|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
EFFECTIVENESS OF AIR FORGE
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAM eHANGES
Committee on Review of the Effectiveness of Air Force
Science and Technology Program Changes
Air Force Science and Technology Boa rcl
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National
Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report
were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Grant No. F49620-01-1-0269, Modification No. 2, between the National Academy of
Sciences and the U.S. Air Force. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this pub-
lication are those of the authoress and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that
provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-08895-X (book)
International Standard Book Number 0-309-50715-4 (PDF)
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox
285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet,
http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars
engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their
use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has
a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts
is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of
Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the
selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal
government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national
needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf
is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of
eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the
public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional
charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care,
research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the
broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising
the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council
has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities.
The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and
Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
COMMITTEE ON REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AIR FORCE
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM CHANGES
ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Chair, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
GEORGE K. MUELLNER, Vice Chair, Boeing Company, Seal Beach, California
MINORU S. ARAKI, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space (retired), Saratoga, California
LYNN A. CONWAY, University of Michigan (professor emerita), Ann Arbor
WILLIAM H. CRABTREE, BC Associates, Cincinnati, Ohio
NATALIE W. CRAWFORD, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California
IRWIN DORROS, Telcordia Technologies, Inc. (retired), Morris Township, New Jersey
DELORES M. ETTER, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland
ILAN KROO, Stanford University, California
ROBERT G. LOEWY, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
R. NOEL LONGUEMARE, NAE, Consultant, Ellicott City, Maryland
ROBERT J. PATTON, LTV Aerospace Products Group (retired), Fort Worth, Texas
RICHARD R. PAUL, Boeing Company Phantom Works, Seattle, Washington
GEORGE A. PAULIKAS, The Aerospace Corporation (retired), Los Angeles, California
ROBERT F. RAGGIO, Dayton Aerospace, Inc., Ohio
ELI RESHOTKO, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
ALTON D. ROMIG, JR., NAE, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Air Force Science and Technology Board Liaisons
ROBERT A. FUHRMAN, Lockheed Corporation (retired), Pebble Beach, California
LAWRENCE J. DELANEY, Titan Corporation, Arlington, Virginia
Staff
JAMES C. GARCIA, Study Director
DEANNA P. SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant
DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Research Associate
NORM HAILER, Consultant
OCR for page R6
AIR FORCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD
ROBERT A. FUHRMAN, Chair, Lockheed Corporation (retired), Pebble Beach, California
R. NOEL LONGUEMARE, Vice Chair, Consultant, Ellicott City, Maryland
LYNN A. CONWAY, University of Michigan (professor emerita), Ann Arbor
WILLIAM H. CRABTREE, BC Associates, Cincinnati, Ohio
LAWRENCE J. DELANEY, Titan Corporation, Arlington, Virginia
STEVEN D. DORFMAN, Hughes Electronics (retired), Los Angeles, California
EARL H. DOWELL, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
DELORES M. ETTER, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland
ALFRED B. GSCHWENDTNER, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lexington
BRADFORD W. PARKINSON, Stanford University, California
RICHARD R. PAUL, Boeing Company Phantom Works, Seattle, Washington
ROBERT F. RAGGIO, Dayton Aerospace, Inc., Ohio
ELI RESHOTKO, Case Western Reserve University (professor emeritus), Cleveland, Ohio
LOURDES SALAMANCA-RIBA, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
EUGENE L. TATTINI, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California
Staff
BRUCE A. BRAWN, Director
MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Associate Director
WILLIAM E. CAMPBELL, Administrative Officer
CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate
DEANNA P. SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant
DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Research Associate
vim
OCR for page R7
Preface
The scope, content, and conduct of science and tech-
nology (S&T) activities in the Department of Defense
(DoD) are subject to virtually continuous review by
internal and external advisory groups. In the U.S. Air
Force, S&T is the purview of the Air Force Research
Laboratory (AFRL), which both contracts to industry
and academia and conducts research in-house for
current and future Air Force needs.
The management of a government S&T endeavor
has always been challenging and is certainly no less so
today. The challenges facing AFRL are similar to those
facing other DoD laboratories. They include renewing
the technical staff (an aging cadre not necessarily
matched to tomorrow's problems); balancing invest-
ment in traditional threats and technical areas with that
in emerging and future ones; and serious budget pres-
sures from competition with near-term service needs
such as readiness and modernization. Numerous advi-
sory committees have studied these issues in depth over
the years, each voicing concerns and suggesting pos-
sible improvements. In response to such concerns, the
Air Force instituted a number of changes in the struc-
ture and management of its S&T program starting in
about 1999.
The Committee on Review of the Effectiveness of
Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes
was formed by the National Research Council (NRC)
under a U.S. Air Force contract in response to legisla-
tion mandating the study. Its overall charter was to
review the effectiveness of the Air Force S&T program,
vim
in particular actions the Air Force has taken to improve
management of the program over the last 3 years.
Given the short time since the Air Force instigated these
changes and for their effects to have become manifest,
this review should be considered a work in progress.
The approach taken by the committee was to build on
the work of previous studies. Since the legislation
required a relatively rapid response, the scope of the
work was necessarily limited. Specifically, the tech-
nical content of the S&T program was beyond the
committee' s purview.
To gather data, the committee reviewed the previ-
ous studies and heard from congressional staff, the Air
Force and its Scientific Advisory Board, the Army, the
Navy, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency during open meetings. The prior studies and
congressional concerns centered on four issues central
to S&T: advocacy and visibility, planning, the work-
force, and the level of investment. This report and its
recommendations are organized around these general
topics.
The committee greatly appreciates the support and
assistance of NRC staff members James C. Garcia,
Deanna Sparger, and Daniel E.J. Talmage, Jr., and con-
sultant Norm Haller, in the preparation of this report.
Alan H. Epstein, Chair
Committee on Review of the Effectiveness of
Air Force Science and Technology Program
Changes
OCR for page R8
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed in draft form by indi-
viduals chosen for their diverse perspectives and tech-
nical expertise, in accordance with procedures ap-
proved by the National Research Council's Report
Review Committee. The purpose of this independent
review is to provide candid and critical comments that
will assist the institution in making its published report
as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets
institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and
responsiveness to the study charge. The review com-
ments and draft manuscript remain confidential to pro-
tect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish
to thank the following individuals for their review of
this report:
Frederick T. Andrews, Bell Communications
Research, Inc.,
Joseph F. Janni, Air Force Maui Optical and
Supercomputing Site,
Hans M. Mark, University of Texas,
. . .
vail
Robert F. Naka, CERA, Inc.,
Malcolm R. O'Neill, Lockheed Martin
Corporation,
Sheila E. Widnall, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, and
George O. Winer, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided
many constructive comments and suggestions, they
were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recom-
mendations, nor did they see the final draft of the re-
port before its release. The review of this report was
overseen by Alexander H. Flax, consultant. Appointed
by the National Research Council, he was responsible
for making certain that an independent examination of
this report was carried out in accordance with institu-
tional procedures and that all review comments were
carefully considered. Responsibility for the final con-
tent of this report rests entirely with the authoring com-
mittee and the institution.
OCR for page R9
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 INTRODUCTION
Background, 7
Air Force Response to Concerns, 8
Statement of Task, 8
Study Approach, 9
Organization of the Report, 10
AIR FORCE S&T INVESTMENT LEVEL AND BALANCE
Introduction, 11
Air Force S&T Program Description, 11
Air Force S&T Investment Level, 12
Air Force S&T Funding History, 12
Need for Increased S&T Investment, 15
Balancing the S&T Top Line with Other Requirements, 16
Importance of S&T Funding Stability, 20
Air Force S&T Program Internal Balance, 20
Basic Research (6.1), 22
Applied Research (6.2), 23
Advanced Technology Development (6.3), 23
ATDs and Transition to 6.4 and Following Budget Activities, 24
Comparing Balance Among the Services, 24
Setting the Proper S&T Investment Level, 24
Findings and Recommendations, 26
3 WORKFORCE, PLANNING, AND ADVOCACY AND VISIBILITY
Introduction, 28
Scientific and Engineering Workforce, 28
Planning, 31
Compliance with Section 252, 31
S&T Planning Options, 32
Six
7
28
OCR for page R10
XDevelopment (Capability) Planning, 34
Advocacy and Visibility, 35
S&T Summits, 35
Applied Technology Councils, 36
Air Force Organizational Structure and S&T Advocate, 37
Findings and Recommendations, 39
Scientific and Engineering Workforce, 39
Planning, 39
Advocacy and Visibility, 40
REFERENCES
APPENDIXES
A Section 253, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107)
B Section 252, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398)
C Biographical Sketches of Committee Members
D Guest Speakers' Presentations to the Committee
E Summary of Concerns About the Air Force S&T Program
F Biennial Iterative Review of the 6.2 and 6.3 Programs at the Margin
CONTENTS
42
47
48
50
55
57
63
OCR for page R11
List of Figures, Tables, and Boxes
FIGURES
Air Force TOA for S&T and the Air Force as a whole, 12
Air Force S&T TOA compared with the PER, 13
Comparison of service and Defense-wide S&T TOA, 14
Sources of total funding for AFRL in FY 2002, 14
President's budget requests for NASA aeronautical technology, 15
Air Force TOA, 16
Air Force TOA by category, 17
Proposed Air Force S&T FY 2003 budget, 21
2-9 Air Force S&T by budget activity, 22
2-10 Air Force S&T funding trends by budget activity, 23
2-11 Percentage split of Air Force S&T TOA between 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3, 24
F-1 Process for biennial iterative review of 6.2 and 6.3 programs at the margin, 64
TABLES
1-1 Synthesis of Concerns and Recommendations, 7
2-1 Funding Increases in Real Terms, 18
2-2 Allocation of Procurement Increases from FY 1999 to FY 2003, 19
Allocation of RDT&E Increases from FY 2002 to FY 2003, 19
2-4 Percentage of Service S&T TOA, Average over FY 1989 to FY 2003, 25
2-3
ES-1 Statement of Task, 2
E- 1 Defense Science Board, 58
E-2 Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, 59
E-3 Air Force Association, 61
BOXES
Xt
OCR for page R12
OCR for page R13
Acronyms
ACC
ACTD
AFA
AFIT
AFMC
AFOSR
AF RAP
AFRL
AF SAB
AFSOC
AFSPC
ALC
AMC
APPG
ATC
ATD
AWACS
CC
CFC
CFG
ConOps
CSAF
DARPA
DAWIA
DDR&E
DMSP
DoD
DoDI
DoE
DPG
DSB
DSP
EHF
EMD
FMR
Air Combat Command
advanced concept technology demonstration
Air Force Association
Air Force Institute of Technology
Air Force Materiel Command
Air Force Office of Scientific Research
Air Force Resource Allocation Process
Air Force Research Laboratory
Air Force Scientific Advisory Board
Air Force Special Operations Command
Air Force Space Command
Air Logistics Center
Air Mobility Command
annual planning and programming guidance
applied technology council
advanced technology demonstration
airborne warning and control system
commander
critical future capability
critical future goal
concept of operations
Chief of Staff of the Air Force
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 1990
Director Defense Research and Engineering
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
Department of Defense
Department of Defense instruction
Department of Energy
defense planning guidance
Defense Science Board
Defense Support Program
extremely high frequency
engineering and manufacturing development
financial management regulation
. . .
x~
OCR for page R14
xtv ACRONYMS
FY fiscal year
FYDP Future Years Defense Program
GAO General Accounting Office
GPS Global Positioning System
HQ headquarters
IPT integrated product team
JDAM Joint Direct Attack Munition
MAJCOM major command
MDA Missile Defense Agency
MILCON military construction
MILSATCOM Military Satellite Communications
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NDAA National Defense Authorization Act
NPOESS National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
NRAC Naval Research Advisory Committee
NRC National Research Council
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense
O&M operations and maintenance
PER President' s budget request
PE program element
P.L. Public Law
POM Program Objectives Memorandum
PPBS Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System
R&D research and development
RDT&E research, development, test, and evaluation
SAB Scientific Advisory Board
SAE service acquisition executive
SAF/AQ Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition
SAF/AQR Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering
SAF/AQRT Science and Technology Division
SBIR Small Business Innovation Research
SBIRS Space Based Infrared System
SECAF Secretary of the Air Force
SECDEF Secretary of Defense
SES senior executive service
SPO system program office
STO short-term objective
S&E scientist and engineer
S&T science and technology
TEO technology executive officer
TOA total obligational authority
TRL technology readiness level
TUT targets under trees
USAF United States Air Force
USD/AT&L Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
WCMD Wind Corrected Munition Dispenser
WMD weapons of mass destruction
WSCP Weapon System Capability Plan
WTA Warfighter Technology Area
