Transforming defense basic research strategy

Parameters, Winter, 2004 by Augustus W. Fountain, III

The US armed forces currently enjoy an unprecedented level of technological superiority across the full spectrum of military threats. These advances were primarily funded through US government and Department of Defense support of basic science and technology throughout the 50 years of relative peace experienced during the Cold War. A long-term investment in research has allowed the military to field key enabling technologies such as radar, jet engines, nuclear weapons, night vision, precision-guided munitions, stealth, the Global Positioning System, unmanned air vehicles, and information management systems that have dramatically changed warfare. Technological superiority will continue to be a cornerstone of our national military strategy. (1) While today's technological edge allows us to dominate the broad spectrum of conflict and win with relatively few casualties, maintaining a technological edge has become a key component of the vision to transform the US joint forces by relying on the development and fielding of high-technology weapons that enable a smaller force to be more effective. (2)

The catalyst that created today's generation of technological advances was a post-World War II decision to create a huge national engine of public science. The blueprints of this engine were drafted in a report to President Truman by Vannevar Bush, who was the Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development. The foundation of Dr. Bush's plan was to fund investigator-initiated projects, largely conducted in academic laboratories, by civilians independent of the military establishment. (3) Under this construct, universities did fundamental research work--the "R" in R&D. Government laboratories and arsenals would then take some of that research and, with the cooperation of industry, develop it into military technologies. The vision Bush proposed clearly recognized that the applications developed from basic research often appeared many years after the work was initiated, and that there may be no clear benefit realized from much of this work.

In the 50 years since the end of World War II, changes have occurred that might call for a major adjustment in our strategy for defense funding of scientific research. The two most important are the end of the Cold War and the emergence of a global technological marketplace. (4) Public funding of basic research for the Department of Defense during the Cold War was successful because it minimized risk by taking maximum advantage of long-term research projects that produced rather mature technologies for development. The Global Positioning System (GPS) is an example of a technology that has given US forces an incredible advantage on the modern battlefield. Research on satellites and a global positioning system began in 1946 after the publication of an article on geo-stationary orbits by physicist Arthur C. Clarke, more widely known for writing 2001: A Space Odyssey. The first GPS satellite was launched in 1978, with the full 24-satellite constellation completed on 9 March 1994. (5) In a way our science and technology capability has acted as an additional form of deterrence against our adversaries. However, in today's fast-paced and dynamic environment, the Department of Defense cannot afford 48 years to research, develop, and deploy critical technologies to the warfighter. Many critical defense technologies are now readily available in the global marketplace. Therefore advanced technology is as readily available to our adversaries and allies alike. This makes the in-house development of new capabilities ever more important.

The Department of Defense is relying on an investment in science and technology to provide the foundation for transformational joint warfighting capabilities. However, the DOD has maintained the same basic research infrastructure and funding policies that were developed for the Cold War. In order Lo stay ahead of adversaries with access to technologies available in the global marketplace, the DOD needs to shorten the time-frame from concept to fielding. The public funding of defense basic research in universities is too cumbersome, slow, and focused on the wrong goals to adequately develop the technology needed for fighting the Global War on Terror or to deliver to the Future Force of 2020. Thus, here is the question posed by this article: "Is the Department of Defense basic science research strategy capable of developing the technology necessary to enable key elements of the US military's transformation?"

The DOD Science and Technology Process

The purpose of DOD research is to ensure that our warfighters have "superior and affordable technology to support their missions and to provide revolutionary capabilities." (6) The DOD Science and Technology (S&T) program is coordinated and focused through a series of five documents: the Defense S&T Strategy, the Defense Technology Area Plan, the Defense Technology Objectives document, the Joint Warfighting S&T Plan, and the Basic Research Plan. These documents, as well as supporting individual S&T master plans of the military services and Defense agencies, guide the annual preparation of the DOD budget and program objective memorandums (POMs). The first four documents are updated quadrennially, with the fifth being updated biennially.