Re-engineering defense research and development

Signal, Jul 2003 by Lawlor, Maryann

Objectives change to meet a transforming military's needs.

U.S. Defense Department science and technology investment is transcending the requirements model of the past in a shift from threat-based to capabilities-based thinking. While researchers are examining areas such as avionics, materials and nanotechnology, military leaders are exploring how cutting-edge developments can move more quickly from the laboratory to the field.

This change in research and development tactics is motivated by the transformation in defense planning.

Current initiatives will restructure both warfighting capabilities and doctrine. In the past, strategies were designed to combat distinct adversaries or fight in specific locations. However, military leaders predict that threats in this century are likely to include more than large-scale conventional conflicts. As a result, the military must identify capabilities that can deter and defeat enemies who employ surprise, deception and asymmetric warfare.

According to Dr. Ronald M. Sega, director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDRE), Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Washington, D.C., his group has crafted several comprehensive goals for the coming years. Work in three specific scientific exploration areas will facilitate achieving these objectives.

The first goal will be to integrate the research and engineering program to focus on transformation. Toward this end, the DDRE is examining its operational goals and the Defense Department's capabilities approach. It will then align research and development programs with those objectives in mind. The staff is exploring work with the military services and department agencies as well as key partnerships with other federal agencies.

"We are looking at the investments that we are planning and continuously assessing how we're doing against these general goals. We're not only trying to transition technologies in the near term, but also ensuring that we have an investment portfolio that has the next generation and the one after that and the one after that considered in our investment strategy," Sega says. To accomplish this task, it is important to balance basic, implied and advanced research demonstrations, he adds.

Collaboration between academia and government laboratories has become crucial in the research and development arena. More than 50 percent of basic research is conducted at universities, and government laboratories, industry and nonprofit institutions provide the other 50 percent. The commercial sector is a major player in the final development stages, and it plays a vital role, Sega states.

The DDRE's second goal is to accelerate technology transition. Several approaches are being employed to achieve this goal. One is evolutionary acquisition and spiral development. The user, acquisition, logistics and technology communities are tied together from the beginning through the life cycle of a specific system. "I believe those four communities are pulling together, and we see evidence that it's working," Sega states.

Although it is a logical approach, the sheer number of technologies, the changing nature of threats and the fast pace of technological changes challenge the ability to follow this path, he relates. These conditions exist not only in the defense community, but also in the world at large, he adds. As a result, the DDRE cannot work independently and stay on top of the changes. Instead, it relies on key partnerships with industry and other federal departments.

One indication of how the DDRE is helping to push technology to the warfighter is the formation of the Defense Department's Combating Terrorism Technology Task Force (CTTTF). The group, which was created on September 19, 2001, comprises the technical leadership from the services, agencies and Defense Department who determine which technologies can be brought to bear on the current situation.

Working groups were organized functionally into four broad areas for combating terrorism: deterrence and indications and warning; survivability and denial; consequence management and recovery; and attribution and retaliation. Within days, the group identified more than 150 candidate technologies that, if considered a priority, could be accelerated and potentially fielded within a few months. "Working with the users-certainly U.S. Central Command and Special Operations Command-helped prioritize the efforts that we would accelerate," Sega explains. Three of the areas that moved ahead quickly were the thermobaric weapon, the nuclear quadrupole resonance detection system and a penetrator version of the conventional air-launched cruise missile.

Language translation technologies in both the spoken and written communications areas continue to be a focus topic. In addition, the group examined capabilities that could be used in Iraq, and Sega shares that it was successful in accelerating the development of technologies that were made a priority in 2002 and 2003.