABCS substrate technology will accelerate recent breakthroughs in
lateral epitaxial overgrowth and thin-film delaminating and rebonding
to develop a source for ABCS substrates with essentially any desired
thermal or electronic property.
Another program is Integrated Mixed Signal Analog/Digital and
Electronic/Photonic Systems (NeoCAD) with a goal of developing and
demonstrating innovative approaches to computer-aided design of mixed
signal (analog/digital) and mixed electronic/photonic systems. The
objective is to design and prototype the ultra-complex microsystems
having the high degree of integration and complexity needed for
military and commercial applications. In fiscal year 2001, NeoCAD is
developing fast algorithms for non-linear analysis of mixed signal
systems (analog and photonic devices), and the program is extending
algorithm methods to non-linear problems. In fiscal year 2002, NeoCAD
will develop model order reduction methods (for analog and photonic
devices) to enable the creation of device behavioral models, and will
develop and demonstrate top-down design capabilities for analog, mixed
signal and mixed electronic/photonic systems that match the efficiency
currently achieved with digital-only designs.
The goal of the Spins In Semiconductors program is to change the
paradigm of electronics from electron charge to electron spin. This can
have profound impact on the performance (speed and power dissipation)
of memory and logic for computation and for optoelectronics for
communications. We can ultimately expect increases in both storage
densities and processing speeds of at least 100 to 1000 times. This
will give the warfighter the ability to process and assimilate much
more data than possible by other means and make him much more
situationally aware. Many DOD systems will also benefit from this
significantly enhanced performance by enabling much more sophisticated
signal processing by allowing our systems to handle significantly more
data. For example, if we are successful, we will provide orders of
magnitude more flexibility to our remote sensing assets. The program
has already demonstrated long-lived electron spin coherence in
semiconductors, which translates to very long spin-propagation
distances. In fiscal year 2001, we will demonstrate that spin
information can propagate across boundaries between different
semiconductors in a heterostructure without any loss of spin
information. In fiscal year 2002, we intend to demonstrate a very high-
speed optical switch using spin precession to control optical
polarization.
The Polymorphous Computing Architectures program is developing a
revolutionary approach to implementing embedded computing systems that
support reactive, multi-mission, multi-sensor, and in-flight
retargetable missions and reduce the time needed for payload
adaptation, optimization, and verification from years to days to
minutes. This program breaks the current development approach of
``hardware first and software last'' by moving beyond conventional
computer hardware and software to flexible, polymorphous computing
systems. This program is just beginning and is identifying reactive,
in-mission computing requirements and potential polymorphous computing
concepts in fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, the program plans to
model and evaluate candidate polymorphous computing architectures.
The Quantum Information Science and Technology (QuIST) program is
developing information technology devices and systems that leverage
quantum effects and technologies for scalable, reliable, and secure
quantum computing and communication. Quantum computers and
communication systems are potentially much more capable and secure than
today's systems and can serve DOD's increasing need for secure
communication and computational power to meet the stringent
requirements of military data and signal processing. The QuIST program
begins this year with investigations of components and architectures of
quantum information processing systems, along with algorithms and
protocols to be implemented on those systems. In fiscal year 2002, the
program will demonstrate techniques for fault-tolerant computation and
secure communication, and will demonstrate components of quantum
photonic communication systems.
In a revolutionary departure from today's painstaking circuit
fabrication methods, the Molecular-scale Electronics (Moletronics)
program is pursuing the construction of circuits using nanoscale
components such as molecules and inexpensive chemical self-assembly
processes. These chemically assembled systems will have high device
density (scaleable to 1011 devices per square centimeter, about 100
times that of current silicon integrated circuits) and low power. It is
now realized that requirements for electrical power drive much of the
information-age infrastructure, placing ever greater need to obtain
low-power electronic systems. In fiscal year 2001, the program
demonstrated both the ability to reversibly switch memory molecules at
room temperature, the ``tools'' of computation (``AND,'' ``OR'' and
``NOT'' gates), and a working 16-bit memory at 10 times the density of
silicon Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM). In fiscal year 2002 and
2003, we will optimize the performance of the molecular devices,
demonstrate a molecular gain device, increase device density, and
develop innovative architectures that exploit the unique properties of
switching on the molecular scale to demonstrate the advantages of
electronics on this scale.
CONCLUSION
Both President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld continue to highlight
the need to take advantage of new possibilities offered by the ongoing
technological revolution, as well as to develop defenses against modern
technological threats. I hope that this short summary of DARPA's
investment strategy has outlined how DARPA stands ready to do both--
provide technological opportunities for our warfighters, and harness
technology to provide advanced defenses. Our proposed program, of
course, will have to change as the nature of the threat changes, and as
the strategy for coping with those threats evolves. I thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today, and welcome your questions.
Appendix--Examples of DARPA's Science and Technology Investments in
Support of our Warfighters
The Affordable Multi-Missile Manufacturing (AM3) program, a 5-year,
DARPA/Tri-Service initiative, was structured to attack rising missile
costs with a combination of process and product changes to reduce the
cost and cycle times for tactical missile manufacturing. The results
are being felt in over 13 military systems, including: a common
inertial measurement unit for the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser;
commercial parts activities for the Low Cost Autonomous Attack System
and Army Tactical Missile System; flexible manufacturing systems for
Patriot Advanced Capability-3; electronic procurement for Line-of-Sight
Anti-Tank weapons; common test approaches for the Evolved Sea Sparrow
Missile (ESSM) and Stinger; multi-missile factory approaches for the
AIM-9M Sidewinder, the Rolling Airframe Missile, ESSM, Javelin, and BAT
brilliant anti-armor submunition; and improved software tool approaches
for BAT and the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System.
The DARPA Compact Lasers program was developed to defend aircraft
against heat-seeking missiles. The diode-pumped, mid-infrared, solid-
state laser technology developed in the program has been selected to
provide the multi-band laser for the Air Force's Phase I Large Aircraft
Infrared Countermeasure program. This program's purpose is to protect
large aircraft from all currently fielded man-portable heat-seeking
missiles. Phase I of the program will outfit large transport aircraft
such as the C-17 and the C-130 with defensive systems that use the
DARPA-sponsored lasers.
For many airborne systems involving video or infrared sensors, a
window protects the sensor from the environment. Flat or gently curved
windows can cause drag and other degradations to platform performance.
In the Precision Optics program, the window is shaped to meet the needs
of the aerodynamic environment, rather than forced to fit commonly used
optical shapes for aircraft and missiles. This reduces the aerodynamic
drag, which will increase the range or velocity of the missile, and
maintains low observability. Precision Optics technologies were
demonstrated in an advanced variant of the Stinger missile. This
variant of Stinger, like all other electro-optic/infrared guided
missiles, had an aerodynamically blunt, hemispherically shaped dome.
Using Precision Optics technology, the new seeker head incorporated an
ellipsoidal-shaped dome for reduced aerodynamic drag and used
correctors to compensate for the look-angle-dependent aberrations. The
seeker successfully acquired and tracked targets at Redstone Arsenal,
AL. The Army and Navy are conducting development efforts to use the
DARPA technology in advanced missiles.
The Moving and Stationary Target Acquisition and Recognition
(MSTAR) program has improved advanced automatic target recognition
capabilities using the one-foot resolution synthetic aperture radar
imagery that is increasingly available from operational platforms. The
MSTAR algorithms were evaluated as a component of the Semi-Automated
Imagery Intelligence Processor (SAIP) system by replacing SAIP's
original automatic target recognition algorithms with the model-based
MSTAR algorithms. The MSTAR algorithms have demonstrated correct
detection rates of 90 percent or better, and identification rates of
detected targets of 80 percent or better. The MSTAR-enhanced SAIP
system assists an analyst in forming reports and identifying target
types among a set of more than 30 modeled target types. SAIP has
transitioned to a Joint Program Office in the Army Space Program
Office, which is integrating SAIP capabilities into the operational
Tactical Exploitation System.
The GPS Guidance Package (GGP) program has developed a smaller,
lower-cost, long-life navigation system based on highly integrated
fiber optic gyros, silicon accelerometers, and miniature GPS receivers.
The Army is testing the GGP this Spring as an improvement for the
Multiple Launch Rocket System firing unit. The adoption of GGP will
give the Army the pointing accuracy it needs for its fire support at a
fraction of the lifecycle cost of the current Army system.
As U.S. tactical aircraft engage a target, the radars of an
adversary's integrated air defense system may track them. DARPA has
developed the low-cost Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD) to confuse
these defenses. This program achieved its affordability objective, an
average unit flyaway price of $30,000 (fiscal year 1995 dollars) if
3000 units are produced. This price is many times lower than currently
available air-launched decoys, and MALD's deception performance will be
very effective in confusing air defense systems. MALD program
management has been successfully transferred to the Air Force, with
flight-testing continuing this year. The Air Force is planning a
``Silver Bullet'' procurement of 100 to 150 MALD units beginning in
fiscal year 2002.
In the detection and identification of biological warfare agents,
antibody-based sensors have traditionally had difficulty distinguishing
between the organism that causes anthrax and other naturally occurring,
non-pathogenic relatives within the same genus. Under DARPA
sponsorship, researchers have developed a set of antibodies that are
highly specific to anthrax, but not to its non-pathogenic relatives.
Currently, four of these Anthrax Antibodies are being evaluated by the
U.S. Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command (Edgewood Area,
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD) as a possible replacement for the anthrax
antibodies in DOD antibody-based sensors. This will decrease the
possibility of false alarms caused by cross-reactivity of the
antibodies that identify the bioagent.
Another DARPA development is of new antibody-binding reporting
material called Upconverting Phosphors (UPTT) for use in sensors for
biological warfare agents. Many conventional sensors use fluorescent
tags to report the presence of a biological warfare agent as manifested
by a binding event taking place (e.g., antibody-to-antigen binding),
but the tags have several shortcomings. Fluorescent tags absorb and
emit light in similar wavelengths, so signal-to-noise problems limit
sensor sensitivity. In addition, only a few separate tags (different
fluorescent wavelengths) exist. On the other hand, the UPTT materials
are engineered with a novel arrangement of energy states to allow
absorption and emission in widely different wavelengths, allowing much
greater sensitivity. Also, 18 separate UPTT tags have been developed.
The UPTT materials are currently under evaluation by the Joint Program
Office-Bio Defense for suitability as a replacement to the fluorescent
tags in the currently fielded ``Smart Ticket'' sensors.
The DARPA Enhanced Consequence Management Planning and Support
System (ENCOMPASS) has been transitioned to the Crisis Consequence
Management Initiative (CCMI) laboratory located at Space and Naval
Warfare Systems Center-San Diego, CA (SSC-SD). CCMI is responsible for
other DOD projects that involve aerial surveillance and intelligence
support. The CCMI laboratory is currently working in cooperation with
Joint Forces Command to install the ENCOMPASS components in support of
their mission for Homeland Defense. DARPA's ENCOMPASS investment has
led to the development of a commercially available software program for
overall resources management for crisis response. Key components of the
ENCOMPASS program have been tested at Pacific Warrior and the Air Force
Information Warfare BattleLab in San Antonio, TX. In addition, the Air
Force's Lightweight Epidemiology Advanced Detection and Emergency
Response System (LEADERS) uses key components of ENCOMPASS and will be
installed at Wilford Hall Medical Center and Brooks Air Force Base, San
Antonio, TX. The Air Force Surgeon General's office is also in the
process of installing LEADERS at Air Combat Command, Langley, VA, and
Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC.
DARPA has helped in the development of a new Navy transition
laboratory, the Concept Exploration Laboratory (CXL), that focuses on
technology for military medicine. This facility is located at SSC-SD,
with experts in operational planning from the Naval Health Research
Center and SSC-SD. The CXL vision is to become the focal point for all
advanced medical technology for testing and evaluation before
prototypes are transitioned to the fleet. CXL is working closely with
the Pacific Command to support Cobra Gold in Thailand and the Kernel
Blitz Experiment at Camp Pendleton, CA, in June 2001.
The application of fiber-optic technology to high-capacity data-
links for electronic warfare, radar and related applications offers a
substantial advantage in terms of increased data-handling capability
and reduced size and weight over that of existing copper cabling.
DARPA's photonics programs have developed technologies for efficient,
low-cost manufacturing of optoelectronic components that interface
electronic subsystems to fiber cabling. These technologies, such as
vertical cavity surface emitting lasers, have resulted in a suite of
optoelectronic technologies that are being considered for future
insertion into platforms. In particular, the Navy's Fiberoptic Roadmap
initiative and the Navy's planned upgrade for the EA-6B aircraft are
making use of much of the technology developed in these DARPA photonics
programs.
Over the past year, DARPA's Advanced Microelectronics program has
demonstrated an impressive array of results in technologies for ultra-
short channel transistors, including the fabrication of silicon
switching devices with useful electrical characteristics and having the
world's shortest channel length (10 nanometers). In addition, this
program also demonstrated a fabrication process that uses only
conventional equipment to produce transistors with 25 nanometer
features (180 nanometers is current state-of-art in production). These
short-channel transistors have unconventional device structures but are
compatible with ultra large-scale integration into dense integrated
circuits. Electrical measurements show that these new transistors are
also very fast, attaining switching speeds in the few picoseconds
range, thereby enabling future signal processing chips to operate at
speeds on the order of 10s of gigahertz. Several other agencies--the
National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, and the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency--are now collaborating with the AME
program contractors to investigate applications of this nanoscale
technology.
The Anti-Torpedo Torpedo (ATT) is a new Navy approach to counter-
torpedo attack that has significant volume constraints for control
electronics. A MEMS-based Torpedo Exploder package offers the required
performance in a volume compatible with the ATT design. The exploder
incorporates two MEMS devices that have been developed over the past 3
years, a combination flow sensor/accelerometer and an actuator. The
MEMS-based ATT has recently undergone two successful sea trials and the
Navy has made the decision to continue development. The availability of
DARPA's MEMS exploder was one key enabler for this Navy program.
In the area of smart munitions, over the past several years two
complimentary DARPA programs have developed MEMS Inertial Measurement
Units (IMUs) for use in the guidance package for artillery shells.
These MEMS IMUs provide required guidance in a small package capable of
withstanding the 50,000 Gs shock experienced when the shell is fired.
Following the DARPA demonstration of the capabilities of the MEMS IMU,
both the Navy and Army have programmed funds for additional development
leading to production.
Senator Roberts. Senator Santorum has a 5 o'clock
television appearance that he must make, and he would like to
make a statement at this point.
Senator Santorum. I apologize. I am committed to doing
``Hardball.'' Unfortunately, I did not expect this to go that
long. You have been asking too many questions, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
But I want to thank all the panelists, and we have two
panelists in the next panel from Pennsylvania, Dr. Kuper and
Dr. Gabriel, and I apologize to them for not being able to be
here for their testimony. But rest assured, we will submit
questions for the record, and I will go over their testimony. I
want to thank them for making a special effort to come down and
be with us.
I thank all of you as likewise. I appreciate your
testimony. This is the beginning from my perspective of a
process that is working closely together to make sure that we
accomplish the kind of integration that I think is necessary to
move our force forward. Thank you all very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Roberts. Well, again, Senator, you deserve a lot of
credit in your leadership in making sure that we had this
hearing.
Let me ask each of the Services very quickly, and then we
will get to the third panel because it is getting on,
transformation efforts, each of you appear now to be focused on
preparing the capabilities rather than new systems or
platforms.
Briefly tell the subcommittee, if you can, how you
determine these future critical capabilities, and then give me
two examples if you can of what capabilities that you might
envision the U.S. needing in the next 25 years that we do not
currently have. [Pause.]
Would you like to make a call? [Laughter.]
Dr. Andrews. Let me take a shot at it first. One of the
things we do not currently have today for our present platforms
that are out there are active protective systems for incoming
rounds. So that is a technology that by the end of this decade
we should begin to see the first ones built.
Senator Roberts. OK. Repeat that for me, please.
Dr. Andrews. What we do not have today on platforms--we use
steel, yards of steel in front of us to take incoming rounds
and live through it. As we go to lighter systems, what we do
not have today is an active protection system or a defense
system that can knock a missile, or essentially knock it off
course before it hits you. So there is an active protection
system that is in development in the Army. That should be
demonstrated by the end of the decade, for insertion in Future
Combat Systems is a good example of that.
Senator Roberts. OK. There is one. Any others that you
would like to make?
Dr. Andrews. Another one possibly is the area of compact
kinetic energy missile. We just recently--in the middle of May,
we had a demonstration of our line-of-sight anti-tank
capability. This is about a 10-foot-tall missile and weighs 200
pounds, travels a mile a second, delivers about six times what
the silver bullet of the Army has on a target in terms of
energy. It goes through the tank, blows the turret off. We just
had a demonstration that this capability works with some
critical IMUs.
Since that is such a heavy and large missile, we are in the
process right now of developing a compact version of that. Can
we have a less than 5-foot version and still deliver nearly
equivalent lethality? So by the end of the decade, again,
another shot at something significant in terms of lethality.
Both survivability for the platform, lethality for the
platform, those are two examples.
Senator Roberts. Dr. Daniel.
Dr. Daniel. Thank you, sir. When I look to the future and
think about new capabilities, one of the first thoughts that
come to my mind is small. Dr. Etter, a few months back, in
fact, sponsored a symposium that all of us had the pleasure of
speaking at and it emphasized this.
The nanotechnology initiatives that are going on right now,
I think have the potential for revolutionizing a broad range of
technology as we start using from atomic and molecular building
process right on up, particularly in materials as we tailor and
scope materials, materials that may be self healing, materials
that will sense they need to change or do different functions
depending on what situation is going on. So the smallness and
nanotechnology revolution, if you will, is something that I am
particularly intrigued by.
I am also intrigued by bio sensors. When we look at the
many missions the Air Force has, one of the first things we
have to do is typically sense what is going on. We have to know
what the situation is, what situation awareness is, what an
enemy might be doing.
Sensors are the key to doing this. There are many marvelous
systems in nature that have effectively electro optic sensors,
if you will, that do not require massive amount of cooling.
Typically, the kinds of EO systems that we produce do require
large amounts of cooling which tend to be very, very heavy, and
also tend to be very expensive.
When I look at some of the 6-1 activities we are doing
right now, perhaps 100-fold increase of sensor weight might be
possible if we could make some of the breakthroughs that I
think might be out there in bio sensors. It is an area that
does not get a lot of attention, but I think that it has
tremendous payoff for us, mission areas that are applicable to
all the Services.
So, smallness, nanotechnology revolution, bio sensors, I
think, are two great capabilities that we are going to see in
the coming decades.
Senator Roberts. Admiral.
Admiral Cohen. Mr. Chairman, I think there are a couple--
first of all, I believe the Navy is going electric. In fact,
the armies of the world are going electric. We are looking very
hard at the generation transmission conditioning, stowage,
whether it is fuel cells or other means, as well as fascinating
propulsion opportunities that this provides. We think we are
looking 10 years ahead.
The country is in crisis in energy generation, certainly in
some geographic areas, and we think it would be a wonderful
time to work together, a long standing history with the
Department of Energy to bring to bear some of the technologies
that we have invested in.
Another very important area is human factors. We are
talking about the DD-21, our future Naval ships, having fewer
than 100 in a crew. Every person in the crew might have a
college degree, highly trained, bonus, because of the size of
the ship and the few numbers in the crew. They might have their
own stateroom.
As I say, the Navy version of MREs, meals rejected by
Ethiopia--[Laughter.]
But the facts of life are if we do not get that man/machine
interface right with time critical strike, more workload on
each individual, and a time compressed nature of warfare today,
they are not going to stick around. We have all seen people
leave and go back to their spouse and say, ``I cannot do that
one more time.''
Finally, the good news is the Cold War is over, and the bad
news is the Cold War is over. The facts of life are the good
people of Miramar, Oceania, Langley, and other places just are
not going to put up with the sound of freedom much longer; yet
we must have a well-trained, combat capable Armed Forces as
they sail in harm's way.
Even though we may not be at war, we have go to figure out
how to do that in an environmentally responsible way.
Senator Roberts. Doctor.
Dr. Alexander. I think the ability to use legacy platforms
and network together to be able to go after time critical
targets, both movers and those that are short emitters. We have
got a program working called Advanced Tactical Targeting
Technology which by using existing communication links ties
them together to be able to go within 10 seconds of a time an
emitter comes up and take them out.
The second area I would offer is something we are working
with Australia on called Metal Storm. It is an electronically
ignited gun that is capable of a million rounds a minute, very
rapid fire, very controlled. You can do patterns, multiple
barrels so you could actually fill space where you need it with
projectiles.
Senator Roberts. I have some questions that I am going to
submit for the record, but in the interest of time I think we
are going to get the next panel up. Thank you so much for
coming, and for your testimony, for the show and tell which was
very interesting, and we look to have you back.
I am going to go ahead and introduce the panel while we are
changing the panels.
Panel three has three distinguished researchers involved in
the very technologies that have been described as ``leap
ahead.'' These researchers are on the cutting edge of today's
technological innovation and provide a great service to our
Defense Science and Technology Program.
I would like to extend a special welcome to Dr. Peter
Sherwood, who is a distinguished professor and head of the
Department of Chemistry at Kansas State University, home of the
ever-optimistic and fighting Wildcats. Dr. Sherwood has a long
career in basic research with carbon fibers, and composite
materials. In addition, he is currently the director of the
Kansas DEPSCoR. That is the Defense Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research. He is in charge of that
program.
This committee has been committed to the DEPSCoR program
since its inception back in 1995, and has worked very
diligently to increase its budget year over year for the past
several years.
The research you do is very important to the S&T
enterprise, Dr. Sherwood, even more important to the State of
Kansas. We are happy to call you one of our own.
Dr. Kaigham Gabriel is a professor of electrical and
computer engineering at The Robotics Institute at Carnegie
Mellon University, and will address the subcommittee today on
micro electro mechanical systems, MEMS.
Joining him on the panel is Dr. Cynthia Kuper, who is
president of the Versilant Nanotechnologies. Is that right?
Dr. Kuper. Versilant.
Senator Roberts. Versilant. OK. Thank you. Both of these
researchers hale from the great State of Pennsylvania. You have
already heard Senator Santorum certainly welcome you to the
subcommittee.
I would like to apologize to the panelists. You are like
the first responders in our terrorism hearing. By the time we
got to the first responders, the people who really do the work,
why, most of the crowd left. But I apologize for that.
If we can keep it down to maybe 3 minutes or 5 minutes, I
would encourage you to do so. All of your testimony will be
made part of the record.
Thank you so much for taking time out of your very valuable
schedules to come and share your testimony with us. I know it
is a long trip. I know it is taking time out of your schedule,
but we welcome you to the subcommittee.
Dr. Sherwood, would you proceed, please?
STATEMENT OF DR. PETER M.A. SHERWOOD, UNIVERSITY DISTINGUISHED
PROFESSOR AND HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, KANSAS STATE
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Sherwood. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I
thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony
regarding the Defense Department's basic scientific research
program, the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research, DEPSCoR, and defense related research in
the State of Kansas and at Kansas State University.
I am Peter Sherwood, University Distinguished Professor and
Head of the Department of Chemistry at Kansas State University
in Manhattan, Kansas. I represent the faculty from the State of
Kansas and the Kansas EPSCoR Committee, and I serve as a State
of Kansas DEPSCoR Director.
I am here today to speak in support of funding for the
Defense Department's basic scientific research program and the
DEPSCoR program. This statement is submitted on behalf of the
program, the universities pursuing defense related research in
the State of Kansas, and Kansas State University.
The DEPSCoR program has led to an increase in regular DOD
funding in the State of Kansas. The impact of DOD funding in
the state from DEPSCoR and regular DOD grants has been
substantial. In my own case, regular DOD funding allowed us to
perform detailed studies of the interfacial interactions
between a carbon fiber and a matrix with a view to eliminating
oxidation in carbon-carbon composites.
Carbon fibers are high modulus fibers that are used to
strengthen a matrix to yield advanced composites that are light
and strong. The card that you have in your hand, has a tow of
3,000 carbon fibers. If you look very, very closely, you can
just resolve a single fiber. That is about 7,000 nanometers. I
want to focus on that number because I will talk about an even
smaller number in a moment.
These composites are used in stealth aircraft, the U.S.
Marine version of the Harrier, and in many commercial aircraft.
The interfacial chemistry has a dramatic effect on the
mechanical properties of the composite, and I have studied this
interfacial chemistry for many years using the techniques of
surface science. The work has enabled us to tailor the surface
chemistry of the fiber to optimize interaction with the matrix
while reducing or eliminating degradation at the fiber matrix
interface.
Many DOD funded projects provide opportunities for basic
research of interest to DOD that leads to new developments that
can lead to the establishment of local industrial and economic
development. For example, at Kansas State University, Dr.
Kenneth Klabunde, University Distinguished Professor of
Chemistry, has had a long period of continuous DOD regular
funding.
This funding enabled him to develop a number of patents
related to reactive nanoparticles, tiny particles with
dimensions corresponding to an assembly of small numbers of
atoms and with remarkable chemical and physical properties. The
particles have important military and civilian applications.
You will see a small bottle of a white powder that I have
given you. It is about 3 inches long, and contains particles
that are only 4 nanometers in diameter. Compare these with the
carbon fibers of 7,000 nanometers, where you could just see one
of them. The powder particle are only 4 nanometers in diameter.
Now these particles that you have in your hand there have a
surface area that is about the same as Kansas State's football
stadium that seats 50,000 people. This illustrates some of the
remarkable properties of this material.
Dr. Klabunde successfully in 1995 developed a company now
called Nanoscale Materials, which has been very successful in
achieving DOD and other SBIR awards, and together with public
funding now employs 20 people and is the first occupant of a
research park at Kansas State University.
The focus of Nanoscale Materials has been the use of these
nanoparticles for chemical and biological defense applications,
destructively absorbing selected chemical and biological
warfare agents, rendering them harmless. If you look at that
one-page handout, I have a picture of an Anthrax simulant,
showing the cell before and after it has been treated with
these nanoparticles, which you see have completely destroyed
the Anthrax material.
The State of Kansas strongly supports DOD's Science and
Technology Programs across all defense organizations,
especially those defense research programs providing support to
our Nation's universities.
I want to express deep appreciation for the committee's
past support of the fiscal year 2001 funding approved for these
programs.
I also want to express the appreciation for the committee's
past support of the DEPSCoR program which has provided an
opportunity for the State of Kansas to construct a program that
has enabled the state to promote research of interest to DOD.
This has provided funding from state and other sources,
from DOD, to provide $9 million of support over the past 6
years and 26 substantial projects at our three research
universities.
The State of Kansas joins many other organizations in
urging the subcommittee to increase the Science and Technology
Program to $10 billion in fiscal year 2002, a funding target
consistent with numerous program and department reviews,
including recommendations made by the Defense Science Board. We
also respectfully request that you provide $25 million for the
DEPSCoR program in fiscal year 2002.
We very much appreciate the opportunities that we have
heard of earlier on today that DOD has provided for us to
pursue some very exciting research.
Thank you very much.
Senator Roberts. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sherwood follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. Peter Sherwood
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the
opportunity to submit this testimony regarding the Defense Department's
basic scientific research program, the Defense Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (DEPSCoR) and defense related research
in the State of Kansas and at Kansas State University.
I am Peter Sherwood, University Distinguished Professor and Head of
the Department of Chemistry at Kansas State University in Manhattan,
Kansas. I represent the faculty from the State of Kansas and the Kansas
EPSCoR Committee, which includes leaders from higher education, state
government, and the private sector in Kansas, and I serve as the State
of Kansas DEPSCoR Director. I am here today to speak in support of
funding for the Defense Department's basic scientific research program
and the DEPSCoR program. This statement is submitted on behalf of this
program, the universities pursuing defense related research in the
State of Kansas and Kansas State University.
The State of Kansas strongly supports DOD's S&T programs across all
defense organizations, especially those defense research programs
providing support to our Nation's universities. I want to express deep
appreciation for the committee's past support and for the fiscal year
2001 funding approved for these programs. I also want to express the
appreciation of the committee's past support of the DEPSCoR program
which has provided an opportunity for the State of Kansas to construct
a program that has enabled the state to promote research of interest to
DOD, and has provided support from Federal, State and other sources
that has yielded nearly $9 million of support over the past 6 years for
26 substantial projects at our three research universities. We urge the
subcommittee to approve robust and stable funding for these basic
(6.1), applied (6.2) and advanced technology development (6.3) elements
in fiscal year 2002. Specifically, the State of Kansas joins many other
organizations in urging the subcommittee to increase the S&T program to
$10 billion in fiscal year 2002, a funding target consistent with
numerous program and department reviews including recommendations made
by the Defense Science Board.
The impact of DOD funding in the state from DEPSCoR and other
competitive grants has been substantial. In my own case DOD funding
allowed us to perform detailed studies of the interfacial interactions
between a carbon fiber and a matrix with a view to eliminating
oxidation in carbon-carbon composites. Carbon fibers are high modulus
fibers that are used to strengthen a matrix to yield advanced
composites that are light and strong. These composites are used in
stealth aircraft, in the U.S. Marine version of the Harrier fighter and
in many commercial aircraft. The interfacial chemistry has a dramatic
effect on the mechanical properties of the composite, and I have
studied this interfacial chemistry for many years using the techniques
of surface science. This work has enabled us to tailor the surface
chemistry of the fiber to optimize interaction with the matrix while
reducing or eliminating degradation at the fiber matrix interface.
Many DOD funded projects provide opportunities for basic research
of interest to DOD that leads to new developments that can lead to the
establishment of local industrial and economic development. For example
at Kansas State University, Dr. Kenneth J. Klabunde, University
Distinguished Professor of Chemistry, has had a long period of
continuous nationally competitive funding from DOD. This funding
enabled him to develop a number of patents related to reactive
nanoparticles--tiny particles with dimensions corresponding to an
assembly of small numbers of atoms and remarkable chemical and physical
properties. The particles have important military and civilian
applications including air and water purification, environmental
remediation and decontamination and industrial catalysis.
Dr. Klabunde successfully developed in 1995 a company to market his
inventions, Nanoscale Materials Inc., which has been very successful in
achieving DOD and other SBIR awards, together with public funding and
now employs more than 20 people and is the first occupant of a new
research park at Kansas State University. The company was established
with assistance from the Mid-America Commercialization Corporation, a
not-for-profit joint venture between Kansas State University, the State
of Kansas (via the Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation), the city
of Manhattan and the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce. The focus of
Nanoscale Materials Inc. has been the use of these nanoparticles for
chemical and biological defense applications, destructively absorbing
selected chemical and biological warfare agents, rendering them
harmless. Pilot plant production of these nanomaterials has been
operational since last year, and has been found effective in the
destruction of chemical warfare agents mimics and biological warfare
agent mimics (e.g. anthrax simulants, escherichia coli, erwinia
herbicola and human virus simulants).
Kansas has responded to concerns about emerging threats and
capabilities with new initiatives. A recent initiative from Kansas
State University involves a proposed nonlethal environmental evaluation
and remediation (NEER) program that uses existing assets in a
coordinated manner to form a center (NEERC) to address this challenge.
A request for DOD support has been made this year in four areas:
nanoparticle responses to chemical/biological threats; a request to
develop and manage a Marine Corps urban operations environmental
laboratory at NEERC; a request for support of a nanoparticles program
for neutralization of facility threats and a smart mortar development
and testing program.
I would also like to tell you something about the DEPSCoR program.
Based on the positive results of the NSF program, Congress created
EPSCoR programs in six additional Federal agencies. One of these is the
Defense Department. The individual agency EPSCoR programs, much in the
same way as the NSF EPSCoR, help researchers and institutions in
participating states to improve the quality of their research so they
can compete for non-EPSCoR research funds. The Federal-wide EPSCoR
effort funds only merit-based, peer reviewed programs that work to
enhance the competitiveness of research institutions and increase the
probability of long-term growth of competitive funding.
EPSCoR relies heavily on state involvement and participation,
including non-Federal matching funds. Due to the Federal/state
partnership upon which EPSCoR relies, and the opportunity that the
program provides to allow the states to develop a strategic focus that
allows them to enhance their strengths in research, EPSCoR is often
considered a model program, and is a wise use of taxpayer funds.
The Defense EPSCoR (DEPSCoR) program contributes to the states'
goals of developing and enhancing their research capabilities, while
simultaneously supporting the Defense Department's research goals.
DEPSCoR grants are based on recommendations from the EPSCoR state
committees and the Department's own evaluation and ranking. Research
proposals are only funded if they provide the Defense Department with
research in areas important to national defense.
Last year the Defense Department issued an announcement of a
competition under the aegis of the Defense EPSCoR program. A total of
224 projects were received from the 18 states eligible to participate
in DEPSCoR requesting more than $74 million in funding. Following
review of the individual projects by the appropriate research office
(the Army Research Office, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's
Science and Technology Directorate, the Office of Naval Research, or
the Air Force Office of Scientific Research), 63 projects were selected
for funding with $18.7 million made available in fiscal year 2001. The
average award was $298,000.
The program in Kansas has had a very important effect on the
overall research activities in the state. Twenty-six DEPSCoR projects
have been funded in Kansas since the program started in its present
form in 1996. The projects were developed by Kansas researchers in
collaboration with DOD program managers to address topics critical to
defense readiness and capabilities. Before submission of the projects
for DOD evaluation, 15 projects were selected from many proposals in a
state competition. The state competition involved initial peer review
by reviewers outside the EPSCoR states, followed by proposal selection
by a panel whose members were also outside EPSCoR states. In this way
Kansas researchers were subject to the rigorous national peer review
process, as well as benefiting from the valuable feedback provided to
the investigator by the review process.
The program is a true partnership between DOD, the State of Kansas,
and the three research universities in the state. Funding to date has
involved nearly $9 million with about 56 percent of the funding coming
from DEPSCoR, 28 percent from the State of Kansas and 16 percent from
the universities involved. Faculty of all ranks have been involved,
with the senior faculty providing a mentoring role. DEPSCoR projects
have improved the Kansas infrastructure for defense related research;
about half the projects have been in engineering and the other half in
physics, chemistry and mathematics.
I will now discuss two projects from the twenty-six funded projects
to illustrate the impact that these grants have had in yielding
research results that benefit our Nation's defense, that improve the
ability of Kansas to perform defense related research, and that have
enabled faculty to become more competitive, and in the case of younger
faculty to launch their research careers. Fifty percent of the DEPSCoR
projects have been located at Kansas State University, and the
remainder at the University of Kansas and Wichita State University.
An Assistant (now Associate) Professor of Physics at the University
of Kansas, Dr. Judy Wu, has developed methods for coating mercury-based
high temperature superconductors onto oxides and metals in processes
that have led to two United States patents, and one U.S. patent
pending. Superconducting coatings of these materials, that have
transition temperatures above 130K onto oxides, can be used for
superconducting microwave telecommunication devices of superior
performance in terms of low loss, high resolution, and light weight.
These properties have recently been demonstrated on small-scale
microwave devices. Superconducting coatings of these superconductors
onto metals can be used to form superconducting cables that can be used
for power-related applications including low-loss/high power
generators, transmission cables, electric motors, and high-field
magnets. Dr. Wu now has nationally competitive DOD funding.
Dr. Ramesh Agarwal, Bloomfield Distinguished Professor of
Aeronautical Engineering led a project with Dr. M. Papadakis, Associate
(now Full) Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at Wichita State
University. The project was concerned with the development of
computational electromagnetics for solving scattering, radiation and
electromagnetic environmental problems of considerable importance to
DOD. These workers developed a higher-order Discontinuous Galerkin (DG)
finite-element method for the solution of the Maxwell equations on
structured grids. The method proved very accurate, and much more
efficient than existing formulations, and has allowed for the accurate
computation of electromagnetic scattering. The approach will have a
significant payoff for three-dimensional studies that will assist the
development of stealth aircraft and missile systems. The project
provides an example of the leadership and mentoring by senior faculty
that is an important component in the success of the DEPSCoR program.
Kansas continues to seek support through regular DOD programs and
through the DEPSCoR program that will enable the State to play its part
in the national contribution to DOD programs and interests. The State
strives to make its university faculty aware of DOD programs,
encouraging contacts and visits with DOD program managers. New faculty
are encouraged to develop new programs of interest to DOD, and
established faculty play a key mentoring role for such faculty as well
as conducting their own DOD supported programs. The challenges of large
collaborative programs are being actively pursued, as well as the
opportunities for economic development through spin-off technology.
The State of Kansas appreciates this subcommittee's long-standing
support for Defense EPSCoR and we urge you to continue that support.
The State recognizes the very tight fiscal constraints this
subcommittee faces in the new era of a balanced Federal budget, but we
respectfully request that you provide $25 million for the Defense
EPSCoR program for fiscal year 2002.
The Defense Department's Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research is a wise and worthwhile investment of scarce
public resources. It will continue to contribute significantly to
efforts to build scientific and engineering research efforts in support
of national defense needs.
Mr. Chairman, the State of Kansas strongly supports the Defense
Department's basic research programs (functions 6.1 and 6.2). With the
end of the Cold War, the technological demands facing our military have
increased. New research must be pursued to meet new challenges in the
fields of information warfare, high technology terrorism, the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats in diverse
parts of the world.
It is essential that Congress ensure that scientific research and
technological advances in support of our military are not eroded
because of the lack of adequate funding for DOD's 6.1 basic and 6.2
applied research. We have joined with our colleagues in the research
community to urge the administration and Congress to strengthen the
Nation's investment in the Department of Defense's (DOD) Science and
Technology (S&T) programs. These programs are vital to our Nation's
security and technological superiority. We strongly endorse
recommendations that Congress to provide $10 billion for DOD S&T
programs for fiscal year 2002.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Senator Roberts. Now I am going to ask you what I asked
Carolyn Hanna of the committee staff. Carolyn back here says
that it would take her too long to explain it to me.
[Laughter.]
Then I asked Alan McCurry of my staff to explain it to me,
and he said he understands it. This half-filled tube contains
magnesium oxide nanoparticles that are only four nano--nano-
what?
Dr. Sherwood. Nanometers.
Senator Roberts. Nanometers in diameter. These particles
have a surface area--do you mean the total in the----
Dr. Sherwood. In that tube.
Senator Roberts. In that tube, equal to that of the
football stadium at Kansas State----
Dr. Sherwood. That is right.
Senator Roberts. --and you have got a picture of the
stadium. I think I can see myself down there. [Laughter.]
I do not understand that. Do you mean that that surface
particle of all these little guys here is equal to that of the
entire stadium? Is that right?
Dr. Sherwood. That is correct. That is correct. It is due
to the many different facets that one sees on those materials.
One example I might give you is if you look at the United
Kingdom which has an area comparable to that of the State of
Kansas, if you walk along the state boundaries of the State of
Kansas, because the boundaries are fairly straight, you will
cover a certain number of miles.
If you walk around the boundaries of the United Kingdom
which is about the same area, you will have covered something
like a hundred times the distance covered on the Kansas trip
simply because the United Kingdom is so indented with little
creeks, and----
Senator Roberts. I see what you are saying.
Dr. Sherwood. It is the same idea with those nanoparticles.
Senator Roberts. That is amazing. Dr. Gabriel.
STATEMENT OF DR. KAIGHAM J. GABRIEL, PROFESSOR, ELECTRICAL AND
COMPUTER ENGINEERING, THE ROBOTICS INSTITUTE, CARNEGIE MELLON
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Gabriel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members
of the subcommittee.
The points I would like to make today are based on two
decades of research experience at MIT, Bell Labs, and Carnegie
Mellon University. In addition to the academic and industry
experience, I served for 6 years at DARPA culminating in a
Senior Executive Service position as the director of the
Electronics Technology office where I was responsible for
annual research and development budget of $400 million.
Since the end of the Cold War, the technology landscape has
changed, and that change is accelerating. The technology
landscape over the next two decades is going to be different
from the technology landscape of the last two decades in some
very fundamental ways.
One is that the advances of these technologies are being
primarily driven by the commercial interests. Two, the
technologies that are militarily relevant are changing and
increasing in number; just as an example, we heard from the
previous panel, biotechnology and bio sensors coming up when I
think you would not have heard that 10 or 15 years ago from the
DOD.
Three, the rate of change in those technology areas is
increasing, and the new capabilities, the ``leap ahead''
capabilities that we all are focusing on here today, are
happening at the intersections of different technology areas.
Finally, something that was coming up quite a bit in both
the first and second panels, it is not only the process of who
is going to develop these technologies first that is going to
be a determinant, but who is going to be good at using them and
experimenting, and putting them into systems and use that is
also going to be determining the military capabilities.
One recent example of technology intersections yielding
these ``leap ahead'' quantum jumps and capabilities is in the
area of microsystems being integrated with biotechnology. Drug
discovery is being done 100 to 1,000 times faster today because
of this integration of MEMS and biotechnology. Chips that are
no larger than a postage stamp using thousands of micro wells
make it possible for researchers to test thousands of different
drug combinations all at the same time.
Further advances in this sort of integration will lead to
real-time fuelable systems that will detect, identify chemical
and biological agents allowing for rapid response for
protection of forces and for homeland defense.
A second example of this technology integration coming
together is a chip that I brought here which I would be happy
to show you or send up, which integrates which is--this chip is
no larger than a pin head. [Indicating] We can put a microscope
on top of it so you can see it.
It has an integrated membrane that can vibrate to hear
sounds. It is made like any other microchip, and can be
integrated with electronics, and could cost less than 50 cents
each so that hundreds of thousands could be deployed so that--
like grains of the sands, and it would give adversaries no
place to hide. This technology is a direct result of MEMS, a
technology that was advanced and applied because of research as
we heard from the development funding from DARPA.
Over the past decade, MEMS technology has led to
accelerometer and gyroscope chips, as you saw from Dr.
Alexander's presentation. Over the next decade, we believe that
MEMS will create belt-buckle-size inertial guidance systems,
optical switches and filters, and complete chemical and
biological factors on a chip.
While funding for basic research is really important at the
intersections of technology, it is also important so that DOD
can provide a focusing for this research for well-defined
``leap ahead'' capabilities.
A Defense Science Board study, which I had the honor of
chairing a few years back, came up with a couple of key
technologies for the defense capabilities over the next 15 to
25 years. Those technologies were not a surprise,
biotechnology, information technology, microsystems, and
materials and energy. We heard those before from the previous
panels.
What was new was two very important recommendations from
that panel: One, focusing investments on the intersections of
technologies which is where the quantum capabilities and
performance are going to come from; and, two, was focusing much
of the research and basic research for capability driven, grand
challenge, ``leap ahead'' capabilities.
With those sort of investments, such technology
investments, driven by the DOD, we can ensure the offensive and
defensive U.S. military capabilities will continue to be unique
and overwhelming as we have been before.
With such investments--without such investments, we risk
failure. With such investments, we cannot fail to succeed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Dr. Gabriel.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gabriel follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. K.J. Gabriel
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank
you very much for the opportunity to provide testimony on ``leap-
ahead'' technologies and transformation initiatives within the defense
science and technology programs.
The points I'd like to make today are based on over two decades of
research experience that I have had at MIT, AT&T Bell Labs and Carnegie
Mellon University. In addition to my academic and industry experience,
I served for 6 years at DARPA, culminating in a Senior Executive
Service position as Director of the Electronics Technology Office
responsible for an annual research and development budget of more than
$400 million. Most recently I co-chaired the Defense Science Board
Summer Study Task Force on Defense Technology Strategy, Management and
Acquisition.
Since the end of World War II, technology advances have provided
new, unique, and overwhelming capabilities for the military forces of
the United States. These advances were often focused on DOD-unique
objectives and interests, and typically developed by defense-sector
industries.
For the past 40 years, the technologies of military relevance have
been aerospace, nuclear, electronics, missile and marine/undersea
technologies. For those technologies, development and evolution cycles
were measured in years and decades, and the technologies were difficult
and costly for our adversaries to develop or acquire.
As a Nation we've been served well by these past research and
technology investments In recent conflicts, capabilities derived from
these technologies have given the U.S. superior advantages including:
precision-guided munitions; ``owning the night'' with night vision
capability; and stealthy aircraft, weapons, and ships.
Since the end of the Cold War, however, the technology landscape
has changed--and the change is accelerating.
The technology landscape for the next two decades differs from the
technology landscape of the last two decades in five fundamental ways:
1. Advances in most technologies will be driven primarily by
commercial interests;
2. The types of technologies that are militarily relevant are
changing and increasing in number;
3. The pace of advance in those technology areas that have
military relevance is increasing; and
4. New capabilities and quantum jumps in old capabilities are
increasingly occurring at the intersections of different
technologies; and
5. Turning technologies into capabilities is governed not
only by who develops better technologies first, but equally by
who has the better process of experimenting with and
integrating technologies into systems.
If the DOD does not navigate this new technology landscape
successfully, it is in danger. It is in danger of losing old
capabilities and of not being able to acquire new offensive and
defensive capabilities quickly enough. More significantly, the new
technology landscape leaves the DOD vulnerable to those new
capabilities being acquired first by others.
Not only are new technologies needed to meet the need of the coming
decades, but the DOD needs new ways of focusing, funding, developing,
and using those technologies.
The 1999 Defense Science Board Study identified key DOD technology
areas and research funding strategies to enable order of magnitude
improvements in military capabilities over the next 10 to 25 years. The
key research areas identified were not a surprise nor were they new.
The areas are: biotechnology; information technology; microsystems; and
materials and energy.
What is new are two recommendations for where and how DOD funding
should be directed in those areas: first, the call for DOD to focus and
allocate significant fractions of basic research funding at the
intersections of these technologies; and second, the call for DOD to
allocate significant portions of basic research funding toward
objectives that translate to clear and revolutionary capabilities. It
is at the intersections of technologies where quantum jumps in
capabilities are realized. It is when we have clear objectives that
productive and useful capabilities are developed.
One recent example of technology intersections yielding quantum
jumps in capability is in drug discovery. Drug discovery is beginning
to be done 100 to 1000 times faster than before because of microsystems
being integrated with biotechnology. Chips no larger than a postage
stamp with thousands of micro wells and channels enable researchers to
assess the efficacy of thousands of different combinations of chemicals
as a drug---all at the same time.
We believe further advances and integration with information
technology will lead to real-time, in-the-field systems that will
detect and identify chemical and biological agents, allowing rapid
response for the protection of deployed forces as well as for homeland
defense.
A second example is a chip that I have brought here with me today.
It is a microchip the size of a pinhead with an integrated membrane
that can either hear sounds or vibrate to produce sounds that you can
hear. It is a direct result of MEMS--micro electro mechanical systems,
a technology that was advanced and applied because of research and
development funding from DARPA.
MEMS technology makes it possible to build microscopic mechanical
components on the same chip with electronics, using the materials and
processes of microelectronics fabrication. Over the past decade, MEMS
technology has led to: accelerometer and gyroscope chips, and high-
resolution, large area displays using arrays of millions of
micromirrors---with each mirror the size of blood cells.
Over the next decade, we believe MEMS Microsystems technology,
coupled with other technologies, will lead to belt-buckle-sized
inertial navigation systems, optical switches and filters for fiber-
optic telecommunications systems, and complete chemical and biological
laboratories on a chip.
While funding basic research at the intersections of technologies
is important, it's also important for the DOD to focus research by
articulating far-reaching but well-defined objectives in capability.
Too often the argument is made that since the ultimate utility of
basic research is hard to predict, basic research should be completely
unfettered-free to roam where it may. I believe otherwise.
The history of scientific and technical advance is filled with dead
ends, lucky short cuts, and unanticipated vistas. But unstated in most
of this history is that people were originally trying to get somewhere.
They had an objective. They just didn't know exactly how they were
going to get there or when. Many times where they wound up turned out
to be more important than where they were originally going. Having an
objective allows researchers to gauge their progress and make reasoned
choices about pursuing certain avenues while abandoning others.
We recently celebrated the 50 anniversary of the ENIAC (Electronic
Numerical Integrator And Computer), the first general purpose
electronic computer built using DOD research funds at the University of
Pennsylvania. The ENIAC was not built because the DOD saw the Internet
coming, but neither were precious Federal monies spent to build the
computer just because it would be interesting. The DOD funded the ENIAC
because it needed a faster and more efficient way to update artillery
ranging tables.
The basic research funded at the University of Pennsylvania had an
objective and in the course of meeting that specific objective, we
uncovered the new, rich and exciting vista of information technology.
Universities have been and will continue to be the source of such
new technologies. Just as importantly, universities continue to be the
source of people skilled in the development and use of new
technologies. With the passage of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980
universities have also become and are increasingly the source of
technology transfer and commercialization for emerging and new
technologies.
The DOD has an opportunity. The DOD needs to continue and increase
its funding of basic research. But it's not enough to simply add more
money to traditional approaches. We need to recognize the changes in
the technology landscape and adapt our funding strategy continuously to
meet new challenges and take advantage of new opportunities. The DOD,
with its mission orientation, is unique in its ability to focus on
capabilities and influence the course of technological advance,
particularly in the early, basic research stages of technology
developments.
The DOD can focus, harness and accelerate developments of new leap-
ahead technologies at the intersection of traditional disciplines. Such
technology developments, focused on and driven by far-reaching DOD
needs, will help insure that the offensive and defensive U.S. military
capabilities will continue to be unique and overwhelming. Without such
investments, we are sure to fail. With such investments, we cannot fail
to succeed.
Mr. Chairman this completes my remarks. I would be happy to answer
any questions the subcommittee might have.
Senator Roberts. Dr. Kuper.
STATEMENT OF DR. CYNTHIA A. KUPER, PRESIDENT, VERSILANT
NANOTECHNOLOGIES
Dr. Kuper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the subcommittee,
for giving me this opportunity to speak with you today
regarding the present status and future direction of
nanotechnology. I prepared a written statement, and I wish to
read excerpts from that.
Senator Roberts. Certainly.
Dr. Kuper. If I were asked to testify before you just a few
years ago, I would have used words like ``imagine'' and
``potential.'' Today, I use words ``will'' and ``can.'' I am
here to tell you where nanotechnology is and where it is going.
Nanotechnology is the technology of science on the nano
scale, the size scale of atoms and molecules, one billionth of
one meter. It is the most powerful form of engineering we know
of and thus brings with it the most innovative and
revolutionary materials that exist in the universe.
Nanotechnology holds the key to our future, a future that
began over the last decade in university laboratories across
our country and the world, where scientists embarked on studies
of new forms of carbon that is 100 times stronger than steel
and weighs 1/6th as much, wires made out of single molecules
and pathways to engineer devices half the size of the diameter
of a human hair.
The future of these findings will lead to desktop computers
the size of credit cards, vehicles for land and air that self-
heal and think, and multi-functional materials. An example of a
multi-functional material that would greatly benefit soldier
land warfare is a jacket worn by a soldier that weighs as much
as a cotton shirt, but yet is a ballistic shield, a portable
power supply, and a medicine cabinet of anti-biological warfare
agents, holding the vaccines in tiny capsules ready to release
them when its sensors detect their presence in the air.
In this future we will use a new form of carbon to deliver
drugs to infected cells, and conversely use the bacteria that
infected the cells to build computers. The use of bacteria for
molecular circuitry has already been demonstrated.
I am fortunate to have worked with these materials first-
hand and am humbled to say that I have been trained by some of
the world leaders in this field. I began my scientific
endeavors in the laboratory at the age of 15, working on cures
for breast cancer. I obtained my doctorate in Chemistry and
never dreamed I would be on an adventure such as this one,
having the opportunity to work with Nobel laureates and our
space agency to develop these materials, and to obtain a
glimpse into our future.
Nanotechnology will build a new class of air and spacecraft
using materials with the highest strength-to-weight ration ever
seen. These materials are called carbon nanotubes. Their
diameter is one billionth of one meter; that is 10,000 times
smaller than the diameter of the human hair. Their lengths are
a micron, one millionth of one meter.
These are single molecules and, therefore, they are without
defect. Their unique structures give them strengths 100 times
greater than steel and 1/6th the weight of steel, half the
weight of carbon fibers used today.
High strength and low weight is just the beginning of the
remarkable properties of these materials. They also conduct
electricity equal to copper without the loss of heat. Carbon
nanotubes have extremely high thermal conductivities as well,
and are unreactive in most environments. Each desired physical
property is obtained simply by rotating the molecule from 0 to
90 degrees.
With carbon nanotubes we can build maritime vehicles that
evade corrosion and detection by the enemy. We can build
airplanes with warping wings that respond automatically to
environmental conditions and that are lighter and more fuel-
efficient. We can build computer circuits orders of magnitude
smaller than today's standards. We can build our future, a
future that looks as perfect as the nature that surrounds us.
I look toward the government for strategic investment in
nanotechnology similar to its investments during the 1950s,
which led to micro technology, micro fabrication, and the
computer technology of today. This was our past. It has been
fruitful and formidable, but has run its course.
The technology of the past cannot answer our needs for
today and our needs for the future. We need lighter and more
fuel-efficient vehicles. We need better forms of power storage.
We need orders of magnitude increase in data storage
capabilities. We need our soldiers better protected on the
battlefield.
The lead-time for a science to become technology is 10 to
15 years. We have just passed a decade in nanotechnology, and
this is a most critical time. We must take nanotechnology out
of the laboratories and into the market. We must move from
characterization to fabrication. We must build, and we must
invest.
Once it was thought that the largest barrier to our
technology of the future was the technology itself, not having
microscopes powerful enough to see individual atoms and
molecules, not understanding the physics and chemistry of the
size scale. The scientific community has overcome these
obstacles and surpassed them.
Today without question the largest barrier to taking the
next step is economic. The materials of nanotechnology are
ready to be fabricated into useful forms so that the military
and society can realize their extraordinary benefits. We are
ready to break away from basic science and become an applied
industry. This is evidenced by the number of new
nanotechnologies startup companies growing every day.
Now I will use the word ``potential.'' These small
businesses have the potential to supply the material to the
military needed to build the next generation of defense
products. These businesses need an infrastructure to survive.
They need investment, and they need goals.
The Defense Department will greatly benefit by forming
strategic partnerships with the nanotechnology private sector.
Department of Defense appropriations can bring speed to market
so that the military can reap the benefits.
Senator Santorum has shown great vision in this area,
realizing that nanotechnology will facilitate the development
of unmanned air and land vehicles and greatly improve ballistic
shielding. It is time to bring that vision to fruition.
I urge the Senate to make a small investment which promises
to reap enormous rewards. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kuper follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. Cynthia Kuper
Senator Roberts, and members of the subcommittee, I greatly
appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today regarding the
present status and future direction of nanotechnology.
If I were asked to testify before you just a few years ago I would
have used words like ``imagine'' and ``potential.'' Today I use the
words ``will'' and ``can.'' I am here to tell you where nanotechnology
is and where it is going.
Nanotechnology is the technology of science on the nano scale, the
size scale of atoms and molecules, one billionth of one meter. It is
the most powerful form of engineering we know of and thus, brings with
it the most innovative and revolutionary materials that exist in the
universe.
Nanotechnology holds the key to our future, a future that began
over the last decade in university laboratories, across our country and
the world, where scientists embarked on studies of a new form of carbon
that is 100 time stronger than steel and weighs 1/6 as much, wires made
out single molecules and pathways to engineer devices half the size of
the diameter of a human hair. The future of these findings will lead to
desk top computers the size of credit cards, vehicles for land and air
that self-heal and think, and multi-functional materials. Such an
example of a multi-functional device that will greatly benefit soldier
land warfare is a jacket worn by a soldier that weighs as much as a
cotton shirt, yet is a ballistic shield, portable power supply, and a
medicine cabinet of anti-biological warfare agents, holding the
vaccines in tiny capsules ready to release them when its sensors detect
their presence in the air. In this future we will use carbon nanotubes
to deliver drugs to infected cells and conversely use the bacteria that
infects cells to build computers. The use of bacteria for molecular
circuitry has already been demonstrated.
I am fortunate to have worked with these materials first-hand and
am humbled to say that I have been trained by some of the world leaders
in this field. I began my scientific endeavors in the laboratory at the
age of 15, working on cures for breast cancer. I obtained my doctorate
in Chemistry and never dreamed I would be on an adventure such as this
one; having the opportunity to work with Noble laureates and our space
agency to develop these materials, to have a glimpse into our future.
Nanotechnology will build a new class of air and spacecraft using
materials with the highest strength-to-weight ratio ever seen. These
materials are called carbon nanotubes. To visualize a carbon nanotube,
visualize a sheet of chicken wire and place a carbon atom in every
vertice in the chicken wire. Then roll up the sheet so that is closes
upon it self at the edges seamlessly. You have just formed a long tube
made solely of carbon atoms. Now, if you will, envision a soccer ball.
Place a carbon atom in every vertice on the stitching of the soccer
ball. This is a carbon 60 molecule, or Bucky ball, named after the
architect Buckminster Fuller.
Take this soccer ball and cut it in half. Use each half to cap the
ends of the long tube. This is a single-wall carbon nanotube. Its
diameter is one billionth of meter and its length is a micron, one
millionth of one meter. These are single molecules and they are with
out defect. Their unique structure gives them strengths 100 times
greater than steel and weight 1/6 of steel, 1/2 as much as carbon
fibers used today. High strength and low weight is just the beginning
of the remarkable properties of these materials. They also conduct
electricity equal to copper without the loss of heat. Carbon nanotubes
have extremely high thermal conductivities as well and are unreactive
in most environments. Each desired physical property is obtained simply
by rotating the molecule from 0 to 90 degrees. With carbon nanotubes we
can build maritime vehicles that evade corrosion and detection by the
enemy. We can build airplanes with warping wings that respond
automatically to environmental conditions and that are lighter and more
fuel-efficient. We can build computer circuits orders of magnitude
smaller than today's standards. We can build our future, a future that
looks as perfect as the nature that surrounds us.
I look toward the government for strategic investment in
nanotechnology similar to its investments during the 1950's, which led
to micro technology, micro fabrication and computer technology. This
was our past. It has been fruitful and formidable, but it has run its
course. Technology of the past cannot answer our needs for today and
the future. We need lighter more fuel-efficient vehicles. We need
better forms of power storage. We need orders of magnitude increase in
data storage capabilities. We need our soldiers better protected on the
battlefield. The lead-time for a science to become a technology is 10-
15 years. We have just passed a decade in nanotechnology. Now is a
critical time.
The future is today. The question is no longer how. The question is
when. We must take nanotechnology out of the laboratories and into the
market. We must move from characterization to fabrication. We must
build. We must invest.
Once it was thought that our largest barrier to the technology of
the future was the technology itself, not having microscopes powerful
enough to see individual atoms and molecules, not understanding the
physics and chemistry at this size scale. The scientific community has
overcome these obstacles and surpassed them. Today without question the
largest barrier to taking the next step is economic. The materials of
nanotechnology are ready to be fabricated into useful forms so that the
military and society can realize their extraordinary benefits. We are
ready to break away from basic science and become an applied industry.
This is evidenced by the number of new nanotechnology start up
companies growing everyday.
Now I will use the word ``potential.'' These small businesses have
the potential to supply the military with materiel needed to build the
next generation of defense products. These businesses need an
infrastructure to survive. They need investment and goals. The defense
department will greatly benefit by forming strategic partnerships with
the nanotechnology private sector. Department of defense appropriations
can bring speed to market so that the military can reap benefits.
Senator Santorum has shown great vision in this area, realizing
that nanotechnology will help to make unmanned air and land vehicles a
reality and greatly improve ballistic shielding. It is time to bring
that vision to fruition. I urge the Senate to make a small investment,
which promises to reap enormous rewards.
Senator Roberts. Dr. Kuper, you mentioned in your written
testimony that you just finished, the Department of Defense
will benefit by forming a strategic partnership with industry
such as yours. How would you characterize the ease with which
small businesses can work with the Department of Defense so
that your ``will'' and ``can'' banner can be raised high?
Dr. Kuper. Well, my past experience has been that the ease
has been easy. We have worked with NASA successfully. I think
that there would be a great deal of ease with which the
Department of Defense could work with the private sector,
especially in the materials concentration of nanotechnology,
because the commercial interest and the military interest
overlap so much.
I look back to the Star Wars Program and wonder if one
could not take that decade and compress it into yearly cycles
of military advantage and products that come into the
commercial sector.
Most of the people that live in the United States today, do
not realize many of the products that came out of the Star Wars
Program that they use every day. I do not even know if
researchers know how much it benefited our analytical equipment
and characterization that we use, which came out of that
program so many years ago, which also benefited and
strengthened the Department of Defense.
My vision would be to implement such a program with
nanotechnology to make strategic investments in small business
that have these material capabilities. These companies that
would be invested in would have short-term commercial
viability, and also suit the immediate needs of the Department
of Defense.
Senator Roberts. So you are saying here on your second
page, ``Technology of the past cannot answer our needs for
today and the future. We need lighter, more fuel-efficient
vehicles.''
I just went to many town hall meetings in Johnson County in
Kansas. That is the place where everybody who works in Kansas
City would like to live, and we had about 250 in each town hall
meeting. I asked how many people would be willing to go the
speed limit of 55 with a much more smaller vehicle, et cetera,
et cetera. A lot raised their hand, and a lot did not.
``We need better forms of power storage. We need orders of
magnitude increase in data storage capabilities.'' Then you
switched, like you are stating here and say, ``We need our
soldiers better protected on the battlefield.'' So, this is not
an either/or thing. There is a direct benefit that when you
invest in the technology for one, you get the other, right?
Dr. Kuper. Yes, I do believe that.
Senator Roberts. You say, ``That is a technology of 10 to
15 years. We just passed a decade. Now is a critical time.''
Not a problem with the research and the chemistry, it is a
problem with economics, is that correct?
Dr. Kuper. Yes.
Senator Roberts. You were 15 when you began your scientific
endeavors in the lab?
Dr. Kuper. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Roberts. Let me ask you an un-PC question.
[Laughter.]
How old are you now?
Dr. Kuper. I will be 29 next month.
Senator Roberts. I see. Thank you for your testimony.
Dr. Kuper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Roberts. Dr. Sherwood, in your written statement,
you have a proposed initiative that I am certainly involved
with in regards to what we call a ``non-lethal environmental
evaluation and remediation program'' at Kansas State. You have
four areas that could really be of importance to the war
factor. Do you want to go over those real quick, if you can?
Dr. Sherwood. Yes. I am not personally directly involved in
this program, but I can tell you that many of these involve the
nano materials of the sort that I have given you today. What
Kansas State is trying to do, and I think is a very good
example of what is happening in this area which is to optimize
the approach by bringing together all of the talents that are
present at the moment in the university, and bringing together
people who have not previously been involved.
The catalyst for this, the engines to make this possible,
is this new approach in nano materials, and this has brought
partnerships that previously have not been in place. One will
see this as a partnership between scientists, engineers,
agricultural experimenters, and so on.
Senator Roberts. Dr. Gabriel, you mentioned that basic
research is hard to predict and many believe it should be
completely unfettered. But you disagree with this--this seems
to be somewhat of a unique opinion. Could you elaborate on the
need for the Department of Defense to focus on far future
capabilities in its basic research?
Dr. Gabriel. Thank you. Before I answer that, I want to
just quickly point out, I failed to mention that if you press
the button on the side of the thing that went up, you can see
the membrane actually deflect, for later amusement.
The answer to the question about objectives: I think many
times there is a perception that the freer you are in being
allowed to be completely undirected, that the more productive
it can be. The history is filled with--history of technology
advances is filled with shortcuts, unforeseen opportunities
that people take up, and many times, they wind up in places
which are even more important than when they originally started
out going.
As an example of that in my written testimony, I pointed
out we recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of ENIAC which
was built by Defense Department funding, basic research
funding, at the University of Pennsylvania in 1946. Now ENIAC
was the first electronic computing device, filled a room
roughly this size.
It was not done because the Army or the Department of
Defense foresaw the Internet, but neither was it done just
because it was something that would be interesting to do. It
was done because the Army needed more efficient and faster ways
of generating artillery tables, calculation tables. Now in the
process of reaching that objection, we, of course, uncovered
this whole rich new area which we are still uncovering of
information technology.
That is the sense in which I think it is important to have
a far reaching objective. It is not a prescription. It is not a
direct that ``You will do this. You will do this. You will do
this.'' But it is a target which is really stretching
everyone's capabilities, stretching the technologies,
stretching our ability to produce it that will really generate
the productive research that we need.
Senator Roberts. So there is a focus.
Dr. Gabriel. A focus, exactly.
Senator Roberts. There is at least some direction, some
kind of a mission that you are trying to accomplish as opposed
to just basic research.
Dr. Gabriel. Exactly.
Senator Roberts. I do not mean ``just basic'' research. I
remember back in my House days when I was Chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, and prior to that, and we would always
get into the debate of applied and basic research. Very few
members of Congress appreciate the need for basic research.
They want to touch it and feel it, more especially if it is in
their district. [Laughter.]
In most cases, if it did not end up in Mr. Whitten's
district in Mississippi, why, it did not get funded. Now that
is probably an overstatement to say the least, but that is
interesting.
I think that in the interest of time and get you on your
way, we are going to end the hearing. But I want to thank you
so much for your time and effort and for your testimony and for
coming down today.
Rest assured, this subcommittee will continue to make that
investment that Dr. Kuper was talking about in science and
technology because it is our future. Thank you so much for
coming.
This subcommittee hearing is adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Pat Roberts
TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS (TRLS)
1. Senator Roberts. Dr. Andrews, Dr. Daniel, Dr. Alexander, and
Admiral Cohen, there has been increasing interest in ``best business
practices'' in the technology development and insertion arena. I
understand that the Department of Defense has adopted using Technology
Readiness Levels as a communications device between the S&T and
acquisition communities. Could you comment on the acceptance or
utilization of Technology Readiness Levels by your service/agency?
Dr. Andrews. The Army has adopted Technology Readiness Levels
(TRLs) as the method to measure the maturity of the technologies being
developed. The TRLs were identified in the recommendations put forward
in the 1999 General Accounting Office Report (``Best Practices: Better
Management of Technology Development Can Improve Weapon Systems
Outcomes,'' GAO/NSIAD-99-162, July 1999) citing best practices for the
management of technology development. This report indicates that
critical technologies and/or subsystems should be at a high level of
maturity prior to making the commitment for development and production
of a weapons system. The Army has adopted this philosophy and has
implemented the use of TRLs as a viable way to track technology
maturity level. The Army has taken the lead within the Department of
Defense in adopting TRL assessments as a way to monitor technology
progress from concept to production. The Army fully supports the use of
TRLs to track technology maturity and will use them as a tool to help
assess progress towards achieving the Army Transformation.
Dr. Daniel. Past use of the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) in
the Air Force has been sporadic and localized. However, under recently-
revised Department of Defense (DOD) regulations, the use of TRLs will
be mandatory for all major acquisition programs. The Air Force has been
participating with the other Services, Defense Agencies, and the Office
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) staff in an Integrated Process Team
to define the guidelines and framework for implementing and applying
TRL assessments in a consistent manner across the Department. Interim
guidance based on the results of team's efforts has just been provided
by OSD.
Dr. Alexander. The greatest benefit of utilizing the technology
readiness level (TRL) description of technology or system maturity is
in the establishment of a common language across communities. The TRL
descriptions bridge the nomenclature between the research community and
operational community enabling a clearer understanding of the maturity
of the project. They also establish specific demonstrable milestones to
gauge progress of the research and development towards an operational
system. A consistent use of TRLs can foster a better understanding of
the project timelines, promoting a smoother transition of the projects,
especially from 6.3 to 6.4 funding and beyond. When broken down by
component technology (as opposed to system), the TRL description can
also provide insight into the higher risk components and aid in
developing risk mitigation investments.
The advantages of clarifying the technical maturity of a research
program to the operational community has led the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to adopt the TRL description for the
DARPA/Army Future Combat Systems. TRLs are valuable in developing a
common understanding for joint DARPA-Service programs. For example,
DARPA is finding TRLs useful in developing Future Combat Systems
demonstration milestones for the Army acquisition community. As we gain
increased experience with the TRL descriptions, I would anticipate that
additional DARPA research efforts would adopt that nomenclature.
Admiral Cohen. Within the Department of the Navy S&T programs, the
Office of Naval Research (ONR) has established exit criteria as a
measure of technology readiness to transition to acquisition/
developmental programs. Exit criteria are detailed to define the
critical characteristics of the needed technology and are agreed to by
ONR and the transitioning office. S&T has also incorporated Technology
Readiness Levels (TRL's) into this structure to assist in defining the
nature of the demonstration to ensure that the technology meets the
desired characteristics.
2. Senator Roberts. Dr. Andrews, Dr. Daniel, Dr. Alexander, and
Admiral Cohen, what would you anticipate being the greatest challenge
or unintended consequence of moving to the Technology Readiness Level
system?
Dr. Andrews. There have been two major issues that the Army has
faced in adopting the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) system. The
first, and most prevalent, is the belief that TRLs can assess program
risk. The TRLs are a method to measure the maturity of the
technologies, not a risk assessment tool. The Army is in the process of
adopting a method to develop risk mitigation plans that will address
the risk associated with technology development.
Another issue has been the lack of clarification regarding the type
of money required for pre-System Design and Definition (SDD) activities
that are performed in a Science and Technology environment (S&T). The
DODR 5000-2R requires a TRL 6 or 7 prior to a Milestone B decision and
entrance into SDD. However, many of the demonstration and evaluation
activities associated with achieving that level of maturity are beyond
the scope of the level of technical maturity of funding in Budget
Activity 3 (BA 3).
Dr. Daniel. The greatest challenge will be to assure that the
Technology Readiness (TRL) guidelines are being implemented and
assessments are being made as uniformly as possible by the different
Services and Defense Agencies. There is an ongoing effort in the
Department of Defense to develop appropriate guidance to provide this
uniformity. Additional challenges include lack of experience in
utilizing TRLs and the manpower and resource implications associated
with implementation.
Dr. Alexander. Given the broad nature of the Technology Readiness
Levels (TRLs), confusion and unrealistic expectations can result unless
there exists a firm understanding of the milestones and assumptions
used in the TRL determination. This requires early communication and
coordination between the researchers and operational community in
defining the specific demonstrations on a project-by-project basis.
TRLs can improve the communications process, but they are not a
substitute for good communication. When discussing the TRL of a system
made up of developmental components, for example, research and
development managers and acquisition managers must communicate
carefully to ensure that all understand the TRLs of the system versus
that of the components. The Department is working to apply TRLs to
primarily software programs as well, and this also requires precise
communication between communities.
The biggest risk in applying TRLs is that there is not a one-to-one
correspondence between TRLs and RDT&E research categories (6.1 to 6.6).
Since appropriations are categorized by Program Element number (matched
to research category), there may arise increased tension between
researchers and operators to place more of the financial development
burden in the other's financial category. For example, there may be a
push by the operational community to spend more of the traditional 6.1
to 6.3 budget maturing the technology to a TRL that mitigates the risk
beyond the level that the research community feels is warranted.
Admiral Cohen. Three concerns are immediately identified:
a. The S&T Executive is charged with the responsibility of
establishing the TRL's for their Service acquisition programs; the S&T
community is not resourced to do this task. There is a risk that
program funds will have to be diverted to accomplish that task.
b. TRL's will become a measure of ``goodness'' of S&T programs and
as a result, programs will focus on near-term issues with a loss of
creativity and development of break-through or disruptive technology.
c. TRL's will be used for basic scientific research, which by
definition is not technology. This will dissuade the best researchers
from participating in DOD-related basic research and hinder development
of the science base required for new technology.
DIRECT HIRE AUTHORITY FOR PERSONNEL
3. Senator Roberts. Dr. Andrews, Dr. Daniel, and Admiral Cohen,
last year Congress provided laboratory directors the direct hire
authority for personnel. This allows the directors to bypass the usual
process of hiring which can take anywhere from 3 to 18 months.
Could you comment on the effectiveness of this authority and
whether it has been fully implemented in your labs?
Dr. Andrews. The ``direct hire'' authority under Section 245 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 has not been
implemented to date. On June 21, 2000, Mr. Aldridge, Dr. Chu, and Mr.
Frame co-signed a memorandum to the services providing implementing
instructions for Section 245. As a result of this guidance, within the
Army, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs has the lead for implementing this guidance. The purpose is to
remove, to the extent permitted by law, any existing Department of
Defense (DOD) and component impediments, including regulations,
policies, procedures, and practices to expedited hiring authority by
the directors of the selected laboratories and test and evaluation
centers. The Army is identifying policies, procedures, practices and
regulations that will be waived and reports back to DOD by mid August.
Until these impediments have been waived and the selected directors for
the pilot program have been able to implement the expedited hiring
authority, I cannot comment on its effectiveness.
Dr. Daniel. This authority has not yet been implemented in the Air
Force Research Laboratory. We are currently awaiting authority and
implementation guidance from the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Once fully implemented, I expect the authority to have a very positive
effect on our ability to attract and quickly hire individuals that are
among the Nation's best technical talent.
Admiral Cohen. Section 1114 of the NDAA for fiscal year 2001
(Clarification of Personnel Management Authority) appears to offer the
Secretary of Defense broad authority to create a new personnel system
for the S&T Reinvention Laboratories participating in the fiscal year
1995 personnel demonstrations, including the possibility of direct hire
authority without competition. However, whether this potential will be
realized will depend largely on the interpretation accorded this
provision by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), where action
on implementation is still pending.
DARPA FOCUS AREAS
4. Senator Roberts. Dr. Alexander, what process does DARPA
undertake to determine which technologies to focus on and who sets the
research agenda for the agency?
Dr. Alexander. DARPA's main mission areas--solve national-level
problems, enable operational dominance and invest in high-risk, high-
payoff technologies--have endured since the agency's founding in 1958.
Within each main area, specific investments change over time. Strategic
decisions for the first mission area, solving national-level problems,
are based on the concerns articulated by the highest level of
government and the Department of Defense. Technologies pursued in the
second area, enabling operational dominance, may be for needs
articulated by the Military Services, Joint Chiefs of Staff or Unified
Commanders. The Future Combat Systems program is example of an
investment that DARPA is undertaking because the Army leadership
expressed a need for which DARPA had ideas for technical solutions.
Other investments in the operational dominance area could be based on
DARPA ideas for future military capabilities--DARPA technologists and
management see a technology that presents an opportunity for improved
military capability. An example in this area would be stealth--
technologists articulated the possibility of an aircraft that would be
difficult to see on radar. Investments in the third main mission area,
high-risk, high-payoff technologies, are based on technological
opportunities seen by DARPA experts.
This explains how DARPA sets its broad research agenda. Below this,
to a very large extent, DARPA is driven by technical opportunities. We
hire preeminent technical experts and ask them to bring us unique,
innovative ideas that will have a revolutionary impact on national
security. The Director and I review those ideas and determine funding
levels that will allow the program manager to mature the idea,
demonstrate its potential and lower its technical risk. Lowering risk
and conducting demonstrations allow the Military science and technology
community and industry to decide to incorporate the technical idea into
their programs.
This entire process, of course, operates in conjunction with
planning processes within the Department of Defense such as the science
and technology and budgeting processes. In addition, DARPA management
and program managers also benefit from findings from the Defense
Science Board, interagency science and technology groups, and technical
experts within and outside of the Federal Government, as well as vision
statements articulated by the Joint Chiefs, Military Services and
Unified Commanders.
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL AGENT DECONTAMINATION
5. Senator Roberts. Admiral Cohen, decontamination of personnel and
equipment exposed to a chemical or biological agent is a continuing
problem for the Services. Military personnel must be able to survive
and fight in any environment regardless of whether an adversary uses a
chemical or biological agent against them. One of the functions of the
Marine Corps' Chemical and Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF)
is to quickly decontaminate marines and their equipment so that they
can continue their operations unhindered. To further meet the
decontamination challenge, the Marine Corps has been testing a new
technology called electro-chemically activated (ECASOL) decontamination
solution. In a recent three-day test conducted by the Marine Corps'
Systems Command and a CBIRF team, the ECA technology demonstrated that
it was an effective decontaminate and exceeded all test requirements.
What are your thoughts on the problems of chemical and biological
agent decontamination and the use of the electro-chemically activated
technology?
Admiral Cohen. The Marine Corps began testing ECASOL, the electro-
chemically activated technology, in February 1998. Marine Corps'
Systems Command utilized Battelle Memorial Institute as the independent
``honest broker'' tester for this product. A testing regime was
developed consisting of five phases. Four of the five chases have been
completed. Up to this point, the indications are that ECASOL has
performed well in killing efficiency, has demonstrated its viability as
a skin decontaminant, and has demonstrated efficacy against a number of
chemical and biological agents. However, further testing on ECASOL's
effectiveness on a variety of surfaces is still required. Thus, the
nature and extent of any problems associated with the use of ECASOL as
a decontaminant are still to be determined.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
DOD BASIC RESEARCH FUNDING
6. Senator Santorum. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, with the exception
of the fiscal year 2001 funding spike, funding for Department of
Defense basic research has been consistently underfunded. Congress
shares some of this blame, as it has taken funds from these crucial
accounts and used them to pay for the near-term modernization or
procurement needs of today's military.
Recently, I met with leaders of the information technology industry
and discussed issues of concern as well as industry priorities. These
individuals were concerned with the level of basic research funding in
the United States. These leaders emphasized that without increased
investment in Department of Defense basic research, the number of
graduate student opportunities to pursue Department of Defense research
cannot increase. A decline in the pool of scientists, engineers,
mathematicians, and skilled technicians will prevent the Department of
Defense from achieving success in the pursuit of ``leap ahead''
technologies.
With this in mind, I offered an amendment to the Senate's Fiscal
Year 2002 Budget Resolution which calls for increasing the level of
Department of Defense basic research conducted in American universities
by $353.5 million for fiscal year 2002. In addition, I recently
circulated a letter to the Defense Appropriators among my colleagues
which seeks a $1.03 billion increase in our S&T program funding levels
for fiscal year 2002.
Will both of you please address the importance of DOD basic
research to realizing ``leap ahead'' advances in military capabilities.
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). DOD basic
research is a wellspring of new knowledge and understanding that
underpins future defense technologies. While basic research sometimes
pays immediate dividends, its full impact usually isn't apparent until
much later. With the benefit of hindsight, we can discern the patterns
of research that spawned today's revolutionary military capabilities,
including the Global Positioning System, stealth, night vision, and
precision strike. We expect equally important new capabilities to
emerge over the long term from today's investments in basic research.
Some of the exciting basic research areas in which the DOD currently
invests are areas pertinent to technologies such as nanotechnology,
smart materials and structures, information technology, human-centered
systems, compact power and biomimetics.
7. Senator Santorum. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, please address how
funding levels for DOD basic research impact not only military
capabilities, but also the pool of skilled scientists and engineers who
will drive innovation and change.
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). Each year DOD
provides support to about 8,000 graduate students pursuing advanced
degrees in science and engineering fields critical to national defense.
The DOD basic research program provides the majority of this support,
primarily through the employment of graduate students as research
assistants on defense research projects. Research assistants receive
training in the performance of research, satisfying requirements toward
their degrees as an integral part of the work they perform on the
projects. The basic research program also supports the National Defense
Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship Program, a way of honoring
and encouraging the best and brightest students in defense-critical
fields. Through these mechanisms, the DOD helps to ensure the future
availability of science and engineering talent for defense needs.
8. Senator Santourm. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, do you believe
that the levels of funding for basic research are adequate to propel
transformation throughout the services?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). The level of
basic research funding in the DOD Amended Budget for fiscal year 2002
reflects our carefully considered judgment on the best programmatic
balance within available resources. There are abundant scientific and
technical opportunities to be exploited with additional basic research
resources, but there also must be a good balance in the investments
among all of the components of Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation (RDT&E). A balanced RDT&E investment strategy is important
to help assure that basic research results are fully utilized in a
timely way, through technology transition to applied research and
ultimately to development of defense systems. I therefore urge your
full support of the amount requested for basic research.
EASE OF INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION IN MILITARY R&D
9. Senator Santorum. Mr. Aldridge, do you believe that there are
changes that the Department can take to make it easier for industry to
participate in military R&D efforts?
Mr. Aldridge. Yes. There are changes in policy and changes in
practice that can make it easier for industry to participate in
military R&D efforts.
In the policy arena, I issued on May 16, 2001, a memorandum for the
Secretaries of the Military Departments and Directors of Defense
Agencies that makes clear that we will not require or encourage
contractors to supplement DOD appropriations by bearing a portion of
defense contract costs, whether through use of their Independent
Research and Development (IR&D) funds or profit dollars. Instead, we
will structure contracts to permit contractors to earn a reasonable
return in exchange for good performance. In today's environment of
reduced defense spending and fewer new program starts, contractors are
far less likely than in the past to invest in defense R&D contracts.
The risk is simply too great. If a contractor takes the risk, and
follow-on work that would provide the return on investment does not
materialize, the contractor's financial health may be in jeopardy,
along with its ability to attract the resources and talent necessary to
continue to undertake challenging technical initiatives.
Another policy step in this direction, implemented in the June 10,
2001, issuance of the acquisition regulation, is the requirement that
program managers plan for the use of technologies developed under the
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, and give favorable
consideration for funding of successful SBIR technologies. I will be
reviewing these plans at milestone and program reviews for ACAT I
programs.
In terms of practice, actions speak louder than words. There has
been a policy that funding in the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP)
support a program as presented at a major decision review. Over time,
that policy has received varying degrees of attention. Consistent with
my belief that we should not require contractors to supplement DOD
appropriations, I plan to enforce this policy. If a program is going to
get a favorable decision, the program funding must be adequate to
support implementation of the acquisition strategy. Also in the realm
of practice, we will continue to leverage commercial and dual-use
technologies to the maximum extent possible, which allows private
entities otherwise involved in commercial efforts to apply them to DOD
needs. We will continue to find ways to tailor our contracts or other
business arrangements so they meet the needs of the nontraditional
defense contractors as well as the Department.
In addition to the policy changes, we are in the process of
refining the investment in the Science and Technology portion of
Research and Development, with increased investment in development of
prototype systems, such as seen with the Advanced Concepts Technology
Demonstration program. These demonstration programs have a heavier
proportional industrial investment, which should also spur industrial
Research and Development.
BENEFITS OF MEMS RESEARCH
10. Senator Santorum. Dr. Gabriel, how might MEMS research provide
benefit to the military as it begins to transform to meet 21st century
threats?
Dr. Gabriel. Experiences in recent conflicts and the evolving role
of the U.S. military stressing rapid response to varying missions have
demonstrated the compelling advantage of accurate and timely
information coupled with smart weapons systems. The resulting
combination of awareness and lethality will be key to increasing and
projecting military capability in the 21st century.
MEMS embedded into weapons systems, ranging from competent
munitions and sensor networks to high-maneuverability aircraft and
identify-friend-or-foe systems, will bring to the military new levels
of situational awareness, information to the warrior, precision strike
capability, and weapons performance/reliability. These heightened
capabilities will translate directly into tactical and strategic
military advantage, saved lives, and reduced material loss.
MEMS will create new military capabilities, make high-end
functionality affordable to low-end military systems, and extend the
operational performance and lifetimes of existing weapons platforms.
For example, MEMS will enable complete inertial navigation units on a
chip, composed of multiple integrated MEMS accelerometers and
gyroscopes. The inertial navigation systems of today, however, are
large, heavy, expensive, power-consumptive, precision instruments
affordable only in high-end weapons systems and platforms. Inertial
navigation on a chip would not only make it possible to augment global
positioning satellite receivers for battlefield tracking of troops and
equipment, but would also provide guidance for high-volume munitions
that are currently unguided. MEMS inertial navigation units on a chip
will achieve performance comparable to or better than existing inertial
navigation systems and be no larger, costlier, or more power
consumptive than microelectronic chips.
In addition to single-chip inertial navigation units, there are
many opportunities for MEMS insertion into DOD systems across a number
of technologies alud products that include:
Distributed unattended sensors for asset tracking, border
control, environmental monitoring, security surveillance, and
process control;
Integrated fluidic systems for miniature chemical/biological
analysis instruments, hydraulic and pneumatic systems,
propellant and combustion control, and printing technology;
Low-power, high-resolution, small-area displays for tactical
and personal information systems;
Embedded sensors and actuators for condition-based
maintenance of machine and vehicles, on-demand amplified
structural strength in lower-weight weapons systems/platforms
and disaster-resistant building;
Radio frequency elements for agile, secure and low-power
communications systems;
Acoustic devices and arrays directional microphones, acoustic
signature and security sensors and ultrasound ranging/
detection;
Integrated microoptomechanical components for identify-
friend-or-foe systems, displays and fiber-optic switches/
modulators; and
Active, conformal surfaces for distributed aerodynamic
control of aircraft, adaptive optics, and precision parts and
material handling.
11. Senator Santorum. Dr. Gabriel, does MEMS have utility for the
Army's Objective Force--a force that will rely on situational awareness
and speed, as opposed to force-on-force lethality?
Dr. Gabriel. Yes--most definitely and in many ways.
12. Senator Santorum. Dr. Gabriel, if so, in what way?
Dr. Gabriel. As just one example, MEMS creates unprecedented
situational awareness capability by enabling the use of as many as
100,000 to 1,000,000 micro-sensors distributed over a theater of
operations and concentrated in critical target areas.
These micro-sensors would be able to provide continuous
surveillance of concealed and moving targets with an array of different
types of detectors including but not limited to: biological. chemical,
optical imaging, acoustic, seismic, and electromagnetic. Advanced
energy systems coupled with covert communications would transmit data
to overhead receiving systems for processing into detection,
identification, and target data.
Some of the micro-sensors would have ground or air mobility to
allow advantageous placement and observation. It is anticipated that
some degree of robot intelligence could also be incorporated to enable
the micro-sensors to investigate concealed targets on their own.
This class of surveillance and targeting system, together with the
more conventional remote air- and space-based sensors, would allow
future U.S. military forces, like the Army's Objective Force, to find,
identify, and target aggressor military equipment and forces that are
concealed under foliage, in buildings, and in underground facilities.
In addition, such a wide-area, dense and penetrating sensor capability
would allow identification and targeting of moving targets, even under
foliage-a capability that challenges present-day stand-off systems.
13. Senator Santorum. Dr. Gabriel, one of the concerns associated
with the use of a chemical or biological agent is the invisibility of
the threat.
Does MEMS technology have application to chemical or biological
threats?
Dr. Gabriel. Yes, and again in multiple ways. In a recent report of
the Defense Science Board, pro-active approach to defend against
chemical and biological threats outlined eight major elements:
1. Blanket coverage by affordable networks of detectors and
sensors;
2. Biosignature recognition of engineered BW agents;
3. Automatic triggering of neutralization, protection, and
containment responses;
4. Pre-positioned infrastructure protective systems;
5. Presymptomatic detection of infected individuals for infection
control and early therapy;
6. Novel non-agent-specific immune enhancement pharmaceuticals,
available to protect against novel agents and agents engineered for
resistance;
7. Revolutionary production capability for rapid supply (less than
7 days) of synthetic designer vaccines/therapeutics; and
8. Source attribution credible to the international community,
through pathogen biosignature, intelligence, and forensics.
As in the answer and remarks to questions 11 and 12, MEMS
technology enables a variety of chemical and biological sensors at a
cost, size and in numbers that allow for large-area continuous
monitoring sensor networks of the type outlines in element #1 above.
In contribution to element #2, new classes of chemical and
biological ``laboratories-on-a-chip'' are creating hand-held, field-
deployable systems to quickly and accurately detect both natural and
engineered chemical and biological agents. Such systems today are large
instruments in a fixed, remote laboratory where samples must be sent
and may take days to weeks to get identification.
Addressing both elements #7 and #2, emerging MEMS-based fluidic
systems offer the potential of implanted drug-delivery systems that
detect the onset of symptoms due to a chemical and/or biological attack
in an individual and immediately begin delivering antidotes and
antibiotics at the right time and in the right quantities to protect
the individual and neutralize the threat.
ETHICAL, LEGAL AND SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS OF NANOTECHNOLOGIES
14. Senator Santorum. Dr. Kuper, currently, the NNI is balanced
across five broad activities: fundamental research; grand challenges;
centers and networks of excellence; research infrastructure; and the
ethical, legal, and societal implications.
What do you believe are some of the ethical, legal and societal
implications behind nanotechnologies?
Dr. Kuper. Senator Santorum, as usual, you pose an extremely
challenging and far-reaching question. Although difficult for one
person to answer such a question on behalf of entire community, I will
try my best.
To understand the ethical, legal and society implications of
nanotechnology one must first understand the workings of the natural
world. Nature answers to no human and has no synthetic logic, moral or
legal structure. Some would say the sole governor of nature is a higher
power. Humankind governs humankind. Society functions by relying on a
previously established, although always changing, set of rules, which
define the ethical, legal and societal protocols by which we live.
Nanotechnology is the technology of science on the nanoscale, the
size scale of atoms and molecules, the building blocks of life and
world around us. Nanotechnology is about perfecting engineering at this
level. When one perfects molecular engineering, one comes very close to
the natural world. This means synthesizing the natural world in an
unnatural place, the laboratory. With this, the governor changes from a
higher power to mankind. This is the ethical, legal and societal
implication of nanotechnology.
From here inwards it is a purely philosophical discussion. Is
humankind brought into the world as a tabula rasa, or are we born with
an innate sense of good and bad, right or wrong? The answers to
questions like these will no doubt determine our level of fear of our
neighbors. Our fears will, as they usually do, determine our actions.
So, I mean to say that how society handles the fruits of nanotechnology
will depend on how we see our intent and this will be the implication.
One should not stop for too long on this, however, to think our
future holds only fears and wild heights of unchecked power, all from
nanotechnology. Uncovering the beauty of the natural world and
understanding its inner workings will equally impact our future in a
very positive way. The implication of this will most likely be seen in
a richer societal appreciation for the environment and how to protect
it, an understanding for how stop disease, an appreciation for life
that causes us to rethink producing things that destroy it.
If I could list just a few of what I think are some of the ethical,
legal and societal implications behind nanotechnology they would be
patent disputes, such as what is happening now over the human genome
project, moral issues of who should control the beginning and end of
human life, scientific questions relating to anti-biological warfare
agents and vaccines, making drug discoveries and advances in materials
which could save lives available to public and most interesting will be
the amendments to our legal system to better enable society to change
with changing technology and standard of living. Our legal system must
be vigilant because each plateau that technology reaches presents new
legal questions. For example, who would have thought that technology
would produce the issueof whether or not an electronic signature is
legally valid?
Our quandaries over implications such as these are not new to us.
Perhaps this is best evidenced by Albert Einstein in an address to the
California Institute of Technology in 1931, where he said, ``Concern
for man himself and his fate must always form the chief interest of all
technical endeavors, concern for the great unsolved problems of the
organization of labor and the distribution of goods--in order that the
creations of our mind shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind.
Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.''
ARMY SCIENCE BOARD STUDY OF VENTURE CAPITAL
15. Senator Santorum. Dr. Andrews, earlier this year, the Army
tasked the Army Science Board with exploring venture capital as a means
toward maintaining the pace of modernization. Specifically, Paul J.
Hooper, then-Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development,
and Acquisition, asked the Army Science board to study: (1) methods to
obtain complementary funding resources for long-term research and
development strategic objectives; (2) options and approaches to provide
these resources; establishing an Army venture capital fund to work with
venture partners for promising new technologies; developing more robust
partnerships and collaborations with industry and academia; and (3)
using a small portion of Army funds to sponsor new technologies in
start-up companies that offer high potential as well as commercial
benefits to the Army. Are you familiar with this tasking?
Dr. Andrews. I am.
16. Senator Santorum. Dr. Andrews, if so, what are your comments on
the merits of this approach?
Dr. Andrews. Using the Army Science Board to study this issue makes
sense and I wholly support their effort. As to whether the use of
venture capital is an appropriate means of maintaining the pace of
modernization is another question. The Army Science Board has not yet
completed its study. I would prefer to hear the specific responses of
the Army Science Board before providing my comments. Whether the
venture capital approach for the Army (or any of the services) is
viable remains to be seen. The jury is still out on the experiment with
the Central Intelligence Agency and In-Q-Tel. However, the Army already
has many tools today that it uses to promote innovation. We partner
with industry and academia through collaborative technology alliances
to conduct fundamental research in where the private sector has the
technical lead and incentive to invest. The use of Other Transactions
when there are obstacles to attracting non-traditional suppliers was
pioneered by the Defense Advanced Research and Projects Agency and is
being used by the Army. Our laboratories take advantage of Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements to co-invest (labor and facilities)
in the development of technology. Another example is our alignment of
the Small Business Innovative Research program with Future Combat
Systems technologies and with Science and Technology Objectives,
Advanced Technology Demonstrations and Advanced Concept Technology
Demonstrations to maximize the utility of products from small and
disadvantaged businesses.
17. Senator Santorum. Dr. Andrews, why is this approach necessary
when we already have DARPA, an entity that is the military's high-risk
manager for research and development?
Dr. Andrews. Clearly the Army does not intend to duplicate the
Defense Advanced Research and Projects Agency. However, one could ask
whether the venture capital approach fits the ``R'' or the ``D'' part
of Research and Development. Venture capitalists are interested in
bringing mature technology to market quickly and so the fit may be
better on the development side.
18. Senator Santorum. Dr. Andrews, why would commercial or private
sector entities want to invest in the Army when it lacks the resources
necessary to sustain many of its high priority programs and
initiatives?
Dr. Andrews. The Army contracts with industry and academia for
services and equipment. There are opportunities of mutual interest
where cost sharing is viable. The Army does attract the best and
brightest of both industry and academia to be suppliers to the Army
needs. If we have barriers to contracting with certain parts of the
commercial sector, we need to find ways to overcome them. The use of
Other Transactions is one. There may be others. We have tasked the Army
Science Board to look into the venture capital area. We await their
report.
FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS (FCS) PROGRAM
19. Senator Santorum. Dr. Andrews, based on your assessment of
historical trends for Army Science and Technology investment, are these
reasonable dates?
Dr. Andrews. The Army plans to initiate Future Combat Systems (FCS)
System Design and Demonstration (formally Engineering and Manufacturing
Development) in fiscal year 2006, production in fiscal year 2008, and
fielding in fiscal year 2010. This schedule implements innovative
approaches, such as (1) placing greater reliance on modeling and
simulation to reduce cycle time; and (2) testing requirements, and
concurrent subsystem development during the demonstration phase. I can
say that when initially fielded, FSC will possess many, but not all, of
the capabilities desired by the user. In the spirit of the new
Department of Defense acquisition policies, we are planning from the
outset for upgrades to FCS to enhance its capabilities. It is our
intention for FCS to have an open architecture so that new technologies
can be inserted seamlessly as they become mature. Yes, those fielding
dates are reasonable if we work to streamline acquisition and use
spiral development to provide increasing competition for FCS over time.
20. Senator Santorum. Dr. Andrews, that is, is the plan adequately
resourced or are there funding shortfalls associated with the plan?
Dr. Andrews. The Future Combat Systems (FCS) Science and Technology
program is adequately funded, based on current estimates. In the near
future, the government will receive results from the competitive
concept design phase of the program. The Army will carefully review
that information to assess its implications on program funding. The
Army FCS program is funded at approximately $500 million per year, and
we continue to rely on the financial and intellectual help from the
Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency. The FCS program was aided
greatly by the $46 million that Congress added to our fiscal year 2001
budget last year, and we appreciate that help very much.
21. Senator Santorum. Dr. Andrews, do you believe that this
strategy fits the profile of a ``high risk'' acquisition strategy?
Dr. Andrews. The Future Combat Systems (FCS) program is, indeed, an
aggressive program. We are challenged to concurrently develop the
design concepts, enabling technologies and operational concepts. All
these efforts will be performed on a compressed schedule so that we can
field FCS in this decade. The Army needs to achieve the Objective Force
as quickly as possible in order to remain relevant and postured to meet
the Nation's needs. To paraphrase General Shinseki, the Army's Chief of
Staff, we recognize that this is a tough challenge, but if we do not
try, we surely will not field FCS as soon as possible.
22. Senator Santorum. Dr. Andrews, how might the risk associated
with this schedule be reduced?
Dr. Andrews. The Army has taken steps to reduce risk by seeking
competitive solutions, by increasing funding for the collaborative
program and the enabling technologies, and by introducing management
tools. For example, to ensure we understand the maturity of the
technologies being developed, the Army has adopted Technology Readiness
Levels (TRLs). The Army has taken the lead within the Department of
Defense in adopting TRL assessments as a way to monitor technology
progress from concept to production. By understanding the maturity of
critical technologies, we can develop the plans to manage the risk.
TRANSFORMATION COSTS
23. Senator Santorum. Dr. Andrews, General Accounting Office (GAO)
estimates that Transformation may cost upwards of $70 billion over the
next 12-15 years. Do you believe that the Army will receive the level
of financial support from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
to aggressively support this process?
Dr. Andrews. I can only speak for the Science and Technology (S&T)
investments in the Army's budget. These investments are focused on
achieving the Objective Force for the Army's Transformation vision. The
Army's Fiscal Year 2002 Budget request for S&T is $1.58 billion. This
is a 22.5 percent increase over the fiscal year 2001 request of $1.29
billion, and clear evidence of the Army's commitment to achieve
Objective Force capabilities, such as the Future Combat Systems, by the
end of this decade. The Army has reprogrammed funds from within its own
total obligation authority to increase its S&T accounts. The Office of
the Secretary of Defense has also supported the Army's desire to
achieve Objective Force capabilities by providing additional funds for
S&T in fiscal year 2002.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION ISSUES
24. Senator Landrieu. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, the Comptroller
General has found that private industry fields new products faster and
more successfully because they make sure that new technologies have
been proven in the laboratory before they fly to incorporate them into
new products. According to GAO, ``It is a rare program that can proceed
with a gap between product requirements and the maturity of key
technologies and still be delivered on time and within costs.''
Do you agree that problems with immature technologies can slow down
an entire acquisition program and unnecessarily lengthen the entire
acquisition cycle?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). Yes. I think
this is made even more complex by the nature of our business--that is,
dealing with the development of high-risk, high-payoff, revolutionary
new warfighting technologies that provide our forces the technological
leap-ahead advantage on the battlefield (e.g., low observables,
precision strike, and unmanned systems). These technologies may take
many years to develop and mature in the laboratory environment. The
challenge is to reduce the technological risk to the point that
enhancements or leap-ahead capabilities can be efficiently integrated
into program planning.
25. Senator Landrieu. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, do you see spiral
development, with the sequential incorporation of new technologies as
they mature, as an appropriate response to this problem?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). Yes. The new DOD
5000-series documents specifically address this issue and provide
opportunities to insert mature technology at various phases in the
acquisition process and supports the evolutionary development of
systems. The new process requires more involvement and collaboration
between the S&T and acquisition communities, requiring an agreement on
the technology maturity level before insertion in the weapon system.
26. Senator Landrieu. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, earlier this
year, DOD Directive 5000.2 was revised to require that key technologies
reach a specified level of technological maturity before they may be
incorporated into acquisition programs.
Are you familiar with this change, and do you support it?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). Yes. I think the
use of Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), or an equivalent assessment
method, is a positive step in reducing the acquisition cycle time. The
assessments will be implemented for all Major Defense Acquisition
Programs and Major Automated Information System Acquisition Programs.
We have published interim guidelines on use of TRLs that establish a
technology readiness assessment process, definitions for TRLs, and
elements for a technology readiness agreement between the acquisition
program manager and technology provider. This will be incorporated into
the next update to the DOD 5000.2 Regulation and will be monitored over
the next 18 months to evaluate the impact and adjust the process, as
necessary.
Last year, a task force of the Defense Science Board on the health
of the defense industry recommended that the Department revise the
front end of the acquisition process to, among other things: (a)
explore more technology options prior to program commitment; and (b)
require that Research and Development programs be more separate from
production programs. These recommendations appear to be consistent with
GAO's findings that we need to mature our technologies more, and find
out which ones really work, before we incorporate them into production
programs.
27. Senator Landrieu. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, are you familiar
with these recommendations, and do you support them?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). Yes. I think the
evolutionary acquisition process will steer the exploration of more
technology options. The dialogue that occurs between S&T and
acquisition managers as they establish their Integrated Product Teams
(with industry and academia) will drive this. This will result in more
ideas coming to the table than might otherwise occur if the
technologists work on an issue in the laboratory. Second, the need to
have both the acquisition and S&T players agree to a TRL level will
ensure the best technology options are pursued before inclusion on
acquisition programs.
DIRECT HIRING AUTHORITY FOR LABORATORY DIRECTORS
28. Senator Landrieu. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, over the last 2
years, Congress has enacted a series of legislative provisions designed
to provide additional flexibility in the personnel system of the
defense laboratories, to make it easier for the laboratory directors to
recruit highly-qualified scientific and technical staff. However, the
Department appears to have been unwilling to use some of this
authority. In particular, the Department has not given the laboratory
directors ``direct hiring authority'', as authorized by the last two
Defense Authorization Acts.
Do you agree that laboratory directors would be better able to
compete for highly skilled scientific and technical staff if we give
them direct hiring authority?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). I do believe
that ``direct'' hiring authority will allow the laboratory directors to
better compete for highly skilled scientific and technical staff. We
are using the term ``expedited hiring authority'' to frame the efforts
that DOD has in progress in this area.
29. Senator Landrieu. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, if so, will you
take advantage of the legislative authority we have given you to
address this issue?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). I have been
working very closely with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness in identifying and initiating various activities that
will take advantage of legislative authorities for hiring highly
skilled scientific and technical staff. On June 21, 2001, the Services
were authorized waiver authority for actions pursuant to section 245 of
the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Fiscal Year 2000 and
section 246 of NDAA Fiscal Year 1999. These actions should expedite
hiring of scientist and engineers. In addition, we asked the services
to identify and to waive policies, procedures, practices, and
regulations not specifically required by law that restrict or otherwise
impede the ability of the laboratories to exercise expedited hiring
authority for personnel within their organizations.
30. Senator Landrieu. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, on July 17, the
authorities provided by section 1113 of the NDAA Fiscal Year 2001 were
delegated to the appropriate DOD components.
Are there other authorities that you think you may need to
revitalize the laboratories and ensure that they continue to contribute
to defense S&T?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). We are currently
working with General Counsel and Office of Management and Budget to
define additional authorities that would benefit the Laboratory
Directors. This is an on-going process and we are committed to working
with Congress for the purpose of defense laboratory revitalization.
It's in the best interest of national defense to do so.
DUAL USE TECHNOLOGIES
31. Senator Landrieu. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, over the last
several years, the Department of Defense has attempted to make
increasing use of technologies developed in the private sector. These
technologies frequently need to be adapted for defense use--either at
the front end, as they are being developed, or at the back end, after
they have been developed. The Dual Use Applications Program (DUAP) and
the Commercial Operation and Support Savings Initiative (COSSI) have
been funding mechanisms through which DOD has supported such
adaptations.
Are you familiar with the DUAP and COSSI programs, and do you know
if the Department plans to continue funding these programs?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). Both these
programs leverage commercial technology for defense purposes. The Dual
Use Science and Technology (DUST) Program (formerly DUAP) forms
partnerships with industry to develop technologies having commercial
and military applications. For example, the DUST program developed an
affordable Antilock Brake System for both commercial trucks and the
Army's High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) to improve
safety and performance.
COSSI is an innovative program that adapts commercial technologies
for use in military systems to increase reliability and reduce
operations and support costs. Since 1997 we've initiated 77 COSSI
projects.
The President's Budget request for fiscal year 2002 includes $10.8
million for COSSI and $30 million for the Dual Use Science and
Technology program.
32. Senator Landrieu. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, would you agree
that, regardless whether the Department continues to fund the DUAP and
COSSI programs, it is going to have to find a way to fund the adaption
of commercial technologies to defense uses?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). Yes. In some
areas key to defense, commercial firms are the technology leaders. We
will need to take advantage of these technologies if we are to continue
to deploy the most advanced weapon systems in the world. For example,
one COSSI project leveraged commercial satellite tracking technology to
maintain continuous control of in-theater vehicles. After successful
demonstration of the prototype developed under the COSSI program, the
company received an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract
for terminals and support services.
FUNDING FOR MAJOR RANGE AND TEST FACILITY BASES
33. Senator Landrieu. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, over the last
decade, we have cut the operating and investment budget for our Major
Range and Test Facility Bases by more than a billion dollars. The
remaining dollars are stretched far too thin to cover needed upgrades
to even the most valuable of our test facilities.
What can we do to reverse this process and make the investments we
need in our test ranges? For example, is there a way that we could
increase the level of customer funding to cover capital improvements,
or attract private investment to make needed upgrades to our most
critical test facilities?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). The Department
has reduced the operating and investment funding for the Major Range
and Test Facility Base to a level that is about a billion dollars per
year below the 1990 level. We intend to review this situation during
our on-going defense reviews to determine whether we have reduced too
far and, if so, make any necessary adjustments to insure that we have
adequate test and evaluation capability and capacity.
From a cost accounting perspective, we could certainly develop a
methodology for charging the costs of capital improvements to the test
customers, but we do not believe that this will enhance testing
overall. One of the principal objectives of the current funding policy,
when it was created in the mid-1970s, was to insure that funding issues
do not inhibit valid testing. This objective is implemented via a
policy that specifies that test customers pay for the direct cost of
testing, while the test organization used appropriated (institutional)
funds to pay for all other operating and investment costs. This was
expected to insure that test capabilities would keep pace with weapon
developments, and that the operating capacity to perform required
testing would exist. During the last decade, this policy has suffered
from a shortage of adequate institutional funding. In fact, a recent
Defense Science Board Study, completed in December 2000, found that the
test centers, due to shortages of funds, have been shifting more cost
to the customer. The Defense Science Board believes that we have
already shifted too much cost to the weapons programs. It is the
position of the Defense Science Board that this shift in cost has been
caused by too little operating funds being provided to the test centers
and that the increased charges to weapons programs has led to cases of
inadequate test and evaluation for programs strapped for funds.
We are attempting to attract private investment. For example, we
have entered into a partnership with the Boeing Company and the Air
Force, whereby Boeing has provided new capability at one of our test
facilities and eliminated some of its own capability. We will continue
to pursue partnerships even though there are impediments to this
process, such as the tax consequences to private companies for such
exchanges. We will continue to explore these cooperative agreements,
and other alternatives for maintaining adequate test and evaluation
capability. Where necessary, and after thorough evaluation, we will
propose enabling legislation to facilitate such agreements.
LABORATORY PERFORMANCE
34. Senator Landrieu. Dr. Andrews, Dr. Daniel, and Admiral Cohen,
over the last 3 years, a number of outside panels have been highly
critical of the performance of the service laboratories. These panels
have indicated that the civil service system is slowly calcifying the
defense laboratories and depriving them of the new talent that they
need to continue to make a valuable contribution to defense Science and
Technology (S&T). We have enacted a number of legislative provisions to
try to address these problems.
Do you believe that these legislative provisions are having the
desired effect, or do we need to consider more drastic measure, like
the partial privatization of one of more laboratories?
Dr. Andrews. I am fully aware of the Defense Science Board's
reports which have indicated that ``the capabilities of the
laboratories have been seriously diminished over the past decades . . .
The major reason for this decline . . . was found to be the severe
difficulty that they have in recruiting and retaining high quality
professional staff. . .'' They go further, stating ``that the
inadequate salary structure and excessive personnel regulations of the
Civil Service System are primarily responsible for this problem.'' Four
of our seven major S&T laboratories have participated in personnel
demonstration projects under Public Law 103-337 since 1997. An
additional two labs will join the demonstration project by 2002. By
2004 we expect more than 90 percent of our Science and Technology
workforce to be under a personnel demonstration project. This law was
enacted to specifically tackle the issue of the Civil Service
Regulations. For those labs under a personnel demonstration project, we
are seeing encouraging results in the areas of recruiting for quality
and diversity, retaining high performers, enhancing careers, and
partnering with the unions. Our laboratories have begun to aggressively
recruit and hire new scientists and engineers, after a decade of major
laboratory downsizing, which continues. Competitive pay, particularly
in technical areas such as information technology and computer science
remains an issue. The recent legislation initiatives, such as the
Sections 245 and 246, which are in the process of being implemented,
need to be given the opportunity to prove their utility during
implementation at the selected sites. At this time, therefore, I do not
recommend more drastic measures, like the partial privatization of
laboratories.
Dr. Daniel. Enacted legislative provisions have had a positive
impact on our laboratory workforce. For example, the Laboratory
Personnel Management Demonstration Project has provided the Air Force
Research Laboratory with some of the needed flexibility to enable a
more responsive workforce. This Lab Demo initiative has also enabled
the Air Force to reward its laboratory workforce for their outstanding
contributions to defense science and technology. However, Section 246
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 and
Section 245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000 have not been fully implemented at this time. I am hopeful that
upon full implementation, these initiatives will have the positive
effects that are envisioned. Finally, the Air Force is already making
considerable and valuable use of the private and academic sectors in
the Air Force Research Laboratory. At this time, almost 40 percent of
our in-house scientists and engineers are from industry or the
university community.
Admiral Cohen. Some legislative provisions have helped the Service
laboratories, especially Section 342 of the NDAA for fiscal year 1995
and Section 1107 of the NDAA for fiscal year 2000. Section 342 allows
``S&T Reinvention Laboratories'' to implement more flexible personnel
systems. However, Section 342 demonstrations are limited in terms of
coverage, duration, and scope, e.g. they had to be modeled after the
so-called ``China Lake'' personnel demonstration authorized by Title 6
of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. This greatly limited the
degree to which participating laboratories could experiment with
innovative ways to hire, retain, and shape their workforces in response
to rapidly changing business conditions. Section 1107 eliminated
controls on high-grade scientific and engineering positions, a move
that supports retention of high-quality personnel.
However, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has only
recently moved to begin implementing other legislative provisions, such
as Section 245 of the NDAA for fiscal year 2000, and Sections 1113 and
1114 of the NDAA for fiscal year 2001. Letters signed out of OSD on 21
June 2001 and 17 July 2001 directed Service implementation of Sections
245 and 1113 respectively. Implementation of Section 1114 is still
pending in OSD. Therefore, the extent to which these provisions will be
helpful cannot be fully determined at this point in time. It appears
Section 245 will not allow for direct hire without competition the way
the private sector does because of remaining barriers posed by Title 5
merit principles. Moreover, Section 245 is a pilot effort limited in
terms of coverage (only two labs per Service), duration (3 years), and
scope. Of all these legislative provisions, Section 1114 appears to
offer the greatest possibility of relief, although its coverage is
limited to S&T Reinvention Laboratories participating in the fiscal
year 1995 Section 342 personnel demonstrations. Whether this potential
will be realized will depend largely on the Office of the Secretary of
Defense's interpretation and emphasis of this provision.
In light of the systemic problems facing the Service laboratories,
and the urgency to address hem, it appears that incremental approaches
and piecemeal legislative efforts may not be enough. Indeed, we are
approaching the point of diminishing returns on trying to make Title 5
practices responsive to the needs of a serious research laboratory. The
real problem the Service laboratories face is one of governance. The
governance under which these laboratories and their Federal employees
operate was not designed for operation in a research environment. As a
result, great effort is required to make the governance and the
research environment coexist. Perhaps a more sensible approach would be
to tailor the governance to the research mission rather than the
reverse. The DOD research laboratories play an important role in
keeping the DOD itself scientifically and technically competent. This
would seem to be a good thing, especially in this technically complex
and fast-moving world in which the defense of the Nation must now be
conducted. It is now time to consider establishing a new goverlance
model (personnel, administrative, procurement, facilities) within the
Federal Government specifically tailored to the needs of a military
research laboratory. This would, if properly executed, eliminate all of
the piecemeal fixes which have been tried over the years while still
retaining Federal status and competence in an area, i.e., science and
technology as it relates to National Defense. In this regard,
establishing one or more of the military research laboratories as
special Government corporations may have some merit. The customers for
the corporations would be the Government itself. The corporations would
survive only to the extent that Government funding agencies were
prepared to purchase the products/services of the corporations.
Such a plan would appear to have several advantages over the
partial or total privatization of a lab: (1) It almost certainly would
be less expensive in the long run; (2) The staff of such an
organization would remain Federal employees, and thus able to make
decisions or render advice without conflicts of interest; (3) It would
be more executable; and (4) It should be less controversial.
LABORATORY LEGISLATION
35. Senator Landrieu. Dr. Andrews, Dr. Daniel, and Admiral Cohen,
are there other steps that you would recommend to increase the
flexibility and performance of the defense laboratories.
Dr. Andrews. We clearly want to see the effect of Section 245 and
246 on the hiring processes. If those initiatives are not sufficient in
making our hiring processes competitive with industry, particularly in
the time to make final offers and the time to bring the offeree on-
board, then we will need to make further recommendations. I still
believe that our salaries are not competitive in areas such as
information technology and computer science. The Veterans
Administration and other sectors of the Federal medical community can
hire at the market rates in certain specialty categories. We need
similar authorities to hire in selected areas to insure that we can
attract at least the top 10 percent of bachelor graduates in those
areas as well as the Ph.D.'s. I believe our work is interesting and
attractive. We need the ability to offer the salaries to attract
quality scientists and engineers, and keep them.
Dr. Daniel. Over the past several years, the Air Force has been
addressing workforce performance via the Laboratory Personnel
Management Demonstration Project. With Lab Demo, the Air Force Research
Laboratory has gained some of the needed flexibility to enable a more
responsive workforce capable of meeting future defense challenges. Lab
Demo's flexibility has resulted in the current laboratory workforce
making significant contributions to defense science and technology and
being rewarded for it.
The additional flexibility provided by Section 246 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 and Section 245 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 will be
especially beneficial in the area of new hires. However, since these
legislative provisions have not been fully implemented, the Air Force
does not recommend additional legislation at this time. I would like to
fully implement Sections 246 and 245, evaluate the results, and then
make recommendations on other improvements, if needed.
Admiral Cohen. The Service laboratories are one part of a larger
defense science and technology structure that includes academic and
industrial partners. Each of these organizations plays an indispensable
role in the development, production, and deployment of advanced
technologies into warfighting systems. For this structure to work
properly, all three types of organizations must be staffed by world-
class, motivated scientists and engineers. Increasingly, the
laboratories must team with these other partners to facilitate
technology transfer. There are several legislative barriers that hinder
such partnering. Their removal would increase the flexibility and
performance of these laboratories.
There have been over 100 studies of some aspect of the Defense
RDT&E establishment in the past 40 years, and the recommendations
resulting from these studies are remarkably similar. The most
significant difference is that the more recent studies often recommend
more radical solutions to the problems that continue to confront the
DOD labs. Despite the blue-ribbon nature of many of these study groups,
only a few, essentially incremental, reforms have actually been
implemented. While these reforms have helped, they have not been enough
to turn the tide of mediocrity that has been slowly rising over the
past decades.
For this situation to be reversed, the country must commit to
implementing the most significant lab-related recommendations made by
these studies. This will require a willingness on the part of the DOD,
the Services, and such other Government entities as Congress, OPM and
OMB to admit that if the DOD labs are to be good, they cannot be
required to operate within the stifling, one-size-fits-all labyrinth of
personnel regulations that have been developed over the past 100+
years. A whole new approach in the area of personnel management at the
labs is urgently required. There is no lack of good ideas here--what we
lack is the will to proceed. '
They also must be permitted to operate like the best academic and
industrial research labs in such areas as renewal of infrastructure,
procurement of capital scientific equipment, and obtaining support
services. For example, the current military construction process of
competing priorities does not favor the renewal of the laboratory
physical plants. This problem could be addressed by legislation that
would allow the laboratories to execute a capital purchase program by
using funds generated through overhead charged to their customers and
from the proceeds of technology transfer activities. Such legislation
might also streamline the procurement of capital equipment, a process
that is burdened with onerous and unnecessary regulations and timelines
that often make it difficult to obtain the latest scientific hardware.
In addition, the labs need to be able to maintain a high percentage
of interesting and challenging ``hands-on'' work. They cannot do this
if they are largely relegated to the role of contract monitors. This
has been one of the few advantages enjoyed by the DOD labs in the past,
but is now threatened by continued pressures to maintain the dwindling
defense industrial base in many areas.
Certainly legislation that specifically addressed the needs of the
labs in such areas as personnel recruiting, retention and reward;
infrastructure renewal; administration and support services; and other
areas would go a long way to solving the problems confronting the labs.
However, bolder action should be seriously considered for the Navy's
Corporate Laboratory, the Naval Research Laboratory, and possibly other
Service labs as well. The basic concept of this proposal is described
in the answer to question 34 above. Serious consideration should be
given to such a concept--failure to take some type of bold action at
this time would appear to consign one of the last great Government
laboratories to mediocrity.
ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) PROGRAM
36. Senator Landrieu. Dr. Andrews, the Army has made a commitment
to transform itself into a more responsive, more deployable, more
capable force over the next decade. Secretary Caldera and General
Shinseki have acknowledged that the Science and Technology (S&T)
program is crucial to the success of this plan. Is your S&T Program
fully-funded through the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) to address
the requirements of the Army's transformation?
Dr. Andrews. As you are aware the Secretary of Defense is directing
a Department-wide review of Defense Strategy and is conducting the
Quadrennial Defense Review to help shape the FYDP. Therefore, the
Department of Defense has not yet determined allocations of the FDYP to
specific accounts. Additional funding would be used to reduce risk in
S&T programs by increasing options and accelerating technology
development.
37. Senator Landrieu. Dr. Andrews, where are the shortfalls, and
how do you plan to make them up?
Dr. Andrews. As you are aware the Department of Defense is
conducting a review of Defense Strategy and the Quadrennial Defense
Review itself will also help to shape the Future Years Defense Plan
(FYDP). Therefore, it is pre-mature for me to comment about shortfalls
in Science and Technology until we, in the Army, are provided with
information about our resource allocations in the FYDP. Additional
funding does help to reduce risk in S&T programs by increasing options
and accelerating technology development.
BOTTOM-UP REVIEW OF AIR FORCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
38. Senator Landrieu. Dr. Daniel, over the last 2 years, this
committee has been extremely critical of the Air Force for underfunding
its science and technology programs. Last year, we required the Air
Fore to conduct a comprehensive, bottoms-up review process to determine
what technological challenges it needs to meet to address the needs of
the Air Force of the future, and to make sure that its science and
technology program is appropriately designed to address those
challenges. When do you expect that review to be complete
Dr. Daniel. The review is on schedule to be completed by October
30, 2001, as required by law.
39. Senator Landrieu. Dr. Daniel, will it serve as the basis for
future science and technology budget requests?
Dr. Daniel. The Air Force Science and Technology (S&T) Planning
Review, now ongoing in response to the Fiscal Year 2001 National
Defense Authorization Act, is identifying the Short-Term Objectives and
Long-Term Challenges for the AF S&T Program. It is further assessing
what current programs we have in place that address these objectives
and challenges, as well as laying out desired programs to fully meet
these objectives and challenges. As such, the results of this review
will be a major input to the formulation of future S&T budget requests.
However, while the review will be an important consideration, we will
also factor in the Joint and Air Force strategy documents, Defense
planning documents, Defense S&T Plans, and the Air Force Corporate
Investment Strategy as we always have.
40. Senator Landrieu. Dr. Daniel, do you expect to see a
significant increase in the Air Force's S&T budget request this fiscal
year?
Dr. Daniel. Yes. Air Force Science and Technology (S&T) funding has
shown a marked improvements for the second year in a row. The Fiscal
Year 2002 President's Budget (PB) is up over $150 million for core S&T
efforts from the Fiscal Year 2001 PB. This increase includes a sizable
gain of almost $120 million in the 6.1, Basic Research, and 6.2,
Applied Research, technology base. The 6.3, Advanced Technology
Development budget activity on the whole is slightly lower due to the
transfer of Spaced-Base Laser program from the Air Force to the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. We are continuing to work S&T
funding levels for fiscal year 2003 and out, and anticipate continuing
progress in our future S&T budget submittals.
DARPA FORMAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION AGREEMENTS
41. Senator Landrieu. Dr. Alexander, in recent years, DARPA has
worked closely with the services to identify areas of opportunity and
technological needs where DARPA can play an effective role. In some
cases, however, we still hear complaints that DARPA initiatives are not
ready to transition into production. You told our staff earlier this
year that DARPA's job is to prove a concept, for example, by proving
out the high risk aspects and showing that the concept is valuable. You
stated that it is not necessarily DARPA's job to produce completed
designs, because such designs inevitably involve trade-offs and
interface decisions that the services must make for themselves.
Do you think that formal technology transition agreements between
DARPA and the military services are helpful, or are they likely to be
counterproductive?
Dr. Alexander. Formal technology transition agreements can be
helpful, but it depends on the circumstances. They are most appropriate
when a Service first agrees that they want to take over a DARPA project
and the formal agreement is a way to work out and clearly communicate
the expectations and commitments of both parties. This is most likely
the case with 6.3 system projects that produce something like military
specific end items that require more engineering before they can be
produced and deployed. Future Combat Systems is a case in point. On the
other hand, formal technology transition plans are not useful or
appropriate for our 6.1 work and the great majority of our 6.2 work;
it's just too early. In those cases, formal agreements are unlikely to
be meaningful, and might stifle the innovation and exploration that
must occur. The key point about formal agreements is that they are a
tool for communicating and focusing, not an end in and of themselves.
It's the communication that's crucial to transition.
It would be counterproductive to generally require formal
technology transition agreements between DARPA and the Services, even
if only for 6.3 programs. For starters, such a requirement could easily
degenerate into a paperwork exercise. Far more importantly, it would
become one way to stop DARPA programs that challenge the Services'
existing technology, systems, or doctrine, and those are exactly the
projects DARPA should undertake. DARPA exists in large part to produce
radical technical change that challenges the Services before our
adversaries do. Hence, DARPA will continue to develop technologies
without having a formal technology transition path.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION FUNDING
42. Senator Landrieu. Dr. Alexander, do you think it would be
helpful to have a source of funding within the services to take
technologies that have been proven by DARPA and mature them to the
point where they are ready to incorporate into weapon systems?
Dr. Alexander. Yes, but I would add not only for DARPA
technologies, but for technologies from any source. I fully recognize
that the Services must balance many more competing priorities than
DARPA does, but I do think such a fund would make it easier and quicker
to transition technologies to the Services to be further engineered to
meet their requirements. The basic challenge here is that once a
technology has proven its worth, and a Service wants to mature it, all
the money in an ongoing fiscal year is claimed by specific projects and
it takes 2 years to get new money for the technology. A transition
fund--a pool that is not preallocated to existing projects but that can
be used to seize technological opportunities--seems a logical solution.
However, many veterans of the budget process believe that such a fund
is unlikely to survive the budgeting and appropriations process, and,
even if it does, that it will end up heavily freighted with internal
and external approvals that would greatly slow its use. In a time when
the DOD is under tight fiscal constraint, this skepticism carries
considerable weight. In any event, one key to making such funds useful
would be to ensure that the Services could allocate them quickly and
with flexibility.
NAVY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDING
43. Senator Landrieu. Admiral Cohen, over the last 2 years, the
Navy has undertaken a lengthy planning process to identify ``grand
challenges'' and ``future naval capabilities'' to serve as a focus for
prioritizing future S&T program needs?
Do you expect this planning process to result in a significant
realignment of Navy S&T spending in this year's budget?
Admiral Cohen. The Future Naval Capabilities is a process that
partners science and technology with both the Navy and Marine Corps
military requirement offices and the acquisition offices. The Office of
Naval Research (ONR) will invest approximately $500 million in applied
research and advanced technology development funding into technologies
to achieve the highest capabilities identified by the requirements
offices. To focus resources to ensure that these technologies can be
delivered in the timeframe need for the transition office, significant
realignment of the fiscal year 2002 applied research and advanced
technology development programs has occurred. We do not anticipate that
there will be a significant realignment on the fiscal year 2002 basic
research program.
44. Senator Landrieu. Admiral Cohen, will you provide us with
visibility not only as to what you have funded and what you have cut,
but also into places where you are unable to fund programs that you
have identified as important to the achievement of your new S&T goals?
Admiral Cohen. The Office of Naval Research (ONR) will invest over
$500 million in applied research and advanced technology development
funding into technologies to achieve Future Naval Capabilities. The 12
Future Naval Capabilities that will be funded include:
Autonomous Operations
Capable Manpower
Electric Ships and Combat Vehicles
Knowledge Superiority and Assurance
Littoral Anti-Submarine Warfare
Littoral Combat and Power Projection
Missile Defense
Organic Mine Counter Measures
Platform Protection
Time Critical Strike
Total Ownership Cost
Warfighter Protection
Areas that will receive less funding are environmental quality,
advanced logistics technology, portions of the medical research, and
portions of advanced electronic warfare research.
Propulsion technology for ships and combat vehicles and combat
technology for littoral operations were two areas of research not
funded in the original recommendations for Future Naval Capabilities
(FNC). These area represent core missions for the Navy and Marine
Corps. Therefore, the Navy realigned the FNCs to create the Electric
Ships and Combat Vehicles ENC. The Navy added littoral combat
technology to the expeditionary logistics FNC to create the Littoral
Combat and Power Projection FNC.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Dayton
RADIATION HARDENED ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIAL BASE
45. Senator Dayton. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, I recognize the
importance of Radiation Hardened Electronics Technology to the DOD. I
also recognize the nature of the technology makes it unique to the DOD
and generally not applicable to the commercial marketplace. Because of
this, I am concerned with the stability of the industrial base
supplying this technology, especially now that there are only two
remaining U.S. suppliers of Digital Radiation Hardened Electronics. I
also understand that both suppliers are finding it difficult to keep
this as a viable business. I was pleased to see the previous DOD
direction to the services to make funding available for support of this
critical strategic technology and industrial capability.
Is there, in your view, sufficient funding requested in fiscal year
2002 in both S&T and capitalization to maintain this critical Radiation
Hardened Electronics Industrial Base?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). Yes, the funding
requested in fiscal year 2002 initiates a 4-year program to purchase
capital equipment and perform the research and development necessary to
establish the radiation hardened process essential to meet the
Department's radiation hardened electronics needs and assure survival
of this essential industrial base. The Department's Radiation Hardened
Electronics Oversight Council (RHOC) has studied this area in detail
and the ``leap ahead'' technology funding, when supplemented by those
in the Council technology development roadmap, will meet our needs.
46. Senator Dayton. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, what measure of
support do you need from this committee to assure that this critical
national capability remains available to support our Nation's defense
requirements?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). The DOD funding
request is the level of support we need to meet the radiation
survivability needs of our electronic systems and the need for
industrial base modernization. Your continued interest will be vital to
the success of this effort.
47. Senator Dayton. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, what is the status
of the report requested by our committees last year?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). The report
requested was delayed because some of the data needed were not
available until the Department completed its review of the total fiscal
year 2002 budget request. The report is being finalized and will be
submitted as soon as coordination is complete.
48. Senator Dayton. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, could you please
explain what is the DOD's intent with respect to sustaining the
radiation hardened electronics industrial base?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). The performance
of many DOD weapons systems requires these highly specialized,
radiation hardened electronics components that are only available
through the rad hard electronics industrial base. This need will grow
as the Department continues to make space operations a priority.
Consequently, we are putting special emphasis on ensuring these
components are available to DOD systems in the future by establishing
the focused DOD radiation hardened electronics ``leap ahead'' program
starting in fiscal year 2002. Additionally, we will continue to
``corporately'' manage this area through the Department's Radiation
Hardened Electronics Oversight Council (RHOC) that reports to me. The
RHOC charter requires it to recommend and coordinate actions where a
needed industrial capability is at risk.
49. Senator Dayton. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, are you intent on
supporting multiple vendors?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). Yes. Our systems
are demanding near state-of-the-art electronic performance. We achieve
this by leveraging commercial advances in electronics and performing
research and development to determine the material, process, layout,
and design changes essential to instill radiation hardness. We perform
this R&D in a very tight scheduling window with the Department's
systems relying on deliveries of advanced radiation hardened
electronics to meet performance, weight, and power requirements. There
is a history that tells us that when you rely on scientific
breakthroughs in a time constrained environment it makes sense to have
multiple efforts. Additionally, there are real economic, innovation,
infrastructure protection, and assured sourcing benefits to having the
competition of multiple vendors.
50. Senator Dayton. Mr. Aldridge and Dr. Etter, I am aware that
there are at least three funding elements essential for preservation of
the industrial base including: (1) Science and Technology (S&T); (2)
Productization and Qualification (P&Q); and (3) capital equipment.
Has the DOD sufficiently budgeted fiscal year 2002 funding for the
P&Q and capital equipment elements in your view and for the number of
vendors you intend to sustain?
Mr. Aldridge (on behalf of himself and Dr. Etter). The capital
equipment funding is sufficiently budgeted for fiscal year 2002; out-
year funding for capital equipment will be addressed in the fiscal year
2003 budget build process. The Radiation Hardened Electronics Oversight
Council will recommend an approach to minimize acquisition system
barriers to support of system common objectives such as the P&Q
investment.
[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]