[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 114-33]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES HEARING
ON
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FISCAL YEAR
2016 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRO-
GRAMS: LAYING THE GROUNDWORK TO MAINTAIN TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY
__________
HEARING HELD
MARCH 26, 2015
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-235 WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JIM COOPER, Tennessee
DUNCAN HUNTER, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Vice Chair DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska
MO BROOKS, Alabama PETE AGUILAR, California
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
Kevin Gates, Professional Staff Member
Lindsay Kavanaugh, Professional Staff Member
Julie Herbert, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Langevin, Hon. James R., a Representative from Rhode Island,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities................................................... 13
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.............. 1
WITNESSES
Miller, Mary J., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Research and Technology........................................ 4
Prabhakar, Dr. Arati, Director, Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency................................................ 11
Shaffer, Alan R., Principal Deputy, Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering........................... 2
Walker, Dr. David E., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Science, Technology, and Engineering....................... 9
Winter, RADM Mathias W., USN, Chief of Naval Research............ 6
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Miller, Mary J............................................... 52
Prabhakar, Dr. Arati......................................... 103
Shaffer, Alan R.............................................. 29
Walker, Dr. David E.......................................... 97
Winter, RADM Mathias W....................................... 70
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Franks................................................... 120
Mr. Langevin................................................. 119
Mr. Nugent................................................... 120
Ms. Stefanik................................................. 121
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Nugent................................................... 130
Mr. Wilson................................................... 125
[H.A.S.C. No. 114-33]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FISCAL YEAR 2016 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS:
LAYING THE GROUNDWORK TO MAINTAIN TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities,
Washington, DC, Thursday, March 26, 2015.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND
CAPABILITIES
Mr. Wilson. I am pleased to welcome everyone here today for
this hearing on the fiscal year 2016 budget request for science
and technology [S&T] programs within the Department of Defense
[DOD].
We are all aware of the intense downward budget pressure
the Department is under these days in the ever-growing universe
of threats that we are forced to deal with. Science and
technology programs are part of the modernization investments
that keep the Department prepared and ready to deal with those
threats and ensure that when we send our soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines into harm's way, we make sure they are
never in a fair fight because technology is on their side.
But defense sequestration jeopardizes that technological
superiority and our ability to outmatch and outclass potential
adversaries. I agree, we cannot ignore today's concerns,
including readiness, equipment recapitalization, and the health
and welfare of our service members.
Nor can we expect to raid our modernization accounts to pay
those bills. That is like taking money from the retirement
accounts to pay the mortgage today. There are short-term
rewards, but you create an even bigger problem down the line.
I say that to make the point we understand why science and
technology is important, should be protected, but also
recognize that in this budget environment we will continue to
be under pressure. The fiscal year 2016 budget request for
science and technology is seeing a modest increase, but that
request was also well above the budget caps set by defense
sequestration.
If we have to remain at sequestration levels, I fear the
adverse impact it will have on our science and technology
programs. Not only will we have to defer sought-after and
important programs, but we will continue to defer the hiring of
needed scientists and engineers, defer investments in necessary
equipment, and defer building or upgrading facilities that
support world-class research and world-class researchers.
I know that I have painted a bleak picture, but it is only
to punctuate how important we think science and technology is
to our national security and the defense of our great Nation.
Every time we push off research one year--one more year, we
give our adversaries another year to catch up with us.
With that, I would like to welcome our distinguished panel
of witnesses for their thoughts on this topic.
Mr. Alan Shaffer, Principal Deputy to the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering; Ms. Mary
Miller, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and
Technology; Rear Admiral Mat Winter, United States Navy, Chief
of Naval Research; Dr. David Walker, Deputy Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force for Science, Technology and Engineering; Dr.
Arati Prabhakar, the Director of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, DARPA.
I would like to turn now to our ranking member, who will be
here any moment, and he is on the way. And his staff is very
trustworthy, and they promised me he is on the way.
But Mr. Langevin should be here any time. But he has
indicated to proceed, and we shall because of the voting
schedule that we may be facing today.
I would like to remind our witnesses that your written
statements will be submitted for the record, so we ask that
each of you summarize your comments to 5 minutes or less.
Mr. Shaffer, we will begin with you, and we look forward to
your opening statement. Before we do, though, I understand that
you will be retiring from government service at the end of May
to take a position as the chief science--chief scientist of the
NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] Science and
Technology Organization. What a great honor.
You have been a good friend of this committee, and so I
would like to thank you for your many years of service in the
Air Force, your public service within the Department, and we
wish you and your family best wishes in the future. Godspeed.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF ALAN R. SHAFFER, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING
Mr. Shaffer. Thank you very much, sir. It has been a
pleasure to serve and I will continue to serve in the NATO
capacity.
Chairman Wilson and committee members, I am proud to be
here once again to represent the 100,000-plus scientists and
engineers in the Department of Defense. Although this is a
community that has been challenged in many ways over the last
several years, they continue to perform remarkably well.
I want to start with a somewhat unusual story and share
with you the value of long-term science and technology. I was
recently briefed about the progress made in combat casualty
care. In Iraq and Afghanistan from 2005 to 2013 the average
severity of injuries to our young forces increased by 25
percent, but the fatality rate was cut in half.
We contend the decline in fatality rate is due, in part, to
the long-term advances and delivery from the medical science
and technology community, which includes contributions from
everyone at this table.
While our S&T community has performed very well in the
recent past, the national security environment is changing in
fundamental ways. For the first time in several decades, we are
seeing an erosion of our technologically based military
advantage.
Secretary Ash Carter addressed this during his fiscal year
2016 budget posture, when he said:
``For decades, U.S. global power projection has relied on
the ships, planes, submarines, bases, aircraft carriers,
satellites, networks, and other advanced capabilities that
comprise our military's unrivaled technological edge. But
[today] that superiority is being challenged in unprecedented
ways.
``Advanced military technologies, from rockets and drones
to chemical and biological capabilities, have found their way
into the arsenals of both non-state actors as well as
previously less-capable militaries. And other nations--among
them Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea--have been pursuing
long-term, comprehensive military modernization programs to
close the technology gap that has long existed between them and
the United States.''
Dr. Carter also addressed the impact of the sequester,
stating, ``A return to sequestration in fiscal year 2016 would
affect all aspects of the Department, but not all
equally. . . .
``Approximately half of the cuts would have to come from
the Department's modernization accounts, undermining our
efforts to secure technological superiority for U.S. forces in
future conflicts. . . . Sequestration would put on a hold on
critical programs, like our Aerospace Innovation Initiative,
the Next-Generation Adaptive Engine, the Ground-Based
Interceptor missile defense kill vehicle redesign, and several
space control efforts.''
As you noted, the 2016 budget request for science and
technology increases to $12.3 billion. We have focused on S&T
investments in advanced technology development to provide more
prototypes and demonstrations.
Our recent emphasis in demonstrations is now producing
results across the DOD. I will highlight just a few of our
noteworthy demonstration programs.
My Emerging Capabilities and Prototype Office has started
several joint capability technology demonstrations for
communications and imagery from small, tactically relevant
satellites. The Space and Missile Defense Command Nanosatellite
Program, known as SNaP, is a low Earth orbit nanosatellite that
will provide assured, beyond-line-of-sight communication,
enabling mission command on the move.
Three SNaP satellites were delivered this March with a
launch date scheduled for August 2015. The Kestral Eye is a 25-
kilogram satellite that provides good-enough 1.5-meter visible
imagery for less than $1.5 million.
Both imagery tasking and delivery is controlled directly by
battlefield commanders, and this provides a real augmentation
to our tactical ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance] capability. Kestral Eye will launch this
December.
The Army is developing a high-energy laser mobile
demonstrator to demonstrate low-cost capability for counter
rockets, artillery, and mortar. In 2014, the Army tested this
system twice and successfully engaged roughly 90 percent of the
targets. We are now on a path for protective lasers to be
fielded in the Army's Indirect Fire Protection Capabilities
Increment II.
The Navy's Innovative Naval Prototype Laser Weapons System
is another solid state laser under development. The Navy
demonstration uses a fiber laser, as compared to the Army's
heat capacity laser. The system was demonstrated aboard the USS
Ponce in 2014 and is moving forward to its next set of field
demonstrations.
Finally, the Air Force's Adaptive Engine program is a new
architecture, offering roughly 25 percent reduction in specific
fuel consumption. Since 2007, we have moved from the Adaptive
Versatile Engine Technology, ADVENT, program to the Adaptive
Engine Technology Demonstration, and in 2016 we will commence
with the Adaptive Engine Transition Program [AETP], which is
out of S&T, but a 6.4 program moving towards engineering,
manufacturing, and development program of record early next
decade.
A frequent criticism of the S&T program is that there is
duplication among the services. I don't believe that this is a
pervasive problem, but in 2013 we reinstated Reliance 21, a
process to allow the services and defense agencies looking
across all projects to optimize their output.
Under Reliance 21, we have divided the overall S&T program
into 17 communities of interest [COI], and they have--they are
developing integrated science and technology roadmaps or plans.
These COIs are adjusting programs at the execution level.
This is, indeed, an interesting time for DOD science and
technology, with operational challenges increasing at a time
when budgets are flat or declining. Meeting the national
security needs requires we develop and adopt a multifaceted
strategy.
This strategy is in place. I am proud of the professionals
and the entire R&E [research and engineering] enterprise, and
look forward to continued achievements from our dedicated
workforce.
I also very much value working together with each of these
science and technology executives to deliver the most that we
can from the overall Department of Defense.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaffer can be found in the
Appendix on page 29.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Shaffer.
Ms. Miller.
STATEMENT OF MARY J. MILLER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Miller. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Langevin, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss the Army's science and technology
program for fiscal year 2016.
I came before this committee last year and spoke to the
difficult choices that the Army faced balancing force
structure, operational readiness, and modernization. This
continues to be a significant challenge.
The velocity of instability around the world has increased.
The Army is now operating on multiple continents simultaneously
in ways unforeseen just a year ago.
Our adversaries continue to invest in technology to counter
or evade our strengths, and what used to take our enemies
months and years to disrupt may now take only days.
The Army has developed a new Army operational concept,
``Win in a Complex World,'' to address this new environment.
Within the Army, however, the research, development, and
acquisition accounts are 34 percent less in fiscal year 2016
than we projected just 4 short years ago, adding to this
challenge.
Despite this dramatic reduction in our modernization
accounts, the Army leadership has continued to protect the
science and technology investment as the key to the Army of the
future. The S&T enterprise is committed to providing soldiers
with the technology to win.
The contributions from the almost 12,000 scientists and
engineers that work within the S&T enterprise span the gamut
from fixing immediate problems to forecasting for the future. I
would like to take this opportunity to highlight a few of these
areas.
The Army relies on our science and technology enterprise to
rapidly solve current problems for our troops in the field--
problems such as redesigning body armor to better fit female
soldiers in Afghanistan. These soldiers were faced with armor
that caused abrasions, restricted their movement, and even
impacted their ability to correctly seat their rifles on their
shoulder when shooting. The S&T community developed an armor
system designed to fit smaller torsos, which is now becoming
the new standard for female soldiers today.
We are also called upon to improve our current system
capability. Efforts like the Advanced Affordable Turbine
Engine, now the Improved Turbine Engine program of record, will
provide Apache and Black Hawk critically needed operational
improvement in both hot and high altitude conditions.
We also drive down risk for emerging programs of record by
bringing forward new capabilities that are not only
technologically achievable, but also affordable. Our efforts
with the Third Gen FLIR, forward-looking infrared, are a great
example of where we developed a technical solution that gave us
increased range for both detection and ID [identification]--
range that exceeds that of our enemy--while investing in the
manufacturability of this system to provide an unprecedented,
affordable, all-weather capability that recently transitioned
into the I-FLIR program of record.
Before a program even gets started, however, S&T provides
the technical understanding of the art of the possible,
ensuring our requirements are both achievable and affordable.
Our Joint Multi-Role [JMR] Technology Demonstrator effort
will produce two flight demonstrators in fiscal year 2017 to
inform affordable requirements for the Department of Defense's
next-generation rotorcraft. The Future Vertical Lift planned
program of record is envisioned to meet 70 percent of the
current DOD rotorcraft needs, and the JMR Tech Demo is ensuring
that we get these requirements right.
With an increasingly adaptive enemy, one who has watched
how the U.S. fights for the past 13 years, it is imperative for
us to understand our own technology and system
vulnerabilities--those aspects that could be exploited and used
against us. Our Army science and technology enterprise has
embraced this challenge, as well.
A key aspect of this initiative is red-teaming, challenging
our systems with an emulated enemy--one who can use innovative
and adaptive methods to disrupt our planned capability. These
efforts have the potential for significant cost savings, as
vulnerabilities are mitigated before system designs are
finalized and systems are fielded.
We also work to understand the global technology
environment by establishing tighter connections to each other
through Reliance 21, that you just heard about, through
increasing our engagement with the Intelligence Community and
accessing nontraditional thinkers through our technology war-
gaming, focused on what could be possible in the 2030 to 2040
timeframe.
Finally, we continue to seek and develop new and game-
changing technologies for the future. For instance, our
``materials by design'' basic research effort will provide the
capability to select and create material properties and
responses, essentially building new materials from the atom up.
Of course, none of this would be possible without the
scientists and engineers that make up the Army S&T enterprise.
I am honored to represent the men and women who apply their
expertise on a daily basis to creatively solve difficult
national security challenges and provide the flexibility and
agility to respond to the many challenges that the Army will
face.
Our focus remains on our soldiers. We consistently seek new
avenues to increase the soldiers' capability and ensure their
technological superiority today, tomorrow, and decades from
now.
Thank you again for all that you do to support our
soldiers. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Miller can be found in the
Appendix on page 52.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Ms. Miller.
We now proceed to Admiral Winter.
STATEMENT OF RADM MATHIAS W. WINTER, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL
RESEARCH
Admiral Winter. Good morning, Chairman Wilson and Ranking
Member Langevin, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
As previously mentioned, I am Rear Admiral Mat Winter, the new
Chief of Naval Research [CNR], and it is an honor to address
you all and discuss our Department of the Navy's science and
technology investment strategy, which, I will add, is fully
supported by the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request.
Though I have only been the CNR for less than 90 days, I
have had years of experience in the science and technology
arena as a producer and as a consumer; as a scientist, a
computer scientist, and a mechanical engineer by trade; as a
combat A-6 Intruder bombardier/navigator and as a major weapons
program manager; also a Naval Warfare Center commander at China
Lake and Point Mugu; and most recently as our PEO [program
executive officer] for unmanned aviation and strike weapons.
With that experience, I come to the table in this job with
a unique perspective that understands explicitly how our S&T
investments enable our workforce to discover, develop, and
deliver the breakthrough technologies to support our sailors
and marines, which is absolutely essential. They operate in
what I refer to as our three fleets: the current fleet
underway, the fleet under development, and our future fleet. It
is absolutely imperative that we have a strategy that links
these three fleets together fiscally, operationally, and
technically.
We recently released our Department of the Navy updated S&T
strategy that does just that. It focuses our efforts into nine
relevant, game-changing research areas to provide that clarity
to the research enterprise and the broader S&T community that
includes our academia and our small business industry partners.
Additionally, the strategy defines our workforce engagement
and development initiatives to build a strong, knowledgeable
workforce based on the fundamentals of STEM [science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics], ensuring that we
have the relevant intellectual capital to solve our hardest
problems. This strategy guides our planning, execution, and
decision-making to ensure we have the right people with the
right skills in the right jobs, and the organizational
alignment to ensure efficient execution, communications, and
decisive leadership.
To that point, I am a goal-oriented leader. I hate
inefficiencies.
I am executing our S&T mission with the required rigor and
accountability so our warfighter maintains that decisive
technological advantage to fight the fight and keep the peace.
But as equally important, it is--we need our scientists and
engineers to maintain the decisive technological advantage in
our laboratories.
In the 85 days I have been on this job I am coming to
realize what an honor and privilege it is to lead this
incredible team of over 4,000 technical professionals in the
naval S&T community across our Naval Research Enterprise and
those embedded with our academia and industry partners. By all
measures--and since I am an engineer, I like to measure
things--the work they are engaged in is some of the most
influential and game-changing technology research in the
Department and albeit around the globe.
For example, the demonstrated and revolutionary
electromagnetic railgun; our breakthrough, game-changing,
forward-deployed laser cannons, that has been mentioned
previously; the medical research focused on traumatic brain
injury solutions; advanced materials research; synthetic
biology; advanced algorithmic autonomous behavior;
electromagnetic warfare--it goes on and on.
My scientists are making contributions that are making
marked differences not only to our warfighters, which is
important, but to our Navy and Marine Corps and this great
country. How do I come to that conclusion? As an engineer--and
I like to measure things--but I like metrics. We have got to be
able to measure things and show progress.
Our S&T domain, though, really is a squishy area of basic
and applied research. With flubber and flux capacitors, hard to
put metric to those types of investments.
So how do we do that? Some would say it is transition of
S&T products to get to our warfighters.
That is true, but I don't think that is the complete
answer. I think we need to look at all of the spectrum of S&T
transition.
I can point to our Department of the Navy S&T metrics that
show 87 percent of our S&T products transition into
acquisition, and the majority of those transition to the
warfighters' hands. That is not trivial, and that is a good
success rate.
But there is 13 percent, and those will be looked at as
failures. I say it is different. I say that gives us latent
benefit.
That 13 percent provides new knowledge that has never been
known before. It allows us to populate the intellectual capital
to solve hard problems, manifests into over 60 Nobel Peace--
Nobel Prize winners. We also have 300-plus patents a year in
the Department of the Navy that make sure we husband our
intellectual capital and continually get return on investment.
And we also transition technologies to the shelf. They are
on the shelf so that when an emerging requirement manifests
itself, we have a ready-to-go solution to transition. So that
is a transition--latent transition activity, as well.
The problem I see as we bring that together is the ``Valley
of Death'' is more of a moat, and it is a bridge, and it is
something that we need to continue to work through together. To
that end, it is apparent that we don't--we leave nothing to
waste.
When you visit our Navy and Marine Corps, everything you
see originated at some level with S&T--everything from Old
Ironsides to the first radars, from nuclear propulsion to our
biofuel alternatives, from the Sidewinder missile to the RGPS
[Relative Global Positioning System] capabilities and railgun
and lasers. All have the origins within the Naval Research S&T
domain, and we are proud of that.
These are relevant technological successes. Some are old,
some are new, but they are a true cumulative impact from
discovery and invention, to application and experimentation, to
demonstration and fielding. They work.
And our naval scientists, along with our small business
industry partners and our academia university colleagues here
and around the globe, make it happen. I invite you and your
staffs to come join us and observe firsthand, in our Navy
Warfare Centers and our labs, the technologies and the
accomplishments that our scientists are executing.
We will continue to pursue our S&T efforts with innovative
research and disruptive thinking, always trying to make
existing systems more effective and affordable. That is very
important.
And in doing so, we remain aligned to our senior
leadership. The CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] and
Commandant's recently released ``Cooperative Strategy for the
21st Century Seapower'' is underpinned by this S&T strategy.
We can't afford to do business as usual--just can't do
that. And we can't wish away the technological advantages of
emergent global actors that are challenging our warfighting
supremacy.
The CNO's strategy provides us the framework to think and
act differently, and we are. We must be committed as a country
to pursuing the technological solutions for tomorrow today.
It is essential to tie that technical to the tactical to
the strategic, and we in the Navy and the Marine Corps are
committed to ensuring our S&T resources that you and your
congressional colleagues provide us gets the most bang for the
buck by giving our sailors and marines that technological
advantage on the battlefield.
Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your time and your
continued support of our S&T efforts, and I look forward to
taking your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Winter can be found in
the Appendix on page 70.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Admiral Winter.
We now proceed to Dr. Walker.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID E. WALKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE AIR FORCE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING
Dr. Walker. Thank you, Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member
Langevin, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to have
the opportunity to provide testimony on the Air Force's fiscal
year 2016 science and technology program.
This has been an exceptional year for science and
technology in the United States Air Force. Last summer our
Secretary and Chief published a new ``America's Air Force: A
Call to the Future''--a 30-year strategy for the Air Force,
which really highlights science and technology and how it is
required to achieve the strategic goals that they set forward.
Our fiscal year 2016 President's budget request is an
increase of 14 percent over our previous request, at a $2.4
billion level. The Air Force leadership recognizes the
excellent work that S&T has done in the past and recognizes the
need for S&T to achieve the future they want. And
characterizing our S&T program, Major General Masiello, the
commander of the Air Force Research Lab, has put it in three
Rs: responsive, relevant, and revolutionary.
The responsive piece is, how do you be responsive to the
warfighter's need in the field today? An excellent example of
this is a--Air Force S&T provided a capability to the special
operations troops operating in Afghanistan by integrating the
sensor payload onto a tactically remote piloted vehicle that
provided a unique and unprecedented capability for identifying
IEDs [improvised explosive devices], weapons caches, and enemy,
and has resulted in significant support within the theater.
On the revolutionary front, the adaptive engine technology
that Mr. Shaffer addressed earlier is one of the great
revolutions coming out that will really change warfighting by
providing significant fuel efficiency in addition to greater
thrust out of the existing family of fighter engines. This has
grown out of an ADVENT program, our first program which was
pure S&T. That program completed last summer and has proven a
greater than 20 percent savings in fuel just from an S&T large
engine buildup that we ran with General Electric.
The follow-on to this is the Advanced Engine Technology
Development program, which is ongoing this year and next year,
which will continue to move forward this technology. And then
as part of the Aerospace Innovation Initiative, under the
Defense Innovation Initiative, we have the follow-on program,
which is the Advanced Engine Transition program.
These really promise to bring this technology not only
through the S&T, but on forward into actual prototyping to
prove that this technology in a full-up flight-sized engine
really works.
The one problem, of course, is under the BCA [Budget
Control Act] that--the AETP program, the follow-on program, is
still above the BCA levels.
Another revolutionary area we are working is in
nanotechnology. One of the game-changers that we are working
right now is in flexible, wearable sensors--the ability to put
a bandaid-like patch onto an individual and be able to detect
fatigue, cognition, their performance indicators, by pulling
biomarkers through the skin. This is enabled by the
nanoprinting of nanoparticle inks onto these markers and
actually building up smart electronics into a bandaid-like,
flexible, electronic patch.
Has great future not only for the Air Force and how we use
it, but all the services, and for the medical industry as a
whole, so there is tremendous capability that we are working.
We are also addressing relevant warfighter needs. This is a
problem that, as you work in the midterm requirements--near and
midterm requirements--how do we make sure that what we are
doing in Air Force technology is really supporting what the
warfighter needs?
A good example of this, and working with the Air Combat
Command [ACC] and their desire to go after hard and deeply
buried targets with existing capability on existing airplane
platforms, we need to have smaller, more compact systems. So
the High Velocity Penetrating Weapon was a program that we put
together to do this. Been very successful, and now it has
transitioned that technology into the follow-on program that
ACC is now looking at in their AOA [analysis of alternatives].
We also last July launched the ANGELS, or the Automated
Navigation and Guidance Experience for Local Space, which is
really focused on how do we do geosynchronous space situational
awareness, which requires somewhat of an autonomous capability.
So the ability to detect, track, and characterize space objects
on geosynchronous is really moving us forward in our capability
for the space situational awareness of the future.
To do this we really have to have a talented workforce. We
have taken advantage of the new authorities that have been
given to us by the HASC [House Armed Services Committee] and
the SASC [Senate Armed Services Committee].
In addition, we built a strategic plan both for building
our engineering workforce, but also for helping build the STEM
workforce across the Air Force as a whole, really trying to
build the STEM ambassadorship of the Air Force across the
Nation to develop the talent that we need.
In closing, the Air Force 2016 President's budget really
requests the science and technology to make sure that we can
remain responsive, revolutionary, and relevant in the future.
On behalf of the scientists and the engineers of the Air Force
S&T enterprise, I want to thank you for your continued support
of our S&T program and look forward to any questions you have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Walker can be found in the
Appendix on page 97.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Walker.
We now proceed to Dr. Prabhakar.
STATEMENT OF DR. ARATI PRABHAKAR, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE ADVANCED
RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY
Dr. Prabhakar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Langevin,
members of the subcommittee. It is great to be here with my
colleagues and I appreciate the chance to talk with you today.
DARPA is part of this Defense Department science and
technology community; we are also part of the larger national
and global technology ecosystem. But within those communities
DARPA has one particular role, and that is to make the pivotal
early investments in new technologies that show what is
possible so that we can take huge strides forward in our
national security capabilities.
And I will just share with you this morning a couple of
brief examples that I hope will bring that mission to life. One
is some of our work that is being put to work in one of today's
challenges--namely, the fight against ISIL [Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant]. This program that these tools derive from
is called Memex.
Memex set out to build some software tools that allow for a
very different kind of search through public Web sites--deep,
domain-specific search. So what that means is that a user using
these tools, it lets them do two new things.
One is to see Web sites out beyond those that are indexed
by commercial search engines like Google or Bing--public Web
sites, but those that aren't really reached by these commercial
search engines. And then secondly, this tool automatically maps
patterns and linkages, relationships across vast numbers of Web
sites--very enabling, powerful technology for analysts.
These technologies, these tools, have already been used by
the law enforcement community in some work in the arena of
human trafficking. That has led to indictments and at least one
conviction.
Today the same tools are in operational use to understand
linkages among ISIL Web sites, as well.
A second very different example is about driving U.S.
technological superiority to--so that we can deter or defeat a
sophisticated peer adversary. And, you know, I think we all
know that ever since radar helped win the Battle of Britain, we
have all understood that controlling the electromagnetic
spectrum is foundational to warfighting.
And in fact, today U.S. military RF [radio frequency]
arrays are the envy of the world. That is not by accident; it
is because of the joint investments in S&T across all of our
activities here represented at the table.
And I think that is a tremendous advantage that we have,
but it is also the case that the rest of the world doesn't
stand still, and so today we see other capabilities developing
around the world that put our advantage, you know, at risk. So
today what that--you know, what that translates to is that in a
highly contested environment against a sophisticated adversary,
they will now have the ability to jam our systems, essentially
rendering our forces blind in the heat of battle.
So one of the efforts that is underway at DARPA today, in
close partnership with our service colleagues, is really to
create the next generation of capability for controlling the
electromagnetic spectrum. This is new work at the level of
devices, new systems architectures, new algorithms, new
manufacturing technologies, all of which together I think can
give us a chance to move into a future--not just a future where
we can operate in the electromagnetic spectrum, but a future
where we can control the electromagnetic spectrum in real time
in the battlespace, and I think giving us that--the kind of
substantial advantage that all of our investments are really
about.
Those are just a couple of examples across a much wider
portfolio at DARPA. You have our new report that just came out
that offers a broader perspective across the portfolio. I am
happy to talk about any of that.
But I also want to take a couple minutes and talk with you
about what it takes for us to deliver on our mission. Your
support in so many ways across many years has been essential to
that.
First and foremost is our people. We have had a flexible
hiring authority that this committee helped create a number of
years ago. Last year in legislation you allowed us to use more
of our positions within our fixed head count using this
flexible technique.
And this is a--this hiring authority is just essential for
everything that we do at DARPA. It lets us get access to the
kind of people who have the potential to be really great DARPA
program managers, and that really is our lifeblood. So I am
very appreciative for your support of that capability.
Secondly, turning to the budget, again, your support in
recent years has been critical to stabilizing our budget post
sequestration, and the President's budget request this year at
$3 billion essentially continues that stabilization. It is
essentially, in real terms, the same level as what was
appropriated last year.
Again, I will ask for your support of the President's
budget-level request.
And I don't have to tell you about sequestration, Mr.
Chairman. You mentioned it in your opening remarks, but you
know well that if we can't avert sequestration it will take a
significant toll on the work that we are doing.
Let me just finish by saying that my comments today have
focused on the challenges that face our Nation today and into
the future. All of us here at this table take those threats
very seriously.
At the same time, for us we are very fortunate that our
daily work is about solutions, and all of us come to work every
day to find creative ways to rise above these dangers. And
because of that, it is our responsibility but also our
privilege to do this work of harnessing advanced, powerful
technologies for our Nation's security.
So thanks again for the chance to be here with you. I am
happy to answer questions along with my colleagues.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Prabhakar can be found in
the Appendix on page 103.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Prabhakar.
And indeed, we have been joined by the ranking member. He
got here within 14 seconds of the beginning of the hearing.
Mr. James Langevin.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
RHODE ISLAND, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEEE ON EMERGING THREATS
AND CAPABILITIES
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for
being a little bit late.
I was actually off site with Bloomberg News doing an
interview and talking about one of our favorite topics--
cybersecurity. And it ran just a little bit behind.
But I do want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today.
And, of course, I want to thank our witnesses for being
here to discuss the Department of Defense's science and
technology budget request for fiscal year 2016, and I
appreciated hearing your testimony here this morning already.
Maintaining the United States technological edge is a
priority for the House Armed Services Committee and, most
especially, for this subcommittee. And I thank my partner and
the leader in this effort, Chairman Wilson.
As budgets grow smaller we recognize the necessity of
continuing a robust investment in S&T. The seeds of innovation
that we plant with our investments today grow into the game-
changing capabilities of tomorrow.
Conversely, if we fail to properly invest, we will be
dealing with the consequences for decades. Emerging
technologies born of past and current investments, like
directed energy and other high-energy weapons, have the
potential to deliver paradigm-shifting capabilities to our
warfighters that in many ways upend traditional warfighting
concepts and tradeoffs.
And, Secretary Shaffer and others, I appreciate you
mentioning those capabilities today, particularly on directed
energy.
So these capabilities not only give us a warfighting
advantage, but can serve as a deterrent to our adversaries.
Today we are engaged around the globe with enemies like Al
Qaeda and ISIL, its associate affiliates, and other terrorist
groups. Our S&T investments over the last decade have been
instrumental in delivering the capabilities our forces need to
defeat such enemies and protect them from rudimentary yet
effective weapons like improvised explosive devices.
Other potential adversaries require different capabilities,
some more suited to traditional warfare concepts and others
more--for more unconventional warfare, like cyber. Ensuring our
investments align with requirements is key, and I look forward
to continuing to discuss and hear from the witnesses about the
Department's approach to emerging challenges and new domains.
In addition to investing in technology, we must invest in,
of course, our workforce and our future workforce. Recruiting
and retaining top talent in the Department's S&T community is
truly a bedrock of maintaining technological superiority.
Now, over the years the Congress has provided the
Department of Defense with many tools to do just that through
IPA [Intergovernmental Personnel Act] programs, internships,
and other unique personnel opportunities. I know you each in
your various ways are engaged in growing that workforce, and I
appreciate those efforts.
Also crucially important to our technological superiority
is ensuring that the Department has knowledge of the innovative
work being done by entities other than large corporations
typically associated with defense, and that it is able to
transition that work to become new capabilities.
Opportunities provided under the auspices of programs such
as the Rapid Innovation Fund [RIF] of course have proven to be
a win-win for the Department, small businesses, labs, and our
warfighters. As the witnesses are no doubt aware, the Rapid
Innovation Fund program authorization will expire at the end of
this fiscal year, and I am certainly committed to reauthorizing
this program and would appreciate if the witnesses could
provide their thoughts on the success of this program and
examples for the record.
With that, let me just again thank you all for the work
that you are doing. I think that this subcommittee is one of
the more interesting in Congress, and I know you all appreciate
the work that you do and that of your workforce, and I hope you
will convey our appreciation to the people that you oversee.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for, again,
holding this hearing, and I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Langevin.
And we will now begin the 5-minute process, and Kevin Gates
is going to be strict, including on me in particular because we
have votes any second, and so we are always at the will of how
the votes occur.
I think it is very appropriate, Mr. Shaffer, that you
actually began with military medicine. The American people need
to know the survival rates that have been achieved, which are
unprecedented in conflict.
It was so inspiring to me visiting the theater field
hospitals, visiting Landstuhl, visiting Bethesda, Walter Reed,
and to see the survival and then the prosthetics that were
developed so that young people who were injured had--and--have
fulfilling lives, and to see people with injuries that are just
utterly catastrophic by barbarians who, as cited by Jim, the
improvised explosive devices--these were designed as
unprecedented, I believe, ever for the maximum personal injury
of not just military but civilians. Just a heinous enemy that
we are facing.
But the success, and so by beginning with that was
fantastic.
We actually, with your help, we have made progress relative
to the issue of defense sequestration. Initially most people
couldn't even pronounce the word ``sequestration,'' and then--
but the good news is that, particularly now, the American
people I think understand the threat of defense sequestration,
where half of the sequestration is in one department--
Department of Defense--and the effect that this has with the
other budget cuts that have been implemented.
But, in fact, as an indication of success--and 2 months ago
I wouldn't have thought this, but last night we had a vote on a
budget that would actually substantially roll back
sequestration. But the way that we have been successful is not
just generically discussing the threat, but specifically.
So if each one of you could identify a specific example of
where sequestration will lead to a problem, and beginning with
Mr. Shaffer.
Mr. Shaffer. Thank you very much, sir. And thank you for
the vote last night.
I think that there are two real issues with sequestration.
First, with all the must-pay bills, as Dr. Carter noted, over
half the cuts of sequestration would come from modernization
accounts. Embedded in that are some of the things that you
heard about today that would go away.
So the Aerospace Innovation Initiative, which actually has
two stools underneath it--this is a DARPA-led, for right now,
DARPA-Air Force-Navy program that is designed to build the next
generation prototype flying platform, and that is about all we
can say about that. But also, the next-generation turbine
engine that will give us 25 to 30 percent savings. Both of
those projects will end.
The real ripple effect is with the reduction in procurement
accounts and the reduction in our 6.4 and 6.5 accounts.
Engineers are being laid off. Once you lose the design
engineers in the aerospace industry and the turbine engine
industry they don't come back.
So think about a Department of Defense with no significant,
long-term research project for the next generation of air
capability. That is what sequestration means, sir.
Mr. Wilson. The morale effect, I can't even imagine.
Ms. Miller.
Ms. Miller. I will echo what Mr. Shaffer said. Clearly
sequestration will impact yet again our modernization accounts.
We are in a situation where we have to have force structure
and operational readiness. We have to support our soldiers that
are out there on the line, and we will.
But what we sacrifice is those improvements to our existing
capability, the restoral of the capabilities that are coming
back out of theater now that we are committed to restoring so
we can utilize.
But I will take you in another direction. We had a dramatic
impact on our workforce with the last sequestration, and even
the indication that we might do this again, we are already
starting to see indications that our workforce, which has been
under a considerable amount of strain and still doing what
needs to be done to protect our soldiers, they are now looking
at whether or not it is really worth staying.
And so I expect that we will lose, again, some of our best
and brightest engineers because they will either look for more
security somewhere else or, frankly, we have got a large
contingent that are close or eligible to retirement that will
choose to do so without passing on that extreme knowledge that
we need to pass down to our younger generation.
We are currently still under a hiring limitation. It is a
one-for-six for the Army; we can only hire one when we lose
six. That is a dramatic impact on our ability to make sure we
keep the best and brightest available for meeting the needs of
the Army.
Thank you, sir.
Admiral Winter. Mr. Chairman, I will echo--the workforce is
definitely a critical area, but I won't just repeat that. I
will go towards a naval optic.
As we focus to our Pacific operating area, if our
modernization accounts are reduced, those programs of record
that are delivering naval capabilities for our marines and our
sailors are underpinned by our S&T investments of our
technology maturation future naval capability efforts. Those
naval capability efforts are ensuring that we maintain and
expand our undersea domain supremacy, which is absolutely
critical for that area of operations.
Likewise, being able to ensure that we can have power
ashore with our marines, enabled by those systems, will all be
at risk as those modernization accounts are reduced and the
effectivity of our S&T investments to be able to bring long-
range torpedo, underwater unmanned vehicle constellations,
communication--over-the-horizon communication and targeting for
at-range threats, being able to bring the ship connector
capabilities with our marines and our Navy vessels. They are
all at risk, sir, and our S&T investments will not be able to
enable that technological advantage.
So coupled with the workforce degradation and our ability
to do the true, I will say underwater and electromagnetic
warfare efforts--that would be the biggest impact to the
Department of the Navy.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Doctor.
Dr. Walker. I want to echo on the workforce impact is the
biggest impact I see that will have a lasting effect if we go
through a sequestration again. We are still feeling the impact
of that today in our workforce from the previous sequestration
we went through.
As we go forward, the modernization accounts will pay the
brunt of this in the Air Force for the same reasons that my
colleagues have already spoken of.
On the S&T side, we are right now transitioning this engine
technology out of S&T into a 6.4 program. That will be lost,
losing that ability to bridge out of S&T, which we are trying
to build.
Furthermore, some of our programs which are in the 6.3
level in S&T and high-powered microwaves and advanced lasers
upon aircraft will also suffer significantly if we go back into
sequestration again.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you for the specifics.
And, Dr. Prabhakar.
Dr. Prabhakar. I will mention three specifics. One thing we
found a few years ago in sequestration is that at the end of
our programs, when we were prepared to do flight demos or
trials at sea, one of the big problems we had was that because
of sequestration those trials got delayed. And then the follow-
on effect, because of the way we work with the services at test
ranges, et cetera, often that led to not only delays but, in
fact, overall increased costs, which was quite deleterious.
Our workforce issue is very similar. For us, our people
come only for 3 to 5 years, so it is somewhat of a retention
issue, but really the bigger problem is trying to recruit
people into this sort of tumultuous environment is not very
helpful.
And I think to me the most fundamental danger in these
process--none of these specific cuts are the end of the world.
The problem is that they just continue this erosion, this
corrosion of our ability to do our mission. And a lot of our
focus is to reach out to a very broad technical community,
engage them in this important business of national security.
When things like sequestration happen it is such a negative
message to people who don't already live in this world and whom
we really need to attract to this mission.
Mr. Wilson. Thank each of you.
And we now proceed to Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, thanks to all our witnesses for your testimony.
So for the panel, the Rapid Innovation program, which I
spoke about in my opening statement, as you know, was
authorized in section 1073 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011. The merit-based,
competitive program accelerates the fielding of technologies
into military systems in support of requirements, and there are
so many examples of successful projects, such as the Navy's
port security barrier intrusion detection system, which helped
mitigate gaps in the system from being exploited.
As I stated in my opening remarks, I am championing
reauthorization for the Rapid Innovation Program since it
expires at the end of this fiscal year. Let me ask, in your
opinion, has the program been valuable to the Department, and
how so?
Mr. Shaffer. Yes, sir. Thank you.
RIF has, indeed, been valuable. We held maybe a month ago,
maybe 6 weeks--time kind of blurs together--we held our annual
review of the RIF program. And now we are far enough into it
that we are starting to see the results.
So we are getting about, on the whole, 60 to 70 percent
transition rate. I think we are also getting to reach out and
touch companies that might not otherwise want to work with the
Department of Defense.
And the program has been kind of transformed over the last
3 years, where it is jointly run by acquisition and S&T people.
In fact, the funding is not in the S&T lines; it is in the--our
6.4 accounts, our advanced capability development and
prototyping accounts.
And we put it there specifically to bridge that gap of
getting good, new technologies into our acquisition programs of
record, but using the intelligence and the smarts of our S&T
community to manage and conduct the source selection.
So I am seeing very positive things from it. Mr. Kendall,
my boss, has asked me for a recommendation, and depending upon
what--where we end up with for funding targets for the year, we
are going to try to fund it ourselves. Don't know if that will
happen, but we are going to try.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you. That is very helpful.
Ms. Miller. Within the Army I would say that we are finding
RIF is an added flexibility that we might not otherwise have.
As Mr. Shaffer mentioned, it allows us to reach those
industries that we might never have otherwise engaged or been
able to engage because, you know, we are kind of the big Army
and looking for big things.
But some of the efforts that we have put out there, we kind
of laid out to industry what our problems were and we got some
interesting approaches on how to solve them. And I will give
you two examples of success.
We had a small company that looked at a problem that we had
with our FMTV [Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles] systems. We
were up-armoring the cabs of our FMTV--and that is a good
thing, protecting the soldiers. However, over time the doors on
the FMTV started to sag, and we were causing damage to the
added weight on the cab frame.
So we put out a problem and got a response through the RIF
process that gave us a cab-stiffening assembly that passed all
of our tests so far. We have now transitioned it to the PM
[program manager] for FMTV; he is going under--undergoing
testing to see whether that will now become part of his program
of record to retrofit onto those existing FMTVs that have up-
armored cabs. And that was on the order of about a $2.5 million
investment from us in the RIF, and well worth it.
Another quick example is a handheld, pocket-sized
quantitative electroencephalogram. It is essentially this
weird-looking thing that slips over your head and you can use
it in the far-forward theater.
What it is helping us to do is provide an objective
assessment on neurological injury. So this is kind of the far-
forward idea, are we--did we get some sort of mild traumatic
brain injury? Is there something that would warrant our soldier
now getting a more rigorous look by a medic? Something that we
need to know to make sure that we have provided appropriate
health care for the soldier in the far-forward environment.
Just two examples, sir.
Mr. Langevin. Great examples. Thank you.
Admiral.
Admiral Winter. Sir, I will echo--RIF is very value-added.
And as a previous program manager, the flexibility of not just
having resource, but having a resource that allows you to go
tackle those design issues that you would otherwise wait at a
future spiral, allows you to pull in capabilities sooner to
your warfighter.
Examples like our Navy high-energy chiller that allowed us
to identify a smaller size and weight and footprint to be able
to cool our high-energy avionics electronics on ships. That
small investment of a hundred--couple hundred thousand dollars
will show huge dividends downrange for the recurring costs for
all of our ships.
And the ability of the program manager to reach out to
small business--and 90 percent of our engagement in RIF for the
Department of the Navy is with small business. And that is a
tenet from Mr. Stackley on down, to engage at that small
business base.
Things such as our verification and validation
capabilities. Right now we have to put things on jets, go out
and check and see if they fit in the aerodynamic environment.
We populate those aircraft with very expensive verification and
validation instrumentation suites.
We gave that challenge to a very small--to a small
business. They came back with a USB [universal serial bus]-
sized stick--solid state, vibratory, wireless verification and
validation capability, that for about $300,000 we are saving $5
million a year.
So that kind of innovative thinking that is facilitated by
a very small investment from a RIF perspective, giving not only
program managers but small industry the flexibility and the
opportunity, and I think we need to continue this program.
Thank you.
Mr. Langevin. Very valuable. Thank you.
Dr. Walker. The RIF has been very useful to the Air Force,
as well, particularly in bringing in new and innovative
businesses to solve problems that we didn't have a solution
for. So far, we have had over 2,600 white papers that have been
submitted to our call. We have put out about 94 projects out of
these papers of selecting the best and most promising ones.
And what it has allowed us to do was to really reach out to
nontraditional small business as well as our traditional SIBRs
[Small Business Innovative Research] and STTRs [Small Business
Technology Transfer] participants and help transition
technologies into programs of record to solve problems that are
annoying problems but we are not--have not risen to the level
that they were actually going after them with their large
acquisition program.
The F-35 has been the recipient of several great ideas that
have allowed them to reduce costs or fix problems on the
production line that, as I say, are annoyances, but once you do
it you realize that this is a much better way to solve the
problem. And the leveraging for a small investment, investing
millions to get savings in the hundreds of millions, has been
really valuable.
So we really do like the program. As has been said, we have
moved this to be an acquisition program with lab support, and
look forward to continuing with it.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
Nothing with you, Dr. Prabhakar? Okay.
Dr. Prabhakar. DARPA is not involved in this--it is a
services program.
Mr. Langevin. Very good.
Thank you all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thanks, Mr. Langevin.
Now proceed to Congressman Rich Nugent, of Florida.
Mr. Nugent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought maybe it
would be Mr. Franks first, but that is okay.
It is in order? Okay.
This is a question--this committee and the larger committee
last year in the 113th Congress appropriated $220 million for
the sole purpose of accelerating the development of a domestic
rocket propulsion system. However, thus far, neither the Air
Force nor the Department of Defense has moved expeditiously to
accomplish the task.
And since passage of last year appropriations act, I
specifically want to know what has the Air Force done with the
advanced liquid rocket booster engine to replace the RD-180?
Dr. Walker. I will have to take that for the record, sir,
as far as the acquisition program does not fall under my
purview.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 120.]
Dr. Walker. However, under the S&T program, which we are
continuing, we have been working the component technologies
that are required to enable that type of capability in the
future. Have had a strong program over the past decade that
will allow us then to move into an oxygen-rich liquid rocket in
the future.
So the investments we made in the past and investments we
are continuing in this year's budget are really focused on
giving us the capability to go to the next generation of liquid
rocket engines.
Mr. Nugent. Well, I appreciate that and certainly look
forward to your response outside of the committee. Obviously,
you know, it was very important to this committee that we get
away from the Russian engine, where we shouldn't be relying
upon that technology in particular.
But the next question, then, is on directed energy. And I
know the chairman and ranking member are very invested in
directed energy.
Last year Congress directed the Air Force to deliver a
CHAMP [Counter-electronics High-powered Microwave Advanced
Missile Project] system on surplus cruise missiles, and
Congress set aside $10 million just for the purpose of getting
the technology out of the lab and to our warfighters. We have
had numerous combatant commanders testify to the fact that
CHAMP would be a, you know, an excellent addition to their
inventory, and particularly since what we are recommending is
obviously--and I understand where the Air Force is at--they
would like to see a long-term solution to that problem in
regards to a delivery vehicle and maybe some additional
upgrades.
But, you know, we just met with the lab and folks that, A,
have--obviously we have tested this particular item. We have
surplus cruise missiles that were deactivated from the nuclear
force that at least would get that technology out to our
combatant commanders in a very short period of time.
We have proven that it works. They have upgraded it,
actually, from the lab.
As a bridge to when we get this reusable delivery vehicle,
or maybe something that we really want to have 10 years out,
but gives a bridge right now for, you know, a fraction of the
cost to at least get it out to the combatant commanders. To us,
you know, S&T is so important, but we also have to be able to
provide it out into the field, and whether it is, you know, 80
percent, 90 percent, or 100 percent, this issue is, you know,
if it is at least fieldable to assist those combatant
commanders, then we ought to be doing it.
And so we are really concerned--I am, in particular--in
regards to that we are not--excuse me--that we are not actually
following through when we have the ability to. Do you have an
answer for me?
Dr. Walker. At this point in time the Air Force is still
looking at the technology and where the right point is to
transition it. That said, from a science and technology
perspective, we are looking at how do we continue to improve
the capability? So we are leveraging the $10 million that you
provided to, one, take the things that we saw in the
demonstration with the CALCM [conventional air-launched cruise
missile] size system, and to improve on those so that if we did
decide to go with the program with the current system we would
be able to make a better system.
In addition----
Mr. Nugent. I don't disagree with that. I mean, I think
that we have the ability to do multiple things at a time, and
one is if you can field it and get it out to the combatant
commands, particularly with the nation-state threats that we
face today with Russia and China, I would think it would be to
our benefit to take advantage of at least the technology we
have today.
We can absolutely continue to do the research and
development to improve it, but I also know within that short
period of time we have also already made an improvement to the
original CHAMP that was tested. So there are some great
avenues.
I would really like to see the Air Force work on that
technology, get it out to the warfighter. Those that have
testified in front of the main committee that--said that they
would welcome that technology to have in their toolkit to
protect America.
And I know you want to do that, and I understand all the
competing interests within the Air Force, but I would, you
know, to the Air Force I would suggest that we absolutely, in a
cost-effective manner, at least roll it out so our combatant
commanders have the use of CHAMP in the future, because we
don't know what our next crisis is going to be.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your time.
And, Dr. Walker, if you could get back to me on both of
those issues I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Dr. Walker. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 120.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Sheriff Nugent. And we
appreciate your passion as a dad of service members.
You can tell why he is into this, and so we are so
grateful.
We have Congressman Aguilar, of California.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
hearing and the opportunity to hear the discussion and the
testimony.
My first question had to do with sequestration, but I think
that that has been tackled by the ranking member and the
chairman quite well. And I appreciate your honesty and also the
specifics that you have offered on programs that could face
possible reductions. I think that is very helpful for us moving
forward.
Dr. Prabhakar, can I--can you tell me how that is
pronounced first? That is my first question.
Dr. Prabhakar. Prabhakar is correct.
Mr. Aguilar. Prabhakar.
Can you talk a little bit about managing risk and taking
chances? Often government is risk-averse and safe, but DARPA
seeks to engage, measure, and to create new capabilities. Can
you talk about how you foster that within your department and,
you know, what possible tools that you need in order to
continue that mission?
Dr. Prabhakar. Taking risk ends up being core to executing
on our mission. We don't love risk. We actually like to try to
beat it down and kill it off. But we need to be able to tackle
it simply because we come to work to do the things that are
going to have a huge impact.
And, you know, I always tell my program managers, ``If you
have a high-impact idea that doesn't involve taking a lot of
risk, let's do it,'' because that is really the business we are
in. But often, of course, as soon as you do those you have to
move into the technologies that have a lot more risk if you are
really going to reach for these kinds of dramatic changes in
capability.
So it is part and parcel of our mission. And very much to
the nature of your question, I think it is essential for us as
an organization to nurture the culture about being fearless
about taking risk but then structuring programs to kill it off,
to get--to build these technologies to a point that they are no
longer risky, that they really can show their value so that
they can be adopted and actually get in the hands of
warfighters and make a difference.
So how does that actually happen in practice? It happens in
the way, in particular, that we structure our programs.
Our program managers may define a very aggressive goal--
maybe it is a new way to launch satellites on orbit on a 24-
hour notice, or maybe it is a way to build a firebreak to stop
infectious disease. It could be whatever the DARPA program is.
But with that ambitious goal is--the program is structured
with very carefully thought-out milestones along the way to
tell us if we are on track, are we making progress. And that
allows our program managers to stop the projects that aren't
working, redirect the efforts to more fruitful areas. When we
see something that is working it allows us to put more resource
and move faster in that area.
And that kind of very hands-on, structured program is how
we try to make that journey from high-risk to actually
achieving the impact.
Mr. Aguilar. Additional tools that you think might be
necessary moving forward that can maintain that culture?
Dr. Prabhakar. You know, the tools that this committee has
already helped us with I think are critically essential--number
one, bringing in people from all different parts of the
technical community. Not just those who already live in the DOD
S&T world, but people who come with backgrounds in commercial
companies or having done startups or people out of
universities--those different perspectives are very helpful.
Our ability to contract with entities that aren't normally
in the business of doing business with the Federal Government
through other transactions authority, that is another way that
allows us to reach farther in terms of technology and, you
know, get access to some of these bleeding edge technologies.
So I think a lot of the critical pieces are in place. I
will tell you the single most important thing to allow us to
keep taking risk is when we fail and when our projects don't
work to--you know, we try to acknowledge that and say, ``Yes,
it--that didn't work. We stopped it; now we are going to move
on to something more productive.''
And I think when--your allowing us to fail so that we can
keep going and take that next step is actually the most----
Mr. Aguilar. We need to be able to embrace that
occasionally, as well. So thank you very much.
I will yield back, Mr. Chairman, so someone else can get a
question.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And in consultation with the ranking member, what we would
like to do is, Mr. Franks and Ms. Stefanik, if each of you
could ask a question and then they could get back for the
record?
Mr. Franks. All right.
Mr. Shaffer, I guess I will start with you. And I thank
you, again, for your great service.
What do you think the earliest we will be able to find an
operational laser or high-powered microwave weapon, and
especially as it relates to the laser and missile defense? And
what additional resources would you need to either accelerate
the development or to mitigate or down the technical risk?
Mr. Wilson. And you can get back for the record and--
because we are in the midst of voting, and so thank you so
much, Congressman Franks.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 120.]
Mr. Wilson. And, Ms. Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Ms. Miller. I represent the Army 10th
Mountain Division based at Fort Drum, and this division, as you
know, has continuously served in Afghanistan from 9/11 until
today.
Would you be able to discuss how the Army S&T enterprise is
being utilized for the current mission in Afghanistan, and
particularly in terms of the drawdown? Thank you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 121.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Ms. Stefanik.
We have one final question from Mr. Langevin?
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again, thanks to our panel for the discussion this
morning.
So again, if you could get back to me on the record, just
given the fact that time is tight. I was pleased to see Deputy
Secretary Work's memo of March 17th creating the Electronic
Warfare [EW] Executive Committee largely in response to the
Defense Science Board's EW study, which pointed to lost focus
on EW, particularly at the merge points of EW and cyber.
So I couldn't agree more with the need for more focus on
these issues and the need for strong, intellectually vibrant
and technologically superior electronic warfare community.
How do each of you see the creation of this organization
changing how you conduct your business? Obviously with our
adversaries using asymmetric threats and technologies and
weapons to a greater extent than ever before that could
overcome our both technological and numeric advantage, and
perhaps even neutralizing it, we obviously need to focus more
on our EW and cyber capabilities to neutralize those asymmetric
threats.
So I would like to hear your comments on that question.
Thank you all.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 119.]
Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Mr. Langevin.
And indeed, as you can hear the bells and whistles, we are
in the process of voting.
But thank you for being here, and you have received the
requests for the final questions, and we appreciate, again,
very much your service, and we look forward to working with you
in the future.
And we wish Mr. Shaffer the best in his future career. God
bless.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 26, 2015
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 26, 2015
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
March 26, 2015
=======================================================================
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN
Mr. Shaffer and Dr. Prabhakar. The Electronic Warfare Executive
Committee (EW EXCOM) is co-chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and the Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and includes the Service Vice Chiefs, Service
Acquisition Executives, the commanders of USSTRATCOM and USCYBERCOM,
Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, Director, Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation, Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
and the DoD Chief Information Officer. This level of senior visibility
and decision authority will necessarily focus attention and resources
toward the challenges posed to our freedom of maneuver in the
electromagnetic spectrum (EMS).
The EW EXCOM's initial focus is on ensuring that fielded weapon
systems and those in earlier stages of development are designed and
equipped to operate effectively in the EMS, notwithstanding the growing
capabilities of potential adversaries. This means that weapon systems
must have adequate electronic protection (EP) to withstand the growing
electronic attack (EA) capabilities of our adversaries made possible by
the worldwide proliferation of advanced devices for signal processing,
and that continual expansion of EA capabilities is needed to maintain
U.S. advantage. To do so, the Department requires closer coordination
and cooperation among the Military Departments, the many acquisition
programs of record, and both national and Military Department's
research laboratories. This coordination and cooperation are an
essential emphasis of the EW EXCOM. Effective operation in the EMS
requires extensive knowledge of the spectrum and how the adversary is
operating within it. Thus, efforts to collect signals, both at a
strategic level with SIGINT and a tactical level with electronic
warfare support (ES), require continued emphasis and support.
Additionally, as operations in the EMS are increasingly connected and
essential to both kinetic and non-kinetic operations across the range
of military operations, electromagnetic battle management (EMBM)
capabilities require development and thus attention by, and direction
from, the EW EXCOM. Finally, the EXCOM will consider operational
issues, including the quantity and expertise of EW personnel.
Specifically, through efforts in science and technology, the EW
Science and Technology Community of Interest developed a roadmap for
use by the service laboratories. The EW S&T roadmap was developed by
Military Departments' input and approved by the ASD(R&E) to define a
cross-cutting EW S&T investment strategy. The EW EXCOM's support to
implement the roadmap capabilities, or to provide direction to amend it
if required, is anticipated. The ASD(R&E) will submit an annual review
of progress on the EW S&T Roadmap for EW EXCOM approval.
The ASD(R&E) will seek to inform the EW EXCOM, and be guided by it,
on EW matters. The ASD(R&E) will provide input to the EW EXCOM on the
technologies and capabilities we see relevant to EW, a process that has
already begun. The EW EXCOM will provide and prioritize guidance to
drive technology development to meet specific challenges. The EXCOM's
authority will bolster the visibility and support of proposed EW
capabilities relative to competing options and leverage the varied EW
strengths of the Military Departments. In regard to EW and cyber, the
EW EXCOM will address cyberspace operations as they relate to the EMS
in coordination with the Cyber Investment Management Board (CIMB).
[See page 24.]
Ms. Miller. While it is too soon to say exactly how the newly-
formed Electronic Warfare (EW) Executive Committee (ExCom) will impact
our Science & Technology (S&T) programs, I would say that our EW and
Cyber S&T efforts are already very well coordinated with the other
Services and OSD through our involvement in the EW and Cyber Security
Communities of Interest. We also coordinate extensively with our
acquisition partners and the Training and Doctrine Command community
during the development and execution of our programs to ensure we are
addressing Warfighter needs. We will continue to collaborate across the
DoD to address this important area and will participate in the EW ExCom
as appropriate. [See page 24.]
Admiral Winter. The Defense Science Board (DSB) recommendations
regarding improving our Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities spanned
all phases of military development, from science and technology (S&T)
through acquisition and deployment. The March 17, 2015 memo from Deputy
Defense Secretary Work established the Electronic Warfare Executive
Committee and chartered this new group ``to provide senior oversight,
coordination, budget/capability harmonization, and advice on EW matters
to the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and the
Deputy's Management Action Group.'' Further, it states the initial
focus areas of the group ``will include EW strategy, acquisition,
operational support, and security.''
Missing from this list is EW science and technology (S&T), which is
where Office of Naval Research (ONR), the other service S&T
organizations and DARPA can contribute. Fortunately, Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Research & Engineering) has already established a
joint S&T oversight group, the EW Community of Interest (COI), which
produced in 2014 a far term joint roadmap for EW research and
development. This Joint EW COI S&T Roadmap independently identified
many of the shortfalls in current EW capabilities highlighted by the
DSB study. More importantly, this roadmap shows how past, current and
planned EW S&T investments in developing technology enablers have put
the DoD on a path toward realizing a future EW vision to mitigate and
eliminate these shortfalls. A separate Cyber S&T COI has produced a
similar long term Joint Cyber S&T Roadmap and both COIs are working
``at the points where EW and cyber are converging.'' Our recommendation
would be that the new EW Executive Committee adopt the EW COI and the
Cyber COI as advisory bodies on S&T and endorse their respective
roadmaps as the long term vision for future DoD EW/Cyber capability
development. [See page 24.]
Dr. Walker. The creation of the Electronic Warfare Executive
Committee (EW EXCOM) will complement our existing efforts to harmonize
the development of EW, Cyber, and integrated Cyber-EW capabilities
across the Services and Agencies of the DoD. It will mesh well with the
efforts and activities of the Assistant Secretary of Defense's
(Research & Engineering) Reliance 21 Program in the Science &
Technology (S&T) community.
The EW EXCOM will provide senior oversight, coordination, budget/
capability harmonization, and advice on EW matters to the Secretary of
Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Deputy's Management
Action Group. It will facilitate cohesion across requirements, science
and technology (S&T), research, development, acquisition, test and
evaluation (T&E), and sustainment to ensure that EW and joint
electromagnetic spectrum operations (JEMSO) investments are effectively
planned, executed, and coordinated across the DoD. The EW EXCOM will
provide feedback to key senior level DoD decision-making bodies on the
execution of EW requirements and acquisition processes.
Underpinning the science and technology (S&T) leadership is an
ecosystem of technical groups known as Communities of Interest (COIs).
The COIs provide a forum for coordinating S&T strategies across the
Department, sharing new ideas, technical directions and technology
opportunities, jointly planning programs, measuring technical progress,
and reporting on the general state of health for specific technology
areas. Separate COIs for Electronic Warfare and Cyber exist and have
been successful in their endeavors. The EW EXCOM, in coordination with
the Cyber Investment Management Board, should provide an avenue to
increase technology transitions from the EW and Cyber S&T COIs,
potentially streamline acquisition of the technologies, and aid in
establishing more integration and synergy of the technologies. [See
page 24.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FRANKS
Mr. Shaffer. The Department has an integrated technology and
systems development roadmap for both high-energy lasers and microwaves
(HEL, HPM). It is unlikely that either system could be operationally
fielded before the 2022-2025 timeframe. Additional resources are not
likely to accelerate development, but they could potentially contribute
to significant lower risk reduction in achieving the necessary
milestones. Development of both HEL and HPM is really an engineering
challenge. Adding more resources is not likely to accelerate the
engineering process. What more resources might facilitate is the chance
to work on competing designs simultaneously, which could reduce
technical risk, leading to a program of record that would be more
predictable in cost and schedule. [See page 23.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. NUGENT
Dr. Walker. The rocket propulsion system effort, as referred to in
the fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorizations Act (NDAA), is
funded in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program (SPACE)--EMD
Program Element (PE) 0604853F. That effort is managed through the Air
Force Program Executive Officer for Space (AFPEO/SP) in the Space and
Missile Systems Center (SMC) at Los Angeles AFB, CA.
The Air Force has obligated about $50 million so far; $37 million
in fiscal 2014 money, which was reprogrammed in the Omnibus, and about
$13 million of the fiscal year 2015 money, which was appropriated in
2015. We intend to invest an additional $45 million to $50 million over
about the next six months. We issued a draft Rocket Propulsion System
(RPS) Request for Proposals (RFPs) in April and will award multiple
contracts with propulsion system or launch system providers to partner
with their ongoing investment in domestic propulsion systems as part of
our plan to develop a domestic propulsion system by 2019, and to do so
competitively. However, this will only give us an engine, and an engine
alone will not launch us into space. Transitioning the engine to a
fully integrated tested and certified capability will take longer than
that. This is the consensus of experts across the space enterprise.
[See page 20.]
Dr. Walker. We do not have the ability to give the combatant
commanders this capability right now for a fraction of the cost. One
year and $10 million is not sufficient to provide a CHAMP-like
capability to the warfighter. Raytheon, a CHAMP contractor, has
estimated that the cost and schedule to provide 32 missiles is four
years and $140 million. This estimate does not include the cost,
resources and planning required by the Air Force and the combatant
commands for the development and implementation of doctrine,
organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel
and facilities (DOTMLPF) associated with a weapon system capability.
Additionally, maintaining a very small number of CHAMP platforms, with
the associated sophisticated hardware, in the inventory will be
expensive. There are also concerns with the platform's survivability,
ingress range, target engagement ranges, and guidance and navigation
capabilities in a realistic scenario. Developing and producing any
weapon system would not be funded within the Science and Technology
portfolio. [See page 21.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. STEFANIK
Ms. Miller. One of the great strengths of Army Science & Technology
(S&T) is our world-class cadre of nearly 12,000 scientists and
engineers. For 30 years now, the Army has embedded scientists and
technology experts in the field to ensure that the exchange of new
technology and the feedback it yields moves efficiently between the
researchers who develop it and the Soldiers who use it. In recent
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army's labs have been
an important source of rapid technology transition of solutions to meet
operational needs. Through the Research, Development and Engineering
Command (RDECOM), our Field Assistance in Science and Technology (FAST)
Activity brings Army labs and research and engineering centers into
closer contact with their ``customers''--the major Army commands
throughout the world, providing the Soldier in the field with greater
support and responsiveness to operational needs. This includes the
Science and Technology Assistance Team (Afghanistan) (STAT-A), a
rotating 3-person team that from 2007 to 2014 provided in-theater
technical advice and quick reaction solutions to technical problems, as
well as a direct connection back to our scientists and engineers back
home. Today, RDECOM provides the lead Engineer in the Rapid Equipping
Force (REF) Expeditionary Lab in Afghanistan on a 179 day rotation
supporting Soldiers on the ground. Over the past years, the Army S&T
Enterprise has made numerous other important contributions to our
efforts in Afghanistan. For example, our Deployable Force Protection
(DFP) program was established in response to the DoD's priority
initiative to improve force protection at forward operating bases
(FOBs). U.S. military units operating remotely at small bases are more
vulnerable to enemy attacks, especially extra small FOBs, combat
outposts, and patrol bases where 300 personnel or less occupy the base.
Their vulnerabilities are greater because they have less manpower and
organic equipment for construction of protective measures, weapon
systems with shorter kinetic reach, significant bandwidth limitations,
and are generally more remote making them difficult to reach with
reinforcements or supplies. The DFP S&T Program was stood-up to help
address these shortfalls and was geared toward accelerated development
of technologies with spiral transitions to acquisition partners or
related activities such as the Rapid Equipping Force. The DFP program
concluded in FY14, having delivered a number of important capabilities
to US Forces-Afghanistan, including Cerberus Lite and Low-logistics
Modular Protective Systems Mortar Pit Kits. These small FOB force
protection capabilities were especially useful during the drawdown when
the bases' manpower and organic capabilities were being reduced. Army
S&T has also developed several Soldier power technologies that have
transitioned through Program Executive Office Soldier and been provided
specifically to the 10th Mountain Division. For example, the Conformal
Wearable Battery (CWB) is a 2.3lb ergonomic Soldier-worn battery that
bends to the curvature of the Soldier's chest and/or back and provides
150 watt-hours of power. The battery serves as the central source of
power for multiple Soldier-worn devices, and increases Soldier mobility
by better distributing weight around the Soldier's core. The Integrated
Soldier Power/Data System (ISPDS) is an integrated Soldier worn power/
data distribution system intended to manage power and data from Soldier
worn devices and powered by the CWB. The system manages the
distribution of power across all worn peripherals and aggregates
peripheral data onto a common end-user device. Over a 72 hour period,
ISPDS provides a 32 percent weight savings in batteries. Both these
technologies were provided to the 1st, 3rd and 4th Brigades, 10th
Mountain Division, between 2012 and 2014. [See page 23.]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
March 26, 2015
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON
Mr. Wilson. Could you give us an update on the status of the
``Trusted Foundry'' program for providing a secure source of microchips
for sensitive defense systems? What is being done to respond to the
recent announcement that IBM plans to sell its Foundry capabilities to
a foreign controlled company?
Mr. Shaffer. [The information referred to is for official use only
and retained in the committee files.]
Mr. Wilson. Do you have enough visibility into industry-directed
independent research and development (IR&D)? Are there additional
legislative tools you need to be more effective in coordinating with
those investments?
Mr. Shaffer. IR&D conducted by defense contractors as an allowable
overhead expense can be an important source of innovation for both
industry and DoD. IR&D represents well over $4 billion in annual R&D
spending. Reviews of IR&D spending indicate that a significant fraction
of IR&D is being spent on near-term competitive opportunities and on de
minimis investments principally intended to create intellectual
property rights for a company. IR&D allowability should encourage
contractors to engage in R&D activities of potential interest to DoD.
We have established a database in which companies meeting certain
dollar thresholds are required to report their IR&D projects. Because
companies enter the information at the end of their Fiscal Year, our
visibility is limited to looking in the past. We are working to
increase visibility into IR&D without increasing administrative burdens
or requiring legislation.
Mr. Wilson. What tools do you have to transition successful
technologies developed by S&T, whether in the labs or from contractors,
into programs of record?
Mr. Shaffer. Prototyping and experimentation have become key
transition tools. Prototypes are preliminary versions of a system or
major sub-system assembled to resolve some area of risk and/or to
explore operational potential. Experimentation puts prototypes into end
users' hands in an operational context. Experimentation capabilities
span ranges from field use by military personnel, wargaming,
simulation, Service/Combatant Command exercises, and government/
industry live, virtual and constructive environments.
Prototyping and experimentation aid in the transition of successful
technologies by providing Warfighters with the opportunity to explore
novel operational concepts. In addition, they provide a hedge against
threat development and reduce the lead time to develop and field new
capabilities.
Mr. Wilson. How important are programs like the Small Business
Innovative Research program (SBIR), Small Business Technology Transfer
program (STTR), or the Rapid Innovation Program (RIP) to your
technology transition efforts?
Mr. Shaffer. SBIR/STTR and RIP are key enablers for transitioning
small business technologies into DoD products. Based on a recent DoD-
wide survey of military and industry RIP participants, RIP remains one
of the few programs available to acquisition managers to solicit
competitively for technology refresh, providing small businesses an
``on-ramp'' into defense acquisition programs.
RIP stimulates U.S. manufacturing and supports small businesses.
Eighty-eight percent of RIP contracts (321 of the 365 awards over a
five year period) are awarded to small businesses, with over seventy-
five percent awarded to businesses that participate or have
participated in the SBIR program.
Mr. Wilson. Do you have enough visibility into industry-directed
independent research and development (IR&D)? Are there additional
legislative tools you need to be more effective in coordinating with
those investments?
Ms. Miller. The Army currently has sufficient visibility into
industry-directed independent research and development (IR&D). In fact,
quarterly IR&D updates are held at the OSD level between the heads of
large defense companies and Defense and Service Acquisition and S&T
leads and provide a regular opportunity to exchange dialogue and inform
investment decisions in their R&D portfolios. The Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) rules provide for a major
contractor's annual IR&D costs to be allowable only if the contractor
reports its IR&D projects to the Department of Defense. Currently this
reporting is done through the Defense Technical Information Center
(DTIC) via an online form. Participating companies are required to
update their efforts annually and again upon project completion. While
the DoD has visibility into IR&D projects, the DoD has only limited
ability to impact the allowability of the projects and therefore may
require statutory or regulatory changes to gain the ability to endorse
or reject projects prior to their initiation.
Mr. Wilson. What tools do you have to transition successful
technologies developed by S&T, whether in the labs or from contractors,
into programs of record? How important are programs like the Small
Business Innovative Research program (SBIR), Small Business Technology
Transfer program (STTR), or the Rapid Innovation Program to your
technology transition efforts?
Ms. Miller. One example of the tools that exist within the Army to
assist in the transition of technologies is the Army's Technology
Maturation Initiative (TMI) (Program Element 0604115A), which aligns
S&T and acquisition partners under a coordinated effort to assess
emerging but needed capability improvements and facilitate their
transition to Programs of Record. TMI matures high-payoff S&T products
beyond traditional technology readiness levels in order to drive down
program risks, inform affordable and achievable requirements and
increase transition success. By engaging key stakeholders from the
requirements, technology, acquisition and resourcing communities to
select and oversee the TMI and other prototyping efforts, we are able
to prioritize and coordinate efforts that best enable the integration
of new capability into current and planned Acquisition programs.
The Army SBIR and STTR programs also aid in technology transition
by providing acquisition Program Managers with visibility of innovative
small business technologies. Army SBIR Phase I projects develop proof
of concept solutions and Phase II further develops those technologies
into prototypes. The Army SBIR program uses their Phase II Enhancement
Program to facilitate transition of promising technologies into
acquisition programs. Under the Phase II enhancement program, the
acquisition program needs to make a tangible commitment to the
transition, and SBIR will provide up to $500,000. Started in 2008, this
program has led to many successful transitions into acquisition
programs and industry.
The Army has also used the Rapid Innovation Funding (RIF) program
to transition technologies. The RIF program provides the Army a useful
mechanism to address Program Executive Office and the Research
community near-term challenges. Of the 71 projects awarded in Fiscal
Years 2011 and 2012, nine have transitioned to acquisition programs
with committed outyear funding and an additional 58 are working
transition agreements, with outyear funding not yet committed.
Mr. Wilson. Do you have enough visibility into industry-directed
independent research and development (IR&D)? Are there additional
legislative tools you need to be more effective in coordinating with
those investments?
Admiral Winter. As reflected in the recent guidance on Better
Buying Power (BBP) 3.0 issued by USD/AT&L, there is clearly a need for
increasing our visibility into industry IR&D. This is a valuable
complement to the Services' RDT&E investments, but to ensure that it is
being used productively, we need to increase communications between
industry and Government on the subject. Under BBP 3.0, this is being
done in two ways.
First, we have initiated a recurring series of Technology
Interchange Meetings (TIMs), organized by the DoD technical Communities
of Interest, which will provide a forum for the Government to
communicate future strategies and program thrusts to industry and for
industry to share relevant IR&D efforts with Government subject matter
experts. The initial stages of these information exchanges will be
accomplished virtually, via the DTIC hosted Defense Innovation
Marketplace. Based upon reviews of these initial exchanges, face to
face meetings and reviews of relevant projects will be conducted. The
outcome of these TIMs will include both increased shared situational
awareness and the identification of potential new areas for partnering
between Government and industry.
Second, we are initiating a new process for review and endorsement
of IR&D efforts prior to the Government making a determination
regarding allowable IR&D expenses. Discussions with industry regarding
this new process and specific mechanisms to accomplish it are ongoing.
Depending on the outcome of these discussions, there may be a need for
legislative action to support implementation of the new process.
However, that is yet to be determined, so no action is requested at
this time. The resulting process will increase Government visibility
into industry strategy and focus of IR&D efforts, allowing the
Government to more effectively inform industry of relevant RDT&E
programs and shape those programs to better leverage industry
investment.
Mr. Wilson. What tools do you have to transition successful
technologies developed by S&T, whether in the labs or from contractors,
into programs of record? How important are programs like the Small
Business Innovative Research program (SBIR), Small Business Technology
Transfer program (STTR), or the Rapid Innovation Program to your
technology transition efforts?
Admiral Winter. GAO recently reported positively on DoN's approach
and tools for technology transition. Technology Transition Programs
Support Military Users, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Measurement
of Outcomes GAO-13-286: Published: Mar 7, 2013. One of DoN's primary
investments in late term transition focused research is the Future
Naval Capability (FNC) program. This science and technology (S&T)
investment portfolio utilizes nine (two-star level) mission-focused
Department-wide Integrated Product Teams to collaborate to determine
the naval need, product priority, and appropriate technology focus of
any new FNC S&T investments. These FNCs are recommended at the two-star
(IPT) level and forwarded to a naval technology oversight board at the
three-star level for approval. Once approved at the three-star level,
FNC S&T investments are tracked and enforced through negotiated
Technology Transition Agreements (TTAs) agreed-to and signed by program
managers across the three collaborating naval communities from S&T,
Requirements and Acquisition. These agreements are reviewed and renewed
annually to ensure appropriate leadership visibility and progress in
delivering the capability to the warfighter. The SBIR/STTR Programs are
very important as they are the largest source of early stage research
and development funds for small businesses (over $300 million in the
DoN). By utilizing agile small businesses, SBIR/STTR awardees develop
innovative technologies that address DoN needs and enhance military
capability, accelerate military development capability, and provide
cost savings to acquisition programs and fielded systems. The Rapid
Innovation Program is also very important and provides acquisition
program managers with a tool to select and transition technology that
addresses their priority needs. The goal of RIP is to accelerate the
fielding of innovative technologies into military systems. The program
achieves its goal utilizing source selection preference for small
businesses, particularly those from SBIR/STTR, whose technology
readiness levels are at the component and/or breadboard validation in a
relevant environment or at the system/subsystem model or prototype
demonstration in a relevant environment. A 2015 GAO report, DOD Rapid
Innovation Program: Some Technologies Have Transitioned to Military
Users, but Steps Can Be Taken to Improve Program Metrics and Outcomes,
GAO-15-421, supported the Navy's approach to technology transition.
``In addition, the Office of Naval Research's risk management team can
provide support for small businesses to stay on track in fulfilling RIP
contracts, including making sure companies can ramp up production if
their projects are transitioned. We have previously reported that this
office has a well-established technology transition focus which may
contribute to project success. Because of this, the Navy may be better
aware of the benefits and obstacles associated with a substantial
portion of their S&T portfolio. This knowledge can better inform
investment decisions made by Navy leadership.''
Mr. Wilson. Do you have enough visibility into industry-directed
independent research and development (IR&D)? Are there additional
legislative tools you need to be more effective in coordinating with
those investments?
Dr. Walker. Yes, the Air Force has sufficient visibility into
industry-directed independent research and development. The Air Force
science and technology program frequently interacts with industry,
academia, small businesses and international partners to enable
research and development synergies. As a prime example, the Aerospace
Systems Technology Directorate in the Air Force Research Laboratory
participates in several consortiums such as the Rocket Propulsion for
the 21st Century and the Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine,
where both government and industry collaborate to achieve common goals
and address national technology needs. At this time, the Air Force does
not request additional legislative tools to be more effective in
coordinating investments.
Mr. Wilson. What tools do you have to transition successful
technologies developed by S&T, whether in the labs or from contractors,
into programs of record? How important are programs like the Small
Business Innovative Research program (SBIR), Small Business Technology
Transfer program (STTR), or the Rapid Innovation Program to your
technology transition efforts?
Dr. Walker. There are two keys to the successful transition of
technology developed from S&T. The first is that the technology must
address a prioritized capability gap. The second is that the technology
must be successfully demonstrated in a relevant environment. With
today's budget constraints, only those technologies that address top
capability gaps and are successfully demonstrated have a chance at
transition to the warfighter. The involvement of Program Executive
Offices (PEOs) and Centers is essential to successful transition of
technology. PEOs and Centers are best positioned to understand the
Major Command (MAJCOM) requirements, what the labs can deliver, and
what vendors are working on. The Air Force has been working hard to
tighten the lines of communication between the S&T community, PEOs,
Centers, and MAJCOMs. The Air Force has several programs that
facilitate the transition of technology. The SBIR/STTR and Rapid
Innovation programs are three such programs that are very important to
Air Force technology transition efforts. SBIR/STTR programs identify
small businesses that are engaged in developing technologies with the
potential to address Air Force requirements. Funds provided through
these programs empower small businesses' efforts to bring their
innovative technologies to commercial readiness. As the technical
readiness level matures during the period of support, the potential Air
Force customer works closely with the company to ensure alignment of
the capability with the requirement. As part of the SBIR/STTR programs,
the Commercialization Readiness Program (CRP) identifies companies that
have significantly advanced their technologies, but still require some
additional support to move to enable insertion into programs of record.
The Rapid Innovation Program has been an excellent means for the Air
Force to communicate areas of critical need and solicit vendors to
respond with innovative technology solutions. The Air Force is now in
its fifth year of working with this program and has experienced very
positive results in transitioning technology, primarily from small
businesses, to address Air Force requirements. There are two other
programs that also assist in the transition of technology: the
Technology Transition program and the Technology Transfer program. The
Technology Transition program provides funds to mature and demonstrate
technologies to enable or accelerate their transition into programs of
record. Currently, the primary focus in this program element is the
follow-on maturation and demonstration/validation of next generation
adaptive jet engines. The Technology Transfer program was created to
promote the transfer and exchange of technology with state and local
governments, academia and industry. The primary means for doing this is
through Partnership Intermediary Agreements between the Air Force and
non-traditional contractors such as a small business or university to
facilitate technology transfer. This year the Office of the Secretary
of Defense (OSD) is rolling out a new program to assist in
transitioning technology to address hard problems. This program is
through the Emerging Capabilities and Prototyping Directorate in OSD
and offers the Services the opportunity to propose technology that
addresses top priority challenges throughout the DoD. The Air Force
Research Laboratory and PEOs, in partnership with other organizations
such as national labs, university affiliated research centers, and
Combatant Commanders, propose technologies that address OSD challenges
and if successfully demonstrated will transition. The Air Force
continues to focus on technology transition and is striving to ensure
our MAJCOMs, PEOs, Centers, and AFRL are all working together to
maximize results of our S&T efforts. We especially recognize small
businesses areas are a major driver of innovation and we continue to
explore and strengthen all avenues to encourage our partnership with
them.
Mr. Wilson. Could you give us an update on the status of the
``Trusted Foundry'' program for providing a secure source of microchips
for sensitive defense systems? What is being done to respond to the
recent announcement that IBM plans to sell its Foundry capabilities to
a foreign controlled company?
Dr. Prabhakar. [The information referred to is for official use
only and retained in the committee files.]
Mr. Wilson. Do you have enough visibility into industry-directed
independent research and development (IR&D)? Are there additional
legislative tools you need to be more effective in coordinating with
those investments?
Dr. Prabhakar. IR&D conducted by defense contractors as an
allowable overhead expense can be an important source of innovation for
both industry and DoD. IR&D represents well over $4 billion in annual
R&D spending. Reviews of IR&D spending indicate that a significant
fraction of IR&D is being spent on near-term competitive opportunities
and on de minimis investments principally intended to create
intellectual property rights for a company. IR&D allowability should
encourage contractors to engage in R&D activities of potential interest
to DoD. We have established a database in which companies meeting
certain dollar thresholds are required to report their IR&D projects.
Because companies enter the information at the end of their Fiscal
Year, our visibility is limited to looking in the past. We are working
to increase visibility into IR&D without increasing administrative
burdens or requiring legislation.
Mr. Wilson. What tools do you have to transition successful
technologies developed by S&T, whether in the labs or from contractors,
into programs of record? How important are programs like the Small
Business Innovative Research program (SBIR), Small Business Technology
Transfer program (STTR), or the Rapid Innovation Program to your
technology transition efforts?
Dr. Prabhakar. Tools: The primary means by which S&T-funded efforts
performed in laboratories or contractor facilities are transitioned to
programs of record is driven by acquisition program managers who
competitively solicit proposals from industry to initiate a new program
of record or to modify or enhance an existing program of record.
Contractors who have demonstrated technical feasibility and developed
components or prototypes on DARPA contracts and demonstrated a
sufficiently high technology readiness level (TRL) typically respond to
these competitive solicitations. The decision and the funding to
incorporate the DARPA-developed technology into a program of record is
determined and executed by the acquisition program. To facilitate the
transition of DARPA-funded projects into programs of record, DARPA
works with both the military operational community (COCOMs) and the
acquisition community PEOs/PMs and Chiefs of Staff of the Military
Departments to validate needs, understand concepts of operations,
demonstrate prototypes and participate in operational exercises. The
primary benefit of this aggressive and continuous interaction is that
the acquisition professionals (those responsible for programs of
record) not only learn about the benefits of DARPA programs but become
active participants in the development process and advocates for
technology transition in their Service.
SBIR/STTR: The DARPA Technology Offices leverage the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer
(STTR) Programs to address significant technical problems that are
considered high risk, but high payoff; to explore alternative
technology approaches to mitigate risk for a DARPA program; to explore
the feasibility of a new start; or to investigate a disruptive
technology. DARPA frequently uses the SBIR/STTR programs to explore new
ideas from novel and sometimes unconventional small businesses rather
than as a technology transition tool.
However, the Small Business Programs Office places high emphasis on
helping small businesses to transition their technology and offers
transition and commercialization planning and implementation assistance
for active DARPA-funded SBIR/STTR Phase II projects during the contract
period of performance (typically 24 months). The goal is to increase
the potential for these companies to move their developed technologies,
solutions or products beyond Phase II and into the DoD military
services, other federal agencies, and/or the commercial market. Entry
into the program is voluntary and services are provided at no cost to
participants, which is consistent with added congressional and DoD
priorities over the past several years.
The DARPA Transition and Commercialization Support Program (TCSP)
offers a range of assistance, including consulting and collaborating
with small companies in developing and executing their project-focused
transition and commercialization strategies. More than half of all
qualified companies take advantage of the program's offerings:
review and provide feedback to the company on their
transition and commercialization plans
identify experiment and demonstration opportunities and
sources of potential funding and collaborators
facilitate introductions to potential funders,
collaborators, and partners
provide business planning and technology readiness
assessment tools
provide routine alerts about opportunities
Support includes targeted outreach and training events to promote
transition successes and share best practices and lessons learned.
Participants' progress is tracked as they move on to Phase III awards
and beyond.
In FY15 the DARPA SBIR/STTR program is funded by placing 3.3% of
the DARPA top line appropriated budget into the SBIR/STTR account.
DARPA does not receive external funding for this program.
Rapid Innovation Fund (RIF): DARPA does not directly participate in
RIF. This program is administered by the ASD(R&E) and is intended to
reach out to small business that may have technology products available
at a technology readiness level 6-9 (low risk) that can be rapidly
adapted to meet a Military Department acquisition program or
operational need. DARPA typically funds projects that are high risk
(lower TRL) with large payoff. The DoD RIF program participants are
typically organizations that have an operational mission where a
minimal, short-term investment in a mature small business technology
can impact near-term operations. DARPA does not have an operational
mission and is not a customer for or consumer of these products.
However, performers on DARPA programs are made aware of the RIF program
and they can independently respond to the competitive RIF solicitation
if their technology products satisfy the appropriate criteria. From an
SBIR standpoint, the firms in our SBIR Phase 2 portfolio are informed
of RIF funding opportunities.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. NUGENT
Mr. Nugent. Last year, the 113th Congress appropriated $220 million
dollars for the sole purpose of accelerating the development of a
domestic rocket propulsion system. However thus far, neither the Air
Force nor the Department of Defense has moved expeditiously to
accomplish this task.
Since the passage of last year's Appropriations act, what has the
Air Force specifically done to develop an advanced liquid rocket
booster engine to replace the RD-180?
Dr. Walker. The rocket propulsion system effort, as referred to in
the fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorizations Act (NDAA), is
funded in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program (SPACE)--EMD
Program Element (PE) 0604853F. That effort is managed through the Air
Force Program Executive Officer for Space (AFPEO/SP) in the Space and
Missile Systems Center (SMC) at Los Angeles AFB, CA.
The Air Force has obligated about $50 million so far; $37 million
in fiscal 2014 money, which was reprogrammed in the Omnibus, and about
$13 million of the fiscal year 2015 money, which was appropriated in
2015. We intend to invest an additional $45 million to $50 million over
about the next six months. We issued a draft Rocket Propulsion System
(RPS) Request for Proposals (RFPs) in April and will award multiple
contracts with propulsion system or launch system providers to partner
with their ongoing investment in domestic propulsion systems as part of
our plan to develop a domestic propulsion system by 2019, and to do so
competitively. However, this will only give us an engine, and an engine
alone will not launch us into space. Transitioning the engine to a
fully integrated tested and certified capability will take longer than
that. This is the consensus of experts across the space enterprise.
Mr. Nugent. Last year, Congress directed the Air Force to deliver
the CHAMP system on the cruise missile.
Congress also set aside an extra $10 million dollars for the
specific purpose of getting this particular technology out of the lab
and to our warfighters on the non-reusable platform. Why has this not
been completed?
Dr. Walker. Gen Welsh stated, concerning CHAMP, during the HASC
Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the
Military Departments hearing that took place on Mar 17 2015 ``Do we
plan to produce this weapon by F.Y. '16? No, sir, we can't get there
from here.'' We do not have the ability to give the combatant
commanders this capability right now for a fraction of the cost. One
year and $10 million is not sufficient to provide a CHAMP-like
capability to the warfighter. Raytheon, a CHAMP contractor, has
estimated that the cost and schedule to provide 32 missiles is four
years and $140 million. This estimate does not include the cost,
resources and planning required by the Air Force and the combatant
commands for the development and implementation of doctrine,
organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel
and facilities (DOTMLPF) associated with a weapon system capability.
Additionally, maintaining a very small number of CHAMP platforms, with
the associated sophisticated hardware, in the inventory will be
expensive. There are also concerns with the platform's survivability,
ingress range, target engagement ranges, and guidance and navigation
capabilities in a realistic scenario. Developing and producing any
weapon system would not be funded within the Science and Technology
portfolio.
[all]